Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
4.4.17
Politicized request, suit witch hunt against Landry
Louisiana Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry may hope all that he
wants to that he’s not
subject to a political witch hunt, but he is.
Some months ago, he received a pair of public
records requests right out of left field. One asked for all correspondence
between Landry or any member of his office and “any representatives of
companies (and/or trade associations representing such companies) involved in
the exploration for and production of hydrocarbons.” The other sought a broad
range of documents related to Landry's travel to conferences, speaking
engagements and public appearances as the state's chief prosecutor, including
records for travel, lodging and meals, as well as records “showing all
contracts awarded to attorneys and/or law firms … to represent the state
and any state entities in litigation,” and documents regarding vehicles bought
by Landry's office. Added to it a couple of weeks later was contracts and
correspondence for legal representation that have been reviewed by his office since
his inauguration.
In other words, these wanted just about everything
involving Republican Landry’s conduct as a public official, his office’s relations
with parties to his subcontractors and anybody remotely connected to energy
firms, and his office’s dealing with approval of contracts let by other government
agencies. By the look of the scope involved, this fishing expedition related to
Landry’s cooling the jets on the Gov. John Bel Edwards
Administration attempts to sue
energy companies, his review and ultimate disapproval of language that courts
found Edwards had unconstitutionally included in contracts, and to any
manner of conduct in office that might conflict with state ethics laws.
And these did not emanate from a Louisiana
citizen. The person responsible is one Scarlett Andrews Martin from
Indianapolis, ostensibly for “research” purposes. At present, she is described
as a “community builder” for a nonprofit organization, but lived most of her
life in the south and in New Orleans was affiliated with the leftist
environmental organization Gulf Restoration Network,
a group reflexively against reasonable energy exploration and extraction in the
Gulf of Mexico. It cheered on failed lawsuits against companies engaged in that
activity, legal actions with which Edwards has sympathized and still hopes to
engineer his own version thereof.
Unfortunately, Landry’s office walked into
controversy when it accepted Martin’s money to process the documents three
months ago and has yet to produce the document stream. As it has received in
the neighborhood of 200 public information requests since he took office in
early 2016 – undoubtedly some like this one of the nuisance variety – it may
have thought some sign of progress would indicate a fair attempt to provide
through the blizzard of requests.
Instead, the delay provoked a suit from Martin filed
by area lawyer Chris Whittington. As further evidence of the politicized
action, Whittington has long served Democrat causes in the state, and led the
state party a decade ago, only to be booted
after a string of electoral defeats that launched its way to apparently
permanent minority status. To add injury to insult, the suit asks also for
damages and attorney fees.
Regrettably, this – both the request and
subsequent suit – is nothing more than a partisan attempt to attack Landry, a
popular and able conservative regarded as a serious challenger to Democrat Edwards
in 2019. The kitchen sink strategy – ask generally for everything about a
politician’s conduct in office and specifically concerning issue areas with
which the petitioner disagrees with the target – tries both to irritate in attempting
to overwhelm the resources of the office and to uncover something, anything,
that can be spun to make the official and other supporters of the issue
preference look sinister. It hopes it finds diamonds in the rough employable as
weapons to mobilize public opinion against the official and his issue
preference, if not find some malfeasance.
As unsavory as such motives may be, and particularly
in this case when aligned with an agenda against the public good, it’s the
price paid in an open society. Having promised to deliver, Landry needs to do
so and reconcile himself to the fact that, among many honest and helpful petitions
for information any official receives, as in this case he also will have to
deal with malevolent, distractive ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment