Last week, the Southeast Louisiana
Flood Protection Authority-East filed
suit against dozens of extraction companies to scoop money from them to
fund its activities – never mind, naturally, that the majority owners of them directly
or indirectly are millions of small investors and they and consumers would pay
for any such transferring. The suit claims that exploration for decades has
caused a greater magnitude of flooding, impaired levees, and culminated in breach
of contract for insufficient restoration actions. Damages awarded could run
into the billions of dollars if it succeeds.
The Authority candidly admits that it fears it doesn’t have money to
fund its ambitious flood protection ideas and so wants to grab some. The Gov. Bobby
Jindal Administration, from where approval
from the governor which must be given (even as the Authority claims a novel
status within state government that obviates that) for a suit to proceed, has expressed
opposition and at the Authority’s next
meeting will lay out the consequences of its going rogue.
Unfortunately, the Authority put taxpayers in a bad position by how it
went about getting to this point. First, its board
never authorized the suit; rather, it hired the lawyers who then chose to
sue on its behalf, abrogating its own responsibility. Second, the hiring was
done on a contingency basis (and with the blessing of Atty. Gen. Buddy
Caldwell who always jumps to support
the concept when it doesn’t reduce how own power) with a provision that the
Authority pays (from its presumably too-scarce resources) only if it withdraws
the suit. That means it has reduced incentive to drop the case as it pays
nothing by dragging it all out to the bitter end, costing taxpayers millions
for the state to defend the rule of law it’s trying to break.
Third, as expressed by its vice chairman John Barry in a note, it has
the entirely wrong view about the appropriateness of the suit. Driven by its
desperation for cash, it tolerates the notion that it’s entitled to pursue
jackpot justice, by throwing something out there that can be used to legally
separate money from presumed cash cows or to extort them into a settlement. The
attitude of, “Let the courts decide our legal claims. The reality is our suit
can only help improve flood protection. It cannot hurt,” subverts the
democratic process not just in filing the suit without the authority to do so,
but in that it is trying to get the funding in a way that obscures accountability
and reduces responsibility in government.
The responsible and accountable solution would be to use its revenue-raising
authority as provided by law to fund its big plans, meaning putting out ballot
propositions to raise taxes or to finance debt. Then if the people approve,
board members proceed. If not, they scale back their plans if the state or
federal governments don’t come up with funding, even if they think that doesn’t
provide enough protection. It is a democracy that we live in, they must
remember, and that they do not have the right to reverse the intended order by
dictating their preferences to those they are supposed to serve. If the people
are unwilling to fund you, you don’t go out to find someone else’s oxen to
gore by judicial fiat, all the while declaring in the height of arrogance and
conceit that it’s for “public safety.”
But they seem unable to understand this basic point, and thereby demonstrate
again the often seen example of how trying to insulate an agency from political
pressure instead allows it to act in a very politicized way. And to underscore
the puerility of their argument, its exact opposite has come to pass in that they
now have put the citizenry in a no-win situation: pursuing a suit they are
unlikely to win while likely costing plenty of the people’s resources spent in
the judicial arena needed to make them understand their actions attack a
democratic process built upon accountability and responsibility.
Which is why the Jindal Administration needs to convince them to stop before
much is squandered, and can do so in a couple of ways. If they persist in
allowing filing without Jindal’s required approval, they must be told that they
will not be nominated again to the board – a majority
currently is operating under expired terms. That may fail to persuade because
they serve until successors are appointed, and that can take awhile depending
upon the vagaries of who the nominating committee
of professional organizations, academicians, and interest groups produces as
choices. Because of this possibility, they also need to be informed that in
next year’s legislative session legislation will be introduced to remove power
from the Authority to enter into contingency legal contracts without the
governor’s approval and to cancel all ongoing arrangements. However, this means
a solution can be a year away and the board might gamble that Jindal’s legislative
majorities won’t come through on bills to clip its wings, or that it even might
get a governor in the future more favorably inclined to its statist ideology, and
so its reckless course may continue well past then.
No comments:
Post a Comment