Its current President Tim Doody and Vice President John Barry will not
be reappointed by Jindal. Both supported (even as Doody, an accountant,
abstained on the formal vote he said because the matter might involve his law
firm) a lawsuit filed by the SLPAE in order to milk potentially billions of
dollars from companies alleged to have violated agreements and knowingly caused
environmental destruction that may have eroded the state’s coastline. Their
terms expired, the governor must appoint individuals to serve from choices provided
by professional and political groups, and the Jindal Administration has said
even if these guys are recommended as part of that, he will pass them over.
That the pair was instrumental in bringing
about the suit is more than enough reason to let their service lapse, as it
is of questionable legality and its chances of success are dubious, but perhaps
most consequentially is an attempt to arrogate state policy-making power to a
local/regional subdivision of the state. But in remarks made by Barry since
then and most recently in response to his non-reappointment, he shows he has no
understanding about how public policy gets made and its consequences – hardly qualifications
for service on it in the first place.
As
does Jindal’s predecessor, he labors under the myth that the board is “nonpolitical,”
simply because the process by which it acquires members is designed to be as
depoliticized as possible, and therefore all of its decisions are above
politics. This view shows tremendous ignorance about government and the public
policy-making process, where, by definition, every decision made, from the
governor on down to the lowliest bureaucrat with the absolute minimum of
discretion in job performance, makes policy that is based upon political
considerations.
Barry seems to believe that the board automatically is inoculated from
acting politically because of the intention that it be as nonpolitical as
possible through its appointment procedure. But those procedures do not
completely insulate the board’s decision-making from political agendas, for
nominating authorities may have their own agendas when they pick individuals
for the governor’s consideration. Even if they do not, once somebody lands on
this or similar boards, they do not go through a machine that strips them of
their personal political agendas and there is nothing in the board decision-making
process that filters out political motives.
Nothing provided a better example of this than this decision. As Barry
admitted early on, the board felt it didn’t have enough money for its plans, so
it decided to pursue a jackpot justice solution by going around democratic
processes in the hopes of finding a sympathetic court to siphon money from
convenient repositories of private funds. This is an entirely political
response. Just because the board can make decisions that seemingly don’t have
politics involved – for example, wanting to build this certain level of
protection because science shows it produces that probability of failure is
sufficiently low – doesn’t mean all its decisions acquire this cloak of
protection from political motivations when it involves making choices about how
government will acquire and use the public’s resources, because all such
decisions by definition involve politics, or, in the terms of political
scientist Harold Laswell, “who gets what, when, and how.”
So one doesn’t know whether it’s ignorant, arrogant, or laughable –
perhaps all – when Barry seemingly seriously asserts that “We’re supposed to be
an independent and non-political board – a reform board – unless we do
something the politicians don’t want us to do. They are saying explicitly this
has nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees. It’s all about
politics.” Note the misunderstanding of board “independence” – when the law
makes clear it is the highest democratically-elected official in the state
acting on behalf of the people, and ratified by their elected senators, who
populates the board – and the continued confusion that this process connotes
that all board actions therefore become “non-political.” This conceptual error
creates the fantastic logic that, as long as political considerations are not
involved in appointments, then as if by magic all the biases and agendas of the
individual members suddenly disappear from their decisions. It is not only an
immature understanding of politics specifically and human beings generally, but
also a dangerous one as well that ultimately justifies antidemocratic creeds
that do not posit rule by the people, but by “experts” or some other kind of
power elite.
1 comment:
Let's see, John Barry won the Francis Parkman Prize for his writing, Jeff Sadow won the Bobby Jindal/David Vitter apologist award for never finding fault in anything either of them do in office and waving his rhetorical pom pons for their every action. One of these two writers is suggesting the other lacks intelligence. You'll never guess which one made that assertion. Jeff Sadow, a legend in his own mind.
Post a Comment