forgotston.com

Things were bad enough in LA before the man-made disaster in the aftermath of Katrina. LA had an anti-business state tax structure couple with anti-business local tax structures. Taxes, fees and unnecessary regulations made LA simply uncompetitive. It only gets worse.

Through negligence or incompetence, Franklin Parish is collecting a half-cent local Sales Tax that EXPIRED June 30, 2005. See story here.

The response from the tax collector for his continuing to collect the EXPIRED tax was:

“At this point, I’ve got no authorization to stop collecting it,” said Joe Walters, the parish’s sales tax collector.

It would take court action or “a vote of the people” to stop the collection, Walters said.

HUH!

Only in LA is ignorance of the law a defense to incompetence or negligence. If a law no longer exists, no further action is needed. The tax collector was put on notice when the tax initially passed that it was for a finite period of time. It makes one wonder how often this happens in LA.

One can only speculate whether Mr. Walters must be told to leave the office each day, take off on weekends, take vacations, or can he figure that out on his own.

The voters of Franklin Parish have turned down several efforts to increase or renew taxes for the Franklin Parish Schools. Obviously, the voters were not satisfied with the stewardship of their tax dollars by by the Franklin Parish School Board. This incident only serves to prove the wisdom of their previous decisions.

This incident begs the question of what other expired laws, taxes, fees or regulations in LA are being enforced.

By the way, Mr. Walters, today is Friday. Take the weekend off. You have been officially notified.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 9:33 am

I’ve never been to the Netherlands. However, I don’t need to go there to know what needs to be done with respect to flood control in LA. According to the Dutch the key to keeping their country from flooding was makIing flood control a national priority.

Sunday’s Senate debate over the “Boasso Bill” (We need to stop calling it the “Blanco Bill” as the governor either is powerless or really doesn’t care.) showed one thing. With our leges and our governor, protecting the citizens of LA from flooding, is at best, a parochial issue. The debate sounded as if unless one lived in a particular senator’s district, the life of a mere citizen of LA was unimportant.

Highways as an example

The key to real flood protection in LA is as simple as making flood protection as important as highways in our state. What if we had no state and federal highways? How would we get from one parish to the next much less to another state. If we left transportation solely up to the individual parishes and cities, there would be no interconnecting roadways, no bridges over the Mississippi and other rivers. Why should flood protection be any different? Water knows no boundaries.

With all the water and waterways in LA, there are very few places in our state that are not susceptible to flooding in some form under the right conditions. Highways are important and are an integral part of our evacuation program. Aren’t people’s lives and property at least as important as their automobiles.

Some suggestions

End the waste of the taxpayers dollars by ending the Special Session TODAY. Until LA, collectively, decides that flood protection is a STATE issue, we are wasting time with the piecemeal consolidation of the various and sundry levee boards. I hope that does not take until another part of the state suffers as we have in Southeast LA.

As I listened to most of the debate yesterday on the Senate Floor, it became increasingly clear that all the arguments, fiscal, legal and otherwise could be resolved by simply making flood protection the state’s responsibility. We have a system of developing priorities for building and maintaining highways already in place. Yes, it has its problems, but what government system doesn’t. However, we have never lost thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of homes in one 24-hour period due to the catastrophe failure of our highways.

Let’s go back to the “drawing board.” Flood protection simply needs to put under the LA DOTD and funded at the state and federal level. Only then will the citizens of LA have any sense of security. The flooding happened in Southeast LA this last time, but I could happen on the Mississippi River in Northeast LA the next time. Or on the Red River in Northwest and Central LA the next time.

Stop playing politics with our lives and property. Do it right. Make flood protection, if not a top state priority, at least as high of a priority as our highways.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 12:30 pm

According a media account (here) two leges may have violated the state Heh, Heh, Heh, Ethics Law by voting on matters affecting members of their “immediate family.” The case at hand involves an effort to eliminate the 7 assessors in the New Orleans where the son and brother of two of the assessors voted to kill the effort.

I was just asked: “At what point do legislators have to recuse themselves from voting for things that benefit their family members?” The law requires the two leges to recuse themselves from voting OR to file written reasons why the recusal was not necessary.

My response: “When they get caught.”

Below is a copy of the appropriate provisions of the law. Now, that they have been caught, did they or will they comply with the law? A bigger question is does anybody care, especially the media who seemed uninterested in pursuing the question.

C.B.

LA R.S. 42:1112 (B) and (C) states: B. No public servant, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120, shall participate in a transaction involving the governmental entity in which, to his actual knowledge, any of the following persons has a substantial economic interest:

(1) Any member of his immediate family.

C. Every public employee, excluding an appointed member of any board or commission, shall disqualify himself from participating in a transaction involving the governmental entity when a violation of this Part would result. The procedures for such disqualification shall be established by regulations issued pursuant to R.S. 42:1134(1).

LA R.S. 42:1102 (13) defines “immediate family”: as the term relates to a public servant means his children, the spouses of his children, his brothers and their spouses, his sisters and their spouses, his parents, his spouse, and the parents of his spouse.

LA R.S. 42:1120 (A) states: If any elected official, in the discharge of a duty or responsibility of his office or position, would be required to vote on a matter which vote would be a violation of R.S. 42:1112, he shall recuse himself from voting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an elected official shall not be required to recuse himself if he prepares and files the statement required by this Section as provided herein. In such case, the elected official shall prepare in writing a statement describing the matter in question, the nature of the conflict or potential conflict, and the reasons why, despite the conflict, the elected official is able to cast a vote that is fair, objective, and in the public interest. Such statement shall be filed within three days of the vote with the chief clerical officer of the respective house of the legislature, of the legislative committee, of the governing authority, or of any other body in which the vote is taken, as the case may be, who shall cause the statement to be recorded in the official journal, minutes, or other official record of the body. In addition, the elected official shall be required to file a copy of such statement as it appears in such published or recorded official journal, minutes, or record, with the appropriate ethics body.

Uncategorized CB 1:48 pm