Louisiana Voice

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

Those are the words law enforcement officers are required to recite to any person they arrest for any offense. The words are enshrined in what has become known as the Miranda Rights, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1966 case of Miranda v State of Arizona.

In 2022, the Supreme Court weakened Miranda somewhat in a 6-3 ruling that said an individual who is denied Miranda warns and whose compelled statements are introduced against then in a criminal trail cannot sue the police officer who violated those rights.

It did not, however, change the critical assurance that the defendant is guaranteed legal counsel and that if he was unable to afford an attorney, “one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.”

Thus was born the indigent defender board, aka the public defender board, which employs attorneys (at ridiculously low salaries) who are given bare-bones resource such as access to experts to refute prosecutions’ experts and are so overloaded with cases because of lean staffs that they are physically unable to conduct the research needed to aid the defendant.

And that is a major reason I was able to write about 101 WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS IN LOUISIANA.

In my book, I cite examples of public defenders who performed minimal work on behalf of defendants who were ultimately convicted of crimes they did not commit and sentenced to prison where some remained for decades before being exonerated.

There were cases cited in the book where public defenders literally did not meet their clients until the day of their trials.

Public defenders, for the most part, are individuals dedicated to the rights of the accused, whomever they may be and for whatever offense they are charged. But the reality is that public defenders are disgracefully underpaid and grossly overworked. Louisiana Illuminator pointed out that “Public defenders represent nearly every criminal defendant in the state. In the fiscal year 2022-23, 88% of people charged with crimes relied on a public defender, according to a state public defender financial report. Collectively, they had approximately 142,000 clients during that budget cycle. “

So, why are they so pitifully underpaid and understaffed? God knows there are plenty of lawyers in the state and hundreds more entering and graduating from law schools.

The answer to that is that every single politician running for any office in this state – including judges, who I feel should not articulate any position regarding the sentencing phase or being “tough on crime” – necessarily campaign on their allegiance to law and order and coming down hard on criminals. You never (and I do mean never) here a candidate for any office pontificate on the need for adequate staffing of public defenders or of paying them a decent, livable salary.

All this is written to call your attention to today’s Louisiana Illuminator story that FIVE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE TOLD THEY WILL LOSE JOBS FOLLOWING A TAKEOVER OF THE BOARD by Jeff Landry, who is itching to install an express lane to the Angola execution chamber.

Landry, first as attorney general, and now as governor, has no regard for the rights of defendants. As far as he is concerned, any arrested is guilty. We know for certain that many are arrested or at least questioned relentlessly for crimes in which they had no part. Such incidents are disruptive and embarrassing to the individuals involved.

And now we have a U.S. Supreme Court that says a person so treated has no recourse for damage to property, improper detainment or strongarmed questioning.

What’s worse, according the Illuminator story, State Public Defender Remy Starns, who is chief of the local public defenders in Baton Rouge and is fighting to control two other local boards, has taken the position that the standardized compensation plan put in place for district defenders in 2023 is too generous. After board members voted to increase the pay, Starns was instrumental in pushing legislation that dissolved the first public defender board and set up a new board.

In other words, Starns believes public defenders are already paid too much since a pay plan he has endorsed would cut some district defenders’ pay by tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Public defenders in Louisiana have not received a pay increase or even a cot of living adjustment in 16 years during which time legislators’ salaries have increased and during which time the salary of the LSU president, who is little more than a sycophant for Landry, pulls in $750,000 per annum.

Meanwhile, innocent defends who happen to be unable to afford legal representation are shortchanged by having their fate placed in the hands of often inexperienced, underpaid, overworked public defenders.

I may be trying to see the world through rose-colored glasses, but I’m convinced, by all that’s holy, that we can do better than this in Louisiana.

By Stephen Winham, guest columnist

Under the direction of the richest man on Earth, the Trump administration is gutting the government’s budget. The methods seem to mirror those used by major corporations to maximize efficiency and, more importantly, enhance profits as quickly as possible. The average citizen might say, “Hey, what’s wrong with that?”

Well, for starters, government does not exist to generate profits, nor should we want it to. It exists to provide services in return for taxpayer funding. Too many people fail to see the implications of this very important distinction.

If a private business cuts services, it reduces or eliminates the income and profits associated with them. Customers go to another service provider if there is one and they need the service.  If no other company provides the service, the customer does without it. Most government services are not luxuries, so real harm often results from their reduction or elimination. We often find the extent of this out too late.

President Trump and Elon Musk are treating the government and its employees as if they are worthless. They want us to believe government is one big joke at our expense. Government is not a joke, and it is entirely possible to reduce and eliminate waste without destroying the government or the services it should provide.

I know of absolutely nobody who would object to squeezing the most efficiency and effectiveness possible out of our government. Deficiencies in both aspects are the biggest reasons we find ourselves so dissatisfied with our government today.

During my 20+ years working government budgets we tried pretty much every known rational approach to cutting budgets. I can tell you that only one worked – incremental budgeting – and it didn’t work particularly well.  Incremental budgeting, done right, attempted to ferret out waste by analyzing what was being spent and recommending only what was needed going forward. If further cuts were necessary, they were made on an across-the-board basis, usually by expenditure category (salaries, travel, supplies, professional services, etc.).

The biggest problem with incremental budgeting is obvious. It assumes the department or agency needs to keep doing what it is doing and in pretty much the same way.  These assumptions are not necessarily true, and we all know it.

Beginning with the Treen administration, the executive branch in Louisiana decided the people running the departments were the ones who should decide how and where to cut their budgets. After all, they should be in a better position to know what is going on in their departments than a bunch of bean counters in the state budget office or the legislative fiscal office. Makes sense, right? Well, guess what? Department heads didn’t really want the ball, so they simply complained about every cut proposed and begged for more money.

We then tried all manner of fancy, well-intentioned schemes to force rationality in making budget decisions – Zero Base Budgeting, Management by Objectives, Performance Based Budgeting, etc., etc. Several of these things were really the same things with different names, and none of them really worked the way they were supposed to.

The bureaucracy went through the motions of implementing these processes and recommendations, but they were not taken seriously enough by anybody except those trying to dictate them. There are three main reasons these ostensibly rational approaches failed, in my opinion: 1. It is counter-intuitive to assume people on the frontlines and their supervisors will help their bosses cut their programs/jobs.  2. Department heads don’t want to be held accountable (blamed) when cuts have negative consequences.  3. Presidents, governors and legislators make most decisions based on the politics of retaining power rather than on what any budget model says makes the most sense – unless, of course, the two happen to coincide.

I’ve lost count of how many private sector task forces came in and made recommendations based on very limited exposure to government and how it works. Their learning curves in this regard often exceeded the length of their contracts. None of their recommendations were original and they often recommended turning government operations over to private businesses.

It has never made sense to me that a for-profit entity should be able do things cheaper than the government, but it sounded good, and many people bought into it. I found that savings from privatization were almost always temporary and often resulted from lower entry level salaries and benefits.  Salaries are not the greatest costs in government and the restrictions of civil service are not nearly as onerous as most have been led to believe. If retention is important, salaries increase over time regardless of the system.

I have always said we should emulate private businesses to the extent possible before turning anything over to them entirely. Again, the government does not exist to make a profit and profiting from the government is all too often guided by greed.

In my opinion, the best way to cut the budget would be a simple, seemingly subtle variation of what the Muskovites are doing. Unfortunately, it would require resolve not yet exhibited by the executive or legislative branches of our government.

Here’s an outline of a possible method of efficiently and effectively cutting, not gutting, the budget:

Based on the best information readily available (and there is plenty), funding should be provided for each department (or independent agency) based on how important their work is and how well they are doing it. You don’t need a new process for this, nor should you have to ask the departments for the information necessary to do it.  The data should already be out there. Analyzing it does take a little time and effort, but the staff is already there, too. It does not have to be a long, drawn-out process.

Some departments may actually need more money to function efficiently, but the rest can continue to function with reasonable cuts. Some programs can be eliminated, including those unable to justify their existences via available data. Give the department heads the maximum flexibility possible to manage the funding levels in the best way possible and make them tell you what they are doing and the effects.

Hold DEPARTMENT HEADS accountable for the results – this is the absolute key to success. Do not allow prolonged and unproductive appeals. If the department/agency heads don’t do the very best they can to make responsible decisions (and, believe me, you will know), fire them and hire somebody who will. Do your best to avoid arbitrary cuts but realize mistakes will be made no matter what you do.

If accountability is placed at the department level, neither executive nor legislative branch elected officials can be made scapegoats for unfair or irrational cuts. Decision-making is done at the appropriate level. Elected officials, of course, would continue to bear accountability for whom they have appointed and retained to run the departments and for the funding levels provided them.

Could this work? I am convinced it could, but it would require our elected officials to place the needs of our people and our country ahead of their own. What are the chances this will ever happen? Slim, if we keep electing the same kind of people and pay no attention to what they are doing. That’s where our resolve must come in. If we continue to be apathetic and disconnected, nothing will change.

P. S.  Musk’s idea to have employees briefly describe what they do, and why, is not a bad idea, in my opinion.  It should only take a few minutes if the bureaucratese is left out.  Most people should be able to summarize why their job exists in 2-4 sentences.  On the surface this might seem like a silly idea, but it could be a very useful exercise for both the employees and the government.

Editor’s note: Stephen Winham is a retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, former adjunct professor and a freelance writeer and editor. He resides in St. Francisville.

Duck huntin’ an duck socializing…but still not meeting voters face-to-face

Gone fishin’

February 28, 2025 by tomaswell | Edit

If he’s gone much longer, he’ll need a GPS to find his home state.