forgotston.com

According to House Speaker Jim Tucker, the vote on the merger of SUNO and UNO scheduled for Monday, on the House Floor, was postponed until Wednesday. ( See story here.)

Tucker’s reasoning for the postponement of the vote is: “[A]t least two of the members who had committed to voting in favor of the measure were called away on business.” (emphasis mine)

One might understand if one member of the House was suddenly called away on a family emergency, but two called away on business makes one think that the Speaker thinks we are stupid.

Since the leges were elected to their current terms, they have known exactly when the 2011 Regular Session would be held. The leges are paid to tend to lege business for 60 days from April 25 to June 23.

The business of leges is voting on matters that come before them.

What type of business were the two leges called away for that was more important than the people’s business?

Either the two missing leges are avoiding their duties or the Speaker is peeing on our legs and trying to convince us it is raining on our legs.

C.B.

1 CB 8:00 am

Tangi School Board and our money

On April 30, the voters of Tangipahoa Parish crushed four tax propositions on the ballot. The vote against the tax increases exceeded 87%.

On May 5, I requested that the Superintendent of the Tangipahoa Parish Schools furnish me the budget for its “educational/informational” campaign. In other words, the money used to convince voters why we should vote higher taxes on ourselves.

What I got

In response to my request for a budget, I received a copy of a proposal dated February 25, 2009, from The Gagliano Group of Hammond for a campaign on an unknown date. (See here.)

Included with the “budget” is an excerpt from the March 17, 2009 school board minutes.

During meeting, the report of the board’s Finance Committee was “approved.”

There was no discussion by the full board of the Gagliano proposal nor was any money appropriated for its funding.

The proposal

There is no beginning or ending date in the proposal.

There is no limit on the total dollars that can be expended pursuant to the proposal.

The $85 per hour that Mr. Gagliano can charge for his services has no dollar or hour limit.

There is no signature of approval from anyone on behalf of the school board.

Kolwe denies budget exists

On May 5, 2011, the Gagliano proposal was, for the first time, referred to as the “budget” for the April 30 campaign.

However, that contradicts what Superintendent Mark Kolwe and Chief Financial Officer, Bret Schnadelbach wrote and told me prior to May 5, 2011.

In an email dated March 9, 2010, Kolwe wrote in response to my asking for a copy of the budget: “No such budget exists as of this time.”

Kolwe also stated in the email that since March 30, 2010: “…[W]e have not determined the exact amount of public funds that may be expended by the school board for the April 2011 proposition election.”

Meeting at board offices

On April 7, 2010, I was at the school board’s offices in Amite to review documents relative to the April, 2011 election.

Schnadelbach agreed to answer questions about the documents and any other questions if I would not record his responses. Though I had never intended to record our conversation, I agreed that I wouldn’t.

When asked if there was a budget for the April, 2011 election, Schnadelbach said there was no budget.

In response to my asking if there were any plans to use taxpayer dollars in connection with the proposition election; Schnadelbach responded that there were no plans to use any public dollars.

Public funds expended

On May 5, 2011, I was provided an invoice from Gagliano.

The expenditures exceeded $32,000. (See here.)

The invoice was approved for payment on April 7 by Schnadelbach and also appears to have been approved by Kolwe.

On May 12, 2011, I was provided another document that shows actual media expenditures exceeded $22,000. (See here.)

It appears that the school board paid Gagliano $32,000, but for some reason he didn’t spend it all. It begs the question of where approximately $10,000 of the taxpayers’s money is.

Conclusion

As of this writing, I still have not received a budget of the school board’s campaign. If there is a budget it had to be formulated and approved by the board after April 7, 2010.

It is certainly no way to manage and account for taxpayer dollars.

Either the Tangipahoa Parish School Board members condone these practices or they don’t take their jobs as stewards of the taxpayers’ money seriously.

C.B.

1 CB 8:00 am

Eye test created by the Crack Mullet Research Team: Are these creatures the same?

The responses to their constituents trying to rationalize their vote (House Bill 292 by Rep. Jim Morris) to impose a new tax have been, by members of the House are, at best, insulting to their intelligence.

Leges truly believe that they can tell their constituents that the snake that they see is really a rabbit and we mullets will believe it.

Tax versus fee

In my commentary of May 3, I explained why HB 292 contained a tax and not a fee. The legislation levied a charge that was not related to the issuance of a LA driver’s license, but could be used for anything, including lege pay raises. That is how the Louisiana jurisprudence defines a tax.

Tax renewals and temporary taxes

At the state level taxes are sometimes referred to as “temporary” taxes or fees.

The leges promise you that a tax will only be imposed, for say, one or two years. At the end of that time, the tax goes off the books. Often the leges pass a new tax to replace the expired one. They call it a “renewal” but it a new tax. Sometimes the tax is similar and sometimes it is not, but it is never a renewal.

In the case of LA’s almost 2 decades of “temporary sales taxes” sometimes the tax went up and sometimes it went down. Sometimes the tax was imposed on certain items and sometimes it wasn’t imposed on those items. It was never renewed, however.

In the above example, the leges broke their promise to you to reduce your taxes at a future time certain.

It is one’s personal preference if one is willing to accept broken promises from their public officials.

The law

According to the Speaker of the House (See House Journal, May 3, 2011, Page 16) the vote required to pass HB 292 was two-thirds of the elected members of the House or 70 members voting in favor of the bill. It received 93 yea votes.

LA Constitutional Article VII, Section 2 states: The levy of a new tax, an increase in an existing tax … shall require the enactment of a law by two-thirds of the elected members of each house of the legislature. (emphasis mine)

LA Constitutional Article VII, Section 2.1(A) states:

Any new fee … or increase in an existing fee… shall require the enactment of a law by a two-thirds vote of the elected members of each house of the legislature. (emphasis mine)

There is no reference to the vote for passage of a tax or fee renewal in our constitution because the law does not recognize that a tax renewal exists.

It’s a tax

Therefore, since a fee has been ruled out under the law, the charge contained in HB 292 has to be either a new tax or an increase in an existing tax.

Take your choice or rather let your lege tell you for which they voted.

Action needed

If you choose to contact your lege about their (new or increased) tax vote, and I urge you to do so, please tell him or her that you know the difference between a snake and a rabbit when you see it.

C.B.икони

1 CB 8:40 am