Bill sponsoring gap shows Melancon's inability to lead

In another attempt to find something to write about during what may be considered a “slow” news period, the New Orleans Times-Picayune hit upon comparing during this session of Congress that the challenger to Republican Sen. David Vitter, Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon, has introduced only six pieces of legislation, two symbolic only, while Vitter has put his name on 73. That’s not as interesting as is the reaction by the Melancon camp seeking to take the seat in 2010 in trying to spin this.

Melancon operatives sniff that their boss is good behind the scenes in trying to make legislation that is more “Louisiana friendly.” By contrast, they claim that Vitter does no more than “grandstanding” in proposing so much legislation few pieces of which ever make it into law.

Note the forensic sidestep being attempted here, as the staffers try to equate the quality of legislation with its chances of passage. This perverts the true definition of “quality” which is simply the degree to which the legislation helps the country. How popular legislation may be among members of a particular Congress has nothing to do with how good it is – as this 111th Congress has shown dramatically with useless spending that expanded the deficit by about a fifth in one fell swoop, stealth state-controlled universal health insurance for “poor children” (in some cases up to 25 years in age and whose families make nearly six-figure annual salaries), and other less publicized mistakes.

A review of Vitter’s legislation, even just that mentioned in the story, reveals some very good ideas such as preserving the most vulnerable members of society from being killed for convenience, foreign assistance incentives to reduce illegal immigration, and preventing government funding going to a community organizing group facing multiple felony charges. That majorities in Congress lack the wisdom to pass these kinds of measures speaks not their quality but rather the inability or unwillingness of that majority to understand the superiority of such policies and to empathize with the American people.

And while this small amount of legislative bill success that a Melancon handler classifies as something that “produces nothing for his constituents,” at least give Vitter credit that in being stymied he is not actually working against the best interests of his constituents as has Melancon by his support indirectly (through votes allowing liberal Democrats to control the House) and directly (by voting for such idiocy as the budget-busting spending bill early in the year that, at best, has done nothing to improve the country’s economic performance) of measures harmful to the country.

But, argue the Melancon hacks, their boss promotes changes to other bills to help his constituents. Yet when pressed to come up with some examples, most cited by them Melancon ended up voting against in the final bill. So how is that any different from their argument that Vitter’s work not making it into law is “ineffective” if both are on the losing side of votes, and how does this make Melancon any more “effective?” By making his Democrat superiors’ bills he doesn’t like only mildly damaging instead of very damaging? If he believes that, why is he supporting a party that causes so much damage?

Actually, doing things out of the limelight does seem to be Melancon’s style which helps his avoid publicity of more unsavory things he’s done to the taxpayers. For example, in the name of “research” with other members of Congress Melancon took a junket that spanned three continents, 20,000 miles and hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money that culminated in viewing telescopes and sending postcards from the South Pole. And this supposed investigation into man-made climate change (effects of climate change he could have observed just as easily driving for two hours in any direction in his district) itself was based upon what has become revealed to be questionable, if not outright fraudulent, science that he consistently has defended.

All of these attempts by Melancon apologists try to deflect observation of the essential truth: Melancon has more sympathy with the liberal agenda than not, and he will go along and get along with it by opposing where he can’t slow down his masters’ preferred items but, like the faithful lap dog that he is, always supporting them when they need his vote. If nothing else, that Vitter takes strong principled positions promoting beneficial legislation in contrast to Melancon’s cravenness should tell voters all they need to know about who would be better to lead for Louisiana’s interests in the Senate.

Fulfilling requests digitally thrift idea worth pursuing

It may have cost the state $13,000, but at least it can learn what needs to be done to ensure greater efficiency particularly needed in these times of budgetary stress.

The state’s First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that it was not good enough to fulfill a public records request just to place documents available for public inspection on the Internet, and awarded the plaintiff $13,000 in attorney’s fees because the Public Service Commission did not produce public records in a timely fashion. Part of the reason for the delay was the PSC’s contention, since the records in question already were viewable via the Internet, that it had fulfilled the request.

However, the plaintiff wanted paper copies, and the law backed him up. R.S. 44:32 states “it shall be the duty of the custodian of such public records to provide copies to persons so requesting,” even as fees may be charged. Thus, while those kinds of documents can be put out on the Internet, they still have to be provided in paper form on request.

Servicing these requests can take much employee time and some physical resources. It would be much more efficient for each agency that serves as a custodian of public records to place as many records as possible online, create simple web processes by which to access them, and be allowed to fulfill requests this way. For those who claim they do not have access to the Internet, each agency could set up terminals and printers to allow these requestors to come to the agency to get access.

Of course, this would require a change in statute to permit record provision without the state having to hand over a fee-for-service hard copy except those done at the proposed workstation and whichever records for whatever reason cannot be put online. The Legislature also would have to commit to a program of putting all possible state records online and funding the establishment of the workstations.

While this would pass along printer and paper costs to requestors (they already absorb most search costs because of the specificity required in a request), these are relatively small, not even necessary if the downloaded records are used from digital media, and certainly are dwarfed by the costs to taxpayers to fund government to do it, subsidizing a small number of requestors. In fact, they may end up being cheaper for many requestors since the state typically charges much higher fees than it actually costs in terms of printing. These changes need pursuing during the next regular session.

Thanksgiving Day, 2009

This column publishes usually every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas or New Year's when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.

With Thursday, Nov. 26 being Thanksgiving Day, I invite you to explore the link above.

Liberal protest misdiagnosis sign of their own weakness

Selective outrage never is becoming, but it becomes more obnoxious still when it becomes selective selective outrage. An unsigned commentary from New Orleans’ Gambit magazine illustrates the point precisely.

The Gambit folks apparently became perturbed when, locally, in the wake of Republican Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao’s vote to pass a ruinously bad House health care measure received some rude remarks from people disappointed in that, and, nationally, that at a rally attended by 10,000 or so to protest the bill in Washington D.C. headlined by leading Republicans, a sign appeared equating a photo of a concentration camp with the bill. To them, it seemed to signify a recent growing incivility in political discourse.

But, in reality, the piece tells us more about the fallaciousness and insecurities of its writers. The entire diatribe focused on this presumed speech coming from alleged supporters of the Republican Party and by implication from the right of the ideological spectrum. And to bolster its attempt to define this speech into its being uncivil, the writers mention that two groups called upon Republican leaders to condemn it as such. Recognize this tactic serves a broader political agenda to accomplish the proverbial passing of a camel through the eye of a needle, to try to delegitimize principled conservatism by a shotgun marriage of it with these other sentiments by the drawing of condemnation of groups allegedly representing the objects of these slurs.

This attempt unravels when first investigating the groups. One, the Anti-Defamation League, famously preaches from the left and long has a history of selective outrage: speech from the right it finds offensive draws immediate ire; but unquestionably hateful speech from places with which left sympathizes draws mild rebukes if any at all. The other, the Asian Pacific Americans for Progress, describes itself as an organization for “progressive” (read: very liberal) people and swears absolutely fealty to the health care reform wreck supported by Democrats. That they are the ones condemning remarks isn’t so much any validation that these remarks are objectionable as it is revelation of their own partisan political biases. Naturally, the editorial mentions none of this.

Note also that the writers are building a thesis by selectively taking unrepresentative evidence and attempting to impute it to the whole. Maybe, out of the thousand or more signs at the rally, were there a couple others of the same ilk that got the writers into a huff. And the submitted comments about Cao that so vexed these crusaders are unlikely to represent more than a similar proportion of the entire universe of those objecting to Cao’s vote. Yet they try to pass off these as some larger indicator of widespread “hatred” that has created this “ugly season.”

This cavalier reading makes one wonder where these nimrods have been for the past decade. If you want to see real vituperative hate in political discourse, you need look no further than dozens of wacko leftist blogger and forum sites where the venom has been flowing freely ever since former Pres. Bill Clinton got caught with his fly unzipped. This should not be surprising, as liberalism as a whole lacks intellectual and empirical verification as a political ideology, so it must rely on willful ignorance of history and fact with these replaced by emotive anti-intellectual appeal. Yet this seems to escape the slumbering authors, perhaps because they revel in the same self-deception and/or inability to think for themselves.

Being an ideology bereft any intellectual coherence and substance, liberalism’s proponents long ago took and made mainstream arguments into directions featuring ad hominem, straw man, and dissembling qualities. Not unlike what Gambit’s editorialists try to do when they imply negative qualities to the right when it has been the left’s province for so long. Liberals have for so long have created the conditions and lived in an “ugly season” that when seeing a flicker of it on the right they cannot break from the playbook which results in the usual incorrect, self-serving interpretation.

Reform, reorganization best ways to gain large savings

In what promises to be a slow news week, the Baton Rouge Advocate ran a story about something in state government that was not anything new, but nevertheless interesting and worthwhile in the complicated public policy debate about force levels and classification of state government workers.

Those perusing the latest available (2007-08) annual report of the Department of State Civil Service will have noted that force levels overall did not change too much in the fiscal year 2004-2008 periods, but that a decrease of around 5,000 in the classified ranks was offset by a more than 5,000 increase in the unclassified service. Classified employees, after a year-long probationary period, acquire job protections that vastly constrain agency abilities to discipline or to make workforce adjustments that would result in lower salaries for them, and which make it very difficult in an extended process to discharge them.

However, the article focuses on the unclassified workforce – those whose personnel matters are outside the hiring, disciplining, and firing regulations of the DSCS and are left up to the agencies that employ them. It notes this increase in the unclassified service and ponders about its implications. Unfortunately, the piece does not adequately capture the complexity of this argument, a necessary prerequisite as Louisiana looks to reduce its personnel costs by making its government more efficient as large budget deficits loom.

Regrettably, the article leaves the impression that the vast majority of the roughly one-third of the state’s full-time equivalent workforce in the unclassified service are presumed less “controllable” as objects of state spending policy and are at-will, if not political, appointees. However, it is decidedly not the case that more than a fraction of the unclassified service is comprised of positions whose existences, compensations, and hiring and firing positions are left mainly in the hands of elected officials and/or policy-makers.

Most of the unclassified service has performance pay plans in place – and often plans tying actual performance more closely to pay adjustments than presently in the classified service. For example, in higher education where the majority of these unclassified employees work, campuses years ago were directed to construct performance plans that assign numerical scores to various and mostly objective indicators, along with a few subjective ones, from which pay raises are calculated. In fact, campuses themselves determine whether raises are made and how, and with the fiscal situation such as it has been for the state for the past quarter-century these have been far and few between.

Contrast this with the procedure in the classified system, where the more-subjective evaluation process produces a five-tiered system where the same raise, until this year given annually, is given to anybody in the three higher tiers or well over 95 percent of the classified force. This may change, as the State Civil Service Commission in a couple of weeks will decide whether to change the present classified evaluation system to one that is actually closer to that often used in evaluating members of the unclassified service.

Also, in the instances of anyone who entered or laterally moved into the higher education system in a tenure-track position, these take on characteristics of the classified service. After, in essence, a much longer probationary period (usually six years; some actually come in with tenure and thus have no probationary period), they acquire protections similar to those in the classified service.

Finally, the reason why the proportion of about a third of the state’s employees are unclassified is because of two quirks tolerated in Louisiana, a higher education system that could use some more rationalization in organization and a charity hospital system run by a higher education system. The state’s head count (as opposed to FTE) number for the end of fiscal year 2009 shows almost half of the state’s employees are in higher education. (Some of this is overstated because, for example, part of that count will be students on work-study, adjunct instructors teaching a single course, etc.). But, given the large number of campuses (90) and five boards that oversee postsecondary education that may not do a lot to prevent inefficiency, ongoing cost-cutting deliberations may produce some retrenchment in almost all unclassified positions from this area.

Note as well that because higher education (the Louisiana State University System, specifically) has authority over the charity hospital system, the vast bulk of its employees are categorized here and are unclassified. Were the state do the sensible thing and get out of the hospital business except for a facility or two used for medical training (if even any are necessary), these jobs, most unclassified, would disappear from state rolls.

And if DSCS did look into the data to explain the changes in both areas of employment, it probably would find most of the downsizing in classified employee numbers has come from the aftereffects of the 2005 hurricane disasters, and subsequent reductions stressed by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, partly out of budgetary concerns and partly out of ideology, and by other officials with power in this area (most notably Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain), while the increase in unclassified employee tallies has come from the large amount of money pumped into higher education for several years until last year and unabated escalation of Medicaid costs and usage that have pumped up demand in the charity hospital system. It’s likely not as mysterious a development as DSCS officials seem to think.

Thus, the perception that the proportion is recklessly growing of the Louisiana state government workforce created and supervised at the whim of officials, and the allied thought that cost-cutting measures here would reap significant rewards, is unwarranted. Many more savings will emerge through mundane technocratic kinds of reorganization and reform of the present classified pay regime than by a scrubbing of unclassified positions where people are hired and fired at will.

Wise higher ed suggestions need serious consideration

Sensible ideas continue to come from Louisiana’s Postsecondary Education Review Commission regarding realigning resources, but especially in this policy area real progressive change only will occur with proper implementation.

The latest recommendations, joining others some of which can be implemented by the state’ Board of Regents but most of which only can be dealt with by the Legislature, would result in the discontinuation of some academic programs, perhaps especially in graduate studies, with an emphasis on completion rates, quality, and workforce needs to sort those that continue from those that shouldn’t. In addition, it recommended equal funding per faculty member for associates degree programs (those offered at baccalaureate universities typically are higher because of higher faculty salaries) and the elimination of “excess” hours in programs (currently defined as any baccalaureate program offering more than 120 hours except where accreditation requires more).

These recommendations remain consistent with previous ones suggested if not adopted. For example, PERC has asked for higher admission standards and consolidation of schools in some instances. That was brought up again particularly in reference to Southern University – New Orleans which has averaged about 10 percent completers (finishing a degree in six years) over the past couple of years. Adding the reduction of programs could strip a school like SUNO to the point where it has no real reason to exist as a separate institution.

This may be the only way to move the state towards consolidations and even closure or downgrading of campuses from four-year to two-year, as politics has played a major role in keeping this from happening. While the Southern University System may complain that the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 have had lingering effects on its ability to deliver education, that calamity’s intervention made for the ideal opportunity to put consolidation into effect. With the University of New Orleans also hurting from that disaster (as one of its coping moves, looking to downgrade significantly its athletics programs despite their history of reasonable success), it would have made perfect sense long ago to combine forces by folding the small SUNO into the larger UNO and divest of the SUNO infrastructure.

However, as a commission member pointed out, the state cannot arbitrarily lop off any low completer program or consolidate it elsewhere. One example from my past: years ago, Louisiana State University Shreveport offered a Bachelors of Arts in Social Sciences – Public Administration. From anywhere from five to 10 students were enrolled in it at any time. It was certainly needed – there are thousands of government employees (not counting teachers and university professors) in the Shreveport metropolitan area in managerial positions – but it received little support in terms of connecting it to government (although at the time LSUS spent almost nothing on these kinds of efforts, so it wasn’t being discriminated against). But it cost nothing to have. Its major coursework was taught by faculty members whose courses were used in other majors as well, and the only extra and modest administrative demands it made were added to the duties of one faculty member (me).

Eventually, it was discontinued as part of a round a dozen years ago ridding low completer programs. However, not a single cent was saved by doing so, and under different circumstances it would have had great potential. It is considerations such as these that will have to be weighed by any round (yet again) of low completer removals.

One option not present in the past, also suggested by a commission member, is the use of online delivery as a method of consolidation. For example, Illinois has a quasi-separate administrative unit within the University of Illinois system called the Illinois Virtual Campus which essentially allows any student at any state public university to take a course online offered at any state public university and have it count as potentially fulfilling a degree requirement at their home school. This model could be adapted to Louisiana where instruction of duplicative specialty programs could housed in one institution administratively and then delivered through distance means.

Further, increased use of online instructional resources can create specialization and efficiency. As an example, it is now possible at LSUS to fulfill all major area requirements for a B.A. in Social Sciences – Political Science through online coursework, and the same holds true for a Bachelors of General Studies, except for the capstone course, if the area of concentration chosen is in political science. This presently can attract students who complete associates degrees at community colleges across the state, who then virtually without leaving their areas can transfer and complete a four-year degree.

Yet this can be expanded in the context of realigning resources. As an example, smaller schools who either do not offer political science beyond the introductory level or general studies as a major could import LSUS political science courses, or those schools if they have these majors if low completer in nature could shed them from being taught on their campuses yet their students still could complete those degrees with use of the imported courses. Obviously this would create controversy because it could mean certain faculty members in certain disciplines at certain schools would be made redundant, but if the state is serious about efficiency, it’s going to be headed in that direction. (And the transformation would take some time – if tenured, faculty members essentially would have to leave their jobs before such realignment could happen in a cost effective way.)

To date, even as PERC is asked to come up with $146 million in savings prior to the end of February, most of the real savings are long-term in nature such as with the above. Regardless of these not being short-term items, ideas such as these promise substantial savings through more efficient alignment of resources, and PERC wisely needs to keep heading and recommending in this direction. Then it will be up to the Regents and Legislature to put aside politics to adopt them and into implement them with care.

Landrieu elicits lucre as salve, ploy, or electoral gimmick?

So Sen. Mary Landrieu, stating she was “proud” to have wangled at least $100 million to give to the state in extra Medicaid reimburse for one year (2011) in the monstrous health care bill sponsored in the Senate, said she would vote to override any attempt to prevent brining up the bill for action. What does this mean?

By the Democrat voting for allowing the bill that would hike costs, add to the deficit, and probably reduce the quality of care to move forward, the process stays alive as a whole if all other non-Republican senators join her. Failure to do so would not definitively have killed the effort, but at the least would have presented a challenging obstacle for Democrats trying to ram it through as quickly as possible.

Every slowing of the bill, however, is akin to weakening its chances. Polls show a majority of Americans grasp the basic facts of Democrat bills to change health care in terms of impact on costs and care, and a smaller majority opposes it. Knowledge about them only will increase in time, and thereby the majority against it. As Congressional elections loom closer, the electorate will have a greater capacity to remember them and who supported them which some Democrats wish to avoid. While the Democrat leadership has taken on a scorched-earth approach to the matter – regardless of how many seats they lose in 2010 and beyond over their kind of reform, they’ll do it because it can more securely lock liberalism into public policy in the long run – some individual Democrats want to preserve their careers and enough of them will become discouraged at supporting these kinds of bills as time passes to prevent their success.

Landrieu’s choice decreases the potential unfavorable impact of the clock ticking on the chances of these damaging changes Democrats want to make passing. At the same time, it has to be remembered that there are many hurdles to overcome where Landrieu could help defeat version of this. Her most likely points of contention would be over whether public funding of abortion would occur and if Louisiana would be forced into letting a government-run “public option” health care plan operate.

But the fact is, even without these things, it would take a horrible bill and make it only a little less horrible. For Landrieu to support something like that would be a dereliction of duty to do what is best for Louisiana and America. All the set-aside money for the state cannot obliterate this truth, illuminating the craven aspect of Landrieu which should not salve her conscience, if she really does support a slightly less obnoxious version. Let us not hope that was her motivation in being coy about the vote to proceed.

Much better would be if Landrieu played hard-to-get because she really, in the end, wishes to vote against the bill, even with the bonus. Knowing she could draw out the process to help that, her (under this assumption) bluffing could make her look better (or perhaps to assist separately or as well the future political career of brother Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu) to the state’s voters, even if with defeat the state did not get the money this way. Then she could have it both ways: demonstrating she can funnel money to the state yet voting against a bill a solid majority of Louisianans do not like.

Unfortunately, chances are the deal she made to proceed happened because she is a shrewd true believer in the stupidity behind the bill, and she will remain bought throughout the process. Selling out somebody for pieces of lucre is not new in history; let’s only hope her conscience reminds her of such before she assists in inflicting degradation and suffering on the American people.

Court wrongly usurps power to shift flood damage blame

Several interesting ramifications emerge from the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval to award some plaintiffs damages, against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who argued improper maintenance of the now-closed Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel made the government liable for destructions from flooding incident to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

First, this is an exercise in raw judicial activism. By its nature, judicial activism, which mandates that judges use their own judicial philosophies in saying what the law and Constitution mean rather than confining themselves to the meanings found strictly within the laws or Constitution, places democratically unaccountable and inexpert individuals – judges – in the role of policy-makers. It ignores the possibility that more expertise in policy matters may be found among democratically elected and accountable officials than those who are not.

From this extends three implications. One, this decisions means a policy-maker without expertise is making a policy decision that requires it, making questionable the value of such a decision. So be it, but that also would apply to (most) members of Congress who are democratically accountable because they made the original policy decision to fund projects like MR-GO, so what’s the difference in making their policy-making decisions legitimate? Well, two, precisely because they are held accountable for their decisions through elections and the Constitution explicitly lists policy-making (by giving Congress sole lawmaking power) as a function of this branch of government, which it significantly withholds from the judiciary, So, third, since this really was a matter of policy, unless it can be proven Congress itself deliberately wanted to underfund the Corps in these matters, to design MR-GO intentionally to cause flooding, etc., with the intent of triggering disaster, you cannot argue, as Duval does, that this is more than just an honest policy mistake made by Congress through its implementation by the Corps. Not only that, but the court should not have the power in the first place to render such a judgment.

Second, whether this decision holds up is questionable. Specifically, Duval as a jurist has a history of creativity in his decisions that assigns government all sorts of sinister motives upon which higher courts have frowned. For example, years ago Duval ordered the state to stop its efforts to produce a “Choose Life” vanity license plate because he claimed it promoted private speech. That view eventually was rejected by both the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. In addition, judges are human and being that the case was tried in New Orleans, judges located in different areas that make up the 5th Circuit might have less emotion clouding their decisions, and certainly that would be the case at the Supreme Court level. In other words, higher courts likely are to take a less expansive view of government responsibility and with greater clarity decide the case than did Duval.

Third … that is, if the case is appealed which would pose a political problem for Pres. Barack Obama and his party leadership that controls, for now, the Democrat Congress. Obama and Democrats ran on the unsustainable notion that somehow the city and state were “neglected” by former Pres. George W. Bush and a Congress at the time of the disaster controlled by Republicans, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars that poured into the state which mostly went to the New Orleans area. If the Obama Administration challenges this decision because the federal government could be on the hook for billions of dollars at a time when Obama and Democrats are engaged in deficit spending well beyond levels in any peacetime period in the country’s history and are getting politically pounded for it, this will make him look (on yet another matter) mendacious and no different from the (mistaken) impression of the Bush Administration.

Fourth, the decision also ratifies the abrogation of personal responsibility and the socialization of risk. Chances are, none of these plaintiffs or others lined up to sue the federal government had any flood insurance. While it is unfortunate that so much suffering came as a result of the disasters, a little common sense would have helped out on the back end of it: if you live below sea level, no matter how supposedly invulnerable your levees are, you buy flood insurance (and it’s cheap, too because, guess what, taxpayers from all over the country, few of whom live in flood zones, at present heavily subsidize it). Had many people living in the areas below sea level not bought flood insurance, there would have been no need to go suing the government to collect money to rebuild. The only reason they shouldn’t be held accountable for a bad choice that they expect others to pay for was the federal government was too stupid to use common sense itself in drawing up flood maps that didn’t order most people having mortgaged property to buy it.

Fifth, even if we buy the argument that the federal government is responsible, to foist the entire blame on it ignores the historical record. The state and some local governments have more culpability in creating these conditions, yet none of that appears to be taken into consideration adequately in assigning sole responsibility to the federal government.

Finally, if the decision were to stand, how would this affect the state’s efforts in compensating for losses? Probably most of the people eligible to sue if this decision held took advantage of and got state money to rebuild. Does the award, or at least some portion of it, flow to the state to reimburse it? How much goes additionally to plaintiffs? This would create a bureaucratic and expensive nightmare, to be borne by the state in terms of aggravation and the national taxpayer in terms of administrative costs beyond their money going for compensation.

Hopefully, higher courts will have a better understanding of the issues and the judiciary’s place in our system of government and overturn this ruling. That may inconvenience some, but maintaining the integrity inherent to notions of who is accountable and responsible and which part of government is intellectually able and constitutionally authorized to make such decisions makes that worth it.

Panel opens up Pandora's box for Jindal hospital plans

You pay your money and you take your chances, a sentiment reaffirmed to the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration when the Commission on Streamlining Government brought up the contentious issue of whether to build a new hospital complex for the Medical Center of Louisiana-New Orleans.

The Administration’s main purpose in having the Commission, as noted, is to use it as a vehicle to build political support for its redesign of government which has as part of it some controversial matters that challenge existing power structures within state government. Having the Commission endorse Jindal’s views would make some of his desires politically possible in the face of entrenched opposition.

But the shoe got put on the foot when the Commission dove into the matter of rebuilding “Big Charity,” the public hospital now run by the Louisiana State University System that was rendered inoperable in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Original plans by former Gov. Kathleen Blanco set to create a palatial new facility, even as the area had excess hospital capacity that was only going to increase through depopulation. Jindal scaled back those plans somewhat.

However, ignored by the state was the realistic alternative of taking the old building structure and remodeling it. A study paid for by historic preservationists showed this to be a considerably cheaper option, although a study by the LSU System claimed a new building would be more cost effective. Heretofore, the state has accepted the LSU line.

Looking for ways to save the state money as forecasted budget deficits could be in the $2-3 billion range in the next two fiscal years, the Commission advocated what normally is an idea that merely puts off hard decisions, delays matters, and costs more money – do another study. Yet in this instance such a position is justified. Members were right to note that no study unconnected to advocates of one choice or the other has been completed and, if the preservationists’ numbers are the most accurate, around a quarter of billion dollars are at stake and could be saved. For that amount of money, a little more time and expense is cost effective.

Perhaps even more controversially, the motion passing that addressed this issue included review of the LSU System business plan for operating the new facility. At the time it was produced, many (including the Jindal Administration in its conclusion to build a smaller facility) questioned the assumptions behind it that appeared to justify the presence of a larger facility. If a review of the plan showed even at its reduced level too many beds would exist to serve the market and operate it without large losses, this might argue in favor of renovation – although it also could become justification for a new but even smaller Big Charity that might make that plan more cost effective relative to renovation.

After the Commission reports by Dec. 15, then it’s up to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget to carve out the relatively small amount of money in short order as the recommendation wants the study completed by the beginning of the next regular legislative session in late March. Whether that happens will indicate how much power the Jindal Administration is able or willing to exercise on the matter if it truly is closed-minded about ramming through a hospital of questionably-needed size in this era of tight budgets.

BESE must improve vetting of education contracts

Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy, as part of his duties being on the Commission for Streamlining Government, made a good observation about the necessity of the dollar amount of contracts being let by the state’s Department of Education. However, the situation is more complex than many realize for the possibilities of savings in this area.

Kennedy observed that since 2005 $615 million of these have gone out, with $130 million of that in the most recent year available, fiscal year 2009. (Note that 36 percent of this entire amount went to the entity that deals with standardized testing of state pupils.) One would hope that when they go out, they would go for classroom purposes, or at least for activities related to instruction and its quality, but trawling through the 2008-09 list shows not all of them seem to do so. Some that don’t meet this criterion do seem necessary, such as for paying litigation, architects, medical, etc. But of the remaining of the 1,009 listed, from their titles it appears that only 46 obvious cases totaling $773,000 existed that did not really add anything potentially to classroom performance.

(This doesn't include many which appeared related to these matters, but seem rather inefficient. Does the state really have to spend approaching $200,000 to enhance the chances of candidates “of being successful in achieving national board certification and aid in future recruiting?” Or spend over $30,000 on the “Cecil J. Picard Educator Excellence Symposium?” Or over $20,000 on presenters at the “Gifted at Center Stage: Building a World-Class Education System” conference?)

While the purposes of some monies listed may appear necessary, the actual distribution of them seems does questionable at times. For example, is there not a better process of providing after-school tutoring than paying over five dozen entities, just about all of them churches, almost $700,000 to do so? Or why does the Urban League of Greater New Orleans get $250,000 to develop materials for parents to use in “school choice,” meaning whether to send their child to a traditional school or an alternative like a charter school or even private school through the state’s quasi-voucher program, when its parent the National Urban League in the past has opposed especially vouchers (even as a few local chapters support them)? Or why pay $579,700 to about a dozen entities to lead committees on high school redesign, when the CSG itself is paying less than $50,000 (raised privately) for similar direction in reviewing all state spending?

It’s also important to note that almost $15 million was spent on items apparently mandated by the federal government, often using federal dollars – much of which seems to go to what many would describe as classic “pork barrel” items. Thus, the state has no choice on these in terms of expenditures, although perhaps in the choice of contractor, and there seemed to be millions of dollars more in other items on the list that were not clearly designated for this purpose but are for required federal government programs and that state dollars.

Finally, when searching for accountability for all of this, ultimately it would extend to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and secondarily to the Legislature. This is because BESE controls the money to disburse, but the Legislature provides the bulk of it through the Minimum Program Foundation formula the product of which it only can accept or refuse from BESE. Further, the Department, overseen by BESE, controls the applying, reception, and spending of federal grants. Thus, it is hyperbolic and largely inaccurate to claim, as one normally prescient observer does, that “over $130 Million was handed out to individuals [sic] presumably favored by The Rhodes Scholar-in-chief” – Gov. Bobby Jindal’s only real control over this is through his three appointments to BESE who constitute a minority of BESE of which its eight other members are elected.

Legislators may be more to blame by steering money to nongovernmental organizations such as those listed above, and others, by informal lobbying of the Department of Education. (And other state officials may be to blame here as well – what’s up with Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu’s office getting a contract around a half million dollars?) With the Legislature’s leverage limited because of its very indirect control over federal grant disbursal and the MFP procedures, and perhaps with it lacking any real will to do so, it’s up to BESE to practice greater accountability in terms of dollars spent and by ensuring the best contracting entities are found to fulfill the purpose of the arrangements. In the final analysis, the savings through lopping off the unnecessary and in awarding to more efficient providers may be just a small portion of the overall contracting, but every little bit helps in these times of state fiscal difficulty.