How the state ended up committing $1.825 million to build a Louisiana first, a kind-of gubernatorial library/parish historical center, illuminates both the political intricacies that can imprint themselves on the capital outlay process and how observers who do not or who do not care to understand that process can end up promulgating a distorted and unserious view of it.
Last week, five months after the
idea first surfaced in legislation, the legacy media became aware that the
state had authorized this amount, in conjunction with $75,000 from the city of
Franklin, to renovate the top floor of its town hall for a combination archive of
documents from and historical center presenting information about the
gubernatorial terms of former Gov. Mike
Foster. Additionally, it is planned to present some information about the
terms of his grandfather, former Gov. Murphy
J. Foster, in that office, as well as items about parish
history that include a number of other prominent political figures.
This upset
the partisan chattering class, although not without reason. Nearly $2
million is a chunk of change that can make a substantial difference, and
whether this use of it as opposed to alternatives certainly is debatable. But the
tenor of the commentary heaped sole blame on Gov. Bobby
Jindal, whose first jobs in state government were as an appointee directly
and one step removed by Foster, postulating that their long-standing friendship
provided motive for Jindal by his own fiat to implant that money into the
budget, and then subsequently to get an initial $300,000 of it appropriated
through the State
Bond Commission to get the project underway, which only afterwards the
issue seemed to come to public consciousness.
Such a view displays at the best
ignorance of the process, and at worst grasping at an opportunity to express
political prejudices at the expense of performing any real service to assist
the public in understanding what actually happened and its implications. It all
started on May 27, after the bill in question, HB 2, had cleared the House of
Representatives unanimously without that particular line item. It was inserted
that day among a raft of over a hundred amendments
at a Senate committee hearing, with some of these amendments being asked for by
the Jindal Administration. Although it is unclear whether this was one of those
requested, it probably was because it came in as an exception to the normal calendar
of capital outlay requests.
By Nov. 1, a list of outlay
projects is supposed to have been submitted for legislative review. But of
course things come up so R.S. 39:112 permits
items beyond that date – in fact, all the way to the end of a legislative session,
theoretically – to be added to the list as long as they meet any one of three
criteria. According to that law, with this being one of those matters, the only
criterion for which is could qualify was “an economic development project
recommended in writing by the secretary of the Department of Economic
Development.” Thus, Sec. Stephen
Moret would have had to have given his approval.
(NOTE: After initial publication of this post, LED said it never had this matter cross Moret's desk. This begs the question of just what justification could be used to put the project in the bill. It's hard to justify this as an "emergency" project as defined by the law, and it does not meet the other qualification of being less than $1 million.)
(NOTE: After initial publication of this post, LED said it never had this matter cross Moret's desk. This begs the question of just what justification could be used to put the project in the bill. It's hard to justify this as an "emergency" project as defined by the law, and it does not meet the other qualification of being less than $1 million.)
At this committee meeting, none
present debated this nor objected to it, and shortly thereafter the Senate
followed the House with unanimous approval. On Jun. 6, the last day of the
session, the House rejected the Senate’s version unanimously, in order to throw
the matter into conference, over one Senate amendment and to add about 10
others that mainly moved money around. Conferees that day unanimously decided
on this instrument and sent it back to both chambers. In the Senate, only state
Sen. Conrad Appel, voted
against it. In the House, a smattering of members, most aligned with the
self-styled budget reformers who called themselves the “fiscal hawks” voted
against it. Nobody spoke against the bill, so it is unknown whether any of
those voting against did so at least in part because of this amendment, and the
entire time both chambers spent on debate concerning it was about five minutes.
However, as with all capital
outlay matters, one final step remained before any money could be spent for it.
As in all cases of debt financing, the matter had to appear in front of the State
Bond Commission, on which a governor has direct representation and indirect
representation. If one counts legislative allies as under indirect influence of
the governor, then he would have a majority of members on it pledged to his
preferences. But other members include the likes of state Treasurer John Kennedy,
who often has voiced displeasure with spending permitted by the Commission as
unnecessary if not downright wasteful, and Sec. of State Tom Schedler,
who is the official custodian of any documents donated by governors to the
state and thereby would be expected to know about this line item.
The Commission also has
importance as the final bill was oversubscribed by about $230 million, meaning
at least that amount could not be funded this year at the choice of it.
Energetic argumentation against this kind of item probably would have kicked it
entirely into the bullpen, given controversy over the priority given it
compared to other items.
The Act
24 of 2013 items came up during this most recent Commission meeting Oct.
17. There, while minutes have yet to be posted to confirm, there appears to
have been no discussion about that item, nor any votes cast against it. Then
last Tuesday Jindal
announced the whole deal, which had been known of and endorsed by area
legislators, but not among the general public.
Then came the wailing and
gnashing of teeth and the simplistic pointing of fingers at Jindal. If you want
to excoriate the governor for advocating spending money this way, feel free to
indulge. But it’s then disingenuous to refrain from criticizing all of the
other players in this drama and to frame the issue as solely Jindal’s doing. If
you’re mad this happened, then you need to blame entire swaths of legislators
who knew of it and those who paid too little attention to the legislation they
were approving if it’s something they would have been against, especially those
who sat on the relevant committees involved throughout the process and then those
who sit on the SBC. You should fault Jindal employee Moret and elected
officials like Kennedy and Schedler who also sit on the SBC who by their acquiescence
all thought it a good use of state funds.
3 comments:
So, the governor used his position to have the item inserted beyond the deadline, to influence his appointee to sign off on the plan, and had a body he controls approve the plan. Yet, you, would have us blame those who simply failed to fight a battle they couldn't win, rather than your idol, Governor Jindal. Pretty amazing, for someone who constantly wails about waste in government, you suddenly change your tune when it's one of your heroes. Never call him one of the insulting names you call others. Hope this really does pay off for you when your school closes because of your hero's budget cuts.
You need to work on your reading comprehension, or take off the partisan blinders to enable that. This post declared a pox on all houses. And if you think if a handful of legislators or Kennedy, etc. could not have whipped up some pretty negative public opinion that might have stopped this, you're clueless. Feet of clay still are feet of clay.
Actually Professor Sadow, you need to work on your reality skills. The entire purpose of your post was to deflect as much blame as possible from your hero. You never once indicated that he truly had any blame, constantly suggesting "if you want" to blame Jindal. Negative public opinion hasn't stopped Gov. Jindal from doing pretty much anything else he wants, or else firing or having removed by some other means. I will commend you, even in my clueless state I see you do excel in name calling, when you have no legitimate argument.
Post a Comment