Sometimes, a blind pig finds an acorn. We observe a good example of this aphorism and its opposite (they often don’t find one) in a couple of announced studies of New Orleans’ population and voter registration totals which have in common that they both take rather debatable approaches to their investigations.
Greg Rigamer of GCR and Associates makes, to be frank, a mistake when he assumes just because registered voters in large part have not changed registration addresses to outside of Orleans Parish that they will be in Orleans to participate in the Apr. 22 and May 20 elections. As anybody familiar with the electoral behavior literature knows, it is hazardous at best to assume that just because displaced individuals have not changed their registrations that they faithfully will troop to Orleans Parish on election day – especially when the best estimates have roughly 275,000 Orleanians living out of state at the present, (and no more than a small fraction will avail themselves of early, mail-in, or satellite voting).
Yet the GCR Associates study the state paid for makes precisely the bad assumption that most on the registration rolls in Orleans will be present and ready to vote. The report’s author does not seem to understand that changing a registration in order to reflect the fact that they will not show up in April and May to vote, when faced with much bigger problems and entirely uncertain about when and if they will return to New Orleans, is probably the last thing on displaced Orleanians’ minds.
As I noted in a previous posting, my paper presented at March’s meeting of the Louisiana Political Science Association demonstrates, comparing historical rates of changes in registration totals to the present to show the actual “retention” rate of voters we can expect to be on the ground in Orleans on election day, these estimates are too optimistic on both the numbers that will be present (projected to be 130,000 in April, 138,000 in May) and in the proportion of blacks present (about 53 percent). (And my offer still is good: if anybody wants a copy of the paper, write me.) Data are no good unless you’ve got good theory behind it.
At least Rigamer actually does not overestimate too badly in both numbers and percentage of black population. Still, it’s disturbing that the state paid taxpayer dollars for an analysis that appears to be so unsophisticated and off the cuff (although neither is that inefficiency atypical of Louisiana government). Totally missing the mark is an academician who seems to offer little more than historical speculation and anecdotal evidence to say New Orleans won’t have a majority black population for some time (although, not having seen it, I’m having to go on the description afforded of it).
News flash: New Orleans did by the end of 2005 (about 80,000 blacks, 76,000 non-blacks, according to my estimates). Lesson (drawn from both examples): it takes good data used reasonably to draw truly valid conclusions about New Orleans’ future political geography.
23.3.06
Money, innovation can help repair indigent defense
One helpful aspect of Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s executive budget is its increased emphasis on improving the quality of indigent defense. Roughly 80 percent of all criminal trials in the state involve indigent defense, and due to unstable funding sources the system has a tendency, despite the best efforts of many, to underperform and perhaps even take resources from the judicial and law enforcement systems.
This point got driven home February when a New Orleans judge threatened to free prisoners awaiting trial because the ravages of the hurricane disasters essentially had stopped any revenue from coming into his public defense system, paring public defender staff by sixth-sevenths, making adequate defense virtually impossible. Eventually, the state coughed up $500,000 in emergency funding to keep it going.
Blanco proposes doubling the amount of money going to the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board which distributes such funds. Historically, however, LIDAB’s District Assistance Fund has been weighed more towards smaller-populated districts. While this may help keep indigent defense operating in these areas, larger jurisdictions are where the majority of the state cases get heard and where unfortunately appears the staggering number of cases a public defender is expected to represent. Currently, LIDAB is reviewing its criteria to determine DAF funding disbursements.
This point got driven home February when a New Orleans judge threatened to free prisoners awaiting trial because the ravages of the hurricane disasters essentially had stopped any revenue from coming into his public defense system, paring public defender staff by sixth-sevenths, making adequate defense virtually impossible. Eventually, the state coughed up $500,000 in emergency funding to keep it going.
Blanco proposes doubling the amount of money going to the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board which distributes such funds. Historically, however, LIDAB’s District Assistance Fund has been weighed more towards smaller-populated districts. While this may help keep indigent defense operating in these areas, larger jurisdictions are where the majority of the state cases get heard and where unfortunately appears the staggering number of cases a public defender is expected to represent. Currently, LIDAB is reviewing its criteria to determine DAF funding disbursements.
22.3.06
Polls buoy Jindal's hopes, crush Breaux's and Blanco's
Rep. Bobby Jindal and state Republicans hardly could ask for better news – a Verne Kennedy poll for the 2007 governor’s contest puts Jindal way out in front and sheds light onto the new reality in Louisiana politics, a state Republicans will enjoy to the chagrin of Democrats.
The poll had Jindal at 39 percent, retired U.S. Sen. John Breaux 17 percent; Gov. Kathleen Blanco 16 percent, U.S. Sen. David Vitter 10 percent and former Attorney General Richard Ieyoub 2 percent. Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, PSC Commissioner Foster Campbell and state Sen. Walter Boasso each had 1 percent. But the most interesting statistics were the attendant “don’t know” figures – 12 percent for the “primary,” 9 percent for the “general” election. Similarly discouraging for Democrats, another poll privately commissioned by Democrat Party strongman Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom put Jindal in front of Breaux heads-up 48-42.
They may try in the near future, but there simply is no way for Democrats to put a positive spin on these numbers, probably beyond their worst nightmares 18 months out from the election. Consider:
The poll had Jindal at 39 percent, retired U.S. Sen. John Breaux 17 percent; Gov. Kathleen Blanco 16 percent, U.S. Sen. David Vitter 10 percent and former Attorney General Richard Ieyoub 2 percent. Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhard, PSC Commissioner Foster Campbell and state Sen. Walter Boasso each had 1 percent. But the most interesting statistics were the attendant “don’t know” figures – 12 percent for the “primary,” 9 percent for the “general” election. Similarly discouraging for Democrats, another poll privately commissioned by Democrat Party strongman Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom put Jindal in front of Breaux heads-up 48-42.
They may try in the near future, but there simply is no way for Democrats to put a positive spin on these numbers, probably beyond their worst nightmares 18 months out from the election. Consider:
21.3.06
Louisiana yet again warned to get its act together
Sen. David Vitter served notice that Gov. Kathleen Blanco and the Louisiana Legislature had better get with the program in the upcoming legislative session in order to maximize the state’s chance of getting optimal federal assistance to offset effects of the hurricane disasters of 2005.
In a speech, the Republican Vitter, who should know better than anyone else in the state given he is the only Louisiana elected official that sits with the majority in the Senate, emphasized the main issue that could cause the federal government to take a circumspect attitude in doling out recovery funds was state government’s ethos regarding managing monetary resources, and stressed four areas in which state government action could assuage federal fears:
Demonstrating that there was coordination among all levels of government to produce a unified vision about recovery
Having decisive leadership in and around New Orleans to create an environment in which recovery, driven by people, not government, could occur
Proving through governmental spending reform actions that the state was a good steward of funds
Displaying an attitude of fiscal prudence
Vitter did not mince words, which we can presume echo the thoughts of congressional leaders who control how much money the state will get: “We need bold reforms to prove to the nation . . . we are getting our act together in Louisiana government.” Unfortunately, early indications are the Democrat elites who run the state, as usual, don’t get it.
Coordination and leadership appear uncertain. Only recently has the state gotten with it with a housing recovery plan after dithering in anticipation that the federal government would do something on its own. The just-released Bring New Orleans Back commission’s report, modified by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, provides an excellent starting point and the state’s plan to pay homeowners for repair or sale of their properties should be folded into it regarding Crescent City recovery.
More troublesome has been Democrat Blanco’s and the Democratic-controlled Legislature’s history regarding spending reform and fiscal prudence. In the past special sessions, Blanco had to be pressured to embrace flood control reform, and she allowed the Legislature to scuttle any attempts to consolidate wasteful government structuring in Orleans (while she fought tooth-and-nail for legislation to increase the chances for fraud in elections to assist the Democrats). Also, her latest budget indicates a reckless use of money designed to enhance her reelection prospects that even Vitter found necessary to directly address. And too many in the Legislature not only remain clueless about all of this, they incredibly think they are doing everything right and are too closed-minded to understand why the rest of the world thinks otherwise.
Again, as Vitter’s speech reminded, it all comes down to this: those with political power in Louisiana historically have sided with a liberal/populist agenda to the detriment of the state’s economy and general quality of life. America didn’t much care about that until a crisis occurred and it had to intervene. Now it’s asking Louisiana’s power elite to grow up to help make the intervention effective. And if they won’t Louisiana will need tough love which the federal government will accomplish by withholding sufficient recovery resources until they do.
In a speech, the Republican Vitter, who should know better than anyone else in the state given he is the only Louisiana elected official that sits with the majority in the Senate, emphasized the main issue that could cause the federal government to take a circumspect attitude in doling out recovery funds was state government’s ethos regarding managing monetary resources, and stressed four areas in which state government action could assuage federal fears:
Vitter did not mince words, which we can presume echo the thoughts of congressional leaders who control how much money the state will get: “We need bold reforms to prove to the nation . . . we are getting our act together in Louisiana government.” Unfortunately, early indications are the Democrat elites who run the state, as usual, don’t get it.
Coordination and leadership appear uncertain. Only recently has the state gotten with it with a housing recovery plan after dithering in anticipation that the federal government would do something on its own. The just-released Bring New Orleans Back commission’s report, modified by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, provides an excellent starting point and the state’s plan to pay homeowners for repair or sale of their properties should be folded into it regarding Crescent City recovery.
More troublesome has been Democrat Blanco’s and the Democratic-controlled Legislature’s history regarding spending reform and fiscal prudence. In the past special sessions, Blanco had to be pressured to embrace flood control reform, and she allowed the Legislature to scuttle any attempts to consolidate wasteful government structuring in Orleans (while she fought tooth-and-nail for legislation to increase the chances for fraud in elections to assist the Democrats). Also, her latest budget indicates a reckless use of money designed to enhance her reelection prospects that even Vitter found necessary to directly address. And too many in the Legislature not only remain clueless about all of this, they incredibly think they are doing everything right and are too closed-minded to understand why the rest of the world thinks otherwise.
Again, as Vitter’s speech reminded, it all comes down to this: those with political power in Louisiana historically have sided with a liberal/populist agenda to the detriment of the state’s economy and general quality of life. America didn’t much care about that until a crisis occurred and it had to intervene. Now it’s asking Louisiana’s power elite to grow up to help make the intervention effective. And if they won’t Louisiana will need tough love which the federal government will accomplish by withholding sufficient recovery resources until they do.
20.3.06
BNOB report makes good economic, political sense
Maybe I should term this the “Between the Lines Echo Effect?” The Bring New Orleans Back commission plan modified by city Mayor Ray Nagin contains very sensible ideas that will maximize New Orleans’ recovery from the 2005 hurricane disasters – as well as maximize Nagin’s chances for reelection.
Most importantly, the plan calls for minimal government involvement in the use of land. Nagin resisted an earlier commission suggestion for tighter government control on who could rebuild where. The marketplace should be given as wide latitude as possible so that individuals can decide. They’ll be best able to look at resources (including government funding) and information (flood map levels, general economic activity, etc.) to derive the optimal decision of whether to build, much better than a collective entity such as government could rule for them.
Wisely, Nagin helps in the provision of data for these disparate decisions by issuing the appropriate warnings, even going so far as to caution that city services may be curtailed in some places. Despite all of this, some complain this means that areas of the city that were disproportionately poorer would be unable to sustain the return of their former residents. Oddly enough, these critics champion the cause of poor people to live in flood-susceptible areas. If these people want to live in New Orleans, they can relocate to other areas of the city. And if they can’t afford that, nobody is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to live in New Orleans: there are plenty of other places near and afar where they can reside, and get compensation for any property they leave.
In fact, a number of them displaced from these neighborhoods probably are better off where they are living now because of New Orleans’ multitude of societal problems – another issue presciently addressed by the plan. It identifies political and educational hurdles to overcome in order to create an environment that reduces such problems.
For example, it recognizes that New Orleans’ Byzantine, bloated government must get trimmed and recommends citizens being given the opportunity to express their preferences on the matter through a referendum. It correctly gauges the necessity of sweeping away the previous failed educational system in the city wholesale and replacing it with a transitional, appointed commission to reestablish public education in a way that gives it a much better chance of producing excellence.
Finally, it is a politically astute document. It recognizes that it asks for aid from a skeptical American public, and through oversight and self-monetary-help provisions allays fears that the liberal/populist mentality that has plagued Louisiana for so long, and New Orleans in particular, will inefficiently, if not entirely waste, federal assistance.
It may appear odd that a document such at odds with this kind of political culture which trumpets government as the solution to all ills could emerge from this environment. It did because it was not driven by the state power elite, but by concerned citizens. And Nagin is wise to embrace it in principle, both for the pragmatic reasons already stated, but also for political reasons dealing with his attempted reelection.
Nagin is the only major black candidate in the race and thus can attract a good chunk of that vote. However, problems loom for him in the electorate with reform-minded voters that previously supported him. Backing a plan that has reform so thoroughly written all over it cannot help but reassure this bloc to support him again in a race that should prove to be very competitive.
Most importantly, the plan calls for minimal government involvement in the use of land. Nagin resisted an earlier commission suggestion for tighter government control on who could rebuild where. The marketplace should be given as wide latitude as possible so that individuals can decide. They’ll be best able to look at resources (including government funding) and information (flood map levels, general economic activity, etc.) to derive the optimal decision of whether to build, much better than a collective entity such as government could rule for them.
Wisely, Nagin helps in the provision of data for these disparate decisions by issuing the appropriate warnings, even going so far as to caution that city services may be curtailed in some places. Despite all of this, some complain this means that areas of the city that were disproportionately poorer would be unable to sustain the return of their former residents. Oddly enough, these critics champion the cause of poor people to live in flood-susceptible areas. If these people want to live in New Orleans, they can relocate to other areas of the city. And if they can’t afford that, nobody is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to live in New Orleans: there are plenty of other places near and afar where they can reside, and get compensation for any property they leave.
In fact, a number of them displaced from these neighborhoods probably are better off where they are living now because of New Orleans’ multitude of societal problems – another issue presciently addressed by the plan. It identifies political and educational hurdles to overcome in order to create an environment that reduces such problems.
For example, it recognizes that New Orleans’ Byzantine, bloated government must get trimmed and recommends citizens being given the opportunity to express their preferences on the matter through a referendum. It correctly gauges the necessity of sweeping away the previous failed educational system in the city wholesale and replacing it with a transitional, appointed commission to reestablish public education in a way that gives it a much better chance of producing excellence.
Finally, it is a politically astute document. It recognizes that it asks for aid from a skeptical American public, and through oversight and self-monetary-help provisions allays fears that the liberal/populist mentality that has plagued Louisiana for so long, and New Orleans in particular, will inefficiently, if not entirely waste, federal assistance.
It may appear odd that a document such at odds with this kind of political culture which trumpets government as the solution to all ills could emerge from this environment. It did because it was not driven by the state power elite, but by concerned citizens. And Nagin is wise to embrace it in principle, both for the pragmatic reasons already stated, but also for political reasons dealing with his attempted reelection.
Nagin is the only major black candidate in the race and thus can attract a good chunk of that vote. However, problems loom for him in the electorate with reform-minded voters that previously supported him. Backing a plan that has reform so thoroughly written all over it cannot help but reassure this bloc to support him again in a race that should prove to be very competitive.
17.3.06
Federal budget vote by Landrieu a calculated risk
Sen. Mary Landrieu made a bold political move in being the only Senate Democrat to support the (late again) 2006-07 federal government budget, providing almost the winning margin. She needed to make it, but whether it will pay off is another story.
Landrieu increasingly has a credibility problem with Louisiana voters. She continues to cast votes with which the majority disagree, such as with judicial nominees and on tax policy, and articulating bad policy such as emphasizing union rather than port security and encouraging fraudulent elections, and by supporting pork barrel projects at the expense of flood protection. To mask how she is out of touch with her constituents, she selectively votes for certain measures usually involving bringing home some bacon for Louisiana.
The budget deal is one such. Part of it involves boosting federal spending on coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana. Better, because she went against the grain of her party she has some ammunition to try to defend herself against the argument that, for all her symbolism, she supports a party and its policies sadly misaligned with Louisiana’s interests. Best of all, the bill has plenty of additional spending in other areas that she can use as red meat to throw to her liberal base which otherwise gets irritated when she strays off the reservation.
But it’s those latter goodies that may waste her effort. House Republicans have balked at a budget that spends beyond a certain level, and the obvious way to cut spending is to reduce these measures – including spending on Louisiana coastal restoration. She may get lucky and not have that cut, because its funding would come from auctioning of wireless frequencies, offshore oil leases, and expansion of Alaskan oil drilling (explaining her past support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, another example of a key vote to appeal to Louisiana’s majority).
If so, she gets the best of all worlds. Even if, as others point out, since the additional funding mechanism is not guaranteed even if that portion of the bill remains intact and then the funding doesn’t materialize, Landrieu still can claim she “did” something. (And if that happens, look for Gov. Kathleen Blanco to insist her resolve had something to do with it, by saying she would not approve of leases sold offshore Louisiana unless restoration money was found – but which is an entirely empty threat.)
But if the measure is removed and the bill comes back from conference, does she switch her vote? If the GOP still has enough to muscle it through, she loses the vote and the ability to appeal to the center on her subsequent, plus will have antagonized party leaders by the previous vote. As in Landrieu’s case, when your political philosophy fundamentally is at odds with your constituents’, it’s a fine line you have to tread.
Landrieu increasingly has a credibility problem with Louisiana voters. She continues to cast votes with which the majority disagree, such as with judicial nominees and on tax policy, and articulating bad policy such as emphasizing union rather than port security and encouraging fraudulent elections, and by supporting pork barrel projects at the expense of flood protection. To mask how she is out of touch with her constituents, she selectively votes for certain measures usually involving bringing home some bacon for Louisiana.
The budget deal is one such. Part of it involves boosting federal spending on coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana. Better, because she went against the grain of her party she has some ammunition to try to defend herself against the argument that, for all her symbolism, she supports a party and its policies sadly misaligned with Louisiana’s interests. Best of all, the bill has plenty of additional spending in other areas that she can use as red meat to throw to her liberal base which otherwise gets irritated when she strays off the reservation.
But it’s those latter goodies that may waste her effort. House Republicans have balked at a budget that spends beyond a certain level, and the obvious way to cut spending is to reduce these measures – including spending on Louisiana coastal restoration. She may get lucky and not have that cut, because its funding would come from auctioning of wireless frequencies, offshore oil leases, and expansion of Alaskan oil drilling (explaining her past support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, another example of a key vote to appeal to Louisiana’s majority).
If so, she gets the best of all worlds. Even if, as others point out, since the additional funding mechanism is not guaranteed even if that portion of the bill remains intact and then the funding doesn’t materialize, Landrieu still can claim she “did” something. (And if that happens, look for Gov. Kathleen Blanco to insist her resolve had something to do with it, by saying she would not approve of leases sold offshore Louisiana unless restoration money was found – but which is an entirely empty threat.)
But if the measure is removed and the bill comes back from conference, does she switch her vote? If the GOP still has enough to muscle it through, she loses the vote and the ability to appeal to the center on her subsequent, plus will have antagonized party leaders by the previous vote. As in Landrieu’s case, when your political philosophy fundamentally is at odds with your constituents’, it’s a fine line you have to tread.
16.3.06
Making some offices appointive, others term-limited good ideas
Even if unsuccessful in paring Orleans government, lawmakers seem to bring the same enthusiasm for state offices, as a review of some prefiled legislation shows. All in all, they would eliminate the lieutenant governor entirely, make the secretary of state appointive, and set term limits for all executive elected offices save the governor’s at three consecutive terms (the governor’s remaining at two).
These constitutional amendments may well pass. All are introduced by Republicans in a state where executive elective offices have seldom been held by them yet the electorate of which is continuing to move in that direction. Given a choice between making these two appointive or term-limited with others and allowing Republicans to capture them and/or stay in them or others for a long time, the Democrat-controlled Legislature (itself also becoming endangered as a majority) has a good excuse to go along with its minority.
The current lieutenant governor is looking for another job and his counterpart at secretary of state says he favors the relevant bill (and is not running for reelection), so they seem cool with it. Even professional political consultants, if looking at the aggregate, probably would not object to it: they may be losing a couple of million of dollars in revenue every four years without either office for people to run for (and buy their expertise), but having the term limits could make for more competitive races more often, which is where the real money lies.
These constitutional amendments may well pass. All are introduced by Republicans in a state where executive elective offices have seldom been held by them yet the electorate of which is continuing to move in that direction. Given a choice between making these two appointive or term-limited with others and allowing Republicans to capture them and/or stay in them or others for a long time, the Democrat-controlled Legislature (itself also becoming endangered as a majority) has a good excuse to go along with its minority.
The current lieutenant governor is looking for another job and his counterpart at secretary of state says he favors the relevant bill (and is not running for reelection), so they seem cool with it. Even professional political consultants, if looking at the aggregate, probably would not object to it: they may be losing a couple of million of dollars in revenue every four years without either office for people to run for (and buy their expertise), but having the term limits could make for more competitive races more often, which is where the real money lies.
15.3.06
Blanco budget bombs waiting to explode and wreck state
Gov. Kathleen Blanco does have a point when she observes that her 2006-07 executive budget for Louisiana really does not increase state spending when you remove from it extra monies given by the federal government for recovery from the 2005 hurricane disasters. But there are still plenty of bombs waiting to go off in that budget unless a lot of things break right.
Blanco’s thinking is that, after the cuts made near the end of 2005, monies from them can be in part reallocated to other uses. Of course, this assumes that the lofty revenue projections based on a quick recovery from the disasters, a rather optimistic scenario, pan out. If not, a lot of new spending of a permanent nature suddenly will have to find more revenue in a state with a hampered economy already overtaxed.
Her administration claims the total amount of state operating expenses from state sources will actually be 3.3 percent less than the existing budget. However, almost all of this decrease results from a “disaster dividend” said to be realized by offloading disproportionately users of, in particular, health care and labor programs in the state. This is far from certain given the unknown nature of who has left the state and who will return and when. This alone is a predicted expenditure reduction of around $600 million.
Blanco’s thinking is that, after the cuts made near the end of 2005, monies from them can be in part reallocated to other uses. Of course, this assumes that the lofty revenue projections based on a quick recovery from the disasters, a rather optimistic scenario, pan out. If not, a lot of new spending of a permanent nature suddenly will have to find more revenue in a state with a hampered economy already overtaxed.
Her administration claims the total amount of state operating expenses from state sources will actually be 3.3 percent less than the existing budget. However, almost all of this decrease results from a “disaster dividend” said to be realized by offloading disproportionately users of, in particular, health care and labor programs in the state. This is far from certain given the unknown nature of who has left the state and who will return and when. This alone is a predicted expenditure reduction of around $600 million.
14.3.06
Landrieu win may ripple across state to Shreveport
The delayed New Orleans mayor’s contest may well have an impact that ripples all the way up to Northwest Louisiana, ultimately impacting who the next mayor of Shreveport will be.
The favorite for New Orleans’ top job is Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. Louisiana’s senior senator’s brother will win if he can take a significant amount of the black vote from incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin and split the white vote among Audubon Nature Institute head Ron Forman and former city councilor Peggy Wilson. A reduced black majority in the city would allow Landrieu to win with most of the white vote in a general election runoff with Nagin.
Landrieu winning would have him assuming office at the end of May. And then the Louisiana Constitution would kick in concerning a vacancy in the lieutenant governor’s office. Essentially, Gov. Kathleen Blanco would pick a successor, without any specified timetable, and the choice gets presented to the Legislature for confirmation.
Blanco should want to act fast. It would be nice to have a choice ready to go and voted on by the Legislature before it adjourned about Jun. 20. But more to the political point, Blanco would have a natural deadline of Sep. 30, because this is the day the Secretary of State would be elected which well could be a Republican. That person (if elected) is next in line if the state lacks a lieutenant governor to becoming governor. Even if a recall petition does not succeed in removing Blanco and she remains in office, whenever a governor leaves the state the next in line becomes acting governor with similar powers.
However, as much as she would not want a Republican breathing down her neck, neither does she want to appoint somebody who could become a rival to her in 2007, using a free ride into the state’s number two office as a springboard. It would have to be somebody who would be happy to try for a full term in 2007, who would be competitive, and who would not turn into a political opponent of Blanco’s as she will need all the help she can get in her own reelection bid.
Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower well may fit this bill. Obviously a Democrat like Blanco, he’ll be out of office in about seven months, has plenty of campaign money to start a 2007 attempt, and would have the right attitude from Blanco’s perspective. The office has less power than any other statewide so Hightower would be viewed by other Democrats as a non-threatening placeholder with a decent chance of retaining it in 2007.
Should this happen, Shreveport would need a new mayor for four or five months. The city charter defers vacancies in the office to the state’s jurisprudence – the governor would appoint someone within ten days of vacancy unless the “governing authority” of the jurisdiction appoints somebody. In Shreveport, that would fall to the City Council.
This would introduce the Byzantine politics of the upcoming mayor’s race into the decision. Even a trial of a few months on the job could give somebody a leg up on the contest. Keeping in mind that, given current demographics, any black Democrat who reaches the general election is likely to win, unless encountering a white Democrat there, and the current council is comprised of three black Democrats, two white Democrats, and two white Republicans.
One intriguing scenario is that Democrats may kick current councilor Monty Walford upstairs. His reelection chances in a district that probably will be majority black in the fall are spotty and he may fancy he can do what Hightower did and bring together enough white and black voters to win the mayor’s race, given a boost of a trial run. Black Democrats on the Council would do this only if they felt confident a Republican could keep Walford out of the general election runoff; their goal would be to get Walford out of his District B seat to pave the way for a black winning there (and they could anoint a successor as Walford’s replacement).
Another is one of the two major anticipated black candidates for the mayor’s job, state Rep. Cedric Glover, would be appointed. His main competition would be the other such candidate, former television executive Ed Bradley. A few months on the job for Glover, who appears to be a more natural ally to the existing black council members, could only aid his full-term chances at Bradley’s expense.
Or who knows? Regardless, what New Orleans voters do in the spring could shape Shreveport politics in the fall.
The favorite for New Orleans’ top job is Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. Louisiana’s senior senator’s brother will win if he can take a significant amount of the black vote from incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin and split the white vote among Audubon Nature Institute head Ron Forman and former city councilor Peggy Wilson. A reduced black majority in the city would allow Landrieu to win with most of the white vote in a general election runoff with Nagin.
Landrieu winning would have him assuming office at the end of May. And then the Louisiana Constitution would kick in concerning a vacancy in the lieutenant governor’s office. Essentially, Gov. Kathleen Blanco would pick a successor, without any specified timetable, and the choice gets presented to the Legislature for confirmation.
Blanco should want to act fast. It would be nice to have a choice ready to go and voted on by the Legislature before it adjourned about Jun. 20. But more to the political point, Blanco would have a natural deadline of Sep. 30, because this is the day the Secretary of State would be elected which well could be a Republican. That person (if elected) is next in line if the state lacks a lieutenant governor to becoming governor. Even if a recall petition does not succeed in removing Blanco and she remains in office, whenever a governor leaves the state the next in line becomes acting governor with similar powers.
However, as much as she would not want a Republican breathing down her neck, neither does she want to appoint somebody who could become a rival to her in 2007, using a free ride into the state’s number two office as a springboard. It would have to be somebody who would be happy to try for a full term in 2007, who would be competitive, and who would not turn into a political opponent of Blanco’s as she will need all the help she can get in her own reelection bid.
Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower well may fit this bill. Obviously a Democrat like Blanco, he’ll be out of office in about seven months, has plenty of campaign money to start a 2007 attempt, and would have the right attitude from Blanco’s perspective. The office has less power than any other statewide so Hightower would be viewed by other Democrats as a non-threatening placeholder with a decent chance of retaining it in 2007.
Should this happen, Shreveport would need a new mayor for four or five months. The city charter defers vacancies in the office to the state’s jurisprudence – the governor would appoint someone within ten days of vacancy unless the “governing authority” of the jurisdiction appoints somebody. In Shreveport, that would fall to the City Council.
This would introduce the Byzantine politics of the upcoming mayor’s race into the decision. Even a trial of a few months on the job could give somebody a leg up on the contest. Keeping in mind that, given current demographics, any black Democrat who reaches the general election is likely to win, unless encountering a white Democrat there, and the current council is comprised of three black Democrats, two white Democrats, and two white Republicans.
One intriguing scenario is that Democrats may kick current councilor Monty Walford upstairs. His reelection chances in a district that probably will be majority black in the fall are spotty and he may fancy he can do what Hightower did and bring together enough white and black voters to win the mayor’s race, given a boost of a trial run. Black Democrats on the Council would do this only if they felt confident a Republican could keep Walford out of the general election runoff; their goal would be to get Walford out of his District B seat to pave the way for a black winning there (and they could anoint a successor as Walford’s replacement).
Another is one of the two major anticipated black candidates for the mayor’s job, state Rep. Cedric Glover, would be appointed. His main competition would be the other such candidate, former television executive Ed Bradley. A few months on the job for Glover, who appears to be a more natural ally to the existing black council members, could only aid his full-term chances at Bradley’s expense.
Or who knows? Regardless, what New Orleans voters do in the spring could shape Shreveport politics in the fall.
13.3.06
Caddo schools need to close Booker T. Washington
Soon, the Caddo Parish School Board will make a decision about the fate of its Booker T. Washington High School. The correct call will involve some courage and creativity.
BTW, like a number of schools in inner-city Louisiana metropolises, has seen an exodus of students. At the end of the school year in 2005, over the past five years the district’s student population fell nearly 3,000 students, or almost 6.5 percent. At BTW, enrollment at the end of 2004-05 was 443, a drop of 246 in five years or about 55.5 percent.
There are two reasons for this. While population in the area served by the school is falling, it’s obviously not fast enough to record this drop. The main reason is that BTW, despite the inability of some to accept it, is a failing school along with its feeder schools. It has been classified as “academically unacceptable” two of the last three years, missed its performance growth target also two of the last three years, and achieved only “minimal” academic growth the past year.
Concerned families are voting with their feet. They are finding ways to get their children out of that environment, through majority-to-minority transfers, magnet programs, or simply by moving to another high school’s attendance zone. BTW’s inability to provide an adequate education for the majority of its students (over half of 2004-05 graduating seniors did not even score at the basic level on the Graduate Exit Exam), even as it has seen some improvement (in 2000-01 almost three-quarters did not reach the basic level) has caused its hollowing.
This has prompted the School Board to propose shifting attendance zones, but the plan drawn up is almost ridiculous in its geography. Students just a stone’s thrown from Fair Park or C.E. Byrd High Schools would end up going to BTW, and some families made location decisions on residences just to attend either of those other high schools. Busing expenses for the parish would escalate as well under the proposal.
There’s nothing the Board can do on its own to trigger the economic development necessary to bring back population to BTW’s current attendance zone, much less for the entire district (parish), and its attempts to increase quality of education at BTW have not had much payoff. Thus, the best policy would be to close BTW and farm out its students to Fair Park and Byrd (which, given the peak of their historical enrollments, could handle the extra students, mostly at Fair Park), as well as sending BTW’s best teachers there while discharging or transferring to other openings the remainder.
This will raise the hackles of some, perhaps including Board members who themselves are graduates of BTW, and teachers whose sub-par performances will have to improve for them to stay in the profession protected by their unions to whom quality education is an afterthought. But we can’t let sentimentality or politics get in the way of a decision that will improve education for students and save millions of dollars a year for the district. Even as district-wide enrollments have swooned over the past 13 years over 14 percent, hardly any facilities have been closed by the district, even as its budget has swelled over 55 percent or $130 million over the past 10 years.
But to assuage these feelings, the Board should resolve to name the next high school it builds (one has been talked about for years being built in southwest Shreveport) “Booker T. Washington.” Washington was a great educator and any place of learning should be proud to bear his name.
Allowing the situation to continue as is won’t make it, and changing zones creates other problems and will not provide better education at a cheaper price. The Caddo Parish School Board must act rationally, not emotionally, and close BTW.
BTW, like a number of schools in inner-city Louisiana metropolises, has seen an exodus of students. At the end of the school year in 2005, over the past five years the district’s student population fell nearly 3,000 students, or almost 6.5 percent. At BTW, enrollment at the end of 2004-05 was 443, a drop of 246 in five years or about 55.5 percent.
There are two reasons for this. While population in the area served by the school is falling, it’s obviously not fast enough to record this drop. The main reason is that BTW, despite the inability of some to accept it, is a failing school along with its feeder schools. It has been classified as “academically unacceptable” two of the last three years, missed its performance growth target also two of the last three years, and achieved only “minimal” academic growth the past year.
Concerned families are voting with their feet. They are finding ways to get their children out of that environment, through majority-to-minority transfers, magnet programs, or simply by moving to another high school’s attendance zone. BTW’s inability to provide an adequate education for the majority of its students (over half of 2004-05 graduating seniors did not even score at the basic level on the Graduate Exit Exam), even as it has seen some improvement (in 2000-01 almost three-quarters did not reach the basic level) has caused its hollowing.
This has prompted the School Board to propose shifting attendance zones, but the plan drawn up is almost ridiculous in its geography. Students just a stone’s thrown from Fair Park or C.E. Byrd High Schools would end up going to BTW, and some families made location decisions on residences just to attend either of those other high schools. Busing expenses for the parish would escalate as well under the proposal.
There’s nothing the Board can do on its own to trigger the economic development necessary to bring back population to BTW’s current attendance zone, much less for the entire district (parish), and its attempts to increase quality of education at BTW have not had much payoff. Thus, the best policy would be to close BTW and farm out its students to Fair Park and Byrd (which, given the peak of their historical enrollments, could handle the extra students, mostly at Fair Park), as well as sending BTW’s best teachers there while discharging or transferring to other openings the remainder.
This will raise the hackles of some, perhaps including Board members who themselves are graduates of BTW, and teachers whose sub-par performances will have to improve for them to stay in the profession protected by their unions to whom quality education is an afterthought. But we can’t let sentimentality or politics get in the way of a decision that will improve education for students and save millions of dollars a year for the district. Even as district-wide enrollments have swooned over the past 13 years over 14 percent, hardly any facilities have been closed by the district, even as its budget has swelled over 55 percent or $130 million over the past 10 years.
But to assuage these feelings, the Board should resolve to name the next high school it builds (one has been talked about for years being built in southwest Shreveport) “Booker T. Washington.” Washington was a great educator and any place of learning should be proud to bear his name.
Allowing the situation to continue as is won’t make it, and changing zones creates other problems and will not provide better education at a cheaper price. The Caddo Parish School Board must act rationally, not emotionally, and close BTW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)