Lege Watch

There are only 10 days left for Governor Jindal to VETO this bad legislation. Please continue to call, fax, email and/or write the Governor’s office and ask him to VETO this unethical bill. Please also call, fax, email and/or write your representatives in the Senate and the House and ask them to ask Jindal to VETO this bill. Keep the political pressure on.

Yesterday, Governor Jindal made this statement:

“The voters of our state are angry that the Legislature more than doubled their own pay and I agree with them. It was excessive and they should reverse it. I’m sure more voters will take extraordinary steps to show their anger over the pay raise before this is all said and done - that’s how a democracy works.”

Yes, we are angry, very angry. We were promised ETHICS REFORMS by the Governor and our elected officials . What we are getting is more of the same corruption. Our lives are at stake. How can we expect reliable and safe levees? Or safe, adequate roads? Or excellent public schools?

Unfortunately, the way democracy works at this point in time is the next action is up to the Governor. It is not up to the legislature. At this point, it is only down to him. The Governor’s actions are: He can sign the bill; He can let it sit on his desk until July the 8th and become law without his signature; or HE CAN VETO THIS BILL.

We want him to VETO the bill.

Governor Jindal made each and every one of us a campaign promise. He promised us a new wave of ETHICS in the administration of this state. He specifically promised us that he would prohibit the legislature from giving themselves pay raises.

WE EXPECT THE GOVERNOR TO LIVE UP TO HIS PROMISES, ESPECIALLY THOSE HE MADE TO US.

He can VETO this bill because it is UNETHICAL, UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Louisiana state constitution prohibits our elected officials from using their office for personal gain.

§9. Conflict of Interest

Section 9. Legislative office is a public trust, and every effort to realize personal gain through official conduct is a violation of that trust. The legislature shall enact a code of ethics prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interests of members of the legislature.

It is A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW for a legislator to vote on a pay raise for themselves.

Revised Statute 42:1112 prohibits all public servants, including legislators, from participating in any transaction that they have a personal and substantial economic interest.

§1112. Participation in certain transactions involving the governmental entity

A. No public servant, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120, shall participate in a transaction in which he has a personal substantial economic interest of which he may be reasonably expected to know involving the governmental entity.

The law is simple and self evident.

To find out what each of these words mean, we have to refer to Revised Statute 42:1102. Here each of the words in this phrase are defined for us. So lets check that all of the elements of R.S. 42:1112(A) been met?

1) Are the legislators ‘public servants’?

(19) “Public servant” means a public employee or an elected official.

YES. Revised Statute 42:1112(19) defines the word ‘public servant’ to mean ANY public employee or elected official. Every member of the legislature is an elected official.

2) Then did the legislature ‘participate’ ?

(15) “Participate” means to take part in or to have or share responsibility for action of a governmental entity or a proceeding, personally, as a public servant of the governmental entity, through approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or the failure to act or perform a duty.

YES. Each legislator clearly participated in making a decision on the pay raise by voting for or against it.

3) So is what they did a ‘transaction involving a government entity’?

(23) “Transaction involving the governmental entity” means any proceeding, application, submission, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, case, or other such particular matter which the public servant or former public servant of the governmental entity in question knows or should know:

(a) Is, or will be, the subject of action by the governmental entity.

(b) Is one to which the governmental entity is or will be a party.

(c) Is one in which the governmental entity has a direct interest. A transaction involving the agency of a governmental entity shall have the same meaning with respect to the agency.

YES. The votes for the pay raise clearly meet the terms of this definition.

4) Well do the legislators have a ‘personal substantial economic interest’ in the outcome of their decision?

(21) “Substantial economic interest” means an economic interest which is of greater benefit to the public servant or other person than to a general class or group of persons, except:

(a) The interest that the public servant has in his position, office, rank, salary, per diem, or other matter arising solely from his public employment or office.

(b) The interest that an elected official who is elected to a house, body, or authority has in a position or office of such house, body, or authority which is required to be filled by a member of such house, body, or authority by law, legislative rule, or home rule charter.

(c) The interest that a person has as a member of the general public.

YES. There is a clear economic benefit to each of the legislators over and above their standard renumeration for their office. This vote benefits their own pocket over the publics pocket. The exemptions only protect the interest they have in their existing offices.

5) Could we, the public, reasonably expect the legislature to know about their economic interest from this pay raise?

YES. Any reasonable person could be expected to know that they ahve a conflict of interest in voting to raise their own pay.

They only way they do not have a conflict of interest is if they are voting to establish the pay raise for the next term of office.

6) So what is the exception that is provided to them by R.S. 42:1120?

§1120. Recusal from voting

A. If any elected official, in the discharge of a duty or responsibility of his office or position, would be required to vote on a matter which vote would be a violation of R.S. 42:1112, he shall recuse himself from voting. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an elected official shall not be required to recuse himself if he prepares and files the statement required by this Section as provided herein. In such case, the elected official shall prepare in writing a statement describing the matter in question, the nature of the conflict or potential conflict, and the reasons why, despite the conflict, the elected official is able to cast a vote that is fair, objective, and in the public interest. Such statement shall be filed within three days of the vote with the chief clerical officer of the respective house of the legislature, of the legislative committee, of the governing authority, or of any other body in which the vote is taken, as the case may be, who shall cause the statement to be recorded in the official journal, minutes, or other official record of the body. In addition, the elected official shall be required to file a copy of such statement as it appears in such published or recorded official journal, minutes, or record, with the appropriate ethics body.

B. This Section shall not be applicable when the elected official is the sole decisionmaker in the discharge of the particular duty or responsibility of his office or position.

C. This Section shall not extend to any act of participation other than voting.

Acts 1979, No. 443, §1, eff. April 1, 1980; Acts 1988, No. 880, §1.

This law requires each legislator to recuse themselves from voting on the pay raise bill unless they file a written statement on their conflict of interest.

They have to say why despite this conflict of interest, they can cast a fair vote. Why they can cast an objective vote. Why they can cast a vote that is in the public interest.

Did they do so?

I have not yet been able to find any such statements in the Senate, House public records nor with the Ethics board.

Therefore the vote they took was unlawful. Governor Jindal should VETO the vote.

With that said, there is just one final point to make.

Art. 5. Ignorance of law

No one may avail himself of ignorance of the law.

Acts 1987, No. 124, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.

Not even the Governor.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS