forgotston.com

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Bobby Jindal’s explanation of his recent Executive Order ( here), giving his cabinet appointees four additional months before they have to reveal their finances is typical of his style-over-substance type of governing.

Jindal says he rescinded his original Executive Order ( here) “to be consistent with the stricter requirements of the new disclosure laws.” Associated Press, January 2, 2009.

That statement implies that the original Executive Order required less disclosure than the new law.  So what?

Delayed transparency

If the new disclosure law is stricter than the original Executive Order, the law prevails and thus there was no need to rescind the original order. If the Executive Order put more stringent requirements on certain officials (as it did, i.e., earlier filing date) then the order prevails to the extent that it requires more than the law.

This handful of Jindal appointees has known since January 15, 2008, that they had to disclose their finances for 2008 on January 15, 2009. They’ve known exactly what the law required in the disclosure statements since at least March of 2008.

The only thing changed by the latest Executive Order was to delay by 4 months the public getting the information about these particular appointees’ finances.

The question remains: What public purpose was served by the delayed transparency?

C.B.

1 CB 7:21 am

Despite all the talk about transparency, Bobby Jindal has delayed the financial disclosure statements for his own cabinet appointees.

Last January, immediately after taking office, Bobby issued his first Executive Order requiring his cabinet appointees to disclose their finances under the same requirements as those for the governor. See Executive Order No. BJ 2008-1.  The order required that the disclosure reports were due on January 15, 2009.

On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2008, Bobby quietly rescinded the requirements by Executive Order No. BJ 2008-113.  The financial disclosure reports are now not due until May 15, 2009 as set forth in the law.

Bobby can’t blame this on the leges. Bobby could have left the reporting date for his cabinet secretaries at January 15.

There is no legal conflict. The law passed by the lege set the latest date to report the previous calendar year’s finances.   There is no reason that the cabinet appointees couldn’t or shouldn’t comply earlier.

This is just more of the “same old, same old,” special treatment for one of those SPECIAL INTEREST group about which Bobby rails.

C.B.

1 CB 7:27 am

In a recent column ( here) in the Baton Rouge paper, Mark Ballard, laments the lack of “transparency” of a state “slush fund” (uncommitted money) of over $400 Million.

As Ballard points out, how do we know that giving our money to some yet-to-be-landed, much less built, plant is the best use of our declining tax dollars if we don’t know the details of the “investment.”

Some folks might suggest a better “investment” would be in our existing businesses by lowering their taxes.  New jobs cannot be created at a fast enough rate and in sufficient quantity to make up for the loss of existing ones.

I find the Jindal Administration’s lack of transparency in any area of the state budget in direct conflict with his own statements.  Just a month ago, Bobby Jindal made these comments:

I have advocated for transparent government, as I believe that the bright light of transparency and public access should extend to every corner of the state budget.

An honest government has nothing to fear from openness…

- Governor Bobby Jindal

I see no exception in the statements above for the $400 Million “slush fund.”

To quote Bobby Jindal: “It’s time to match action to our rhetoric.”

It’s time to hold Bobby accountable.

C.B.

1 CB 7:49 am