Jun 25 2008
Jindal ‘HOPES’ pay raise is Unconstitutional
Here is an interesting news report from WWL’s Mike Conti. Apparently Governor Jindal ‘HOPES’ that the pay raise is unconstitutional.
Jindal expresses hope payraise is unconstitutional
Ya think?
“I’m not a judge, but I hope they’re right,” said Jindal.
News flash Gov., It may or may not be unconstitutional, but it sure is UNETHICAL!
Perhaps our esteemed Governor should read the ethics laws that he helped pass.
So what would be the applicable law? Section 1112 of the Code of Governmental Ethics!
Here is an excerpt from the ethics board in the case of Charlotte Randolph - Case 2006-202 dated September 13th, 2007
At issue in this case is Section 1112 of the Code of Governmental Ethics. Section 1112 of the Code prohibits a public servant from participating in certain transactions involving his governmental entity.
Section 1112 of the Code provides in pertinent part:
§1112. Participation in certain transactions involving the governmental entity
B. No public servant, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120, shall participate in a transaction involving the governmental entity in which, to his actual knowledge, any of the following persons has a substantial economic interest:
(1) Any member of his immediate family.
The term “immediate family” as used in the above Sections is defined at Section 1102 (13) of the Code as follows:
(13) “Immediate family” as the term relates to a public servant means his children, the spouses of his children, brothers, sisters, parents, spouse, and the parents of his spouse.
Other definitions contained in Section 1102 that are relevant when analyzing the above Sections are as follows:
(15) “Participate” means to take part in or to have or share responsibility for the 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.
(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 a 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.2
In this case, the ethics board dismissed the charges because they claimed that they did not have ’sufficient evidence’. But it does serve to point out the ethics law at issue.
Here is what the Louisiana Police Jury says in its powerpoint on government ethics for elected parish officials (December 6, 2007):
You cannot participate in a transaction in which the following person have a substantial economic interest:
1.Yourself
2.A member of your immediate family
3.A legal entity in which you have a substantial economic interest
4.A person in which you serve on officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee
5.A person with whom you are negotiating prospective employment
6.A person who owes you, or a legal entity in which you own in excess of 25%, money or can affect your economic interests because of a contractual relationship with you or the legal entity.
§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.
So the key question is, DID OUR LEGISLATORS COMPLY WITH THIS LAW?
The law does not care if they voted YES or NO on the issue. It only cares if they complied with the law. The ethics conflict is clear.
They were obligated to RECUSE themselves from voting on SB672 because the bill raises their pay for their term in office. If the bill had proposed raising the pay for the future legislative session, then they would not have to recuse themselves because that is not their elected position until they secure it through the next election cycle.
So WHO FILED THE REQUIRED ETHICS STATEMENT and WHO DID NOT?
Loading ...
Add in the FREE Tulane Scholarship and the TOTAL package is OVER $ 100,000.00 each year.
Does anyone how to get a list of the RECIPIENTS of the Tulane FREE scholarships ?
And from WHO ?
Has any action been taken to file a complaint with the ethics board, or to file for an injunction with any court?
Not yet to my knowledge.
Greg,
The recipients of the free Tulane scholarship are supposed to be a matter of public record, but I don’t know that an official list exists. You probably would have to write to each legislator seperately to see whom they awarded it to.
The Tulane list is at http://www.wesawthat.blogspot.com
On the left hand column, the top link La response to SB672 click that link and then look at the right side all the way at the bottom. There is a link to the Tulane Scholorship List
The We Saw That link is at the Dead Pelicansite
What about a lawsuit? Is it possible/legal to file a class action lawsuit on the behalf of the citizens of this state? I’m sure there are attorneys out there who could answer this question.
What about the leges that voted on absent leges machines? If it is not against the law, can they at least be sued by the state to get the perdium back? Isn’t that theft of tax payer money? I can not believe the stuff these people get away with.
tHIS WAS ON WAFB TV NEWS TO NIGHT. INTERESTING DON’T YOU THINK. You might still be angry about the pay raise legislators gave themselves and another circumstance we’ve come across may irk you, too. 9NEWS has learned some legislators voted on two, three, or even four machines at a time during this session because other legislators were not in the chamber. Some of them were not even in the state.
We saw Representative Barbara Norton of Shreveport pushing not one, not two, but three machines on one vote. Then, she directs Representative Rickey Hardy of Lafayette to catch another one she can’t quite reach. This practice of pushing other legislators’ buttons is not new. “They used to do it with golf clubs and a putter and things like that. Now, they have more sophisticated clubs to push the buttons,” says Barry Erwin with the Council for a Better Louisiana.
However, if a member is outside the Capitol building, it is against House rules. “I don’t think anyway can defend having a legislator not in the building, not at work, may be not even in the state or city, having people vote for their machines,” says Erwin. Representative Reed Henderson of Chalmette called in to WWL-Radio from his car on Friday. He was on his way back home while legislators were still in session and somehow, his votes kept coming in, without him there. Henderson is not the only one who does this. We have confirmed that at least one legislator was not even in the state when his buttons were pressed and pressed and pressed.
“There is an expectation that your legislator is going to be there casting votes for you if you’re a citizen. If votes cast and legislators not there, kind of like defrauding public in a lot of ways,” Erwin says. The House rules state that if a member is not present at the Capitol, they are supposed to have the clerk turn off their machine, so no one else votes on it. Yet, it’s completely up to the legislator whether or not they choose to do that. “The point is you should be there. You should be listening to the debate and you should understand what’s going on and you should be pushing your own buttons,” says Erwin.
Maybe if seeing all this pushes your buttons, legislators will stop stretching their sticks beyond the rules. If a particularly important vote is about to take place, legislators can call for a quorum vote or a lock-out. That’s when they are specifically told to vote only their machine. Otherwise, there are no real consequences if a legislator pushes multiple buttons. Tell us what you think about the multiple voting that goes on.
Cricket: THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMAITON THAT SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE…..THAT FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANTIAL PHONE CALL FROM
HENDERSION TO SPUD’S SHOW…I LISTENED TO THE TAPE AND I WAS SHOCKED….THE CAN OF WORMS IS BEING OPENED AND THE WORMS ARE CRAWLING OUT….CAN THESE VOTING ACTIONS BE MORE DEEPLY INVESTIGATED AND REVEALED? I THINK THERE IS MORE TO THIS AND THE PUBLIC IS BECOMING WISER BY THE MINUTE…WHAT IS NEEDED NOW IS THE PUBLIC TO STAND UP AND CONTINUE TO EXPRESS THEIR OUTRAGE OF THIS ISSUE….NOW JINDAL WANTS THE JUDGES TO SEE THE RAISE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL… THE PLOT THICKENS…
I’m grateful to the media and sites like this keeping an eye on what’s going on in Baton Rouge. While I’m glad that I’m not alone in my disappointment, I’m terrified of the callous attitude demonstrated by Henderson’s phone call. While we are becoming more and more upset, are our elected officials continuing to roll their eyes? I guess there really are no immediate consequences for ignoring the will of constituents. Why should they care? What recourse do we have other than trying to stave off amnesia at the voting booth in 2012? And amnesia seems to historically work in their favor.
Is this unconstitutional?
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - You might still be angry about the pay raise legislators gave themselves and another circumstance we’ve come across may irk you, too. 9NEWS has learned some legislators voted on two, three, or even four machines at a time during this session because other legislators were not in the chamber. Some of them were not even in the state.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=8555965
Would some lawyers pLEASE check the legality of them voting for others and even when they are not in the building? I am sick even more with hearing this story! THE WHOLE PLACE SHOULD BE REMOVED! WHY CAN’T THERE BE A LAWSUIT FILED TO STOP THIS BILL FROM EVEN GOING IN EFFECT SINCE THERE are these tapes of leg. voting for others! I am so tired of being the laughing stock of the country!
WE NEED HELP IN THIS STATE NOW!
What I find even more troublesome is that, according to Jimmy Faircloth, the governor’s chief attorney, NO ONE has “formally” requested a legal opinion as to the validity of the vote for SB672.
One would think with a situation of the magnitude this has become, “someone” would be verfifying the legality of it. My own opinion is that Jindal should be that someone, especially since that bill is sitting on his desk staring him in the face as we speak.
Who’s responsibility is it to initiate a formal inquiry as to whether this vote was constitutional as well as ethical??????
[...] them off the hook, no? Seems like a moment that calls for bold, populist leadership, not … this. [...]
Who’s responsibility is it to initiate a formal inquiry as to whether this vote was constitutional as well as ethical??????
The question was asked of Sen. Duplessis during the first hearing on April 5th, 2008 by Sen. Walsworth. See the 33rd minute of the initial hearing for this bill.
Agenda for the day.
Senate Video for the day.
See the very rough outline for what happened below.
Bill SB672 starts at 28:09 on the video
Introduction by Sen. Michot
Roll call
Committee Members
Senator Michael J. “Mike” Michot Chairman PRESENT
Senator Lydia Patrice Jackson Vice Chair
Senator John A. Alario, Jr.
Senator Sharon Weston Broome PRESENT
Senator Sherri Smith Cheek
Senator Jack Donahue
Senator Nicholas “Nick” Gautreaux
Senator Kenneth Eric LaFleur
Senator Edwin R. Murray
Senator John R. Smith
Senator Michael A. Walsworth PRESENT
28:44 Sen. Michot 9 members present, a Quorum
29:06 Senator Ann Duplessis starts to speak
- provides for a pay raise for legislators and others.
- introduces a couple of amendments. Worked on by “Jerry”
- Base pay increase from 16,700 to 70,000.
- has evolved to a more ‘detailed’ type position.
- tie the pay to % of Congressional pay. 30% of Congressional pay.
33:01 Sen Walsworth question
- Offers up the amendments to discuss in amended form.
- Amendments adopted to discuss bill in …
- With the new ethics changes, can we vote on a pay raise for ourselves. Have you asked ethics for a uh ?
33:46 Sen Duplessis
- No formal ethics opinion.
- Not voting on something specific for my personal benefit the only benefit is for the universe(?) and so I was told it was not an ethics issue.
- If bill gets out, we can make sure we get that opinion. (did they?)
44:24 Question by Sen Michot
Question on legislative compensation commission.
Sen Duplessis
The last one was in 2006. Made a number of recommendations. Claims her bill is part of those recommendations. Thought 40 to 45 thousand should be base.
35:33 Question Sen LaFleur On the basis of what is proposed now, what would be the base salary.
Sen Duplessis About 50,000
Followup Q, So that would put us above the; that report was from about 6 years ago.
Answer - The actual salary recommendation was a lot higher… Political hot potato, so they brought it down to what they thought was ‘politically correct’.
36:25 Followup Q What would be our base pay.
Answer 50,734
Statement: So that is a little bit higher than what the committee recommended 5 or 6 years ago.
36:53 Sen Donahue question
Blue ribbon committee… Presented by a new blue ribbon commission… New recommendation, separate from this body as to what the pay structure should be.
“Maybe it seems self-serving for us to propose our own pay raises” {ya think?} “I guess there is no other way for us to get a pay raise is the problem. And I am wondering if this commission needs to be appointed to come up with recommendations.”
Answer: From what I can gather, that has been happening for the last ten years. Every year that this proposal comes up … no one has taken it to the next level because of the … cameras… “to continue to attract the ‘best and the brightest and to retain the best and the brightest … we will be able to eat while serving the people”
… not until we are able to bring the teachers to a national standard, we did that.
… not until we are able to bring our first responders, police to a standard of living, and we have done that…
39:55 Sen Broome comments
… not going to put our former speaker on the spot back there {who is present?}… 2001,2002 the Salary compensation commission came up with their last report… corrected to 2006… also NCSL came and did an assessment. In terms of what Sen Duplessis there have been a number of studies done and I don’t think they are out of date. We always have to deal with perception around here, that this is self-serving. Personally, I don’t think we need to establish another blue ribbon commission. The information is out there we just have to have it presented. I have talked to a number of business people throughout the state and everyone was in total agreement that hte legislature is underpaid. I don’t think there will be a strong anti movement as to what we are doing. Mentions Blueprint Louisiana and PAR to share their agreement so the public will understand so it is not just coming from the legislative body. Have to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and look at the budget. But I do think the legislature is DUE a raise. When I first ran for office I want people to earn a decent living so that they can pay their bills and maintain their dignity. I meant that for my constituents but I meant that for me too. And what is happening in this legislature, that the time that is allotted is only affording a certain group of people to be participants in the legislature. Pretty soon we are only going to have people who are extremely wealthy or retired who will be able to serve in this legislative body. Because the truth of the matter is if your husband is a teacher and you are a legislator who is trying to develop a small business then it is a challenge. So my thought is, my belief is we should move forward, looking at the compensation review panel, but not shy away from the fact that the legislature should be compensated … and for the work that we do. So I applaud you coming forward with this Sen. Dupplessis since I know it took a step of courage.
44:13 Sen Duplessis comments.
…long comments … “sticker shock” … “people are in shock that is all we make”
45:32 We also have cards in support from Wayne Tibedeaux(?) and Dirk Devile(?)
45:40 Sen. Alario There is never a good time to bring this forward. I remember discussing this with Gov. Clairborne and it was controversial then. We are in an exercise now of looking at a … large tax cut … people taking hard stands … can’t paint yourself in a corner… we hold this off for a little while … have a good handle at the end of the week…
48:40 Sen. D So many things pending, move it out of the committee, I will not move it on the floor til we have a better understanding… because after this week it is going to be extremely, extremely busy …
unknown speaker - chairman - will schedule the bill for the following Monday.
50:00 Sen. D To get it out of here, does not do anything. If it leaves here, it does nothing. In the next two weeks, if there are issues that cause this bill not to move on the floor. I will just like to get past this point.
Question on fiscal note
Sen. D I am not sure.
The fiscal note I am sure was the original bill.
Sen. D. … It can’t get anywhere unless I move it.
51:30 Sen. Broome. I was going to suggest, … , If we wait … Your bill will be heard,,, I want to see some people from other parts of our state to undergird you and I think that will serve you to …
52:19 Sen. D “Our ultimate goal”
Sen Alario …. we don’t make deals in public… A responsibility to try to work through all these other problems.
Sen. Michot. Voluntarily defer the bill and bring it out at earliest opportunity.
53:16 End of discussion.
Nick: WOW!!! THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS DIALOGUE. THE PRESS SHOULD HAVE ALREADY EXPOSED THIS. CAN IT NOW BE SENT TO TIMESPICAYUNE, TV STATION, SPUD MCDONNELL, ETC..?
I AM UTTERLY DISGUSTED…CITIZENS DESERVE ACCOUNTABILITY FROM ALL THEM….TAKE IT TO THE PRESS…PLEASE….