Veto this raise, governor [Louisiana Editorial]

The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune ^ | June 17, 2008 | Editorial

[Ebenezer]

If there is one time for Bobby Jindal not to go wobbly, this is it. He must be ready and willing to use his veto power on any legislation that does not respond to Louisiana’s best interests.

[TornadoAlley3]

http://forgotston.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/jindal-campaign001.pdf

MAKE THE LEGISLATURE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITIZENS THEY REPRESENT:

Prohibit Legislators from giving themselves pay raises that take effect before the subsequent elections.

Any increase in salary approved by the Legislature should take effect after the next election so the public can decide who deserves that compensation.
Source:Jindal campaign brochure.

[Pikachu_Dad]

It is difficult to know where Jindal is on the issues.

At its root, this is an ETHICS issue. They should not be voting themselves pay raises.

But then when have we had any ethical legislators.

Bobby is getting his reputation severely tarnished by this most corrupt group.

It doesn’t help that the current speaker of the House (Tucker) passed legislation last year - he was not the author but he was the speaker for it in both houses - for the benefit of his new wife. Puportedly it was to help people who had moved to other parishes due to Katrina get a new court venue easily. Instead it turns out that it was primarily for his wife who moved a grand total of 10 miles or so. She wants a new court because the existing judge was giving the ex-husband more time with the kids. Oh the horror!

[JLLH]

Thanks for the heads-up! I have written Jindal and my Congressman (who voted for this monstrosity). My State Senator did not (thank God!)

[TornadoAlley3]

http://www.businessreport.com/news/2008/jun/16/return-banana-republic/?columnists

[JLLH]

It’s just infuriating - and I think (or at least I hope!) that the good people of LA will not forget this betrayal of their interests.

[Pikachu_Dad]

WOW. That is a GREAT find.

So Jindal campaigned on this very specific point.

If this legislature is allowed to do this, then it sets a bad precedent for all future legislatures as well.

[JLLH]

Very well said, Tornado! Thanks for the link.

[Pikachu_Dad]

The question is if there is ANYTHING we can do about it NOW to block this.

Such as through a legal injunction or a blocking of federal monies?

[JLLH]

I’ve read that some are threatening recalls of those involved. I’d personally love to see some of that put into action. This state body is far too smug about this: thumbing their noses at the citizens who will be footing the bill. I’m thinking they need a hard swift day of reckoning - the sooner the better.

[Pikachu_Dad]

I don’t know if recalls will work - they have made those next to impossible.

We could and should file ethics complaints - but the legislators will refuse to answer until at least 60 days after the session has ended due to their ‘privilege’.

So the question is what is left. It has to hit the States pocket book to be effective.

[JLLH]

What’s the procedure for filing ethics complaints? Can lone citizens do this or just organized groups or officials? Why wouldn’t a recall work?

[TornadoAlley3]

I wonder if the current legislature is responsible for this:

http://forgotston.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/misery.htm

[Bitsy]

And, there was a big ole picture of Ann Duplesis (author of this rediculous pay raise bill) with her arm raised with a clenched fist in victory (it was disgusting). I called my legislator and left a message to enjoy his first term but don’t look forward to a second. These people knew public opinion was in opposition to them but they arrogantly voted for it anyway. We WON’T forget this like they think we will.

[JLLH]

Absolutely right, Bitsy!

[Pikachu_Dad]

Most of them, but not all of them. There are some new faces in the mix this year.

[Pikachu_Dad]

A recall is unlikely to work because of the number of excessive number of signatures needed.

Anyone can file an ethics complaint.

Procedure for filing complaints is here:
http://www.ethics.state.la.us/general/complain.htm

The laws they have to obey are here:
http://www.ethics.state.la.us/laws/index.html

Starts off:

CHAPTER 15. CODE OF GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS
PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
§1101. Declaration of policy
A. Whereas the people of the state of Louisiana have in Article X, Section 21 of the Louisiana
Constitution mandated that the legislature enact a code of ethics for officials and employees of this state
and its political subdivisions, the legislature does hereby enact a Code of Governmental Ethics.
B. It is essential to the proper operation of democratic government that elected officials and
public employees be independent and impartial; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the
proper channel of the governmental structure; that public office and employment not be used for private
gain other than the remuneration provided by law; and that there be public confidence in the integrity of
government. The attainment of one or more of these ends is impaired when a conflict exists between the
private interests of an elected official or a public employee and his duties as such. The public interest,
therefore, requires that the law protect against such conflicts of interest and that it establish appropriate
ethical standards with respect to the conduct of elected officials and public employees without creating
unnecessary barriers to public service. It is the purpose of this Chapter to implement these policies and
objectives.
Acts 1979, No. 443, §1, eff. April 1, 1980.

yada yada yada

So the question is if there is anything in our ethics rules - and their should be - that would prevent them from voting themeselves pay raises.

[Pikachu_Dad]

We can certainly try both. §1120. Recusal from voting 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. An elected official who recuses himself from voting pursuant to this Section shall not be prohibited from participating in discussion and debate concerning the matter, provided that he verbally discloses the nature of the conflict or potential conflict during his participation in the discussion or debate and prior to any vote taken on the matter. Acts 1979, No. 443, §1, eff. April 1, 1980; Acts 1988, No. 880, §1; Acts 2008, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 8, §1, eff. March 6, 2008. and §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. 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. (2) Any person in which he has a substantial economic interest of which he may reasonably be expected to know. (3) Any person of which he is an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee. (4) Any person with whom he is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment. (5) Any person who is a party to an existing contract with such public servant, or with any legal entity in which the public servant exercises control or owns an interest in excess of twenty-five percent, or who owes any thing of economic value to such public servant, or to any legal entity in which the public servant exercises control or owns an interest in excess of twenty-five percent, and who by reason thereof is in a position to affect directly the economic interests of such public servant. C. Every public employee, excluding an appointed member of any board or commission, shall disqualify himself from participating in a transaction involving the governmental entity when a violation of this Part would result. The procedures for such disqualification shall be established by regulations issued pursuant to R.S. 42:1134(1). D. No appointed member of any board or commission, except as provided in R.S. 42:1120.1, 7 1120.2, or 1120.3, shall participate or be interested in any transaction involving the agency when a violation of this Part would result. Acts 1979, No. 443, §1, eff. April 1, 1980; Acts 1983, No. 697, §1; Acts 1985, No. 426, §2; Acts 1987, No. 370, §1; Acts 2006, No. 798, §1, eff. June 30, 2006.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Well, they certainly got Governor Davis of California with it. So ignore my naysaying and go for it.

Use of the Recall Recall attempts at the state level have been singularly unsuccessful. Prior to California's 2003 recall election, the only successful recall of a governor to date took place in North Dakota in 1921, when voters removed from office not only Governor Lynn J. Frazier, but also the attorney general and the commissioner of agriculture. California voters have initiated 32 gubernatorial recall attempts since 1911, but the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis in 2003 was the first to ever reach the ballot. In 1988, Arizona voters filed enough signatures to trigger a recall election for Governor Evan Mecham, but he was impeached by the state's House of Representatives before the date of the scheduled recall election. Recall efforts against state legislators are slightly more common, but still unusual. Prior to Californias' 2003 recall election, the only sucessfull recall In California, where 107 recall efforts were initiated from 1911 to 1994, only four qualified for the ballot. A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt. Not until 1994 was another state recall election held, and the senator involved in that attempt - David Roberti - won 59 percent of the vote. In 1995, two Assembly members were recalled. Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988. The recall is used much more often at the local level of government than at the state level. At least 36 states permit the recall of local officials. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm

[Pikachu_Dad]

Here was the reasons listed as to why it would be difficult to get Blanco. 1/3 of REGISTERED voters - not ACTIVE voters. Listing of Ward and Precinct requirement with the signature. Louisiana legislators have made it near impossible for anyone to be recalled. Under the law on the books, getting an official recall and having a petition put on the ballot requires signatures from at least one-third of the registered voters. Right now, that would mean some 900,000 people would have to sign any recall petition. This all has to be done in 180 days. Even more difficult is the requirement that every voter who signs the recall petition must list both their ward and precinct where they are registered to vote. How many of you reading this article now know your ward and precinct? This one provision alone gives public officials almost complete immunity. http://www.jimbrownla.com/columns/011806.pdf