| 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:
But that's not the issue here. The issue here is that Rep. Tucker pushed a bill that would benefit his wife, and by extension, him. According to Louisiana law, you're not allowed to do that. The Lousiana Constitution Article 3, ยง 9, states, to wit:
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.
The key thing to know about this is that this was not part of Jindal's 31-point ethics plan, nor was it part of his transition ethics advisory board's recommendations, but was prompted by conversations with lawmakers who don't like the way the Ethics Board operates today, according to The Advocate.
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 ... |
