On the heels of the news that the Legislature passed a pay raise in perpetuity based on the Consumer Price Index to start this year, there are recall efforts underway.
(Disclosure: I advocated for a pay raise, noting that the base salary for the Legislature has not been raised since 1980. However, I disagreed with the original 300% pay raise, and I advocated for not having it go into effect until after the next round of legislative elections, to be held in 2011.)
Mr. Roberts has started Recall "Payraise" Tucker. You can visit the website, named recallpayraisetucker.com. There is also a Recall Jindal website domain name is currently under construction.
Whether these efforts will get anywhere remains to be seen, but it adds to the excitement that always surrounds Louisiana politics.
UPDATE: Found out some VERY interesting information about All Children Matter, courtesy of YRHT.
Today, the House passed HR 69, which sought to ban all tobacco products from the State Capital Building that was allocated to the House. In other words, if the space belongs to the House, y'all can't use any tobacco products. The Advocate had an article about the vote today, and while they mentioned that Governor PBJ's Chief of Staff, Timmy Teepell is a tobacco chewer, they missed the whole story:
Another tobacco chewer who has drawn notice is Gov. Bobby Jindal's chief of staff, Timmy Teepell, who sometimes totes a cup with him while watching House proceedings.
"You know, we have some chewers up on the fourth floor," said Rep. James Armes, D-Leesville, a reference to the floor in the capitol that houses many of the governor's offices.
You see, this was a move by the House to tell Teepell to go f&^% himself. The interesting thing about this bill is that not only did Karen Carter Peterson pen the bill, but Speaker Jim Tucker is listed as a co-author of the legislation. This was payback, pure and simple. For what, you ask?
Keep on reading!
Last week, there was a controversial radio ad that was on the air in New Orleans that attacked Democratic State Rep. Karen Carter Peterson for not supporting Governor PBJ's ill-advised support for school vouchers. The ad was put on the air by All Children Matter, a national advocacy group that is anti-public education in that they support "school choice" iniatives. Pray tell, who is behind All Children Matter? Oyster over at YRHT outed it last fall, and Jeremy Alford sums it up quite nicely:
Besides the group's support of Jindal in 2007, Phillip Stutts, a consultant to ACM's Louisiana chapter, managed Jindal's gubernatorial campaign in 2003. Richard DeVos, the retired president of Amway who created ACM, donated nearly $20,000 to Jindal's campaign last year - with the help of family members.
Interestingly enough, the Louisiana chapter endorsed Mrs. Carter Peterson for re-election last fall. Yet last week, they aired this doozy:
"Almost every New Orleans leader is working for our recovery. But one politician is trying to block a plan to give our kids a better opportunity for a quality education. . . . Call Karen Carter Peterson today . . . Tell her to stand up for our kids and support the scholarship plan."
That's how they are selling this to black voters - a scholarship program. What they don't tell you is how taking money away from public education improves the public school system. Then again, proponents of school vouchers never do.
But that's beside the point ... Mrs. Carter Peterson believes that the Governor, and Teepell, are behind the ad:
Peterson blamed the ad on Jindal and his chief of staff Timmy Teepell, and got some support from other lawmakers who say the administration is using strong-arm tactics to win passage of the controversial House Bill 1347 by Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans
Those strong-arm tactics? The News Star reported on them last week:
"It's vouchers disguised by the scholarship name," [Democratic State Rep. Bobby] Badon [D-Carencro] said. "I was told that if I don't support the governor on this, I may not bring projects home."
I am reminded of that old cliche ... the more things change, the more they stay the same!
With apologies to The Reduct Box, I changed the title for clarity.
This afternoon, Democratic State Rep. Cedric Richmond struck a blow for Louisiana by pushing and passing an amendment to HB 906, written by Republican State Rep. Nita Hutter which is a bill that requires the Ethics Board to do the following (emphasis added):
"A certified copy of the vote; a detailed explanation of the matter, including the specific factual allegations upon which the board based its decision to investigate; and a copy of any complaint received by the board, which includes the name of the complainant and the name of any other person providing information that the board has considered in the matter shall be sent by certified mail to the accused and the complainant within ten days after the vote occurs or after receipt of a signed sworn complaint.
I have one BIG problem with this bill, in that it provides absolutely no protection for whistle-blowers. A copy of the complaint shall be sent to the accused within 10 days of a vote or a signed sworn complaint? Now our legislators never have to worry about their staff turning them in, if the staffer wants to keep their job, anyway.
But that amendment ... ahhh, it's beautiful. State Rep. Cedric Richmond convinced a majority of his colleagues to restore the original standard of substantial for all complaints that the Ethics Board must prove in order to have a judge adjudicate the matter. Here are the results of the vote:
The red = Republican. Blue = Democrat. There are two Independents in the House - Richard (YES) and Robideaux (NOT VOTING), with 48 GOPers in the House and 54 Democrats. There is one vacancy, thanks to Cazayoux's election to the US House.
Do you notice something? A majority of the Republians voted AGAINST this amendment. There are 48 GOPers in the State House. Thirteen (13) voted YES, twenty-eight (28) voted NAY, and seven (7) didn't vote. Thus, Republicans voted to make it harder for corrupt politicians to be found guilty of ethics charges.
And the Republicans say they are the reformers? Wake up, Louisiana, your Republican politicians are lying to you, yet again.
Today, in the Plaquemines Parish Courthouse, at 1:30 PM, the wife of House Speaker Jim Tucker, has her hearing on child support payments that she is seeking from her ex-husband. Ordinarily, this would not be front page news on any newspaper, or even a front page post on a blog like Daily Kingfish. But this hearing only came about because of a law that the Speaker himself pushed in Governor Blanco's last legislative session - House Bill 501 (now Act 99 of the 2007 Legislature).
The bill was sold to lawmakers by Rep. Tucker:
"as a way to help aggrieved hurricane evacuees change venues for child support and custody hearings where they have taken up residence after the 2005 storms but only if their former spouses live outside Louisiana."
One month after the law took effect, Rep. Tucker's new wife, the former Marisol F. Lannes, filed a motion to change venue in her ongoing child support case against her ex-husband, who currently lives in Illinois, citing the very law that her new husband, Rep. Tucker, helped pass.
The biggest problem with this law that it takes the discretion out of the judge's hands, and makes it mandatory that they allow the transfer of venue. Mrs. Tucker is relying on the mandatory language in the bill ... hoping that the judge doesn't notice the legislative intent behind the law - that she must have moved as a result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.
She moved back to her undamaged house in Belle Chasse in October 2005. She then married Rep. Tucker in July 2006, and moved with Rep. Tucker to Algiers not long thereafter. Does that sound like she moved as a result of Hurricane Katrina? Or does that sound like she moved because she got married? The other issue with this is that the proposed venue - Orleans Parish - by Mrs. Tucker's lawyers is actually further from her current residence than the Plaquemines Parish Courthouse! Here's a helpful chart:
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.
Hmmmm ... pushing legislation for familial benefit = personal gain, does it not? Might that be why Speaker Tucker pushed HB 41 during the Ethics Session? I wrote about this here:
Despite that, Speaker Tucker is pushing a bill - HB 41, which will do the following:
House Bill 41 would put state administrative law judges in charge of issuing ethics rulings, while leaving the ethics board to investigate and prosecute allegations of wrongdoing.
Currently, the Ethics Board investigates and rules on ethics charges filed before it, which has been deemed constitutional by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Is Speaker Tucker rushing this through the House because he feels that the Ethics Board has not treated him fairly? I find that difficult to swallow, the being treated unfairly part, that is. He escaped being punished for claiming the GOZone credits, yet he still claims that the charges were politically motivated. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you oughta undergo ethics re-education, and then you'll realize, perhaps for the first time, that you actually violated the law by applying for the credits in the first place.
So, now we've got the Speaker of the House and the Governor's staff involved in this sordid mess. Some champions of ethics the Louisiana Republican Party is turning out to be. Stay tuned for more ...
All the huffing and puffing of the great ethics special session charade is over and now it's back to business as usual in Louisiana politics as run by Republicans.
Lafayette's The Independent weekly's blog, The Ind, has a story today about how the Ethics Governor, the Ethics Speaker and the Ethics Republican State Senator from Lafayette are joining forces to raise money for Republican campaign finance lawbreaker Don Trahan.
Trahan, The Independent reported in December, accepted more than $23,000 in political action committee (PAC) contributions in excess of the limit allowed by state campaign finance laws. Trahan won re-election with that illegal money by only 33 votes.
Michot, who took exception to Trahan campaign literature that claimed the senator had endorsed him over his opponent Nancy Landry, defended his embrace of Trahan now:
I've written two previous posts on Speaker Jim Tucker's ethical lapses, which you can view here and here.
Only one of those came before the Ethics Board, the one on the GOZone credits he claimed, then relinquished, and the Ethics Board chose not to file charges against him.
Despite that, Speaker Tucker is pushing a bill - HB 41, which will do the following:
House Bill 41 would put state administrative law judges in charge of issuing ethics rulings, while leaving the ethics board to investigate and prosecute allegations of wrongdoing.
Currently, the Ethics Board investigates and rules on ethics charges filed before it, which has been deemed constitutional by both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Is Speaker Tucker rushing this through the House because he feels that the Ethics Board has not treated him fairly? I find that difficult to swallow, the being treated unfairly part, that is. He escaped being punished for claiming the GOZone credits, yet he still claims that the charges were politically motivated. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you oughta undergo ethics re-education, and then you'll realize, perhaps for the first time, that you actually violated the law by applying for the credits in the first place.
But Speaker Tucker will almost certainly have to go before the Ethics Board for his role in pushing and voting for then HB 501, now Act 99 of the 2007 Legislative Session, which benefited his new wife quite nicely. So if he can get the laws governing the Ethics Board changed, especially the part where it says the Ethics Board has the power to enforce the law, it may benefit him quite nicely.
I say this because the members of the Ethics Board are nominated by state colleges before being appointed by the Governor or the Legislature, whereas administrative law judges are appointed by the Governor. This, I think, makes administrative law judges more susceptible to political influence from whomever sits in the Governor's chair.
Further, the current Chairman of the Ethics Board, Henry "Hank" Perret Jr., stated:
"The board's collective wisdom is better than that of a single judge."
I couldn't agree more. If the Ethics Board needs to have a more formal division from the staff of the Ethics Board, which does the investigating of ethics charges, then by all means, legislate that. Don't push the enforcement of our ethics laws into the hands of administrative law judges that are appointed by the Governor.
Last summer, DKF noted that Rep. Jim Tucker was facing ethics charges before the Ethics Board regarding GOZone credits that his firm was awarded from the Louisiana Recovery Authority. The Ethics Board decided that since the firm did not use the credits, there was nothing to worry about.
I would also like to note that Chris Whittington, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, noted that "no one truly knows what Mr. Tucker's true intentions were" regarding the GOZone credits. And what do you think Mr. Tucker's response was? He threatened to sue Whittington for "libelous" remarks. Just so you know, Speaker ... libel refers to written statements. I believe you were referring to slander, which refers to an oral, or spoken statement.
But that's nothing compared to what he did in the last legislative session. He abused the power of his office, and helped pass legislation written so narrowly to benefit so few Louisiana citizens, one of whom just happens to be his wife!
Now, I've got nothing against Mrs. Tucker. I'm sure she's a fine lady and a fine mama. My problem is with Mr. Tucker. He's a State Representative in our State Legislature. And he introduced and spoke in favor of House Bill 501, which is now the law in Louisiana. (It's now Act 99 of the 2007 legislative session.)
The red = Republican. Blue = Democrat. There are two Independents in the House - Richard (YES) and Robideaux (NOT VOTING), with 48 GOPers in the House and 54 Democrats. There is one vacancy, thanks to Cazayoux's election to the US House.
