| Hat Tip to The Reduct Box.
Sunday's Advocate included an editorial from the Editorial Board that excoriates Governor PBJ for the con game that his Administration is pulling on the people of Louisiana. Here's how Jindal is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes:
"There's a serious question whether enforcement of the shiny new reforms will be an illusion - undermined by decisions of Jindal's own lieutenants in the Legislature ... The governor appears to be having it two ways: reforms in the media releases, obstacles to enforcement in the legislation."
I will freely admit that Governor Jindal's staff is very good at setting the narrative, especially since we have a lazy ass BSM that often swallows the manure shoveled by politicians without even thinking about it. It's nice to see the Advocate's Editorial Board finally waking up ...
"One issue is the decision to add another layer of lawyers to the enforcement process by removing from the Board of Ethics the actual decision of who is in violation of ethics laws. Under the Louisiana Constitution, that was placed with the board. Jindal legislation requires that administrative law judges rule on cases brought before them by the board."
"We don't know yet whether that new process will be a barrier to enforcement, but it does replace a one-step process with a — no pun intended — two-step process."
Might the legislation be in violation of the Louisiana Constitution? I ask, because the Louisiana Supreme Court recently threw State Senator Cleo Field off the ballot this past October in the fall legislative elections because they ruled that the Legislature's law on the issue when a legislator began his term of office did not supersede the Constitution. Thus, if that was the case in that instance, wouldn't it be the case in this instance as well?"
"The second issue is the burden of proof in ethics cases."
"The amendment raised the burden of proof on the ethics board when it seeks to enforce the ethics code. The new "clear and convincing" standard of evidence is much tougher to meet than the old standard of "reliable and substantial" evidence of a violation."
I mentioned the raising of the burden of proof in a quick post about the Regular Session currently underway last week. The Public Affairs Research Council, (a GREAT resource, by the way) does the research for us, so I don't have to (emphasis added):
"A recent change to the state’s ethics code will weaken the enforceability of the state's ethics laws by making violations more difficult to prove. There have been no problems cited with the lesser burden of proof, which continues to be in effect until August 15. Rather, increasing the burden of proof seems to be an attempt to undermine the recently strengthened ethics laws."
"It is clear that this change will slow the prosecution of ethics cases already in the works, likely create a backlog of investigations and discourage violators from admitting guilt when they think the evidence of their offense is slim. The three-word change was inserted into the controversial ALJ bill as a late amendment that was added with little debate. Many legislators who voted for the change likely didn't understand its impact. As Louisiana struggles to improve its image, the timing of this change is particularly troublesome, but it can be remedied during the current session before its detrimental impact on ethics reform occurs."
The legislators didn't understand the impact of the language change for the burden of proof? BWAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh, PAR.
They knew exactly what the score was ... especially Speaker Tucker, who has faced off against the Ethics Board in the past, and will likely be called before them again on the recent bill he passed that seems to benefit his lovely wife quite nicely.
Governor PBJ's response to all this is quite telling:
"I'm not a lawyer."
I agree .... he's not. But as the Advocate Editorial right points out (emphasis added):
This is not leadership. Jindal is not a lawyer, but he is the governor. And this is his signature issue. |
