In the state, one must have a license to be an auctioneer, and the Louisiana Auctioneers Licensing Board regulates
that and industry practices, being comprised of five members, one each from
Public Service Commission districts who are licensed auctioneers, and two
at-large consumer representatives. All are appointed by the governor,
concurrent with his term, with Senate confirmation, and serve at his pleasure.
Typically, there is much carryover from governor to governor, term to term.
But on Sep. 10, 2010, Gov. Bobby
Jindal took the unusual step to remove one of his appointees, Robert Burns.
No public reason ever was stated for this, but undoubtedly stemmed from the
fact that increasingly Burns, often allied with another auctioneer member of
the panel the Rev. Freddie Phillips, clashed with the remainder of the Board on
some votes, where the Board’s voting history demonstrated typically unanimity,
dealing with issues such as spending, procedures for charitable auctioning, and
individual licensing decisions. In the past couple of years, Burns and Phillips
separately have sued the association for alleged violations of procedure. The
pair also went about creating a new professional association for auctioneers,
the Louisiana Association of Professional Auctioneers,
in competition with the existing Louisiana
Auctioneers Association, Inc., citing their group as one that held itself
to a higher ethical standard.
Since then, Burns stepped up his criticism of the body while Phillips
continued to be a sometimes lone dissenter on votes, until he was not
reappointed at the end of last year. This September, the Board threatened to
take away Burns’ license over what it called questions about his character and
competence, but only reprimanded him, leading to another suit with him alleging
the Board again violated procedures as a part of that. Afterwards, Burns said
he would not renew his license at the end of this year and instead focus on
building the new organization with Phillips.
All of this intrigue failed to make any impression on the public
consciousness. Nor, did it seem, do the same to the Jindal Administration after
he canned Burns, even though some Board members, probably among those who
engineered Burns’ removal with Jindal, less than a year later made disparaging remarks about Jindal
and his Administration’s policies concerning “fund sweeps” and cost-cutting
measures, even after Jindal had reappointed them to the Board.
As these are public meetings, Burns still attends them and video
recordings have been made since his removal, with these revealing some often
interesting, if not amateurish bordering on the clownish, statements being made
and lines of inquiry pursued. But it finally got
the media’s attention when, at the November meeting, members apparently attempted
to mock Phillips in delivering their affirmative responses to the roll call,
who also attends meetings regularly except for the one previous to that, in a
way arguably that could be considered racist (Phillips is black). Worse, for
the two members in question, James Sims and Gregory Bordelon, voice recordings without
question caught them.
(It took about a month for a public records request to get that
information, which stands in stark contrast to the runaround the
website The Hayride is getting from the Louisiana Legislature in its quest
to have e-mail messages released after several months. Ironically, legislators
who are the subject of that request complain about the supposed secretiveness of
and how tight the Jindal Administration is with certain public records. Yet an
agency of Jindal’s without much trouble released this information damaging to
itself, while his critics on this very issue continue to obstruct the same kind
of request when it concerns them.)
This led to a request by the state’s Inspector General to review the
matter, for whatever transgression might apply. This hasn’t been the first
time; in 2009, the IG cited the Board for failure to comply with provisions of
open meetings law. While juvenile, the antics certainly in a legal sense should
not be of the punishable variety. Nor does it seem that the Board behaves in a
corrupt fashion (whether it is pristine in regards to using wisely taxpayer
resources is something Burns and Phillips might dispute). But it seems clear
that over the past couple or more years that the Board increasingly has
tolerated unprofessional behavior by its members.
That’s not something entirely rare in the arcane world of state boards
and commissions. When one of these obscure bodies has either or both of a
substantial budget and/or regulatory power in its narrow area, especially when
the same members reappear term after term, a clubby insularity often forms,
making them more likely to become intolerant of dissent if not vindictive to
dissenters, in a way that at best produces this lack of professionalism in
operation, but at worst begins to act in ways contrary to the public interest.
Having a regular refreshment of members can help this, and in 2008 a law
was passed that put in essentially three-term limits to members of this and
almost every other state board and commission. Unfortunately, it grandfathered
in for at least part of an additional term many members, including this board’s,
meaning most of its current membership may stay on through 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment