forgotston.com

In yesterday’s New Orleans elections, the big winner was apathy. Approximately two-thirds of the registered voters in the city declared their lack of interest. Of the approximate one-third who made the effort to go to the polls, approximately two-thirds indicated that they were happy with the status quo in New Orleans. See the results here. Sadly, that is just slightly less than the number that voted in the last mayoral race in New Orleans over four years ago.

Very likely more people attended the French Quarter Festival yesterday than voted at the polling places.

The real question to be raised from yesterday’s primary is not who will win the run-offs. That is already clear — the status quo - incumbents. Those who are politically-correct and who will not “rock the boat” are the desire of those who voted. The only question left unanswered (because of the silent two-thirds) is why so few people voted.

We will hear that because the voters were disenfranchised because of the lack of satellite polling places around the country wherever one of more refugees hangs his hat. We will hear that we were able to provide polling places for Iraqi citizens living in the U.S., but not New Orleans citizens living in the U.S. The great flaw in that argument is that the Iraqis wanted to vote and drove hundreds of miles in some cases to cast their vote.

I am going out on a long, politically-incorrect limb and declare that the reason most didn’t vote is because, they either don’t care or don’t believe that their vote makes a difference. There was certainly enough diversity in the candidates for mayor and many other offices that even the pickiest of us so-called (by the supporters of the status quo) cynics were able to find someone to suit our philosophy.

While we have a constitutional right to vote in the U.S.; we also have a responsibility to vote. Those that failed to vote were not disenfranchised, they simply failed to show up for their job as American citizens.

We hear that the President, Congress and the rest of the country has written New Orleans off. Why shouldn’t they. Two-thirds of her own citizens have written New Orleans off.

It is said that doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results is insanity. Nuff said!

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:31 am

It seems that the convicted, ethically-challenged, head of the state’s public broadcasting system has been caught trying to change a state law for which she was found guilty of violating. See story here.

Beth Courtney claims that’s not what she intended to do at all. According to the article in today’s Baton Rouge paper, Courtney says the purpose of the legislation was merely to make sure that any employee or executive of the public television network and their close family members are not prohibited from making gifts, donations, underwriting sponsorships or entering into other transactions to financially benefit public television.

Here’s the language that seemed to have been accidentally written into the bill:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no member, employee, or agent of the authority or any entity, association, or individual with which the authority contracts, or immediate family member or legal entity in which said member, employee, or agent has a controlling interest shall be prohibited from entering into any contract with the authority by which the authority shall receive any gift, bequest, loan, donation, sponsorship, fee, revenue, or any other transfer of goods, services, property, or funds to the authority.

Words have meaning

That’s a lot of interesting words to be inadvertently placed into a bill. Especially the words “entering into any contract”, “fee” and “revenue.” If I recall my LSU Law School days, correctly, a “contract” and a “donation” are two different things. Also, in the private sector we only pay fees we don’t give them nor do we necessarily give revenues. How does one define “financially benefit”? Could a contract to pay a relative “revenues” from an agency “financially benefit” the LETA. Of course! Especially depending on who defines “financially benefit.” But that’s not a gift.

What about “loan”? That connotes a debt. However, LA Const. Article VII, Section 6(A) prohibits a state agency from incurring debt without a two-thirds vote of the lege.

Last minute legislation

Another interesting thing about this bill is that it was slipped in on the final day to file bills for the Regular Session. If this legislation was so important to a state agency, it seems it would have been prepared long in advance of the session and vetted by not only the LETA attorneys, but by the Blanco Administration’s attorneys. It is generally presumed that legislation filed by a agency of the Executive Branch are supported by the governor. The last thing Governor Blanco would want Congress to learn is that one of her agencies is trying to weaken the state’s Heh, Heh, Heh, Ethics Law.

Does anybody read these bills BEFORE they are filed in the lege?

Where are those folks the media calls “legislative watchdogs” on this issue? Does one of them have a conflict of interest on this issue?

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:07 am

Unlike her predecessors, Governors Buddy Roemer and Mike “Big Daddy” Foster, Governor Kathleen Blanco has lived up to her campaign stance on gambling.

Also, unlike the former governors, Blanco never claimed to be anti-gambling. She only said that she was opposed to more gambling expansion. See the latest on her efforts to fulfill that promise here.

Roemer and Foster both professed to be anti-gambling. Not only were they truth-challenged, but, in fact, they presided over the greatest expansion of legalized gambling in the history of LA.

Normally, merely doing what one promises is not noteworthy. In fact, it is expected. However, keeping a promise is so rare for a politician, much less a LA politician, that it is not only noteworthy, but praise worthy.

Kudos to Governor Blanco!

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 5:25 pm