In the past, Jindal typically has
waited as long as he can before vetoing, which makes sense to maximize your
decision period. But he started early in his last roundup as governor, putting
his highest-profile
cancellation on HB 42 by
state Rep. Sam
Jones, which unwisely would have accelerated a pension raise to retired
state employees and teachers and beneficiaries that would have degraded further
the retirement systems’ stability at taxpayer expense. Other necessary ones have
come as well.
HB 370 by
state Rep. Chris
Broadwater would have interposed an unelected panel into human resource
management decisions made by the executive branch. While Jindal pointed
out the politically-appointed group from outside his auspices, which would
have had the power to make the Division of Administration’s Office of Group
Benefits comply with premiums rates it established for insurance products offered
to state employees, lacked OGB representation and increased the possibility
that politics would trump actuarial-based reasons to determine rates, a more
fundamental flaw ordained this veto. It’s never sound practice to violate unity
of command in the management of personnel, as this makes the manager less able
to induce performance from employees. By having an outside entity interfere with
this important decision, the pricing of benefits, which determines employee
recruitment, retention, and motivation, this thereby makes working at cross-purposes
more likely, reducing the tools at disposal to shape bureaucratic behavior in a
coherent fashion. If dissatisfied with personnel policy by a governor, the
solution is not to muddle the environment but to change governors through election,
recall, or impeachment.
HB 137 by
state Rep. Kenny
Havard retreaded old ground that, while less noxious in its details than
with previous versions, had not changed the fundamentals that would
have made it bad law. Under the guise of oversight regarding contracting
out government services, the bill would have made it easier for legislators to
stifle cost-effective privatization by weighing determination criteria biased in
favor of state performance in order to help them present themselves as
providers of jobs and of state spending in their districts to voters for
purposes of securing reelection. Facilitating the ability of legislators to put parochial
needs ahead of statewide goals serves no good public purpose. What’s more, it
violates good managerial practice by allowing too much legislative interference
(oversight procedures already exist that allow the Legislature to pass laws
constricting administrative actions) into the practice of administration.
Again, if philosophically objecting to beneficial privatization of government
services, using the ballot box to put into power those who agree with that is
the proper solution. For his part, Jindal noted that it would obstruct cost-savings efforts.
HB 837 by
state Rep. Ed
Price, largely laudable in recognizing that wrongly-convicted individuals
should not have their records reflect that they ever were convicted of a
serious crime, goes too far, as Jindal pointed out, in also expunging records
of those who had served their sentence completely and been employed for at
least ten consecutive years without any further convictions. As dated as that information
could be, those such as prospective employers, landlords, etc. still should
have access to that data so that they could decide for themselves whether the
person constitutes unsustainable risk in any contractual relationship. Knowledge
that evidence of a serious crime would stay with you your entire life may act
as a deterrent from commission of that crime in the first place. Regrettably,
Price chose not to remove that part of the bill and leave only the innocence
expungement portion, which would have removed this sound objection.
However, perhaps the veto signature the least merited of Jindal’s now-concluding terms in office came with his rejection of
SB 48 by
state Sen. Jack Donahue, which
would have capped spending on the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students at
next year’s levels that would have had the practical effect of meaning money to
pay for tuition would not have been available to the lowest qualifiers for it
if institutions subsequently raised tuition. (A great deal of confusion
surrounded the practical impact of the bill, with people
as varied as state Treasurer John
Kennedy and multiple
media
reporters mistakenly thinking that it would have continued to pay all
qualifiers, just not the full amount.)
Raising standards through this
means would have the salutary impacts of making TOPS more a true scholarship program
than entitlement and therefore elevating performances in high school and would
reduce the one-third default rate as weaker performers more likely to fail to
meet retention standards for it disproportionately comprise this group that would have been excluded. The veto only creates incentives for lower
high school achievement and higher rates of award loss, wasting taxpayer
dollars.
Yet, depending on legislative reaction
next year, in the end this action only may stall but not prevent reform. The
Legislature could come back then with a similar bill, starting on the same
effective date as it would have been under SB 48, Jul. 1, 2016 and just the
same using this upcoming fiscal year as the base. Approve it like that, and the
outcome is exactly the same. And the new governor might prove much more amenable
to this kind of limitation, where Jindal had a blind spot to the program’s
inefficiency.
Jindal has signed into law a couple
that he should have vetoed, but as far as what was vetoed, he’s fast out of the
gate and, with the one exception that may end up having no substantive impact, so
far deciding well.
No comments:
Post a Comment