politics

Inquiring minds want to know.

Hey, Vitty-cent, your stonewalling shtick is getting old. Time for you to explain a few things.

UPDATE Da Paper reports that Chehardy has submitted a letter of resignation, effective 1-Jan-2011, in an effort to force Piyush to put the Assessor's race on the October-2010 ballot.

Da Paper's right, the permutations of what's going on in terms of the resignation of Jefferson Parish's assessor, Lawrence Chehardy.

Chehardy's career has been about power from the beginning. His family's ability to circumvent the democratic process in Jefferson Parish was clearly illustrated in 1975, when he took office. His father, Lawrence (father and son have different middle names) was the parish's assessor at that time, and ran one of the two main political factions in the parish at the time. It was Chehardy and his allies versus Tom Donelon, then parish-president and father of current state Insurance Commissioner Jim, then-Sheriff Alwyn Cronvich, and State Senator Jules Mollere. The two factions were classic precinct-and-ward-level political machines. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was only one political party of note in the parish, the Democrats. Politicians didn't start jumping ship to the GOP until Reagan.

The power of the Assessor's office was so great that Chehardy was truly a kingmaker. I'm not privy to why the elder Chehardy wanted to retire in 1975 (he later became a state appellate judge before he passed away in 1999), but it was clear he didn't want to give up power. On the last day of election qualifying for the state election cycle in 1977, the elder Lawrence was the only one who had signed up to run for assessor. At 4:57pm, the younger Lawrence walked up to the desk and presented qualification papers to run for the job. At 4:59pm, the elder Lawrence withdrew his documents. Qualifying closed and the younger Lawrence was elected without opposition.

Now Chehardy says he wants to retire:

The job of assessor is unique. Every four years, assessors are required to revalue all property for tax purposes. The appraisal process is complicated and takes several years to complete. By announcing my decision to resign at this time, an election can be held this year to fill my pending vacancy. A delay in the transition of administrations would be a disservice to our citizens. This decision and timing will allow the newly-elected assessor to begin serving January 1, 2011, giving him or her ample time to properly conduct the 2012 reassessment.

This is a very noble sentiment, Chehardy's desire to manipulate the democratic process continues, however. He wants to resign on 1-1-2011, which would mean the earliest time a special election could be held is April of next year. Chehardy wants his successor chosen on the October ballot, when voters of the parish will choose the successor of future Club Fed guest Mad Aaron Broussard.

Why the October election? The governor can't order an election for a vacancy/unexpired term until that vacancy actually happens. Until he actually packs up his office and resigns, there's no vacancy. If the concern is for the 2012 reassessment cycle, surely an election held in April of 2011 will give the next assessor ample time to ramp up for the process.

With both Parish President and Assessor on the ballot at the same time, there would be a true opportunity for an alliance of politicians to build a true 60s-style machine. With the two staggered, October and April, it's possible that the loser for president could run and win the assessor's job. That's often how things work, of course. Mary Landrieu lost to Murphy Foster in the governor's race in 1995, and she turned around the next year to become one of Louisiana's senators.

Chehardy wants to circumvent this process by holding the elections simultaneously. He wants to rig the process.

Just like his dad did for him over 30 years ago.

Photo Credit: Judy Reynolds (@jareyn)

Some good stuff in Da Paper this morning. Political consultant and Very Angry Cajun, James Carville, did an op/ed piece that hits home several good points:

But while it is important to note that the tepid response to this catastrophe is unacceptable, it is also essential that the rest of the country understand that this feeling of neglect has festered amongst South Louisianians for generations. It's just one damned thing after another, so the anger rising out of the Gulf is not new.

No, it's not new at all, and this time, it's affecting a lot more white Republicans than the storm did. That's why you're hearing a lot more outrage--no way the BP disaster can be dismissed as just a bunch of Eebil Coloreds who are stealing big-screen TVs in ankle-deep water.

One of Carville's points is a bit disingenuous, however:

Add that to the fact that we have not seen a single penny of royalties for oil produced more than six miles off our coast. We assume all of the risk, produce seafood and oil and gas, with none of the reward. Yes, $165 billion of royalties have gone to the federal treasury that could go to help repair this pressing issue.

He's spot-on that we don't get royalties for offshore drilling past six miles, but saying we get "none of the reward" is a stretch. If that were so, Piyush and Vitty-cent wouldn't be scrambling to keep the other deep water rigs in the Gulf. Once you get south of New Orleans, into Houma and Morgan City, the oil/gas industry is still alive and kicking, creating jobs directly and indirectly.

What Carville misses in his piece is that there's been a social contract of sorts between SE Louisiana and the industry. It's simple--we let you drill, you take safety precautions so you don't kill us. Sadly, BP cut corners, killed men, and is now destroying the state because they breached that contract.

In a letter-to-the-editor, State Representative Neil Abramson also has a few things to say about BP that make sense. Not wanting to make the mistakes of five years ago, Abramson wants to defend first, sending the bill later:

I never considered running for office until Hurricane Katrina. I could no longer bear to see the slow recovery and people struggling to get the help they deserved. After three years as a state representative, I now chair the newly created Hurricane Recovery Committee, where I am working to push $3 billion in unspent federal relief to the people still working to make this their home.

Now, here we go again. For the last six weeks since this spill began, it has turned my stomach to hear our residents and parish leaders say "if BP would just give us the money" we could stop the oil ourselves from washing ashore and destroying our way of life.

Makes perfect sense to me. Lock down BP assets in the state, yes. Sue the crap out of them, yes. Keep on Vitty-cent and Oily Mary to make sure the feds keep putting up money, definitely. But just like when your kids have a medical problem, or a family member is in jail and needs to be bailed out, you put together the cash for the defense first, then worry about the long-term financial consequences. This nasty funk just spreads and gets worse while we wring our hands and demand someone pay for it. Get the people out there, do what has to be done. Seize private (BP/Halliburton/Transocean) assets if we must, and let those chips fall where they may afterwards.

Since the first French explorers established a camp here in 1699, New Orleanians have developed a reputation for being able to adapt and bounce back from adversity. From the fire of 1788, which destroyed over 80% of the buildings in the city, to yellow fever epidemics in the 1830s, to Hurricanes Betsey and Katrina, and now with the worst oil spill in the history of mankind just a hundred miles away, the people of this city have experienced their share of disasters that would have caused lesser people to fold the tent and walk away. New Orleans is not a city where people who whine a lot last very long. So, it's no surprise when I read about folks coming to town end up leaving within a year or two, because they can't nurture a local following as a victim.

Take the tea party movement, for example. When you go beyond the racial aspects of the movement, the loudest people in the group are folks who are, for one reason or another, professional victims. Take the guy from Alabama who advocates throwing rocks and bricks at Congressional offices while collecting Social Security disability. The "black helicopter" set have long part of the permanent victim class of American society.

These folks don't last long in New Orleans, mainly because we don't have time for it. Some of the most conservative (therefore, the most likely to be teabaggers) voters in the area live in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes. Down there, people make the most of good economic times by working in the oil/gas industry, in the refineries and offshore. When the really good oil/gas jobs fall off, they turn back to the bayous and the gulf for their livelihood. They've survived boom and bust, political changes and hurricanes. Even now, when BP's oil threatens to trump all of that, they're not whining. They're angry, and they know that nobody in the area will give them the time of day if all they do is claim victim status.

On the left, what little of the city's "victim class" got washed away by the storm. There was a group of "activists" who regularly attended meetings of the Orleans Parish School Board, complaining about the "plantation mentality" of white folks in the city, but their complaints only became shriller and shriller as black OPSB members were perp-walked to Club Fed. The storm has altered the landscape of public education in the entire metro area that these "victims" are now forced to either join in to support the charter schools in the area or shut up. On issues other than education, complaints that prior to the storm arguably could have been dismissed as victim-hood are, sadly, all too real in post-storm NOLA. The fight for affordable housing leads the way in this regard.

In the political arena, victims rarely garner sympathy. You don't like how a neighborhood treats you (or a member of your family who is running for office)? There's a simple solution: don't feckin run for office. Politics in NOLA is no worse than, oh, I dunno, maybe New Jersey? Are the townships and counties in and around Princeton small islands of Platonic Democracy? Consider the value of even a seat in the Louisiana Legislature. I can see someone getting into a campaign for such a seat and not appreciating that others are willing to go to extreme lengths to win, but that's how it goes. The storm wiped a lot of slates clean, but politics wasn't one of them. Many folks who run for office have long-term goals in that regard. The storm might have been a speed bump in the path, but five years is ample time to put distance between a candidate and the speed bump. While there are always opportunities for newcomers, assuming that the "old ways" of NOLA politics died with the storm is a quick ticket to defeat. The savvy politician builds on each run for office, win or lose, working the neighborhood groups, active non-profits, and courting the folks with the money.

Like re-building lives after tough times in the bayou country, there's no room for victim-hood in politics.

New Orleans has no place for professional victims. Take that shit someplace else, like back to school.

The State Capitol in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

In many states that have "part-time" legislatures, where sessions are limited to a small term each year, members are often regarded as "non-professional" politicians.  The "value" of holding such a seat is regarded as low when compared to other political offices.  It's natural, then, for even nationally-recognized "experts" on politics to under-value the scope of a legislative seat in Louisiana.

I've told this story before, but it merits re-telling here.  Back in 1987, a guy I went to University of New Orleans with decided to try his hand at running for the Louisiana House of Representatives.  With a budget of lest than five thousand dollars, he did what you'd expect a guy in his late twenties with political ambitions would do, mount a grassroots campaign.  This entailed a lot of knocking on doors, walking local shopping malls, speaking at neighborhood associations, Kiwanis clubs, and the like.  For a job that paid about $21,000 a year, you wouldn't expect that much more would be necessary to compete.

This young man didn't have any illusions that he was going to unseat an incumbent, even one just completing his first term.  What he didn't expect, however, was to have that incumbent outspend him by a factor of 6:1.  The incumbent dropped well over $30,000 on his campaign, and the young man challenging him was crushed at the polls.

Over copious quantities of beer that November, we tried to sort out what happened.  When you're in what you expect to be a Pinewood Derby race and you get run over by a NASCAR team, things just don't make sense.  It made even less sense in the context of the race.  The incumbent for that seat, Kernan "Skip" Hand, had just finished his first term.  Prior to that, he ran for Mayor of Kenner, losing to now former Parish President (and likely future guest at Club Fed) Aaron Broussard.  That mayoral campaign was one of the most expensive in local political history, with the top three candidates spending a total of over $1million.  Hand won the legislative seat after another hard-fought and expensive campaign a year later.  There's no way Hand would have retired the debt from those two campaigns by 1987, and here he was, spending another $30K to crush an unknown newcomer.

All for a job that paid $21K.  It just didn't make any sense.  We all went on with our lives from there, and none of the folks I knew from Student Government at UNO attempted a run at office after that.  Still, we'd occasionally scratch our heads over that 1987 campaign, trying to sort it out. 

The answer became a bit clearer in 1993, when then-mayor of New Orleans, Sidney Barthelemy shined sunlight on an old legislative perk that was shared by the mayor.  He gave his son a four-year scholarship to Tulane University, under a program dating back over a century.  In 1883, the University of Louisiana, a public institution, was converted to the private Tulane University.  To compensate the state for the loss of the public school, Tulane agreed to give tuition waivers to the city's mayor and all the state legislators.  The mayor of NOLA gets to award a 4-year waiver annually, and the legislators get a 1-year waiver annually.  Naturally the revelation that the mayor was giving his family a huge financial bonus (the scholarships were valued at $17K/year in 1993), the ensuing firestorm was huge.  In the public outcry that ensued, it was revealed that then-Representative Hand had given a number of his annual scholarships to family members. 

Now the $30K spent on getting re-elected in 1987 made a lot more sense.  Forget the salary, there was a righteous chunk of money involved in the Tulane thing alone.  Things have changed and a lot more sunlight shines on this program now, but you get the idea.

This is just one "perk" that is enjoyed by state legislators in Louisiana, even though the legislature only meets for three months out of the year.  Given how long the Tulane tuition waivers remained out of the public eye, who knows what else exists that puts extra cash into the pockets of legislators.

Louisiana is often regarded as a backwater in the United States politically, particularly given our history with Huey P. Long.  State government here is quite centralized, however, largely because of mineral royalties.  The state reaps the benefit of offshore oil leases administered by the federal government, so various aspects of government that would be exclusively local in other states (like funding public school teacher salaries) include a role for state government.  This greatly increases the role and influence of even the part-time legislators.

To sum it up, an aspiring politician who is unfamiliar with the perks and influence of state legislators might not see the truck that is a co-ordinated effort to win one of these seats coming at them until it's too late.

In a horrid piece entitled, "James Perry's 'amazing journey' ends with request for donation," Michelle Krupa at Da Paper kicks a losing candidate while he's down for doing something every blessed candidate does after an election, win or lose.

Of course James asked for money. Campaigns aren't cheap, and all politicians need to retire the debt they incur.   Many make loans to themselves in the heat of an election, and hope they can solicit funds from friends and supporters afterwards to offset that and not wipe out their savings.

No doubt Ms. Krupa could have written a similar headline about Helena Moreno, since, as an incumbent, she'll immediately start re-election fund raising.

Instead, she chose to mock the loser for the same behavior.

Heckuvajob, boo.

Dr. Rand Paul, Republi-tarian candidate for KY-Sen and darling of the tea party movement has made some interesting pseudo-intellectual claims in defense of his "Libertarian" philosophies. It was just a matter of time before historians called bullshit on him. This article at Ph.D. Octopus deals with Paul's assertions about Boston abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. Specifically, Paul told Rachel @Maddow:

But William Lloyd Garrison was a champion and abolitionist who wrote about freeing the slaves back in the 1810s, ’20s and ’30s and labored in obscurity (ph) to do this. He was flagged, put in jails. He was with Frederick Douglass being thrown off trains.
But, you know, they desegregated transportation in Boston in 1840, and I think that was an impressive and amazing thing. But also points out the sadness that it took us 120 years to desegregate the South. And a lot of that was institutional racism was absolutely wrong and something that I absolutely oppose.

The historians disagree:

Paul’s history is, well let’s say, a bit shaky here. His point, I guess, is that segregation ended in Boston because Garrison changed public opinion, rather than through government action. This is not accurate for reasons that are very relevant for the debate about libertarianism.

The bloggers go on to enumerate the errors, pointing out that segregation in Boston was quite alive well after the Civil War.

Then Paul's notions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are addressed. Paul believes that consumers can vote with their feet to stop segregation, arguing that public accommodations would be forced to desegregate when righteous people would stop patronizing the businesses who did not comply. Nice idea, but it didn't work the first time around:

The point, of course, is that moral suasion and consumer choices—Rand Paul’s solution to segregation—did not work. Let me repeat. Non-state consumer action did not desegregate all public facilities in Massachusetts. Abolitionist pressure did convince some theaters, a number of railroads, and other companies to let in African-Americans. But, by any standard, segregation, but de facto and de jure, remained a fact in Boston.

Consumer choice alone didn't work, hence the need for civil rights legislation. Paul saying now that such legislation was a bad idea is just dog whistling to those in Kentucky who support segregation, clearly a large segment of the tea party constituency.

Editor's note: I'm posting this press release without comment, so others can link to the content without appearing to endorse my opinions.  Feel free to add your own thoughts below.

For Release
Wednesday, May 5, 2010

District Attorney Opposes the Passage of House Bill 664

(New Orleans, LA) – District Attorney Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. will send a representative from his office to Baton Rouge to oppose House Bill 664. The bill, authored by Representative Walt Leger of New Orleans, is scheduled to be heard before the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee on Thursday, May 6th.

House Bill 664 repeals Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 334.3. Representative Neil Abramson authored Article 334.3 in 2008 to address the problem of violent criminals and drug dealers missing court without consequence. Pursuant to the terms of Article 334.3, a violent criminal or drug dealer, who is released on bail but refuses to appear in court, will not be allowed back on bail if he is arrested by a law enforcement agency.

Article 334.3 stops the revolving door of individuals missing court appearances and being re-released on bail without any consequence. Not only do individuals such as this constitute a threat to public safety, but also they impede the efficient administration of criminal justice. If House Bill 664 is adopted by the legislature, then the revolving door would once again be opened.

Regarding House Bill 664, Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman says, “The only people who benefit from House Bill 664 are violent criminals and drug dealers who refuse to appear in court pursuant to the conditions of their bail. If I was a legislator, that is not a constituency whose support I would be seeking to garner.”

District Attorney Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. said of House Bill 664, “This bill represents a regression to the old methods of administering criminal justice. It was those methods that got us to where we are today. If we want to continue reforming our criminal justice system to protect the citizens of New Orleans from violent criminals, then there must be a consequence when individuals such as those covered by Article 334.3 refuse to appear in court.”

The Louisiana District Attorneys Association as well as local good government groups oppose House Bill 664 as well.

###

CHRISTOPHER S. BOWMAN
Communications Director
Orleans Parish District Attorney
619 South White Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
Telephone: (504)827-6029
Telecopier: (504)571-2902