forgotston.com

According to the story in today’s Baton Rouge paper, LA Senate Prez “Doc” Hines, doesn’t believe that it is a conflict of interest for him to vote for a state-backed syrup mill in Bunkie that he and his son-in-law directly benefits therefrom.

“That’s no problem,” Hines, D-Bunkie, said. “He rents it. He pays rent.” The Advocate, November 30, 2006.

Below is the law that Prez Hines needs to read or to have someone read to him.

LA R.S. 42:1101 (B), in part, states the purpose of the law as:

It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of government.

LA 42:1112 (A) states:

No public servant, …, shall participate in a transaction in which he has a personal substantial economic interest of which he may be reasonably expected to know involving the governmental entity.

LA RS 42:1102 (13) defines “Immediate family” as:

…[A]s 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 RS 42:1102 (21) defines “substantial economic interest” as:

[A]n economic interest which is of greater benefit to the public servant or other person than to a general class or group of persons….

In such conflicts as pointed out above, Hines has couple of options. LA R.S. 42:1120 (A) provides the following:

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.

Apparently, Prez Hines sees no conflict so it is assumed that he will vote at today’s Bond Commission meeting to approve the Bunkie syrup mill. There it will be of interest to see his written explanation of why his seemingly conflict of interest vote is not a conflict of interest.

This letter would make the best-seller list for holiday reading in Louisiana.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 9:57 am

Put aside the folly of calling an “Extraordinary Session” of the lege in the midst of the Christmas Holidays.

Put aside the folly of calling the session to extend over two weekends during which the lege is loathed to work.

Put aside Governor Blanco’s refusal to call an emergency session of the lege following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Put aside the lack of a specific plan of action going into a Special Session.

Put aside the lack of public input because there is no specific plan of action.

Consider for a moment that in all likelihood the last chance for LA to get a bigger share of offshore oil and gas tax revenues is during the current “lame duck” session.

Consider that one of LA’s biggest arguments is for a bigger share of the offshore revenues is because LA’s suffers the environmental and other costs of producing so much of the oil and gas that is used by the rest of America. As a result we have allegedly lost miles of the coastal wetlands which act as a barrier to future natural catastrophes. According to the governor and the leges, stopping the coastal erosion and rebuilding the wetlands is a top priority for our state.

Consider the state currently is faced with an “embarrassment of riches” of at least $1.6 BILLION and probably closer to $2 BILLION. Most of which is a result of the disasters that hit our state.

Consider the spending priorities being proposed for the upcoming special session: 1) Pay raises for all manner of public employees. 2) Paying off the debt (at great extra cost) of a poorly thought-out, actuarially unsound, state-run, casualty insurance program. 3) Writing rebate checks to all who were over-taxed to pay for the deficit in the state-run insurance program. Laughable when one considers that a $760 Million contractor cannot get the checks out to a handful of people. 4) Selling off the remainder of the Tobacco Settlement. 5) Money for highways and bridges based on politics and not priority. And finally, 6) who knows what.

Consider the message that the agenda for this special session is sending to Congress.

Not one dime of the “embarrassment of riches” is being spent on coastal erosion, flood protection or anything directly related to preparing our state for future catastrophes.

Despite having already appropriated over $10 BILLION to reimburse the citizens of the state for their losses due to the negligence of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita only 44 checks have been written. Despite the fact that that $6 BILLION of that money was made available 11 months ago.

We are in effect telling Congress that we don’t consider coastal erosion and flood protection a high priority when it comes to spending OUR funds. It’s just a priority for THEIR funds.

We are telling Congress that we just want more money even though we have no sense of priorities or urgency for the monies that they have already sent us. We are telling Congress that while we can’t spend the money that they already provided us, we want more.

Given the above, if I was another state I would a hard time reconciling giving us more money especially it would mean giving up money that could be spent in my state.

Maybe it’s just that Governor Blanco and the leges think that the Congressmen are as dumb as they think we LA citizens are.

My advice to the governor is not to call the session.

It’s not too late to save us from another national embarrassment.

It’s not too late to stop the wrong message to Congress during the “lame duck” session.

It’s not too late to save the taxpayers a few dollars and doing all the things you plan to do all of which can be done in the 2007 Regular Session next spring.

It just might show Congress that we understand the folly of wasting the taxpayers’ money.

It’s not too late, governor, but it soon will be.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am

Despite Mayor Ray Nagin’s protests, the most recent numbers tend to confirm that less than half of the Pre-K population have returned to New Orleans.

Recently, in testimony before the Joint Lege Budget Committee, we read the following:

Entergy New Orleans spokesman Morgan] Stewart said there are now 65,000 gas customers in Orleans Parish compared to 145,000 before Katrina and 85,000 electricity customers compared to 190,000 before Katrina. Times Picayune, November 18, 2006

That means that 44% of the gas and electric customers are back. Of course that would be on the high side since many customers have gas and power hooked to their houses, but are not living in them.

Thus if one takes 44% of the roughly 450,000 pre-Katrina residents of New Orleans one gets 198,000 residents at most living in the city. A figure much nearer the 187,000 concluded by a recent scientific study than Nagin’s 225,000 to 250,000 inhabitants.

The 44% figure becomes even more relevant considering that the basis for Nagin’s unscientific guesstimate of the population was gas and electrical hook-ups.

Who you gonna believe?

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am