Jindal pleased, establishment not, by sensible report

(This one is for you, Jimmy and Randy Steele)

Louisiana’s Postsecondary Education Review Commission wrapping up its formal work drew some resistance to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s quest to reform public higher education. But that is to be expected from a hidebound regime, and in its reaction to the recommendations showed it is becoming more alarmed at how inevitable and beneficial reform is going to impact traditional and present arrangements.

PERC got most of it right: consolidating higher education boards will save money and clarify mission and implementation (including program duplication issues); increased institutional control over tuition rates will improve alignment of resources to institution; stressing progress towards graduation over enrollment will mean less wasted effort (and tax dollars) on education that doesn’t much get used or makes an no real impact on low achieving/unmotivated students; and raising admissions standards at all baccalaureate institutions will reduce tax dollars inefficiently used on students not capable or ready to attend such universities.

It did miss on a couple of areas. It did not recommend any specific campus mergers or closings, although that was perhaps the most controversial item of discussion and one maybe that was felt not achievable at this time given the constellation of political forces. It merely asked that the idea be studied. Any definitive action may have to wait a few years.

But the other neglected item was important and entirely possible, and would have complemented neatly with the emphasis on increased output and savings: increasing standards for the Taylor Opportunity Program for Scholars awards that would move them from being a lightly-earned entitlement to a real scholarship program. As currently constituted, it contributes to lower completion rates because with such low requirements it encourages indifferent students to attempt college on taxpayer dollars where many they find they either do not have the intellect and/or drive to succeed. While those who do not continue in good standing to get degrees do have to pay back funds, since tuition scholarship money pays for only about half of all costs, taxpayers get hit for the remainder.

The Commission also disregarded Jindal’s request to come up with a specific amount of savings. Granted, it was a tough request because taking actions such as these presents difficulty in their quantifying (outside of the one paying baccalaureate-and-above institutions the same per freshman and sophomore level class as community colleges, a change with mixed blessings, pegged at $40 million savings). Jindal wanted to see a figure of $146 million for next year; likely that won’t be achieved for then.

Implementation also will require changes in others areas outside of higher education – and possibly in ways also comporting to Jindal’s agenda. For example, having just two governing boards would throw into one the current governance of the charity hospital system – which may provide impetus to dismantle the system which Jindal has shown signs of favoring. Also, it supports his idea of revamping the state’s fiscal structure so that budget deficits are not unduly borne by higher education.

Entrenched interests were not amused by this report. Louisiana State University System President John Lombardi found time to get on the bad side of both PERC (constituted by the Legislature) and the governor regarding it. Lombardi, who has perhaps the most to lose personally by implementation of the recommendations because the resources he controls and power he can flex will diminish on the small chance he won’t have his job eliminated, implied the recommendations were “without careful, fact-based analysis and without a careful consideration of unintended consequences” that would require review.

Such a statement becomes comical when realizing that several members of PERC hold distinguished positions within the higher education community and probably have less parochial interests and more comprehensive experiences in it than does Lombardi. It seems unlikely these individuals would not make such suggestions without a great deal of thought and wisdom. (Indeed, it appears that it was the Commission’s political appointees that toned down the more challenging aspects of the recommendations.) Yet, the counteroffensive already has begun such as the LSU System’s pushing an alternative method of comparing performance.

This was the nexus of the dispute Lombardi publicly had with Jindal on a goal identified by PERC’s report, the raising of graduation rates. Jindal has said improving these should be linked with tuition increases, the comparison task of which Lombardi called “dumb.” He said rewards should be based upon the kinds of students at the institutions, for which the LSU System proposed a different metric instead of the 75/60/50 percent graduation rates in six years argued by PERC: proportion of four-year degrees awarded from the entire student population, with the ideal at a baccalaureate institution would be 25 percent (a quarter of the total student population graduating every year).

Use of this statistic makes many Louisiana universities look good, with some rates around 20 percent – arguing not much improvement has to be made. However, this statistic is somewhat misleading because is does not follow cohorts – instead of following the same group for six years, it instead looks at different student populations each year which internally can change significantly particularly through dropouts. Jindal and PERC want the emphasis to be on the proportion of students who get a degree in a timely fashion, while the statistic floated by the LSU system concentrates on producing degrees regardless of the time involved and the exit of non-completers. Jindal argues that PERC’s different recommendations of proportions for graduation rates for different kinds of institutions reflected the realities that different kinds of schools faced.

Given the approving noises coming out of both legislative leaders and the Capitol’s fourth floor, much, perhaps all of this, is going to go through sooner or later. It’s a desirable political fact, one that the state’s higher educational establishment will do itself a favor on by focusing its efforts on adjusting to this new reality.

Landrieu win salvages career, creates state intrigue

As disappointing as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu’s 2006 defeat for mayor of New Orleans to the very flawed Ray Nagin, the Democrat’s win here in 2010 is as impressive, and has immediate repercussions across the Louisiana political landscape.

Personally, Landrieu needed a win to salvage his political career, and a big win to get it really going. After his ignominious 2006 defeat which meant his only semi-high profile political achievement to date was managing to win the (if there never were an absence in the governor’s office the rather insignificant) lieutenant governorship. This bode poorly for his ever aspiring to a more exalted position and a loss would have essentially ended any hopes of going beyond his current job. A big win without even necessitating a general election means he could leverage this new job into a credible run for the Senate (if his sister decides she can’t stand the self-generated heat and he wants to serve only a single term) in 2014 or the governorship in 2015.

Statewide, interesting conflicts look set to emerge. Gov. Bobby Jindal has made a good case for eliminating the lieutenant governor’s job and with no elected incumbent in the slot that makes it much easier to carry out this money-saving, confusion-reducing move. However, this reduces the number of offices politicians, especially those term-limited in the Legislature, can pursue so there may be some resistance from them for its demise. However politically unworkable the plan was with an incumbent, now it becomes a whole lot easier to pull off.

With this as a backdrop, succession now must occur. Republican Jindal will appoint somebody whom he has expressed would be somebody who would not want to run for the job (if it exists). Although some Democrats hoping against hope argue that since a Democrat was there another should replace him, the potential stakes are way too high to allow this and Jindal knows it. If for some reason Jindal leaves office (if so probably not voluntarily given his stated ambition to serve at least a full term) that would give a Democrat the top job. A Republican soon will be named.

With the possible elimination of the office, GOP Sec. of State Jay Dardenne will not want to leave what probably would become the new gubernatorial successor office. The best bet, given the potential excising of the office within two years, probably would be a choice of a Republican legislator of conservative leanings from a safe district who is term-limited and was planning on retiring from politics. This selection should produce a fascinating scenario over the few weeks.

Cao, Melancon hurt by wanting review of military law

As the U.S. military follows White House orders to review its policy on the permissibility of those who practice homosexuality serving in its ranks, among Louisiana members of Congress and aspirants to those positions most Republicans argue with logic against changing current policy, while Democrats emote without logic in favor of it.

Present law is that anyone about whom there is genuine evidence demonstrating that he acts on homosexual relations is to be discharged from the military. There is very good reason for this, as any attitudes that interfere with optimal functioning of combat-related units are to be discouraged. Having sexual impulses trump martial virtues endangers lives.

However, more to the point, in keeping with the understanding that self-identity regarding sexual preference is a function not of any built-in biological necessity but, rather, in undertaking certain actions, is that any member of the military in a combat unit (by definition all men) who is undisciplined enough to express physically these feelings towards any other member of the unit demonstrates a flaw that detracts from the unit’s performance and can put its members at risk when these feelings interfere with decisions that should be based upon military considerations. That’s what the law is there to protect against.

But elected Louisiana Democrats seem oblivious to this truism. Since Pres. Barack Obama has directed defense/military underlings, who he can fire at any time, to say it’s time for a review, these unreflective state automatons cite that as a reason for their support, that it’s the “military” establishment that backs a change (and to demonstrate this politicized aspect to the debate, some interestingly name retired Gen. Colin Powell as a confirming source, even as Powell in 1996 testified against this kind of review). Thinking and informed people know it’s not logic, but politics, that lies behind this explanation.

For the most part pronunciations for and against the review have no real import, but in the case of two U.S. representatives support for the review will end up detrimental to their election bids. Vying for reelection, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao was the only national elected Republican from the state to voice support of the review. Cao needs to understand this will win him practically no votes in his heavily-Democrat and black district (indeed, if there is an issue on which blacks are likely to stray from the Democrat plantation, it is on the acceptability of mainstreaming homosexual behavior into public institutions) and will lose him more than it gains. As a professed strong Catholic who should believe in the Church’s teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful it’s absolutely puzzling why he would abandon principle on this matter when there’s no political capital to be gained.

Current Rep. Charlie Melancon, trying to make the move to the Senate, with his professed support of review also drives another of the many nails he already has willfully accepted into his political coffin. It only will further convince the continually-diminishing segment of the voting public that still does not see he is a liberal fraudulently trying to pass himself off as something else of precisely the opposite and will win him fewer votes.

Laugh we may at the feeble intellect behind trying to promote this change, but if its carriers succeed it will be no laughing matter when the quality of our military is compromised.

Decision makes more imperative LA ethics alteration

A ruling by Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals lends some urgency to the reform suggested by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and others regarding ethics enforcement.

The judges ruled that the Louisiana Board of Ethics could not appeal into the judicial system rulings made by the Ethics Adjudicatory Board – comprised on two panels with an alternate picked at random annually from administrative law judges. It cited state law that did not permit this kind of administrative appeal nor that granted the Board of Ethics this legal recourse. While state law does allow appeal of declaratory opinions, it does not for actual controversies decided.

However, ability to do this has been suggested by the Jindal Administration which, as the court confirmed, would require legal changes, both to the Administrative Procedures Act and to the Ethics Code. This salutary effect would be consistent with the prosecutorial role of the Board of Ethics as it deals with some matters that have penalties akin or even ore stringent than the criminal code.

This idea is consistent with the notion that ethics matters are quasi-criminal in nature. The maximum penalty in many cases is a $10,000 fine per violation – akin to some criminal penalties – and can be much higher if some kind of illicit gain was involved by the act amounts which already may be appealed to the First Circuit. Further, the Board of Ethics if it believes a criminal act has taken place can recommend criminal prosecution. Thus, it would seem logical that if an administrative court disagrees, the right of appeal by the board should be there. This especially should be an option now that the burden of proof is higher than it had been previously before when the Board of Ethics itself also adjudicated cases. It also should work both ways. Defendants should be able to appeal into the judiciary given the large penalties possible.

What to date has been an academic exercise now is reality. This session of the Legislature needs to make these adjustments for better quality justice and fairness in these matters.

Due diligence could prevent using unethical contractors

It looks as though all will end well for both Caddo Parish schools and Filipino teachers, as their visa problems not of their own doing seem to be getting resolved. But more care on the part of the district would have meant this never had to happen in the first place.

While unions by their nature to society are more destructive than constructive institutions, at least the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and its national parent followed through on complaints by the immigrant teachers. Yet besides the question of whether anything illegal occurred, larger policy questions for the likes of the Caddo School District are why due diligence appeared not to have been performed and what to do about it now.

Beginning in 2007, a couple of Louisiana districts contracted with Universal Placement International, Inc. to provide teachers from The Philippines for areas in which seemed to have a shortage of domestic applicants. Caddo and some others also have done so since the 2008 school year. The company took care of all the legal work and presented teachers most of whom have done a satisfactory job, if not better.

However, earlier this month the LFT on behalf of these foreign nationals began lodging complaints with the state about the treatment of the teachers by the company. The allegations claimed the company relative to the hires was extortionist, usurious, exploitative, and practiced intimidation. The company had its signees pay big upfront costs, 20 percent of their expected salaries garnished, charged absurdly high interest rates on money borrowed to meet these costs, made them live in cramped quarters for above-market rents, and made threats not to speak of these things to anybody, or even to socialize with anybody outside their own circle, it is charged.

To some degree the union and editorialists are accurate in denouncing these arrangements. However, the sentiment represented by remarks Caddo School Board member Barry Rachal made also is true: the Filipinos consented to these conditions. The question then becomes whether there were deceptive practices involved and if they led to the breaking of any Louisiana or federal laws.

At least two deceptive practices, by the testimony of the teachers, appear to have occurred. For one, more were often hired than for actual places available in a designated school system. As it worked out, eventually all who immigrated got jobs whether in delayed fashion or with other districts, but this may technically have been illegal under federal law. Yet violating Philippine law, according to a group of teachers circulating an Internet petition to redress grievances, was an additional placement charge as part of contracts presented to them and signed only upon entry into the U.S. that was premature and in excess of that allowed. The firm also may have violated a law stating only an applicant or district but not both could be charged in the case of the Recovery School District (Caddo got a “donation” of a trip for three staffers to vet the applicants in The Philippines).

The problem is, these kinds of things may not be actionable under domestic laws, including the issue of having a license to practice in Louisiana since in this case it is unclear whether it needed one. It is possible, if threats were made against the teachers speaking out, that might run afoul of state or federal law, but otherwise the teachers may just have to gut out a bad deal without any American government assistance.

Regardless of a possible lack of legal solutions, the political solution that can be pursued by Caddo is to stop doing business with the firm and to involve itself to reduce potential exploitative instruments, such as arranging for visa renewals (under the program the teachers utilized, typically visas are issued for three years but the company did them for one and, the teachers claim, uses non-renewal as a bargaining chip to intimidate). While desirable, such measures now only close the barn door after the horse got out.

More concern should focus on how this firm got picked and was allowed to continue again this year, the district said on recommendation from other districts, because there were a number of red flags about it from easily accessible public information:

The company’s owner, Lourdes “Lulu” Navarro of Filipina background, was convicted earlier in the decade of a felonious activities dealing with business transactions in California and New Jersey; her brother runs the operations in The Philippines

In 2006, concerns about the Navarro were raised and reported on in Pasadena, over a year before the first teachers arrived in Louisiana

The Recovery School District, which had started the hiring in 2007, dropped the firm after the first year out of suspicion of its activities, before Caddo made the decision to go with it; Caddo claims it asked around about the firm so why didn’t query its former superintendent Ollie Tyler who had signed off on contracts with the company?

After they had started in Caddo, almost a year ago the disgruntled teachers began the petition and news stories appeared internationally about it

Scattered reports in the last year indicated the practice of signing up too many was occurring

These should have alerted Caddo officials never to have used this sketchy outfit, or at least to have stopped after this past year. In addition, the questions of board members Charlotte Crawley and Tammy Phelps should have inspired some checking that apparently never occurred and was never followed up by district staff, those two members, nor anybody else on the board. One hopes critical thinking didn’t go out the window because of the offer to provide the district the placement services not only for free, but even at the expense of the company. A review of procedures on this subject, as promised by the district, is incredibly overdue, but acquisition of common sense on these matters is even more imperative -- an approach other districts in the state need to employ as well.

Make loosening LA dedications part of larger strategy

Perhaps energized by his service leading the Commission on Streamlining Government, state Sen. Jack Donahue has proclaimed the time has come to make “undedicated” certain funds in Louisiana’s fiscal structure. It’s a good start, but not a panacea for the constricted regime.

Donahue correctly notes that with so much money required to be funneled to certain purposes – of the state’s $9.1 billion that flows into the general fund about $5 billion is dedicated, and of the $14.6 billion that comes into state coffers from other state sources the corresponding figure is about $3.9 billion – that leaves reduced flexibility for budgeting. As a result, with about 40 percent of state-generated money tied up of the remainder about three-quarters of the remainder end up financing health care (the largest in absolute terms) and higher education (in terms of its overall receipts, the largest relative recipient of state money not dedicated). Thus, these two areas bear the brunt of any budget adjustments.

Reform of this would require that dedicated revenue streams not go to all of the 293 statutory- and 35 Constitution-dedicated funds (a helpful list of all funds as of the beginning of this fiscal year is here and balances as of the end of the third quarter in the statutory funds are here). Thus, more discretionary money would be available that might reduce monies flowing to purposes now dedicated that are considered of lower priority than those from the areas that have no dedication, given the optimal use of the incremental dollar in question..

But it’s not as simple as that. Just because nearly $9 billion potentially could be loosened doesn’t mean either it wise to do so or in the cases that it may be that substantial redirection could occur. Many of the higher-ticket items go to some pretty important priorities, such as the Minimum Foundation Program (unique among all dedications in that it is the most difficult to redirect in times of necessity) for elementary and secondary education and the Budget Stabilization Fund to act as a savings account.

Further, some things are essentially a necessity. Fund set up to satisfy court judgments, things tied to debt such as (unwisely, courtesy of a former commissioner of agriculture who way overstayed his tenure) the Boll Weevil Eradication Fund, and the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly to comply with federal guidelines are among these.

Finally, a large number of these dedications are collected from a discrete number of payers that don’t create very large balances. There are dozens of regional and local education funds, tourism funds, conservation funds, and the like that citizens of local jurisdictions only pay into and theoretically only receive the benefits, as well as associations of industries and professions who use the state to collect funds from their kind by law that then are dispersed for their own purposes. Here, the question is of fairness where if money comes from a small group, it ought to go back roughly to that group, and they don’t provide much in the way of revenues anyway.

Thus, the “undedication” of funds by the Legislature and constitutional amendment can be only one part of a larger strategy. Another part would be to make it easier for money to be sliced out of such funds in times of budgetary deficit – keep the procedures the same, but make the fractions that can chopped out without going to the most drastic means higher (as was attempted last year). Finally, the state should get out the business entirely of collecting and holding onto money for a number of local entities and groups. If the St. Landry Parish School District, for example, wants to get a cut of gaming revenue to use to enhance career and technical education initiatives, contracts between it and Evangeline Downs can allow for the money to go directly to that authority instead of it being a matter of state law and oversight. Or, if the seafood industry wants to promote and market oysters by tacking on a five cent fee to every oyster tag sold, let it make this an assessment on its own members without involving the state. Let these entities be their own bankers and not drag the state or state law into it.

Even such a comprehensive strategy as this may not spring loose as much as $100 million. Still, spreading most of that out to health care and higher education can offset cuts that, if deficit projections today are realized tomorrow, could go past the present inconvenient level and into the detrimental.

LA Democrats increasing their slide into irrelevance

As if we needed more proof that Louisiana Democrats were sliding ever further into irrelevance, note the events leading up to and at the party’s state Central Committee meeting this weekend.

The party has fared poorly in the past few years; since 2003, it has lost 25 of 33 statewide and Congressional contests plus its majority in the state House of Representatives despite continuing to have a plurality of state registrants to vote. It now only holds one of two Senate seats, one of seven House of Representative seats, and two of seven statewide offices.

Of course, the reason why is that the party’s issue preferences are out of touch with the majority of Louisianans and the liberal ideology it espouses is seen through as lacking and invalid by that majority. So what is the party’s response?

Well, to tackle the hardest-hitting issue to come along in the state since former Gov. Huey Long decided to share the wealth – call on Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal to sue a sports league for an overbroad use of a trademark. This comes on top of another barnburner – criticizing Republican Sen. David Vitter for not being critical enough of and accusing him of tacitly supporting half-cocked conservatives who wanted to prove to the world that Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phones were in good working order.

While Louisianans are concerned about Democrat policy featuring runaway deficits, the threats of a ruinous government takeover of health care provision, and an unnecessary economy-killing environmental regime based upon falsified science, and foreign and national security policy that views the world as it wants it to be, not as it is, all the state Democrats can offer is aspersions on Vitter (who is making threats against the National Football League’s overzealous trademark protection). When Louisianans are searching for national solutions to negative job creation, slow economic growth, and the threat of higher taxes and inflation, and for state solutions to inefficient bureaucracy, misplaced fiscal priorities, and burgeoning state costs, all state Democrats can suggest is that Jindal launch a questionable and quixotic legal action?

By definition the state party’s liberalism disarms it intellectually, but veering off in these directions demonstrates it has given up completely trying to compete with Republicans on the basis of policy. Thereby becomes more pertinent as time goes on the question of just how little of a force Louisiana’s state Democrats will become.

Panel award no excuse not to rethink Big Charity

The Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration just about got what it wanted from a federal arbitration panel hearing concerning federal government reimbursements for the 2005 hurricane disasters. Now the question is whether it will spend the windfall wisely.

Yesterday the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ruled basically in the state’s favor, awarding it $474.7 million to go to replacing the old Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans campus, primarily known as the “Big Charity” hospital complex for treatment of the indigent and for medical education. The federal government had argued for an amount less than a third of that, arguing that much of what was claimed as storm damage in reality was decrepitude allowed in by the state unwilling to pay properly for maintenance costs over the decades.

That the decision came fairly quickly indicates the three-person panel found the state’s argument pretty convincing. Legally the arbitrators could have taken up to a couple of months to make the decision, and even longer if they felt necessary. Thus, this likely is the final word that will come out without any judicial or legislative intervention.

Now the ball is in Jindal’s court to use the proceeds most effectively. At least $300 million was saved by the state not having to put up that much more, now to be paid by the federal government. However, the overall cost of the project will be at least twice the awarded amount, so the projected state commitment of more than a half-billion dollars must be reviewed carefully.

In 2008, the Administration released a study outlining its vision of what the new facility would look like. It revised downwards more ambitious assumptions made by predecessor Kathleen Blanco that better comported to reality in terms of costs, demands, and population served. However, over a year-and-a-half now has passed since its release and conditions have changed further which provide substantial reason for the key assumptions to be reviewed which, upon further reflection, very likely will argue for the state to go back and come up with an even less-grandiose facility.

They include:

• Demographic shifts. There is considerable dispute over just what the area’s population and its components will be which will determine the usage of the facility as the majority of its clients are predicted to be there on some kind of federal-government run insurance or reimbursement. Using even more conservative estimates, with room to grow would prove more cost-effective.
• DSH redefinition. The Disproportionate Share Hospital payments program was changed a year ago which means fewer revenues can be drawn by a charity hospital, meaning a reduction in the number of beds may be in order.
• National policy. One way or the other, national health policy seems driven to get the government out of direct reimbursement of health expenses, either by forcing higher costs onto the private sector and consumers or by empowering consumers with more choice and less government interference to improve efficiency. Either way, this means less business for a charity hospital.
• Other state priorities. Competition for state one-time dollars only has been increasing, with road needs drifting upwards into the $14 billion range, unfunded accrued liabilities in pensions now approaching $17 billion, and an unknown in cost but greater demand placed upon coastal restoration. Downsizing the present facility planned could save an extra couple of hundred million dollars to be used for these purposes that might prove more cost effective than for the facility.

Instead of breathing a sigh of relief and counting its dough, Louisiana needs to reevaluate where it is going with a rebuilt Big Charity, not only taking these above factors into account, but also keeping in mind how the purpose of the facility, which really primarily should be medical education and not care of the indigent, plays into the overall redesign of health care that Jindal has pursued in piecemeal fashion. An option that needs to be taken far more seriously than to date the Administration has is not to build an entirely new facility but instead to renovate the old. Jindal has stressed wise stewardship of funds as a hallmark of his term; he should not allow special interests or avoidance of critiquing his own previous work to prevent use of a rigorous application of that principle to recreation of a permanent state-owned hospital in New Orleans.

Save LA money by dropping unneeded lt. gov. office

As a number of folks rush to crown Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu the incoming mayor of New Orleans even without any election having taken place, Gov. Bobby Jindal has come up with an excellent idea on how to handle any future vacancies in the state’s number two job: don’t have any by abolishing it.

Predictably, some politicians expressed disapproval without really telling why, but the advantages of this would make a lot of sense. In order for this to take effect before the next round of elections, two-thirds of each chamber of the Legislature would have to agree to amend the Constitution and to schedule the popular election for this fall’s election date (concurrent with school board elections, among others), where it must gain majority approval.

Principally, this would save money. Frankly, the lieutenant governor has little to do now while pulling down over six figures in salary. Nominally, he heads the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, but there’s actually a real secretary to do those things. Eliminate the lieutenant governor’s job and the staff that goes along with that, and this year’s budget indicates over a million bucks a year could be saved. (In fact, Jindal appears to want to eliminate CRT as well and send its functions elsewhere which would make good sense as well since in some ways it’s duplicative; for example, both this department and the Department of State have responsibilities for museums.)

Not having someone sitting around waiting for the governor to vacate the office or become incapacitated (or in Louisiana, leave the state borders) is not unprecedented among other states. Seven do not have one and one is not popularly elected, and of the 43 only 25 have legislative responsibilities. Jindal’s proposal would be to have the Secretary of State succeed to the governorship in time of vacancy, currently the office in the state with the least amount of policy-making duties, which is done in Oregon and Wyoming, in addition to the commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

About the only justification to have the office is because it offers one more elective job for politicians and an increased chance to live off of taxpayers. That’s the only (bad) reason why legislators may balk at this if proposed by Jindal, since it will be one less outlet for a term-limited legislator to find refuge when being forced out of his current legislative office. This is in strong contrast to how governors probably see its value, where, as exists currently, someone of a different party can take shots at the governor while having little responsibility himself for policy-making and therefore having to deal with the consequences of his suggestions. But with Landrieu possibly out the door, the biggest obstacle lobbying against such a change (a sitting lieutenant governor) may become removed.

When Louisiana rid itself of its elections commissioner a few years ago, it went from being the state tied with the most separately elected executive officials (not including education). Moving further down the list is an idea whose time has come, and Jindal should pursue this with some vigor.

New B.R. indigent care policy needs expansion statewide

Gov. Bobby Jindal is making the right move, but now he needs to make the big move when it comes to realigning the way the state provides health care to the indigent.

The Jindal Administration made formal its commitment to discard the charity hospital model in Baton Rouge by making permanent the ongoing move of functions of the state’s Earl K. Long Medical Center to the private Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center. By 2014 the state’s run-down facility would cease any provision, and all but prisoner care and obstetrics would be done by OLOL or from state-leased facilities from it. The state would pay for some of the new construction and operating costs.

This will save the state perhaps $400 million in costs to build a new facility due to the decrepit nature of the present facility. Still to be worked out is the disposition of some of EKL’s satellite clinics which to receive federal funding for treating Medicaid patients must be affiliated with a hospital and the treatment of prisoners and obstetrics, but surely the state can make arrangements with other providers for these. Besides OLOL essentially taking over treatment of the indigent, it will become the major source of medical education for the area.

Thus, in short order the state will exit the charity hospital business in the Capitol Region. Given changing federal policy and other budgetary constraints, it also may do so in every region of the state except around Shreveport and New Orleans, and has the opportunity to reduce significantly its involvement in those two places by maintaining only their medical education functions. In short, the charity hospital model that has typified state policy regarding indigent care will cease to exist about eight decades after it came about – if Jindal makes that commitment.

One obstacle is Baton Rouge legislators who like the idea of having a large state facility in their districts, so they can tout to voters the jobs and direct care provided to constituents as part of their legislative service. When one hears complaints of “How in the world can we write a blank check to the Lake and we are having all these [health care] budget problems?” from the likes of state Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, it translates as, “How can you privatize state assets so we have less direct control over and can claim less electoral credit from them,” and thereby Jindal must keep the pressure on and back other legislators who see the deal favorably to make sure it goes through.

But the other obstacle is Jindal himself, who seems wedded to the charity hospital model in New Orleans. Also there hundreds of millions must be spent to have available a workable state facility, but political considerations appear to make Jindal unwilling to farm out indigent care unlike his course in Baton Rouge. Presently, the state is fighting for money to build a large new facility when if its activities were restricted to medical education it could do with a smaller one, perhaps using a refurbished Avery C. Alexander building that now sits gutted for much less in expense. A bold and cost-effective move would be for Jindal to scrap plans for the new campus and instead renovate the old, leaving only enough beds for medical education and allowing the overbuilt non-government hospital sector to serve the area’s indigent.

The idea of a charity system, where any state resident could walk in a get free care, might have made sense in a different era of medicine, technology, and without any federal policy covering indigent health care. In recent years, Louisiana’s government-owned hospitals have spent more money with worse outcomes for indigent care than their non-government counterparts. Jindal will burnish his credentials as a transformative governor achieving smaller, more efficient and effective government were he to use this decision as another step towards shedding the charity system.