Well, I can’t always be fully right, like I was in yesterday’s post about the post previous to that. Guess I’ll settle for being half-right regarding what the Legislature’s Agriculture Committees would do concerning Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom’s attempt to become czar of gasoline prices and affect a neat transfer of wealth from consumers to certain sellers of retail gasoline.
I thought there was no chance either committee would vote to deny Odom rulemaking power he asserted over enforcing the ridiculous law that says retail gas must have at least a 6 percent markup. Believe it or not, the Senate version actually rebelled, and even Odom stalwart Chairman Mike Smith went against his patron (only Butch Gautreaux chose not to rescind). By contrast, the chairman of the House version Francis Thompson, who with his brother is all about boondoggles to help his allies at the taxpayers’ expense, said his gang would have voted for it (not surprising since this committee has almost all Democrats on it). Thompson’s son, of course, works for Odom (isn’t it great how the Thompson family all sticks together in trying to run this state into the ground?).
The way it works now Gov. Kathleen Blanco has the chance to allow this to stand by not choosing to override the committee vote no later than 14 days from yesterday. But Odom won’t give up, essentially telling the governor to do something anatomically impossible and he’s going to go running to Attorney General Charles Foti to get confirmed that he has the authority to do this. Even though Foti’s own subordinate testified at this hearing that Odom had exceeded his authority, so don’t expect that gambit to work.
6.4.05
Caddo schools paint stripes on a horse, call it a zebra
That was quick; as I wrote yesterday’s post, the Caddo Parish School Board revised its admissions policy (at least temporarily) for magnet schools. It did exactly the right thing for Middle Magnet – got rid race or anything else entirely for admissions after things like the sibling exception.
But it stumbled when it came to the magnet elementary schools. In order to maintain “diversity,” rather than go with the Middle Magnet standard (which it does for half of the applicants), now it is reserving half of the places for students that meet a minimum cutoff that historically has been well below the average white student score for successful applicants, who would ordinarily be attending a “high poverty” school.
I’d like to know what qualifies under the guidelines as a “high poverty” school, but it’s almost certain that most of these children are going to be black. Using reduced and free school lunch programs as a surrogate measure for poverty based upon qualifying students in a school for the school to receive Title I funding (because Title I status automatically qualifies for the lunch program), blacks (who comprise five-eighths of total enrollment) comprise about five-sixths of children in poverty in Caddo public schools.
Caddo Superintendent Ollie Tyler argues that the non-merit standard half would be split about half white and black. But that seems unlikely unless Tyler creates a very broad definition of what is a “high poverty” school. Let’s say she goes a somewhat below the Caddo average of around 58 percent in the free/reduced lunch program and puts it at 50 percent. Of schools that have at least 50 percent of their students in the program, only about a fifth of their students are white, meaning for Tyler’s math to work at this level four times the number of white students would have to qualify among white students than qualifying blacks among blacks.
Is it true that four-fifths of those hitting the minimum score among all of these schools are white? If not, then blacks will be disproportionately assisted by these rules and it still makes it a quota system – a diluted one, but still one designed to favor applicants of one race.
But let’s say Tyler is right about this. The new rules still discriminate, but now on the basis of income and geography, and thereby indirectly by race. The fact is, a white student from wealthier east Shreveport can score higher on the entrance exam than a black student from north Shreveport yet the latter will take the former’s spot in a magnet elementary school because the former goes to the wrong school where there aren’t enough poor students.
And how can an appeal to “diversity” justify this? Let’s say the percentage of “disadvantaged” children in a typical magnet elementary school goes from 10 to 20 percent as a result of this. Is this doubling from this base really going to “broaden” a non-disadvantaged student’s horizon beyond what it already was?
You can paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra, which is what the Caddo schools have done in reference to their quota-based admissions policy to magnet elementary schools. Sounds like something that may have to be taken to court, unless the “permanent” rules that should come out in the near future correct this inequity.
But it stumbled when it came to the magnet elementary schools. In order to maintain “diversity,” rather than go with the Middle Magnet standard (which it does for half of the applicants), now it is reserving half of the places for students that meet a minimum cutoff that historically has been well below the average white student score for successful applicants, who would ordinarily be attending a “high poverty” school.
I’d like to know what qualifies under the guidelines as a “high poverty” school, but it’s almost certain that most of these children are going to be black. Using reduced and free school lunch programs as a surrogate measure for poverty based upon qualifying students in a school for the school to receive Title I funding (because Title I status automatically qualifies for the lunch program), blacks (who comprise five-eighths of total enrollment) comprise about five-sixths of children in poverty in Caddo public schools.
Caddo Superintendent Ollie Tyler argues that the non-merit standard half would be split about half white and black. But that seems unlikely unless Tyler creates a very broad definition of what is a “high poverty” school. Let’s say she goes a somewhat below the Caddo average of around 58 percent in the free/reduced lunch program and puts it at 50 percent. Of schools that have at least 50 percent of their students in the program, only about a fifth of their students are white, meaning for Tyler’s math to work at this level four times the number of white students would have to qualify among white students than qualifying blacks among blacks.
Is it true that four-fifths of those hitting the minimum score among all of these schools are white? If not, then blacks will be disproportionately assisted by these rules and it still makes it a quota system – a diluted one, but still one designed to favor applicants of one race.
But let’s say Tyler is right about this. The new rules still discriminate, but now on the basis of income and geography, and thereby indirectly by race. The fact is, a white student from wealthier east Shreveport can score higher on the entrance exam than a black student from north Shreveport yet the latter will take the former’s spot in a magnet elementary school because the former goes to the wrong school where there aren’t enough poor students.
And how can an appeal to “diversity” justify this? Let’s say the percentage of “disadvantaged” children in a typical magnet elementary school goes from 10 to 20 percent as a result of this. Is this doubling from this base really going to “broaden” a non-disadvantaged student’s horizon beyond what it already was?
You can paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra, which is what the Caddo schools have done in reference to their quota-based admissions policy to magnet elementary schools. Sounds like something that may have to be taken to court, unless the “permanent” rules that should come out in the near future correct this inequity.
5.4.05
Race rather than merit part of Caddo's education problems
Yesterday I gently rebuked John Hill. As an opinion writer, he draws upon a vast knowledge and makes logical arguments so I respect him even when we disagree. On the other hand, some opinion writers display rather an incomplete grasp of the issues about which they write but, worse, their argumentation is specious if not downright illogical.
That’s what we have here with Gregory Hudson’s lame attempt to criticize the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that forces a lower court to consider that a race-conscious admissions policy by Caddo Middle Magnet School, and thus any such policy for any school admission, is unconstitutional.
Let’s begin with this model of discombobulation:
While most people agree every child deserves the very best education possible, it shouldn't be achieved at the expense of another child. That I agree with. However, that is not truly the case. Just because a black child is admitted into one of the "desired" magnet programs, that doesn't mean a white child's place is being taken. I say "desired" programs because there have been career-related magnet programs established at Booker T. Washington, Green Oaks and Fair Park and there has been virtually no white interest.
This is convoluted, but it appears he’s trying to advance the argument that because not many whites take places in magnet programs at majority-black schools they somehow are voluntarily “forfeiting” their chances at a magnet program and therefore, even if higher scorers than blacks wanting admission into majority-white magnet programs/schools, they should be denied entrance to those program/schools in favor of the blacks.
If so, notice the lack of credibility in this by comparing to job-seeking in the private sector. Assume that there are two employers, but one is considered to offer a much more desirable job and workplace to prospective applicants. Just because the worse of the two offers a white applicant a job doesn’t mean this applicant automatically loses the opportunity to get a job with the better employer, assuming both are basing hiring criteria solely on merit and this applicant is assessed to be a high-quality candidate. If you are truly admitting by merit, his argument makes no sense.
But that’s because “merit” isn’t a part of Hudson’s plan:
Part of the problem with the public perception of this issue is that somehow black students who are enrolled at schools such as Caddo Middle Magnet, Eden Gardens, South Highlands and Caddo Magnet High do not deserve to be there …. Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student.
Notice how he tries to shift the argument towards “desert” and “qualification” rather than what the court sees as the constitutional imperative, merit. In his view, you get admitted because you meet some kind of minimum standard, not because you rank high enough relative to all other applicants. This is a standard trick of defenders of affirmative action in how it has evolved: redefine “merit” to mean it specifies an arbitrary level, and then if too many applicants are there for too few spots, use other criteria such a race to decide who gets in, rather than acknowledging the competitive aspect that the X most meritorious applicants take the X number of spots regardless of other factors.
Of course, the admissions policy in Caddo Parish to the magnet schools is more complicated than this, but also is more blatantly discriminatory by race. Before any decisions are made on the basis of merit, other non-merit factors shape the eligible pool. But once those are out of the way, the school district very openly creates a double standard where whites for admission are forced to get higher scores just because they’re white with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever to justify this. (And the Court ruled even if Caddo Middle Magnet’s policy still were under the consent decree, the discrimination was so blatant it still would have found it unconstitutional.)
None of this makes a difference to Hudson who in fact is bothered that anybody would see a problem with this at all:
Some people recklessly suggest that for every black child admitted to these schools, some deserving white child has to look elsewhere for education. That is not true, but that is part of the perception problem perpetuated by some.
Again, he tries to push forward this “desert” standard rather than the appropriate concept of merit. And while a turned-away applicant can go to another school, the simple fact is, on the basis of merit, this rejected white applicant had a greater moral claim on the slot but was refused it only because of his race. That is not perception nor reckless; that is fact and perceptive.
Trying to salvage the argument, Hudson presents a pair of pieces of evidence to show that, miraculously, no anti-white discrimination occurs by this admissions policy:
The school at the center of the court challenge is 82 percent white in a school district that is more than 60 percent black. Do those numbers really suggest discrimination against white applicants?
This is specious: if there were no double standard, the proportion might be 90 percent white. (The Court calculated a 10 percent bias in favor of nonwhites.) And,
Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student. If they or any other student can't cut the curriculum they will not pass.
Of all the illogic in this column, this may be the prime example (again note a third attempt to equate “qualify” to “merit”). The point of a merit-based, rank-ordered admissions program is to create the highest possible quality pool of students because then, in the aggregate, they have the best chance of passing the curriculum. It’s a waste of resources to admit less-capable students who therefore have a greater likelihood of flunking out and thereby perform a disservice to the rejected applicants who would have passed. It squanders the educational function’s full potential, deprives worthy students of the opportunity, and sets up unworthy students to fail where they would have succeeded if lesser demands were placed upon them. Rather than demonstrating the argument, it reveals the bankruptcy of it.
While Hudson’s Swiss cheese argument replicates received wisdom among the fuzzy-thinking, disingenuous defenders of policies such as the one in controversy, at least the justices of the Fifth Circuit saw clearly through that. And we wonder why Louisiana's educational system has ranked so dismally? With Caddo Parish 35th in Louisiana?
That’s what we have here with Gregory Hudson’s lame attempt to criticize the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that forces a lower court to consider that a race-conscious admissions policy by Caddo Middle Magnet School, and thus any such policy for any school admission, is unconstitutional.
Let’s begin with this model of discombobulation:
While most people agree every child deserves the very best education possible, it shouldn't be achieved at the expense of another child. That I agree with. However, that is not truly the case. Just because a black child is admitted into one of the "desired" magnet programs, that doesn't mean a white child's place is being taken. I say "desired" programs because there have been career-related magnet programs established at Booker T. Washington, Green Oaks and Fair Park and there has been virtually no white interest.
This is convoluted, but it appears he’s trying to advance the argument that because not many whites take places in magnet programs at majority-black schools they somehow are voluntarily “forfeiting” their chances at a magnet program and therefore, even if higher scorers than blacks wanting admission into majority-white magnet programs/schools, they should be denied entrance to those program/schools in favor of the blacks.
If so, notice the lack of credibility in this by comparing to job-seeking in the private sector. Assume that there are two employers, but one is considered to offer a much more desirable job and workplace to prospective applicants. Just because the worse of the two offers a white applicant a job doesn’t mean this applicant automatically loses the opportunity to get a job with the better employer, assuming both are basing hiring criteria solely on merit and this applicant is assessed to be a high-quality candidate. If you are truly admitting by merit, his argument makes no sense.
But that’s because “merit” isn’t a part of Hudson’s plan:
Part of the problem with the public perception of this issue is that somehow black students who are enrolled at schools such as Caddo Middle Magnet, Eden Gardens, South Highlands and Caddo Magnet High do not deserve to be there …. Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student.
Notice how he tries to shift the argument towards “desert” and “qualification” rather than what the court sees as the constitutional imperative, merit. In his view, you get admitted because you meet some kind of minimum standard, not because you rank high enough relative to all other applicants. This is a standard trick of defenders of affirmative action in how it has evolved: redefine “merit” to mean it specifies an arbitrary level, and then if too many applicants are there for too few spots, use other criteria such a race to decide who gets in, rather than acknowledging the competitive aspect that the X most meritorious applicants take the X number of spots regardless of other factors.
Of course, the admissions policy in Caddo Parish to the magnet schools is more complicated than this, but also is more blatantly discriminatory by race. Before any decisions are made on the basis of merit, other non-merit factors shape the eligible pool. But once those are out of the way, the school district very openly creates a double standard where whites for admission are forced to get higher scores just because they’re white with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever to justify this. (And the Court ruled even if Caddo Middle Magnet’s policy still were under the consent decree, the discrimination was so blatant it still would have found it unconstitutional.)
None of this makes a difference to Hudson who in fact is bothered that anybody would see a problem with this at all:
Some people recklessly suggest that for every black child admitted to these schools, some deserving white child has to look elsewhere for education. That is not true, but that is part of the perception problem perpetuated by some.
Again, he tries to push forward this “desert” standard rather than the appropriate concept of merit. And while a turned-away applicant can go to another school, the simple fact is, on the basis of merit, this rejected white applicant had a greater moral claim on the slot but was refused it only because of his race. That is not perception nor reckless; that is fact and perceptive.
Trying to salvage the argument, Hudson presents a pair of pieces of evidence to show that, miraculously, no anti-white discrimination occurs by this admissions policy:
The school at the center of the court challenge is 82 percent white in a school district that is more than 60 percent black. Do those numbers really suggest discrimination against white applicants?
This is specious: if there were no double standard, the proportion might be 90 percent white. (The Court calculated a 10 percent bias in favor of nonwhites.) And,
Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student. If they or any other student can't cut the curriculum they will not pass.
Of all the illogic in this column, this may be the prime example (again note a third attempt to equate “qualify” to “merit”). The point of a merit-based, rank-ordered admissions program is to create the highest possible quality pool of students because then, in the aggregate, they have the best chance of passing the curriculum. It’s a waste of resources to admit less-capable students who therefore have a greater likelihood of flunking out and thereby perform a disservice to the rejected applicants who would have passed. It squanders the educational function’s full potential, deprives worthy students of the opportunity, and sets up unworthy students to fail where they would have succeeded if lesser demands were placed upon them. Rather than demonstrating the argument, it reveals the bankruptcy of it.
While Hudson’s Swiss cheese argument replicates received wisdom among the fuzzy-thinking, disingenuous defenders of policies such as the one in controversy, at least the justices of the Fifth Circuit saw clearly through that. And we wonder why Louisiana's educational system has ranked so dismally? With Caddo Parish 35th in Louisiana?
4.4.05
Minimal government means maximal protection of life
My friend John Hill is a bit upset at state Sen. James David Cain for his introduction of SB 40. I think he’s creating a tempest in a teapot.
Essentially, the bill makes the denial of food and water for those in a terminal and irreversible state medically unable to procure it themselves and to communicate impermissible aside from medical exceptions or the explicit wish of the person involved that no such sustenance be given when that person is in that condition. Or, as its text neatly describes:
It is the policy of the legislature that human life, including those individuals with disabilities, is sacred and should be afforded dignity from birth to natural death. When a person's condition is terminal and irreversible, any ambiguity should be interpreted to err on the side of life.
John argues that this bill exemplifies government meddling as part of “one of the new battle cries from some in the religious right” which “will be, in effect, injecting politics into the a patients' treatment rooms, which should be as private a sanctuary as one's own home.” But state government already does that – extensively, which this law tweaks.
If government is going to “inject politics,” a great place to do it is when the state as the power of life and death over an individual as in this case. And let us never forget that “politics” itself is what governments choose to do or not to do, so when government chooses to respect life in a world where it is so disrespected (with abortion on demand being the lead indicator), that can only be positive.
To make this intervention even more effective, government can promote efforts to execute living wills such as the one John describes. Already, at the federal level states are required to make available, in the provision of certain services, voter registration cards, so why couldn’t Louisiana also have available this form at these venues?
Minimal government always is preferable (which makes humorous, if not hypocritical, objections to this bill when far greater expansions of government into areas it has no constitutional authority occur with nary a peep) and it the true purpose of its existence. Thus when involved are the least of us who cannot speak for themselves, who have not stated a different intent previously, government’s obligation is to protect one of the things the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence identifies as integral to man and supremely obligating government to provide – life.
Essentially, the bill makes the denial of food and water for those in a terminal and irreversible state medically unable to procure it themselves and to communicate impermissible aside from medical exceptions or the explicit wish of the person involved that no such sustenance be given when that person is in that condition. Or, as its text neatly describes:
It is the policy of the legislature that human life, including those individuals with disabilities, is sacred and should be afforded dignity from birth to natural death. When a person's condition is terminal and irreversible, any ambiguity should be interpreted to err on the side of life.
John argues that this bill exemplifies government meddling as part of “one of the new battle cries from some in the religious right” which “will be, in effect, injecting politics into the a patients' treatment rooms, which should be as private a sanctuary as one's own home.” But state government already does that – extensively, which this law tweaks.
If government is going to “inject politics,” a great place to do it is when the state as the power of life and death over an individual as in this case. And let us never forget that “politics” itself is what governments choose to do or not to do, so when government chooses to respect life in a world where it is so disrespected (with abortion on demand being the lead indicator), that can only be positive.
To make this intervention even more effective, government can promote efforts to execute living wills such as the one John describes. Already, at the federal level states are required to make available, in the provision of certain services, voter registration cards, so why couldn’t Louisiana also have available this form at these venues?
Minimal government always is preferable (which makes humorous, if not hypocritical, objections to this bill when far greater expansions of government into areas it has no constitutional authority occur with nary a peep) and it the true purpose of its existence. Thus when involved are the least of us who cannot speak for themselves, who have not stated a different intent previously, government’s obligation is to protect one of the things the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence identifies as integral to man and supremely obligating government to provide – life.
3.4.05
Odom reaches into your pocket; says he's putting money there
Can Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom make things any worse for himself? He’s wanting to take more tax dollars from Louisianans to build superfluous sugar mills while simultaneously injuring employees and increasing the state’s risk. Now, as if gas prices aren’t high enough, he’s looking to push them even higher.
While minimum markup laws sound good in theory by preventing monopsonistic forces from controlling a marketplace, this politically-inspired belief is way short on facts showing this actually happens. In reality, competition in retail gasoline (and practically every other business) is so open with low barriers to entry that the real impact of these laws is to aid those in the business, not consumers.
Which makes Odom’s support of such a law unsurprising. His political style is to operate in the shadows of the public view, in areas that are of vital concern to special interests but (normally) uninteresting or obscure to the public even if the activities have a direct impact on it. The building of sugar mills in Lacassine and Bunkie are perfect examples. Only a few sugar processors benefit from these deals directly, the state operates them a below market cost to put private mills into distress, and when competition has been reduced, ownership passes to the processors who are currently in league with Odom.
While minimum markup laws sound good in theory by preventing monopsonistic forces from controlling a marketplace, this politically-inspired belief is way short on facts showing this actually happens. In reality, competition in retail gasoline (and practically every other business) is so open with low barriers to entry that the real impact of these laws is to aid those in the business, not consumers.
Which makes Odom’s support of such a law unsurprising. His political style is to operate in the shadows of the public view, in areas that are of vital concern to special interests but (normally) uninteresting or obscure to the public even if the activities have a direct impact on it. The building of sugar mills in Lacassine and Bunkie are perfect examples. Only a few sugar processors benefit from these deals directly, the state operates them a below market cost to put private mills into distress, and when competition has been reduced, ownership passes to the processors who are currently in league with Odom.
31.3.05
Chauvinism: it's a Democrat/Liberal thing
David Duke may have been a blip on Louisiana’s political radar, but to this day his image still blots a considerable portion of others’ radar reception of the state. (Personal anecdote, of which I promise few and far between: when in 1994 I was staying in Belize City barely on the right side of the tracks, my brother and I hung out one night on the second-floor veranda of our hotel. An itinerant, like the plurality of Belizeans, black and, by his manner, not well educated, came wandering by and struck up a conversation with us and a woman from California also staying there. He digested her residence and Jonathan’s, Texas, with equanimity, but in response to mine he noted, “The state with David Duke and all those racists”).
Thus when about a year ago an article published in the premier online journal in political science, The Forum came out essentially arguing racism was alive and well in Louisiana’s 2003 governor’s contest, it got some attention. The state’s leading unaffiliated journalist John Maginnis wrote about it, the state’s leading talk show host Moon Griffon mentioned it, and a couple of newspapers noted it in editorials.
It got my attention too because a number of years ago I got involved in an intramural argument about the meaning of the Duke vote in 1991. Essentially a set of authors argued that vote still showed a considerable anti-black affect among white Louisianans. I eventually published another piece disputing that and demonstrating that a better electoral interpretation was that Duke had tapped into an anti-interventionist, anti-big government populism among Louisianans. In short, contrary to what the other authors asserted that a nontrivial portion of the Duke vote came from racial prejudice, instead it came because they saw him as an outsider ready to take on a government too ready to support special interests at their expense.
Thus when about a year ago an article published in the premier online journal in political science, The Forum came out essentially arguing racism was alive and well in Louisiana’s 2003 governor’s contest, it got some attention. The state’s leading unaffiliated journalist John Maginnis wrote about it, the state’s leading talk show host Moon Griffon mentioned it, and a couple of newspapers noted it in editorials.
It got my attention too because a number of years ago I got involved in an intramural argument about the meaning of the Duke vote in 1991. Essentially a set of authors argued that vote still showed a considerable anti-black affect among white Louisianans. I eventually published another piece disputing that and demonstrating that a better electoral interpretation was that Duke had tapped into an anti-interventionist, anti-big government populism among Louisianans. In short, contrary to what the other authors asserted that a nontrivial portion of the Duke vote came from racial prejudice, instead it came because they saw him as an outsider ready to take on a government too ready to support special interests at their expense.
30.3.05
Loose ethics = no federal dollars
Quick, what do begging the federal government for coastal restoration funds, lobbying the executive branch, and carping legislators have in common? Well, they all boil down to a matter of trust that without is what makes getting some right things done so hard in Louisiana.
It appears, finally, that the commonsense application of lobbying regulations to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of state government is about to happen. The administration/politics dichotomy in any executive branch does not exist as many of its members, from department head (elected or appointed) all the way down to minor functionaries who interpret regulations make policies with their decisions. Thus, they become targets for influence and the extension of the limits only can be positive.
Yet for closing the one loophole that exists, free tickets to sporting events (and cultural events, but I haven’t seen lawmakers in LSU caps desperately queuing up for the Ballet FolklorÃco), legislators still voice concern over not just the elimination, but even any reduction, in the $100 limit. Sen. Jay Dardenne plans to file a bill to remove it (after a similar one failed last year) and still has picked up co-sponsors equaling only about a quarter of the Senate for what should be a slam-dunk measure.
Why are these strengthenings of ethics laws in the state so important? Because Louisiana’s reputation that lawmakers play fast and loose with rules and resources precedes itself, and maybe that’s why the federal government is so hesitant to commit funds to the state for grand purposes that don’t already directly involve some interest of constituency. Witness how Gov. Kathleen Blanco has gone to the length of wanting to introduce a constitutional amendment to dedicate funding to the task, the hopes of attracting federal dollars to it.
We’ve already gto nearly three-quarters of the state budget tied into some revenue stream somewhere, and Blanco may even understand that to reduce this flexibility further is bad public policy, but, if so, she’s desperate enough to do this anyway to get this money to do it. Put simply, it’s an attempt to tell the federal government that state government actually will do with grant monies it gets what it promises to do.
It’s going to take a lot more than this tightening of ethics laws to turn that image around, but it’s never too early to start erasing the reputation that makes for a national joke.
It appears, finally, that the commonsense application of lobbying regulations to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of state government is about to happen. The administration/politics dichotomy in any executive branch does not exist as many of its members, from department head (elected or appointed) all the way down to minor functionaries who interpret regulations make policies with their decisions. Thus, they become targets for influence and the extension of the limits only can be positive.
Yet for closing the one loophole that exists, free tickets to sporting events (and cultural events, but I haven’t seen lawmakers in LSU caps desperately queuing up for the Ballet FolklorÃco), legislators still voice concern over not just the elimination, but even any reduction, in the $100 limit. Sen. Jay Dardenne plans to file a bill to remove it (after a similar one failed last year) and still has picked up co-sponsors equaling only about a quarter of the Senate for what should be a slam-dunk measure.
Why are these strengthenings of ethics laws in the state so important? Because Louisiana’s reputation that lawmakers play fast and loose with rules and resources precedes itself, and maybe that’s why the federal government is so hesitant to commit funds to the state for grand purposes that don’t already directly involve some interest of constituency. Witness how Gov. Kathleen Blanco has gone to the length of wanting to introduce a constitutional amendment to dedicate funding to the task, the hopes of attracting federal dollars to it.
We’ve already gto nearly three-quarters of the state budget tied into some revenue stream somewhere, and Blanco may even understand that to reduce this flexibility further is bad public policy, but, if so, she’s desperate enough to do this anyway to get this money to do it. Put simply, it’s an attempt to tell the federal government that state government actually will do with grant monies it gets what it promises to do.
It’s going to take a lot more than this tightening of ethics laws to turn that image around, but it’s never too early to start erasing the reputation that makes for a national joke.
29.3.05
Party may be over for Caddo's Hanna
Who says you can’t party in Shreveport like you can in New Orleans? We have parish administrators and governor’s aides who actions testify otherwise.
Of course, having multiple drinks at a time is not a reason to fire Caddo Parish Administrator Bill Hanna. But a questionable job performance in terms of effectiveness is. Just in the past two years a number of incidences have occurred that point to his waning effectiveness.
He subjected the parish to an embarrassing personnel episode when a former high-level employee openly complained about his behavior, including what she described as obvious inebriation
He has failed to amicably negotiate through a dispute with the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department concerning reimbursements to house prisoners
After issuing on behalf of the parish campaign materials insisting that voter defeat last July 17 in Caddo Parish of a 0.15% sales tax would cause massive cutbacks in service for juvenile justice, voters called his bluff and defeated the measure, and the sky hasn’t fallen yet
At least one parish commissioner has openly questioned his leadership and, in a maladroit maneuver, asked for his resignation
Neither has Hanna acquitted himself well in this current episode by his statements. As the guy who launched the private investigation correctly notes, when Hanna protests that this revelation came as result of a vendetta against him, even if true it does not change the fact that Hanna was engaging in this behavior. Further, it makes it look like Hanna would have continued (if we take the Commission’s statement at face value) to flout the Commission’s wishes in this regard had this information never been uncovered. (And, honestly, when you’re drinking four fingers worth of vodka with a single digit’s worth of mixer three to four times during a lunch hour that may well affect your judgment on the road and on the job.)
Hanna always has been a kind of accidental parish commissioner. He was mayor of Shreveport from 1978-82, having previously been a car dealer and, to be charitable, found that running a city is not the same thing, so with discretion being the better part of valor he chose not to run for reelection. He eventually drifted into Caddo Parish’s assistant administrator’s job and happened to be on the scene when the Commission finally tossed the corrupt (if unconvicted) Judy Durham out of the top job in 1996 to inherit it.
As the parish’s financial difficulties become more pressing, and several experienced parish commissioners leaving because of term limits in 2007, now would be a good time to break in a younger, more energetic, and less controversial leader. Perhaps Hanna, if need be with a nudge that the Commission seems strangely unwilling to give, should reprise his decision he made as mayor and depart gracefully and soon.
Of course, having multiple drinks at a time is not a reason to fire Caddo Parish Administrator Bill Hanna. But a questionable job performance in terms of effectiveness is. Just in the past two years a number of incidences have occurred that point to his waning effectiveness.
Neither has Hanna acquitted himself well in this current episode by his statements. As the guy who launched the private investigation correctly notes, when Hanna protests that this revelation came as result of a vendetta against him, even if true it does not change the fact that Hanna was engaging in this behavior. Further, it makes it look like Hanna would have continued (if we take the Commission’s statement at face value) to flout the Commission’s wishes in this regard had this information never been uncovered. (And, honestly, when you’re drinking four fingers worth of vodka with a single digit’s worth of mixer three to four times during a lunch hour that may well affect your judgment on the road and on the job.)
Hanna always has been a kind of accidental parish commissioner. He was mayor of Shreveport from 1978-82, having previously been a car dealer and, to be charitable, found that running a city is not the same thing, so with discretion being the better part of valor he chose not to run for reelection. He eventually drifted into Caddo Parish’s assistant administrator’s job and happened to be on the scene when the Commission finally tossed the corrupt (if unconvicted) Judy Durham out of the top job in 1996 to inherit it.
As the parish’s financial difficulties become more pressing, and several experienced parish commissioners leaving because of term limits in 2007, now would be a good time to break in a younger, more energetic, and less controversial leader. Perhaps Hanna, if need be with a nudge that the Commission seems strangely unwilling to give, should reprise his decision he made as mayor and depart gracefully and soon.
28.3.05
Double-dipper Odom preparing to face music?
It’ll be interesting to see how Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom reacts to the doings of a legislative committee he can’t control. The last person Odom probably wants to tangle with in the Legislature now is Sen. James David Cain, who gave some thought to opposing Odom for the job in 2003 and now probably wishes the election occurred in midterm.
Cain, who heads the Senate Insurance Committee, no doubt has plenty of motivation to thoroughly vet Odom’s third career as a contractor (his second being controlling state Democratic Party functions). Even if Odom has built up allies in the Legislature (and has the Senate Agriculture Committee and its chairman Mike Smith in his back pocket), even if he is a separately elected executive officer, even if about $69 million of dedicated monies and fees come under his control with another $10 million or so from the federal government, the fact is with a budget of around $109 million he needs the Legislature’s $30 million from the general fund more than it needs him.
(Actually, there may not be a worse bunch for Odom to rumble with than this committee. It’s full of Republicans from urban areas and the remainder are black Democrats, most significantly the guy who got the rawest deal out of the “Unity Ballot” fiasco. They probably won’t have a lot of sympathy for Odom’s shenanigans.)
The committee hearings on the matter of insurance risk to the state began today (and given this information won’t conclude today) should detail what a shady enterprise Odom runs. Not only are highly trained and educated employees being utilized in a manner that wastes their talents in other areas (and probably at higher salaries than even construction workers get), but begs the question if they have so much time not needed to being devoted to pesticide matters, veterinarian duties, legal things etc., that the department must be overstaffed in the first place.
(That being the case, Gov. Kathleen Blanco had the chance to excise some of these jobs out of the Odom’s budget, as she did hundreds of others across the state bureaucracy. While in her budget she did request a reduction of 12 classified employees, she left the number of unclassified ones, those actually moonlighting on Odom’s orders as construction workers, unchanged. She did, however, indicate she wanted to slice away around $15 million out of his dedicated funds – the bulk of which was from the notorious venture capital account Boll Weevil Eradication Fund; well, let’s use the executive budget’s phrasing:
Eliminates duplicate funding for bond payment of $12M, which is included in the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority funding and the Boll Weevil Eradication Fund -- which also has funding authority of $12M for the bond payment. In FY'06 $24M was appropriated to pay $12M in bond payments.
So maybe she is catching on and least trying to rein in Odom. Apparently, he’s been double-dipping, or at least trying to, on the fund.)
One thing the committee should do is make quite clear that Odom’s practices do not save the state any money at all. Either these employees are being underutilized in their real jobs, so those positions need not be there and cheaper construction labor from the private sector can be hired. Further, liability is a hidden cost. At least 10 workers have been injured on the job at Lacassine, and if the past is any indicator, that’s a hidden cost of perhaps at least $1 million to the final price tag of building the mill.
Of course, Odom does have his special interest supporters. Witness this howler from the Lake Charles Cane Co-op, Inc.:
He has brought together as much of the area talent skills and labor force, to do those jobs that they are best suited for, and by doing so he is exposing his upper management staff into the hard-core arena of what it takes to make development happen …. [He] has been and continues to be the only elected official in the state, that has partnered with the local farmers to do the 'heavy lifting' necessary to save the agricultural industry.
So these bozos give state taxpayers the Bronx cheer by applauding the wasting of money by making white collars into blue, in the name of “hard core … development” and “heavy lifting” … because, as they blatantly admit, they want state taxpayers to subsidize them to keep them in business.
Even if the Department of State Civil Service can’t do anything about this (because the employees being exploited are unclassified and this agency oversees classified employees), maybe this committee can do something to clean this cancer called Odom out of state government. What and how, I don’t know, but any attempt is better than none.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
Cain, who heads the Senate Insurance Committee, no doubt has plenty of motivation to thoroughly vet Odom’s third career as a contractor (his second being controlling state Democratic Party functions). Even if Odom has built up allies in the Legislature (and has the Senate Agriculture Committee and its chairman Mike Smith in his back pocket), even if he is a separately elected executive officer, even if about $69 million of dedicated monies and fees come under his control with another $10 million or so from the federal government, the fact is with a budget of around $109 million he needs the Legislature’s $30 million from the general fund more than it needs him.
(Actually, there may not be a worse bunch for Odom to rumble with than this committee. It’s full of Republicans from urban areas and the remainder are black Democrats, most significantly the guy who got the rawest deal out of the “Unity Ballot” fiasco. They probably won’t have a lot of sympathy for Odom’s shenanigans.)
The committee hearings on the matter of insurance risk to the state began today (and given this information won’t conclude today) should detail what a shady enterprise Odom runs. Not only are highly trained and educated employees being utilized in a manner that wastes their talents in other areas (and probably at higher salaries than even construction workers get), but begs the question if they have so much time not needed to being devoted to pesticide matters, veterinarian duties, legal things etc., that the department must be overstaffed in the first place.
(That being the case, Gov. Kathleen Blanco had the chance to excise some of these jobs out of the Odom’s budget, as she did hundreds of others across the state bureaucracy. While in her budget she did request a reduction of 12 classified employees, she left the number of unclassified ones, those actually moonlighting on Odom’s orders as construction workers, unchanged. She did, however, indicate she wanted to slice away around $15 million out of his dedicated funds – the bulk of which was from the notorious venture capital account Boll Weevil Eradication Fund; well, let’s use the executive budget’s phrasing:
Eliminates duplicate funding for bond payment of $12M, which is included in the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority funding and the Boll Weevil Eradication Fund -- which also has funding authority of $12M for the bond payment. In FY'06 $24M was appropriated to pay $12M in bond payments.
So maybe she is catching on and least trying to rein in Odom. Apparently, he’s been double-dipping, or at least trying to, on the fund.)
One thing the committee should do is make quite clear that Odom’s practices do not save the state any money at all. Either these employees are being underutilized in their real jobs, so those positions need not be there and cheaper construction labor from the private sector can be hired. Further, liability is a hidden cost. At least 10 workers have been injured on the job at Lacassine, and if the past is any indicator, that’s a hidden cost of perhaps at least $1 million to the final price tag of building the mill.
Of course, Odom does have his special interest supporters. Witness this howler from the Lake Charles Cane Co-op, Inc.:
He has brought together as much of the area talent skills and labor force, to do those jobs that they are best suited for, and by doing so he is exposing his upper management staff into the hard-core arena of what it takes to make development happen …. [He] has been and continues to be the only elected official in the state, that has partnered with the local farmers to do the 'heavy lifting' necessary to save the agricultural industry.
So these bozos give state taxpayers the Bronx cheer by applauding the wasting of money by making white collars into blue, in the name of “hard core … development” and “heavy lifting” … because, as they blatantly admit, they want state taxpayers to subsidize them to keep them in business.
Even if the Department of State Civil Service can’t do anything about this (because the employees being exploited are unclassified and this agency oversees classified employees), maybe this committee can do something to clean this cancer called Odom out of state government. What and how, I don’t know, but any attempt is better than none.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
27.3.05
Gibson's bond plan performs duty, turns up heat on Hightower
Not just at least a down payment on Shreveport’s infrastructure woes, the move by City Councilman and Council President Mike Gibson to propose a bond issue for street repair also represents a shrewd political move.
The $75 million request to voters would address needs estimated in the $450 million range and politically stands in marked contrast to Mayor Keith Hightower’s bypassing voters on the $40 million question whether to fund a convention center hotel. Not only does Gibson want voters to have a say, it highlights the different priorities the two politicians seem to have.
Almost everybody traveling around Shreveport can see first-hand the necessity of street and drainage repair, whereas no such need for a publicly-owned hotel is evident, especially as it now appears likely that legal changes concerning gambling in Arkansas and Texas could strip area casinos of half of their business, making the profitability of that hotel that much more questionable. And Gibson is comfortable giving people the choice; in fact, during the campaign he can apologize to voters that with approval of the general obligation bonds their interest rates will be slightly higher (thus costing city taxpayers more) because of the extra debt Hightower committed to an increasingly financially-precarious hotel.
There’s no way Hightower can look good out of this. With Gibson and the other two Republican councilmen Thomas Carmody and Jeff Hogan almost sure to approve this, only one Democrat vote is needed for it to pass. Hightower would look incompetent to veto it (can you imagine this being thrown in his face in some future campaign, that as long as it’s above the ground no matter whether it’s needed he’ll build it, but if it’s on or below ground he won’t even if it’s vitally needed) and petty to oppose the referendum when the need is so clear. Hightower couldn’t even have suggested it and gain credit for it, after opponents of the hotel kept pointing out how massively the city has run up debt under Hightower.
The move further locks Hightower, and his legacy as well, into the fate of the hotel, a fate that is looking simultaneously increasingly pessimistic for him and more costly to Shreveport taxpayers.
The $75 million request to voters would address needs estimated in the $450 million range and politically stands in marked contrast to Mayor Keith Hightower’s bypassing voters on the $40 million question whether to fund a convention center hotel. Not only does Gibson want voters to have a say, it highlights the different priorities the two politicians seem to have.
Almost everybody traveling around Shreveport can see first-hand the necessity of street and drainage repair, whereas no such need for a publicly-owned hotel is evident, especially as it now appears likely that legal changes concerning gambling in Arkansas and Texas could strip area casinos of half of their business, making the profitability of that hotel that much more questionable. And Gibson is comfortable giving people the choice; in fact, during the campaign he can apologize to voters that with approval of the general obligation bonds their interest rates will be slightly higher (thus costing city taxpayers more) because of the extra debt Hightower committed to an increasingly financially-precarious hotel.
There’s no way Hightower can look good out of this. With Gibson and the other two Republican councilmen Thomas Carmody and Jeff Hogan almost sure to approve this, only one Democrat vote is needed for it to pass. Hightower would look incompetent to veto it (can you imagine this being thrown in his face in some future campaign, that as long as it’s above the ground no matter whether it’s needed he’ll build it, but if it’s on or below ground he won’t even if it’s vitally needed) and petty to oppose the referendum when the need is so clear. Hightower couldn’t even have suggested it and gain credit for it, after opponents of the hotel kept pointing out how massively the city has run up debt under Hightower.
The move further locks Hightower, and his legacy as well, into the fate of the hotel, a fate that is looking simultaneously increasingly pessimistic for him and more costly to Shreveport taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)