Well Governor Jindal stated last week that he would veto any legislation that weakened his ethics reforms, and it look like he will get a chance to do just that. On May 1, 2008, we were treated to the Louisiana House of Representatives Committee on House & Governmental Affairs showing us how much disdain they have for the media and C.B. Forgotston. Members of that Committee also mentioned how they have to tweak some of the ethics reforms they made in February, due to their breakneck speed. I have to wonder why they didn't spend a little more time on the bills, instead of adjourning a week early? See this video where they admit that they expected mistakes, because of their zipping through Gov. Jindal's bills without much thought:
Walker Hines, who, by the way, is only six years out of high school, authored his HB 432, whose purpose was to close a loophole in the ethics reform bill concerning food and drink bought for Legislators by lobbyists. The bill would have restricted certain persons from giving a public servant food, drink, and refreshment valued at more than $50 in a 24-hour period, instead of a $50 per event limit under the current law. The Committee members seemed to take personal offense at Hines' bill, and when there was no motion to pass it favorably was made, he voluntarily deferred it. When watching the following video, play close attention to the derogatory remarks made about C.B. Forgoston and the media:
An absolute slap in the face to the governor is Rep. Herbert Dixon's HB 290, which is another attempt to get the first bill Governor Jindal vetoed back passed him. Dixon's similar bill was vetoed during the 2008 First Special Session of the Legislature. This bill:
- Requires the Board of Ethics to provide to the accused and the complainant a detailed explanation regarding a possible violation, including the specific factual allegations upon which the board based its decision to investigate and a copy of any complaint, excluding the name of the complainant. Provides that following an investigation, the board shall decide whether to issue charges and conduct a hearing to receive evidence relative to the facts alleged in such charges. Provides requirements for the content of such charges. Requires the board to consider offering consent opinions.
See the hearing of this bill below:
If an award were to be given to a representative that just doesn't get what ethics is all about it would go to Rep. Nita Rusich Hutter. Rep. Hutter is employed as Director of Development at Delgado Community College, which could explain her interest in getting free stuff from colleges as well as for university employees. Rep. Hutter doesn't understand that the public, and the governor, don't like public servants getting free stuff. She is another Republican who is all for ethics, but not for herself or her own crowd. Her first weakening bill for ethics reform was HB 906, which would require the Board of Ethics to provide to the accused and the complainant a detailed explanation regarding a possible violation, the specific factual allegations upon which the board based its decision to investigate, the name of the complainant or any other person providing information on the matter, and a copy of any complaint within 10 days of the Board's receipt of the same. Despite having a very similar bill to Dixon's, except this bill's requirement that the name of the complainant, this bill too passed onto the floor. See the bill's presentation below:
The next Hutter bill to set back ethics reform was HB 947, which would allow a public servant to accept complimentary admission to a fundraising event held by or for the benefit of an educational institution, excluding professional, semiprofessional, or collegiate sporting events.
And to continue her freebies for public servants was Hutter's HB 991, which would allow a public servant to accept complimentary or discounted admission to, transportation to, and lodging related to educational, informational, or professional development seminars and conferences. See the bill's hearing here:
Perhaps one of the most deserving bills, requiring an exemption for our ethics laws, was Nicholas J. Lorusso's HB 1181, which would have excluded certain members of the National Guard from the definition of "public employee" for purposes of the Code of Governmental Ethics. Unfortunately, an insufficient number of the Committee was present after the testimony for the bill that no action could be taken. See that testimony here:
Although he is doing a valiant job for us on SB 87's middle class tax cuts, Senator B.L. "Buddy" Shaw has done ethics reform a great harm. Shaw's SB 53, which has cleared the Senate and is on the way to the House, proposes to take away the Ethics Board authority to consider anonymous complaints. This bill, if it passes, should be another retreat from ethics for the governor to veto.
See Also:
COMPENDIUM: 2008 REGULAR SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE
ETHICS SPECIAL SESSION COMPENDIUM!
&
|