Feeds:
Posts
Comments

State Judges send Jindal resolution opposing sale of OGB

April 9, 2011 by tomaswell

Opponents of the proposed privatization of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) got two major boosts last week, first when Wall Street international banking firm Goldman-Sachs appeared to be having second thoughts about its involvement and later when state judges weighed in to oppose the sale.

Both developments could pose major jolts to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s efforts to place OGB on the auction block.

As opposition to the sale of the agency, along with its $500 million accrued surplus grows, Jindal is encountering ever-mounting opposition to his plan. Virgil Orr, retired vice president at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston and a former state representative, has fired off a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell seeking legal guidance in fighting the sale.

Judges from across the state attended a two-day conference at the Hilton Lafayette and Towers in Lafayette on Thursday and Friday of last week and the judges, who are themselves members of Group Benefits, adopted a formal resolution that was forwarded to Jindal asking him to reconsider the sale.

Earlier in the week, Goldman-Sachs appeared to balk at accepting a $6 million contract to assess the value of OGB and to find a buyer for the agency after having helped to write the specifications for a request for proposals (RFP) and subsequently becoming the only bidder on the RFP.

Formal opposition, of course, is no guarantee of success with the Jindal administration. In 2008, both the Louisiana Municipal Association and the Louisiana Police Jury Association objected to Jindal’s signing Act 433 into law. The Consumer Choice for Television Act allowed AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises from city councils, parish councils or police juries. In effect, the act removed from local and parish governmental entities their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles.

Despite the fervent opposition from the municipal and parish associations, Jindal signed the act into law.

AT&T subsequently contributed $250,000 to Jindal’s wife’s charitable foundation, the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.

Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Kitty Kimball reportedly was in attendance at the judges’ Lafayette conference.

Members of the judges association’s Legislative Committee include Chairman Bob Morrison of the 21st Judicial District Court (Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena), Raymond Childress of the 22nd JDC (St. Tammany and Washington), Rosemary Ledet of the Orleans Civil District Court, Mary Becnec of the 40th JDC (St. John the Baptist), Ford Stinson, Jr. of the 26th JDC (Bossier and Webster), Jay McCallum of the 3rd JDC (Lincoln and Union), Toni Higginbotham of the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court, Scott Crichton of the 1st JDC (Caddo), Harry Randow of the 9th JDC (Rapides), and Mike Canaday of the 14th JDC (Calcasieu).

The wording of the resolution was not immediately available but Capitol News Service has submitted a formal public records request of Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and Jindal’s office for a copy of the resolution and any letter that may have accompanied it to the governor’s office.

A similar request was made for any reports generated by Chaffe and Associates of New Orleans after it was awarded a contract for $49,999.99 (one penny less than the amount that would require approval of the Office of Contractual Review) to provide preliminary figures about OGB assets in time for Jindal to submit his proposed 2011-2012 budget.

Despite reports that Chaffe submitted a report draft, Rainwater’s office has twice denied that any such documents have been received by his office. One report also said that the legislative auditor’s office had also been denied access to the Chaffe report if it does, in fact, exist.

Goldman-Sachs, after news stories about its involvement in both writing the specifications for the RFP and then submitting the only proposal, reportedly told the Division of Administration (DOA) during a conference call last Monday that it would opt out of the $6 million contract unless the state agreed to indemnify the banking giant from liability from any litigation arising from the proposed sale of the agency.

Such an agreement would expose OGB to legal liability and require the state on the one hand to spend money to defend an agency that, on the other hand, the state is trying to dismantle.

When told the state would not agree to those terms, representatives of Goldman-Sachs said they would have to check with their legal department and get back to DOA officials.

As of Friday, Goldman-Sachs had not called state officials back.

There are reports circulating around the state that at least two groups, possibly three, are considering filing class action lawsuits against Jindal, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, the Legislature, and OGB to stop the planned sale. One of those is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Orr, contacted in Ruston, said he had sent a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to explore legal options open to members of Group Benefits.

“I asked the attorney general to advise us on three questions:

“What is the legality of Jindal’s proposal to sell Group Benefits? What course of action is open to us if Jindal’s proposal is not legal? And what should we do if it is legal?”

R.S. 42:854.5(A) says, in part, “any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes.” (emphasis added.)

Under Jindal’s plan, the state would take $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus to help plug the gaping $1.6 billion state budget deficit with the purchaser of the agency getting the remainder.

Orr said he was concerned with the direction Jindal is taking the state in his efforts to privatize state prisons and OGB. The Office of Risk Management was privatized last July at a contract cost of $68 million to the state but F.A. Richard and Associates, the firm that submitted the winning bid and was awarded the contract, has already requested a $7 million contract amendment.

Posted in OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Public Records, Transparency | 2 Comments »

Nero Jindal fiddles at San Antonio fundraiser even as Legislature crashes and burns, state employees smolder

April 8, 2011 by tomaswell

Events in Baton Rouge appear to be spinning out of control these days with legislative efforts at mandated reapportionment appearing to crater coupled with growing discontent among state employees over the proposed privatization of the Office of Group Benefits and three state prisons.

Probably the most appropriate metaphor would be that Emperor Nero (Gov. Bobby Jindal) fiddled (attended yet another out-of-state fundraiser) while Rome (the Legislature) burned.

On Thursday, both houses of the Louisiana Legislature abruptly and simultaneously said to heck with it and adjourned until Monday as the deadline loomed for reapportioning the House, Senate, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Public Service Commission, and redrawing the state’s congressional districts from seven to six to accommodate the state’s loss of population from 2000 to 2010.

When they return, they will have only three days to agree on all of those issues, a virtual impossibility in the eyes of some observers. They’ve been in special session, after all, since March 20 and now must try to accomplish in three days what they haven’t been able to do in the past three weeks.

In all probability a second special session will have to be wedged in between Wednesday’s adjournment and the April 25 start of the 2011 regular session. If that occurs, the first order of business should be that the 39 Senators and the 105 House members pass by unanimous vote a resolution that will not accept one penny of per diem. Legislators currently are paid $159 per day for each day they are in Baton Rouge. That’s over and above their regular salary, so a second special session of, say 10 days would cost the state almost $230,000 for doing what it should accomplish in the current special session.

So at a time when a steady hand was desperately needed to steer the ship, when some semblance of leadership and guidance was sorely needed, where was Gov. Bobby Jindal?

Why in San Antonio trying to raise still more funds to get him re-elected to the job he wants, of course.

Jindal, who already has upwards of $12 million in his campaign coffers and no opposition in sight, appears focused on just two things (we know, the governor usually begins his responses to questions with, “Three things….): his re-election and his obsession with privatizing everything he possibly can in state government.

Edwin Edwards, his legal shenanigans notwithstanding, and despite his weakness for women and gambling, would never have let what happened on Thursday occur on his watch. You can take that to the bank.

Smooth Eddie would have taken Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) and Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan) to the woodshed that is the fourth floor of the Capitol and given them an attitude adjustment. He would have said something like, “If you want to remain Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, you better get back down to chambers and get this thing resolved.”

And Tucker and Chaisson would have left the governor’s office with their tails between their legs and would have proceeded to follow the governor’s directions to the letter. That’s real leadership.

And therein lies the rub, as ol’ Billy Wayne Shakespeare once said. There was, is no governor around who commanded that kind of respect. Heck, the governor wasn’t even around, respect or no respect. And the legislature wasn’t about to take its marching orders from Timmy Teepell.

The only thing one can find in abundance on the fourth floor is the abyss that is a gaping leadership void. The current situation makes the title of Jindal’s book, Leadership and Crisis, nothing more than a cruel, very unfunny joke.

On another front, Jindal appears oblivious to growing discontent among employees of three prisons, the Office of Group Benefits (OGB), and state retirees who have brought about a resurgence of the Gray Panthers of a few decades ago.

Reports surfaced Friday that at least two and perhaps three separate groups are considering class action lawsuits against Jindal, OGB, and the Legislature to halt the proposed sale of OGB. One of those groups is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Jindal is plunging ahead with his plans to privatize the two agencies despite the appearance at the House Appropriations Committee Thursday of more than 100 corrections employees from Avoyelles Parish, a former congressman, and a former commissioner of administration during the Edwards administration, all of whom were vehemently opposed to the sale of state prisons in Allen, Winn, and Avoyelles parishes.

As regards OGB, a letter has started making its rounds among state employees and retirees.

It is not known who authored the letter but whoever wrote it urges others to send copies to legislators to remind them that R.S. 42:854.5(A) says quite clearly that revenue under control of OGB “shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes,” precisely the intent of Gov. Jindal.

Under his plan, if OGB is sold, the state would get $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus with the purchaser getting the balance.

The trick for Jindal would be to remove the $500 million surplus from OGB’s control. That would require cunning and guile, diabolical characteristics that should never be confused with leadership.

Here is the full text of that letter:

As a state retiree I would like to make it known in the strongest possible language my dissatisfaction with Governor Jindal’s plan to privatize the Office of Group Benefits. This includes any plan he has to “outsource” the PPO. Either of those actions will cost the state much more money than it now pays, not to mention the horrible financial hit it would mean for state retirees.

It is an open secret that he hopes to simply GIVE most of OGB’s $500 million surplus to whichever of his rich cronies end up buying OGB. Not all of it, of course. He hopes to confiscate a portion of the $500 million for budgetary reasons. This money is, by law*, for OGB’s use in properly administering the plan. GIVING away money obtained from the state’s employees and taxpayers is reprehensible and is entirely politically motivated. It is only in a love-the-rich and hate-the-poor universe that such a thing could be considered moral.

The sale of OGB, resulting in a one-time monetary benefit, or the outsourcing of the PPO, will not save the state one penny. Either action would, in fact, end up costing the state more money. The reason for this lies in the fact that OGB’s administrative costs (which includes all aspects of running the agency, including premium increases) is an incredibly low 4% (compare this to the for-profit industry average). If another company, of necessity a for-profit company, takes over the operation of the PPO, this cost will rise by a minimum of 10%. This translates into higher premiums for both the state (since it is the state’s responsibility to contribute up to 75% of the cost of the premiums for state retirees) and the state’s retirees. Would someone please tell me HOW increasing premiums will save either the state or its retirees any money? Whatever money is made (the figure bandied about is $125 million) by a one-time sale of OGB will quickly be lost in increased state expenditures. If the PPO is outsourced, the increase in premiums for the replacement plan will land the state in even more dire financial straits.

*Louisiana State Law La. R.S. 42:854.5(A)
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes or any other purpose inconsistent with the purposes of or the proper administration of the Office of Group Benefits. – Acts 2001, No. 1178,§ 5, eff. June 29, 2001.

Posted in BESE, Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Prison, Privatization, Transparency | 4 Comments »

Foundation a novel twist on fundraising methods

April 7, 2011 by tomaswell

Federal income tax returns show that the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children had receipts of more than $278,000 in 2009 but spent less than $67,000 on 60 interactive whiteboards donated to public school classrooms across Louisiana.

Returns for two other years, 2008 and 2010 were not immediately available but apparently reflect much larger donations to the foundation, according to other sources.

The foundation, headed by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s wife generated considerable controversy last month when it was learned that several corporate contributors had profited either through lucrative state contracts, favorable legislation, or lax enforcement of penalties against polluters.

The foundation was founded in mid-2008, six months after Jindal took office. Capitol News Service requested complete tax returns from the foundation but received only the return for 2009. No returns for 2008 or 2010 were provided.

Charter members pledged $250,000, according to the foundation’s web page which contains a photo of Gov. Jindal and his wife. Platinum members pledge $100,000, Gold members $50,000, Silver members $25,000, and bronze members $10,000. Circle of Friends members give a one-time gift of up to $10,000, the web page says.

Individuals and corporate donors are limited to maximum political contributions of $5,000 during each election cycle, but there is no limit on the amount that can be given a foundation run by either a candidate or a spouse.

Depending on the news source quoted, Mrs. Jindal’s foundation has received $1 million overall and has spent that same amount on the installation of about 170 interactive whiteboards that enable teachers to download multimedia lesson plans to aid them in teaching math or science.

A report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said nine companies that collectively contributed $100,000 to Jindal’s campaign over several election cycles donated at least $790,000 to the foundation.

The foundation received $250,000 from Marathon Oil. Marathon subsidiaries have received $5.2 million in state funds, according to a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

BlueCross/BlueShield contributed $100,000 and won a questionable $400 million contract to provide health insurance for state employees and retirees and their dependants. A state court judge later ordered the state to re-bid the contract after Humana challenged the contract in a lawsuit that said the plan bid on by BlueCross/BlueShield was not what the state request for proposals (RFP) specified.

Northrop Grumman contributed $10,000 and was awarded a consulting contract of $11.4 million.

Dow Chemical pledged $100,000 and efforts by the administration to fine Dow’s Union Carbide subsidiary for allowing the release of a toxic pollutant and failing to notify state authorities of the leak in a timely manner were apparently dropped.

AT&T may have been the big winner, though.

The corporation contributed $10,000 to Jindal’s campaign since 2007 but gave $250,000 to the Jindal Foundation after Gov. Jindal signed SB- 807 into law (Act 433) in 2008 over the objections of the Louisiana Municipal and the State Police Jury associations. The bill, the Consumer Choice for Television Act removed from local and parish governments their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied largely on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles. The bill also allows AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises.

In addition to benefitting from the newly enacted cable television law, Capitol News Service found that AT&T also had a minimum of 17 separate contracts with the state totaling $32.2 million.

In addition to contracts, lax enforcement, and favorable legislation, the foundation’s tax return shows that the foundation’s treasurer is Alexandra Bautsch who also is Gov. Jindal’s chief fundraiser, an association that is a little too close for CREW Director Melanie Sloan, who called it “an awfully close relationship between the charity and the governor.”

Sloan, a former prosecutor, said, “Donations that come in to charities like this are almost always from folks who want something from a politician. The donations are made not because of the great work of the charity, but because of connections.

“Foundations tied to politicians see their donations dry up when the politician is no longer in power,” she said. “That demonstrates the real reason the charities get the donations is their political position, not because of the good works they do.”

“If it is not an actual conflict, it is an appearance of conflict,” she said.

Claude “Buddy” Leach, Jr., chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said it was “the perception that you can have influence with the governor’s office through this foundation.”

Jindal press secretary Kyle Plotkin said Jindal has never solicited donations for his wife’s foundation. But Jindal does appear with his wife in a photograph pasted on the foundation’s web page which could be interpreted by some as a subtle come-on by the governor aimed at potential donors.

Another spokesperson for Gov. Jindal said anything other than the reality that the charity is a “completely nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization created by the first lady….has plainly been dreamed up by partisan hacks living in a fantasy land.”

Pot, kettle.

Gov. Jindal simply said allegations of influence peddling through his wife’s foundation were “silly.”

Kettle, pot.

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, Politics, Supriya Jinda Foundation | 3 Comments »

State employees get another slap in the face from administration in the form of Personnel Policy #95

April 5, 2011 by tomaswell

There exists something of a double standard in Louisiana state government between elected officials and civil service employees, or as some would describe it, between the haves and the have nots.

Members of the Louisiana Legislature may reinstate their currently suspended annual, automatic pay raises at their pleasure. Likewise, unclassified employees (appointees) may be given annual pay raises at the pleasure of the administration but for the second straight year state classified (civil service) employees have their pay frozen—at the behest of the legislature and Gov. Jindal.

Legislators may accept meals from lobbyists but classified employees are strictly prohibited from accepting so much as a cupcake from a vendor for fear that the low-level bureaucrat can do favors for the vendor that a legislative committee chairman obviously is unable to do. One civil service employee was fined $250 by the State Ethics Board a few years ago because a vendor sent her a Christmas ham.

The governor of the State of Louisiana is free to write a book about his career and to hawk it on national television but if an employee of the Division of Administration (DOA) wishes to write a book, he must obtain prior approval from his section head. Those who embrace the First Amendment might suggest that this is a form of prior censorship.

Legislators who happen to be attorneys can—and do—sue the state and no one in any official capacity sees it as a conflict of interest.

The playing field, which has never been level, is poised to become even more tilted in favor of those in power and to the detriment of those who work in the trenches on a day to day basis to keep the state running efficiently.

State classified employees—the same employees whose pay has been frozen for two years—cannot engage in outside employment activities to earn extra income unless the work is approved in advance by that same section head for fear that an employee may be engaging in a conflict of interest.

DOA employees either have already received or will be receiving a copy of DOA Policy No. 95 (not to be confused with Area 51 in Nevada, though the policy may appear to some to have been inspired by alien mind control). The new policy details limitations to any outside work employees may perform outside state business hours.

State civil service employees have for decades been asked to sign affidavits that neither they nor immediate family members worked for any contractors or vendors who did business with their agency but this regulation is far more restrictive.

The five-page memo being sent out via email to DOA employees said the purpose of the policy “is to prevent employees from participating in outside employment that may be detrimental to the DOA’s mission and public image.”

The governor only last week attended a campaign fundraiser hosted by a state vendor who has a $380,000 state contract but it’s not considered a conflict because, the vendor said, it was held “after hours.”

Corporations with lucrative multi-million-dollar contracts with the state are allowed—encouraged, even—to contribute to the governor’s wife’s foundation with no apparent concern about conflicts of interest. The governor, in fact, even posed with his wife for a photo that is featured on the foundation’s home page.

Could that be construed as a subtle solicitation of contributions on the part of the governor, and thus a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

So much for public image.

Outside employment is defined by Policy 95 as “any non-DOA activity for which economic benefit is received,” including but not limited to:

• Employment with any non-DOA employer;

• contracts to provide consulting, personal, or professional services to non-DOA individuals or entities, or

• Self-employment (an individual who operates a business or profession as a sole proprietor, partner in a partnership, or any other type of legal business entity).

Policy 95 defines economic benefit in the context of the policy as “any compensation or benefit an employee receives for his outside employment that has a monetary value, e.g. payroll check, cash payments, share of profits, share of stocks, equity participation, etc.”

Any current DOA employee planning to engage or already engaged in outside employment will be required to complete an Outside Employment Disclosure Statement form and forward it to his supervisor for review and consideration.

The supervisor will review the statement and make a recommendation to either approve or deny the request and the supervisor would forward the form, along with his recommendations, to the section head, who then would make the final decision to approve or deny the request. If the section head is unsure, he will be required to consult with the DOA Office of Human Resources (OHR) and if necessary, OHR would contact the Board of Ethics for further guidance.

On closer examination of the entire five-page document, it appears to be sorely lacking in firm, definitive policy and heavy on vague but subjective policy enforcement by too many section heads on individual whims. In more common venacular, enforcement is strictly fly by the seat of the pants with ever-shifting interpretations that could all too easily hinge on the personalities involved.

“Original disclosure statements for outside employment must be forwarded by the section to OHR for filing and copies should be kept by the supervisor in a confidential file,” the memo says.

The policy and accompanying memo are already causing an undercurrent of discontent among many state employees.

One DOA employee said he has no outside income but nonetheless feels it is no business of the state what he does after 5 p.m. “This just smacks of …. the old ‘1984 Big Brother is watching thing,’” he said in an email to OHR.

“I object strongly, on principle alone. I don’t care if I am a male stripper on Friday nights or if I repair cars in my back yard on Sunday mornings—it is none of your or anyone’s business.”

“At this moment in time, I am so angry that I have no intention of signing this thing…and I am sure that I am not alone,” he said. “What happens if I don’t sign? Would you really fire me—after 36 years?”

There was no indication as to whether or not Policy 95 would also apply to non-classified employees in the governor’s office.

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Transparency | 5 Comments »

Supreme Court betrays justice with John Thompson decision

April 3, 2011 by tomaswell

This post is about justice. More accurately, it is about the betrayal of justice—absolutely and without doubt, the most tragic, most egregious, most heartbreaking betrayal of justice one could possibly imagine.

And just who is responsible for this horrific miscarriage of justice? None other than the one institution that is supposed to be the very embodiment of justice, that bulwark of equality and fairness, the highest authority on the law of the land, the United States Supreme Court.

In a mind-numbing 5-4 decision, the court overturned a $14 million judgment against the late Harry Connick, Sr., and the New Orleans district attorney’s office for the wrongful conviction of John Thompson in the 1984 murder of a New Orleans hotel executive.

In 1985, Thompson was convicted of the Dec. 6, 1984, murder of Ray Liuzza and was sentenced to death by a New Orleans jury. The only problem was, he didn’t do it and the district attorney’s office knew he didn’t do it.

Almost 50 years ago, in 1963, in the landmark Brady v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had a duty to make available to defendants all exculpatory evidence—evidence that would benefit or exonerate a defendant.

Thompson’s trial was in 1985, more than two decades after Brady and still the prosecuting attorney in Connick’s office deliberately and knowingly withheld vital evidence so much in Thompson’s favor that he could never have been convicted had the jury been given access to it.

Crime lab data had shown that Liuzza’s killer had type B blood, while Thompson was type O. Moreover, an eyewitness described the assailant as a black man who was six feet tall with close-cropped hair. Thompson is 5-foot-8 and sported a bushy Afro at the time.

The jury never learned of either of these facts because the prosecutor chose not to turn the information over to Thompson’s defense attorney.

It wasn’t until the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Thompson was dying of cancer that he confessed his transgression to an associate who kept the secret to himself for another five years before finally divulging it.

Meanwhile, Thompson had six separate dates with the executioner. In each case, he was fortunate enough to get a stay as the Louisiana Innocence Project worked fervently to clear him before his execution.

It took 18 years before Thompson walked out of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola a free man.

He sued District Attorney Connick, father of entertainer Harry Connick, Jr., and the district attorney’s office and was awarded a $14 million judgment—$1 million for each year he spent on death row. That judgment was upheld by a federal judge and a U.S. court of appeals panel. The district attorney’s office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the high court agreed to hear arguments.

Despite the deliberate and conscious decision by the assistant D.A. to withhold the exculpatory evidence, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the decision late last month, described the case as a “single incident” where mistakes were made. He added that Thompson “did not prove a pattern of similar violations” that would justify holding the district attorney’s office liable for the wrongdoing.

Wait. What? Single incident? Mistakes were made? No pattern of similar violations?

It is incredulous that Thomas, with the concurrence of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., could put such foolishness in writing when Thompson’s attorneys clearly cited several similar cases in New Orleans in which key evidence was concealed from defense attorneys. Moreover, Thompson’s lawyers showed to the high court that no fewer than four prosecutors in Connick’s office knew about the blood test and never came forward.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent that she read in the courtroom, said the court was shielding prosecutors from “flagrant” misconduct that nearly cost an innocent man his life.

“John Thompson spent 14 years isolated on death row before the truth came to light,” Ginsburg said. “He was innocent of the crimes that sent him to prison, and prosecutors dishonored their obligation to prevent the true facts to the jury.”

Thanks to the narrow-mindedness of the Roberts court, it now becomes even more difficult for a wrongfully convicted individual to seek damages from prosecutors who deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.

The National Innocence Project, co-founded by attorney Garry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, has thus far gained the freedom of more than 300 wrongfully convicted individuals. Many of those convictions were overturned as the result of the emergence of DNA as an evidentiary tool.

Which brings us to another story of area concern:

Last November, District Attorney Mike Harson of the 15th JDC (Lafayette Parish) went on record as opposing an Angola inmate’s request for a DNA test that he said would clear him of a 1983 rape case. Harson even appealed a judge’s decision granting the request of William Williams, Jr. after a New Jersey nonprofit organization, Centurion Ministries, offered to pay for the testing.

That story ran in the Baton Rouge Advocate last Nov. 21. The very next day, the Advocate ran another story that a Houston man had been cleared of rape….by DNA tests.

The argument used most often by prosecutors in opposing DNA tests is that it disrespects the victims.

Sorry, but we ain’t buying that. Not for a minute. Nothing disrespects the victim more than convicting the wrong person (who is also victim, is he not?) while leaving the real criminal free to commit further carnage.

And someone please explain why a man would request a DNA test if he was, in fact, guilty? Wouldn’t the test be counter-productive to the accused if it only reinforced his guilt?

Mr. Harson, your argument is weak, lame, ill-conceived, disingenuous, and illegitimate. What’s more, it’s downright insulting to the intelligence of anyone who can read and reason for himself.

But it might qualify you as a viable candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy occur.

Posted in Transparency | 7 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »