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.