A graduate of Louisiana State University – Baton Rouge has written an interesting editorial that, if nothing else, provides a perfect demonstration of the parochialism that has held back higher education in Louisiana for so long.
The column concerns recent Gov. Bobby Jindal appointments to the LSU Board of Supervisors, the body that controls the Louisiana State University system comprising of LSUBR, the University of New Orleans, LSU Shreveport (my employer, who has nothing to do with this posting), LSU Alexandria, LSU Eunice, the law school, the agricultural school, two medical schools (New Orleans and Shreveport), the Health Care Services Division (the other “charity” hospitals), and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center. It makes two points, that recent Jindal appointments may have served to tilt power in the system more to him and away from system President John Lombardi, and that given one appointee is a University of Louisiana – Monroe graduate, in the words of the writer, “And there exist[sic] an opinion or two among LSU alumnus[sic] – myself included – who feel every member of the LSU Board of Supervisors should have graduated from LSU or the university's law school or its medical school.”
Concerning speculation about the impact of the appointments relevant to Lombardi, it’s true that Lombardi didn’t quite understand on which side the bread was buttered early in his tenure as he made public statements at odds with Jindal initiatives. Jindal modified them somewhat but forged ahead successfully anyway and Lombardi has grown much quieter since. The biggest battle, however, looms ahead – getting the LSU system out of the hospital business with the loss of resources, power, and prestige that comes with that in order to institute a more efficient and effective money-follows-the-person system of indigent health care. Here, it bears understanding that Lombardi merely is hired at the pleasure of the Board and will do what it wants, so if Jindal is putting people on the Board amenable to getting the state’s flagship educational system out of managing health care, Lombardi will bend in that direction.
9.7.08
Democrat's own money can't buy win over Scalise
When analyzing contests for the U.S. House of Representatives, casual observers easily can get confused by two things. One is that few people have a chance to win these contests without sufficient resources, and the second is it matters from where these resources come relative to other candidates. An announced 1st District candidate provides an object lesson concerning these points as they first day of qualification for federal elections commences.
One Jim Harlan announced that he is running as a Democrat (despite only until recently being registered as no party) for this spot against new incumbent Republican Rep. Steve Scalise. Further, Harlan reports $554,378 as of the end of June in his campaign account, while Scalise has less than a quarter of that in his. On the surface, this might indicate that Scalise has a tough reelection campaign ahead.
Go beneath and the reality is different. The modern rule of thumb is that, in order to be a competitive rather than novelty candidate, one must raise at least $500,000 for this kind of race. Harlan has achieved this and thus can compete and theoretically could win.
But having a realistic chance of winning is another matter, and the clearest indicator of the chances of success is how dispersed are contributions. That is, the more contributors a candidate has, the greater his chances are of winning, because contributing is the strongest sign of desire in a voter to see a candidate win and at least 95 percent of contributors to someone will end up voting for that candidate.
Checking the campaign finance reports shows Harlan largely has self-financed his effort. That half a million-plus may get him to 40 percent of the vote in a general election against Scalise, but he will need a lot more in the way of personal shows of support through others contributing to his campaign in order to get that last 10 percent-plus of the vote.
As an incumbent with a long history of support, Scalise will have enough money to win this race even if he gets outspent. The facet about campaign politics that creates the most misperception, often manifested in cries about regulating money raised and spent in campaigns, is the belief that money attracts votes and therefore causes wins. To think this reverses completely the way it actually works: money does not create quality in a candidate, but instead the quality of the candidate attracts money. Note that the quality candidate may not even have to spend a good portion of this money in order to win because he’ll win on the basis of his quality, not from votes getting “bought” by campaign spending.
Scalise is a high-quality candidate who in his short time has demonstrated high popularity in his conservative district and is receiving national attention. Harlan could spend much more of his own money and still, barring some weird, unforeseen event, have little chance of winning. Unless he starts receiving a lot more in donations from others, showing a critical mass of people think he is quality enough to have a chance against Scalise, he will end up just an annoyance to Scalise as the latter cruises to reelection.
One Jim Harlan announced that he is running as a Democrat (despite only until recently being registered as no party) for this spot against new incumbent Republican Rep. Steve Scalise. Further, Harlan reports $554,378 as of the end of June in his campaign account, while Scalise has less than a quarter of that in his. On the surface, this might indicate that Scalise has a tough reelection campaign ahead.
Go beneath and the reality is different. The modern rule of thumb is that, in order to be a competitive rather than novelty candidate, one must raise at least $500,000 for this kind of race. Harlan has achieved this and thus can compete and theoretically could win.
But having a realistic chance of winning is another matter, and the clearest indicator of the chances of success is how dispersed are contributions. That is, the more contributors a candidate has, the greater his chances are of winning, because contributing is the strongest sign of desire in a voter to see a candidate win and at least 95 percent of contributors to someone will end up voting for that candidate.
Checking the campaign finance reports shows Harlan largely has self-financed his effort. That half a million-plus may get him to 40 percent of the vote in a general election against Scalise, but he will need a lot more in the way of personal shows of support through others contributing to his campaign in order to get that last 10 percent-plus of the vote.
As an incumbent with a long history of support, Scalise will have enough money to win this race even if he gets outspent. The facet about campaign politics that creates the most misperception, often manifested in cries about regulating money raised and spent in campaigns, is the belief that money attracts votes and therefore causes wins. To think this reverses completely the way it actually works: money does not create quality in a candidate, but instead the quality of the candidate attracts money. Note that the quality candidate may not even have to spend a good portion of this money in order to win because he’ll win on the basis of his quality, not from votes getting “bought” by campaign spending.
Scalise is a high-quality candidate who in his short time has demonstrated high popularity in his conservative district and is receiving national attention. Harlan could spend much more of his own money and still, barring some weird, unforeseen event, have little chance of winning. Unless he starts receiving a lot more in donations from others, showing a critical mass of people think he is quality enough to have a chance against Scalise, he will end up just an annoyance to Scalise as the latter cruises to reelection.
8.7.08
Jindal political recovery starting but needs more action
Great out of the gate but stumbling more recently, is Gov. Bobby Jindal getting back on track to enhance his ability to lead Louisiana in the nearer term, and perhaps to take aim at loftier political ambitions?
After two successful special sessions called at his behest, during the regular session Jindal encountered difficulty with two items in particular due to apparent inattentiveness. First, he failed to get behind a needed income tax cut – in fact resisting it at first – until the very end, and since has tried clumsily to take credit for it. Second, he allowed legislators to vote themselves a hefty pay raise that put him in the awkward position of reneging on a promise to them, not to veto it, in order to fulfill a promise to voters to oppose a massive increase, taking on political damage needlessly and perhaps making more difficult getting his future agenda adopted.
But since his veto of the legislator pay raise, he seems to have gathered momentum. He cast some good line item vetoes, keeping a promise that only projects that were documented and of statewide necessity would get his assent (although it seems only the most egregious local projects were slashed by him). He also vetoed a far less publicized but just as odious pay raise for Public Service Commissioners and, living up to another campaign pledge, vetoed an attempted expansion of gambling in Iberville Parish. He generally has held the line on weakening ethics reforms such as by vetoing a bill that would have prohibited the use of anonymous information in an ethics investigation (although some exceptions have slipped by with their attachment to other pieces of legislation Jindal found laudable enough to sign).
These actions have reinforced some national predictions for Jindal to go far and succeed within conservative and Republican ranks. But success for Jindal in Louisiana, a prerequisite for any national political aspirations, will depend upon his consideration of the issues left over from this year’s sessions, addressed, manufactured, and looming.
First, Jindal must realize that the Legislature, even as he may find its independence desirable in theory, if in practice is allowed to govern without his reformist supervision that it will not veer in the policy direction he supports and hoped would happen. By now the evidence seems clear (such as by ethics backtracking and the temerity of the raise) that reformist impulses within the Legislature are insufficient to actually produce positive change without somewhat heavy-handed involvement on his part. Jindal may have thought the influx of new legislators, many of whom ran on similar reform ideas as he, would prevent this from happening, but obviously it did not. However, enough of the new with some of the old have not fallen for the siren song of power so that he can make common cause with them to help overcome distrust engendered from the pay raise handling fiasco to pass his programs.
Second, Jindal must realize his credentials for smaller government have been damaged by his late-boarding-yet-credit-taking for the tax cut. The only way to restore them to health is by his finding another such cut to enact before the end of his term, perhaps targeting this time corporate rates (more broadly than his recent pronouncement of merely looking at the usefulness of tax credits). Another thing he could do to enhance this is be even more ruthless with line item vetoes concerning the state’s appropriation bill than he was with the vetoes within the aforementioned supplemental bill.
Third, Jindal must tackle – as he has given reason to believe in recent statements – the issue area that promises the most to gain from efficiency, restructuring health care. As state revenues are predicted to slack off, hundreds of millions of dollars of spending reductions without lowering the amount or quality of service can be achieved simply by moving the state from its absurd over-reliance on institutional-based care towards money following the person meaning more community- and individual-based solutions.
His first four months in office were stellar, the next two troubled, but in his seventh month Jindal seems to be regaining his footing and following these policy paths will ensure that momentum will continue for the next year.
After two successful special sessions called at his behest, during the regular session Jindal encountered difficulty with two items in particular due to apparent inattentiveness. First, he failed to get behind a needed income tax cut – in fact resisting it at first – until the very end, and since has tried clumsily to take credit for it. Second, he allowed legislators to vote themselves a hefty pay raise that put him in the awkward position of reneging on a promise to them, not to veto it, in order to fulfill a promise to voters to oppose a massive increase, taking on political damage needlessly and perhaps making more difficult getting his future agenda adopted.
But since his veto of the legislator pay raise, he seems to have gathered momentum. He cast some good line item vetoes, keeping a promise that only projects that were documented and of statewide necessity would get his assent (although it seems only the most egregious local projects were slashed by him). He also vetoed a far less publicized but just as odious pay raise for Public Service Commissioners and, living up to another campaign pledge, vetoed an attempted expansion of gambling in Iberville Parish. He generally has held the line on weakening ethics reforms such as by vetoing a bill that would have prohibited the use of anonymous information in an ethics investigation (although some exceptions have slipped by with their attachment to other pieces of legislation Jindal found laudable enough to sign).
These actions have reinforced some national predictions for Jindal to go far and succeed within conservative and Republican ranks. But success for Jindal in Louisiana, a prerequisite for any national political aspirations, will depend upon his consideration of the issues left over from this year’s sessions, addressed, manufactured, and looming.
First, Jindal must realize that the Legislature, even as he may find its independence desirable in theory, if in practice is allowed to govern without his reformist supervision that it will not veer in the policy direction he supports and hoped would happen. By now the evidence seems clear (such as by ethics backtracking and the temerity of the raise) that reformist impulses within the Legislature are insufficient to actually produce positive change without somewhat heavy-handed involvement on his part. Jindal may have thought the influx of new legislators, many of whom ran on similar reform ideas as he, would prevent this from happening, but obviously it did not. However, enough of the new with some of the old have not fallen for the siren song of power so that he can make common cause with them to help overcome distrust engendered from the pay raise handling fiasco to pass his programs.
Second, Jindal must realize his credentials for smaller government have been damaged by his late-boarding-yet-credit-taking for the tax cut. The only way to restore them to health is by his finding another such cut to enact before the end of his term, perhaps targeting this time corporate rates (more broadly than his recent pronouncement of merely looking at the usefulness of tax credits). Another thing he could do to enhance this is be even more ruthless with line item vetoes concerning the state’s appropriation bill than he was with the vetoes within the aforementioned supplemental bill.
Third, Jindal must tackle – as he has given reason to believe in recent statements – the issue area that promises the most to gain from efficiency, restructuring health care. As state revenues are predicted to slack off, hundreds of millions of dollars of spending reductions without lowering the amount or quality of service can be achieved simply by moving the state from its absurd over-reliance on institutional-based care towards money following the person meaning more community- and individual-based solutions.
His first four months in office were stellar, the next two troubled, but in his seventh month Jindal seems to be regaining his footing and following these policy paths will ensure that momentum will continue for the next year.
7.7.08
NW LA legislators make good, bad, and ugly choices
We’re safe again: the Louisiana Legislature has gone out of regular session for another year. But not before leaving us with some moments for pondering concerning actions of northwest Louisiana legislators (House districts 1 through 9, and Senate districts 36 through 39). So here it goes, for them the good, bad and the ugly of the 2008 session:
THE GOOD: In contrast to last year when northwest legislators produced not much of positive consequence, one of the most monumental pieces of legislation of the entire session came from state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw in the form of SB 87 which will reduce many taxpayers’ individual income taxes by as much as $500 to $1,000 a year beginning in 2009. It wasn’t easy as a lot of political intrigue surrounded the issue.
As it was, only a handful of legislators truly supported the idea behind the bill and Gov. Bobby Jindal initially opposed it. But it gained momentum when a number of legislators hostile to tax cuts seized upon and helped pass an amendment that would wipe out all individual income taxes as a poison pill to force Jindal to veto the bill given it would too quickly wrench too much revenue from state government, in order to embarrass him. Shaw, however, stuck to his guns, with help got Jindal to come on board the original concept, and got it through only delaying its implementation.
THE GOOD: In contrast to last year when northwest legislators produced not much of positive consequence, one of the most monumental pieces of legislation of the entire session came from state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw in the form of SB 87 which will reduce many taxpayers’ individual income taxes by as much as $500 to $1,000 a year beginning in 2009. It wasn’t easy as a lot of political intrigue surrounded the issue.
As it was, only a handful of legislators truly supported the idea behind the bill and Gov. Bobby Jindal initially opposed it. But it gained momentum when a number of legislators hostile to tax cuts seized upon and helped pass an amendment that would wipe out all individual income taxes as a poison pill to force Jindal to veto the bill given it would too quickly wrench too much revenue from state government, in order to embarrass him. Shaw, however, stuck to his guns, with help got Jindal to come on board the original concept, and got it through only delaying its implementation.
4.7.08
Independence Day, 2008
This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
With Friday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
With Friday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
3.7.08
Flawed arguments show LA legislators still don't get it
By remarks made after Gov. Bobby Jindal vetoed a doubling of Louisiana legislators’ salaries to full-time pay, at least a pair of state lawmakers shows they still don’t get it, lending clues as to why legislators as a whole were so incredibly myopic on this issue.
Facing constituents, House Speaker Jim Tucker, widely viewed as the driving force behind the effort to boost annual pay for a position defined in the Constitution as part-time to a level higher than the annual median family income in the state, and state Rep. Jeff Arnold defended their actions to vote for it through a mishmash of curious if suspect supportive arguments, sob stories, and actual dissembling.
Tucker argued that such a large raise was needed because the Legislature needs people from all walks of life. He cited a story about how educators, attorneys, professionals, and those in medicine turned him down as he solicited candidates for last year legislative races, allegedly proving higher pay as needed.
Facing constituents, House Speaker Jim Tucker, widely viewed as the driving force behind the effort to boost annual pay for a position defined in the Constitution as part-time to a level higher than the annual median family income in the state, and state Rep. Jeff Arnold defended their actions to vote for it through a mishmash of curious if suspect supportive arguments, sob stories, and actual dissembling.
Tucker argued that such a large raise was needed because the Legislature needs people from all walks of life. He cited a story about how educators, attorneys, professionals, and those in medicine turned him down as he solicited candidates for last year legislative races, allegedly proving higher pay as needed.
2.7.08
Contradictions catching up to Cazayoux Congress career
Rep. Don Cazayoux, he who rode an “I’m a Democrat but don’t really vote like one” mantra to a narrow special election win for his current job, is finding he can’t dance fast enough to obscure the contradictions inherent in that strategy.
As his state legislative record indicated, Cazayoux is a conventional liberal who tries to cast a conservative vote here and there to make his conservative district think he isn’t. In a low-stimulus special election last month, it was enough to win. But as we approach the more-followed regular election season with qualifying for it just a couple of weeks away, attention is being brought to what he says and what he does come a-cropper.
Republican groups and sympathizers are running ads and messages pointing out how the Democrats who run Congress in the House are using procedural votes to defeat Republican attempts to consider commonsensical means by which to increase U.S. energy independence and to bring down high gasoline prices. Cazayoux is voting with Democrats to prevent these measures, which include increasing ability to extract oil from U.S. resources, from coming to votes amended to legislation.
Like always, Cazayoux tries to have it both ways. Despite these votes he claims he really is for things like increased domestic drilling capacity as evidenced by a recent vote, but that is misleading if one doesn’t understand how business gets conducted by the House Democrat majority. Essentially, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a vote count on legislation that matters to her. As long as she can get a majority (preferably 218) on a matter, she then allows for enough Democrats to vote against their leadership so that it does not endanger the party’s victory on the issue. Cazayoux had permission to vote that way because she had the votes to spare on S. Con. Res. 70 – barely.
Otherwise, he toes her line like the obedient lapdog to liberalism that he is. He follows the standard party line that “drilling is not a short-term solution,” (which is not entirely accurate) knowing full well that a long-term solution is needed as well but would rather put his eggs in the basket of all sorts of impossible alternative solutions (except, of course, the one alternative that has any realistic chance of providing in the intermediate term, nuclear power). This is the tactic of liberals to create an energy crunch and then blame it not on their own intransigence in matters of supply sacrificed on the altar of misguided environmentalism, but on the free market economy as a backdoor means by which to bring greater government control over the people’s resources.
In the end, it doesn’t matter whether it is by choice, because it’s the result of the vote that counts. And the fact is, despite all his words denying it Cazayoux’s actions show he is more interested in voting for a liberal agenda critically out of step with his district, Louisiana, and the country, than he is in doing what’s correct.
Even having been in office less than two months, astute political observers knew he could not hide such votes for long and now opponents are exploiting the internal contradiction. While this fell flat during the special election campaign because it was a vote Cazayoux wouldn’t have to make, the charge that Cazayoux’s first vote if reelected would be to install the ultra-liberal Pelosi as Speaker will ring very true in this fall’s campaign, and Cazayoux is busy verifying that statement with his current voting behavior. It will not amuse a majority in the 6th District. No matter how many symbolic votes Cazayoux casts, as long as he casts his lot with Congressional Democrats, he supports a self-defeating energy policy for America.
As his state legislative record indicated, Cazayoux is a conventional liberal who tries to cast a conservative vote here and there to make his conservative district think he isn’t. In a low-stimulus special election last month, it was enough to win. But as we approach the more-followed regular election season with qualifying for it just a couple of weeks away, attention is being brought to what he says and what he does come a-cropper.
Republican groups and sympathizers are running ads and messages pointing out how the Democrats who run Congress in the House are using procedural votes to defeat Republican attempts to consider commonsensical means by which to increase U.S. energy independence and to bring down high gasoline prices. Cazayoux is voting with Democrats to prevent these measures, which include increasing ability to extract oil from U.S. resources, from coming to votes amended to legislation.
Like always, Cazayoux tries to have it both ways. Despite these votes he claims he really is for things like increased domestic drilling capacity as evidenced by a recent vote, but that is misleading if one doesn’t understand how business gets conducted by the House Democrat majority. Essentially, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a vote count on legislation that matters to her. As long as she can get a majority (preferably 218) on a matter, she then allows for enough Democrats to vote against their leadership so that it does not endanger the party’s victory on the issue. Cazayoux had permission to vote that way because she had the votes to spare on S. Con. Res. 70 – barely.
Otherwise, he toes her line like the obedient lapdog to liberalism that he is. He follows the standard party line that “drilling is not a short-term solution,” (which is not entirely accurate) knowing full well that a long-term solution is needed as well but would rather put his eggs in the basket of all sorts of impossible alternative solutions (except, of course, the one alternative that has any realistic chance of providing in the intermediate term, nuclear power). This is the tactic of liberals to create an energy crunch and then blame it not on their own intransigence in matters of supply sacrificed on the altar of misguided environmentalism, but on the free market economy as a backdoor means by which to bring greater government control over the people’s resources.
In the end, it doesn’t matter whether it is by choice, because it’s the result of the vote that counts. And the fact is, despite all his words denying it Cazayoux’s actions show he is more interested in voting for a liberal agenda critically out of step with his district, Louisiana, and the country, than he is in doing what’s correct.
Even having been in office less than two months, astute political observers knew he could not hide such votes for long and now opponents are exploiting the internal contradiction. While this fell flat during the special election campaign because it was a vote Cazayoux wouldn’t have to make, the charge that Cazayoux’s first vote if reelected would be to install the ultra-liberal Pelosi as Speaker will ring very true in this fall’s campaign, and Cazayoux is busy verifying that statement with his current voting behavior. It will not amuse a majority in the 6th District. No matter how many symbolic votes Cazayoux casts, as long as he casts his lot with Congressional Democrats, he supports a self-defeating energy policy for America.
1.7.08
On line items, Jindal shows consistency and resolve
Lost in all the hoopla about Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s veto of the legislative pay raise, an issue on which he made contradictory promises, appeared to take the side of 76 legislators instead of 2.8 million voters, then reversed himself to veto, was in contrast the unswervingly decisive way in which he handled certain line items tucked into HB 1287, the supplemental appropriations bill concerning which his veto decisions were announced along with that of the failed raise. On Apr. 30, he set out standards by which many of these items would be judged. Two months later, judgment day came for some of them based on those criteria.
Several items he excised arguing there were alternative ways using existing pools of money to fund them. Some others (with Republican Livingston Parish state Rep. Rogers Pope and state Sen. Dale Erdey bearing the brunt) he axed because they were purely local government concerns and should get funding from that source. Most of the others, dealing with nongovernmental organizations, in his mind failed at least one of his four-part test outlined previously: the item (1) must have statewide or substantial regional impact, (2) must have been presented/openly discussed during the legislative session, (3) must be a state agency priority, and (4) must have the proper disclosure form published online prior to consideration for funding (consistent with information provided in the House disclosure form).
A couple of items appeared out of nowhere without any disclosure. The Gulf South Research Institute, a private contractual firm based in New Orleans for decades, got its $300,000 stricken, and a $750,000 gift that would be passed along by an LSU unit to the private firm TransGenRx met the same fate (maybe it was included to make up for the nearly $400,000 it has spent on lobbying in the in past three years).
Several items he excised arguing there were alternative ways using existing pools of money to fund them. Some others (with Republican Livingston Parish state Rep. Rogers Pope and state Sen. Dale Erdey bearing the brunt) he axed because they were purely local government concerns and should get funding from that source. Most of the others, dealing with nongovernmental organizations, in his mind failed at least one of his four-part test outlined previously: the item (1) must have statewide or substantial regional impact, (2) must have been presented/openly discussed during the legislative session, (3) must be a state agency priority, and (4) must have the proper disclosure form published online prior to consideration for funding (consistent with information provided in the House disclosure form).
A couple of items appeared out of nowhere without any disclosure. The Gulf South Research Institute, a private contractual firm based in New Orleans for decades, got its $300,000 stricken, and a $750,000 gift that would be passed along by an LSU unit to the private firm TransGenRx met the same fate (maybe it was included to make up for the nearly $400,000 it has spent on lobbying in the in past three years).
30.6.08
Jindal, others win with pay raise veto while others lose
In a defining moment in his early executive political career, Gov. Bobby Jindal showed that he got it when he vetoed SB 672 that would have given a huge pay raise to legislators to some of the higher levels in the nation. Who won and lost as a result?
Big winners: The original handful of legislators not only who opposed the raise but then refused to take it. They come out with their integrity intact and tremendous moral authority to offer themselves as true servants of the people, eschewing privilege at the people’s expense. They were able to stick to principle and will be seen as heroes, giving their careers a boost.
Winners: Jindal. Yes, he may have in the future on some occasions rough times with the Legislature since he appeared to allow many of them to endanger their own political careers by permitting them to go the record as being for a raise and they will smart over that. But public opinion solidly on his side as a result of this veto will buttress his power to get his agenda through. It allows him to keep a campaign promise to oppose raises he called “excessive” and demonstrates he understands that as governor it also is his power and responsibility to prevent undesirable policy to be made when he can. Jindal’s news conference, in justifying his veto and retraction of his vow not to interfere in legislative affairs thereby signaling he intended not to veto it, showed he understands these points and has the political maturity and wherewithal to make the right decision, even when difficult.
Ethics Board resignations likely to bring improvement
In the past week, most of the members of the Louisiana Ethics Board have resigned. This is no accident, and it is a positive, healthy development for enforcement of government officials’ ethical practices in the state.
This year, three major changes, for the most part without qualification beneficial, have occurred concerning ethics administration in the state. First, board members must comply with ethics standards of increased rigor, which, while onerous, vitally assure the public that those who bring ethics charges against others themselves appear to be above reproach. Second, the board’s adjudication power was spliced off, thereby removing it from the hands of political appointees into a professional system of trained bureaucrats which is considered best practice in other states. Third (and perhaps the only change that may not be for the better if the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program does not get the increased resources needed to pursue this; so far it has been), the standard of proof has been strengthened for bringing a case before administrative law judges which again aligns the state more in the direction of others.
To put it another way, the costs perceived for serving by existing board members have gone up and the benefits in their minds of serving have gone down. They now must take on the burden of extra reporting on financial information, and simultaneously they have lost the ability to visit punishment on officials and their discretion has been lowered in their ability to bring cases in any event. More bluntly, the position is less fun to them because they have lost political power and it requires more revelation of their personal lives.
Resignation explanations have not addressed this, of course, because none want to admit that an attraction of the job was the exercise of power. One member, a political opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal who as chief executive appoints a majority on the board, attempted to deflect attention away from the obvious by implying that Jindal somehow was making life rough on the Board because it hit his 2007 gubernatorial campaign with a fine. But the absolute vacuity of that opinion is evident when considering Jindal immediately admitted fault (in fact, correcting the error on its own which made the matter open-and-shut) and tried as quickly as possible to take its punishment and move on. It makes no sense that Jindal would waste resources to bully and badger members to resign in retaliation when he had far bigger fish to fry over three legislative sessions, so this assertion by its weakness in fact verifies the idea that this is a cover story to deflect attention from the reality that the resignations are a result of serving on the board becoming less suited to its former members’ political needs.
That’s fine because nobody is forced to serve, and that they are happening now right as most of the changes to ethics administration are getting ready to come into effect is because those resigning may have hoped the Legislature in its recently-concluded regular session might have altered some of these things – another sign that resigning occurred because board service no longer fits their individual objectives. And it’s positive for the state, because the members that will filter onto the board over the coming months hopefully will have a different attitude. With much less allure of power from board service, with the increased handicap of reporting requirements, new members won’t be there so much so that they can exercise power, but so that they can serve the public in an important but potentially less-aggrandizing way than their predecessors did.
While unfortunate that decisions will be delayed as a result of the many resignations, in the long run new members will see their jobs in a way more compatible to the goals of the reformed Board, and this cannot harm the quality of ethics administration in Louisiana.
This year, three major changes, for the most part without qualification beneficial, have occurred concerning ethics administration in the state. First, board members must comply with ethics standards of increased rigor, which, while onerous, vitally assure the public that those who bring ethics charges against others themselves appear to be above reproach. Second, the board’s adjudication power was spliced off, thereby removing it from the hands of political appointees into a professional system of trained bureaucrats which is considered best practice in other states. Third (and perhaps the only change that may not be for the better if the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program does not get the increased resources needed to pursue this; so far it has been), the standard of proof has been strengthened for bringing a case before administrative law judges which again aligns the state more in the direction of others.
To put it another way, the costs perceived for serving by existing board members have gone up and the benefits in their minds of serving have gone down. They now must take on the burden of extra reporting on financial information, and simultaneously they have lost the ability to visit punishment on officials and their discretion has been lowered in their ability to bring cases in any event. More bluntly, the position is less fun to them because they have lost political power and it requires more revelation of their personal lives.
Resignation explanations have not addressed this, of course, because none want to admit that an attraction of the job was the exercise of power. One member, a political opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal who as chief executive appoints a majority on the board, attempted to deflect attention away from the obvious by implying that Jindal somehow was making life rough on the Board because it hit his 2007 gubernatorial campaign with a fine. But the absolute vacuity of that opinion is evident when considering Jindal immediately admitted fault (in fact, correcting the error on its own which made the matter open-and-shut) and tried as quickly as possible to take its punishment and move on. It makes no sense that Jindal would waste resources to bully and badger members to resign in retaliation when he had far bigger fish to fry over three legislative sessions, so this assertion by its weakness in fact verifies the idea that this is a cover story to deflect attention from the reality that the resignations are a result of serving on the board becoming less suited to its former members’ political needs.
That’s fine because nobody is forced to serve, and that they are happening now right as most of the changes to ethics administration are getting ready to come into effect is because those resigning may have hoped the Legislature in its recently-concluded regular session might have altered some of these things – another sign that resigning occurred because board service no longer fits their individual objectives. And it’s positive for the state, because the members that will filter onto the board over the coming months hopefully will have a different attitude. With much less allure of power from board service, with the increased handicap of reporting requirements, new members won’t be there so much so that they can exercise power, but so that they can serve the public in an important but potentially less-aggrandizing way than their predecessors did.
While unfortunate that decisions will be delayed as a result of the many resignations, in the long run new members will see their jobs in a way more compatible to the goals of the reformed Board, and this cannot harm the quality of ethics administration in Louisiana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)