In this session, it seems that some progress is being made, but much bolder reform needs to be enacted. So far, some of the measures that have failed include a bid to prevent political criminals from receiving their taxpayer funded retirement while they sit in jail. In my view, they should forgo such benefits while behind bars.
Interestingly, one of the roadblocks for this session has come from Governor Jindal’s own office. His Chief of Staff Timmy Teepell has more questions to answer about free tickets he received to the sold out Hannah Montana concert in New Orleans.
While the Governor is pushing a “gold standard” for ethics reform and asking legislators to forgo perks such as free tickets, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Chief of Staff to ask for free tickets to a sold out concert. The “gold standard” for ethics must apply to the Governor’s office as well as legislators. By the way, Louisiana needs to apply this standard to the judiciary, municipal and local officials, the Governor’s office, as well as legislators.
So, Teepell and four legislators received tickets to this concert. The value of the tickets is not the most disturbing aspect of this controversy. It is the ironic timing of this issue coming up at the same time legislators are being asked to eliminate this obnoxious ticket perk. Public servants need to remember that they serve their constituents. These offices are not opportunities to enrich themselves or gain access to coveted perks.
Several weeks ago, the Chief of Staff came under criticism for failing to disclose a Jindal campaign contribution made by the Louisiana Republican Party. His brother-in-law is now working as Executive Director of the state GOP, raising questions about how this position was obtained. Finally, we have the controversy about the tickets. It is time that the Chief of Staff stop being a distraction from the ambitious agenda being pursued by his boss.
It is not illegal for the Governor to dole out tickets to legislators and executives in his administration, but I think it is improper. We should demand that our appointed and elected officials maintain only the highest standards. The “free tickets” should only be used as a tool for economic development and as a way of bringing jobs and business to our state. Giving the tickets to politicians and key staffers is not helping economic development, it is only helping continue the unfortunate politics as usual system that continues to plague Louisiana.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 8 a.m. till Noon weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.
Was all the work he did for you in December was sign a letter? That doesn't take much work. Written by Dan
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey Kp, that is unless of course the idea is to publish a dictionary.... Nayuck-nuck-nuck-nuck Written by ...Ohh the generalizations from the generalized gs
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Final score, Dan 42, Professor 3. Written by Tee Dub
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Dan - I applaud your research, thoroughness and follow-through! Well played!! Of course, I think that we will have to agree to disagree. I do have just one point, though. Just because he was not in Washington to cast a vote, doesn't mean he wasn't "working". In mid-December, he signed onto a "Dear Colleague" letter that I and many others encouraged him to sign. I would normally ask a follow-up question of "OK, so what have you done about it?" to people. However, I'm guessing that you actually do take an active role. Therefore, I wish you luck in your endeavors! Written by Professor
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Ideas are more important than spelling. Written by kp
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
For goodness sake, please fix the title of your article. Distriction? Really? Written by Karen
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree with Tee Dub that the "ideal" way is to have public funding of elections with free airtime. Of course the devil is always in the details. For example would Ron Paul or the NRA get equal airtime from our northeastern controlled (none dare call it liberal) media as would "The Brady Bunch" or say any of the elites' handpicked candidates, I seriously doubt it. I see "campaign finance reform" as nothing other than these elites trying to stop the little people from having a say so in our elections. People should have the right to fund their interest group so that group can - at the very least - point out how different candidates vote on issues important to them prior to an election without the 30 and 60 day restrictions "campaign finance reform" (aka - "incumbent protection reform") stipulates. Not being able to do so most certainly is a limitation of "speech." Just as I admire doctors who give patients suffering from glaucoma or chemotherapy marijuana to ease their suffering, so too do I admire those who find a way around laws that stifle free speech. Written by kerry fox
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gee; Maybe the State can put on a Lottery Draw for those Hannah tickets. What an economic boon that would be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We could have people from all over the world vieing for the opportunity to vistit the swooper dome. Written by Lauging at the Band aid.....................
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"How is it unethical that Timmy got access to the Governor's suite when: the suite is owned by the Office of the Governor; Timmy works in the Office of the Governor?" The suite is not owned by the Governors office, it is provided to the Governor's office. It was hypocritical for Timmy to get tickets because Bobby Jindal stated that he wanted his office to be the example for ethics standards and one of the ethics standards Jindal expects from others is no free tickets. If you agree with Bobby Jindal (as I do) that the ability to get free tickets is unethical, then you must agree that Timmy getting free tickets was unethical as well. And just to make sure that you realize this fact, just because something is LEGAL does not make it ETHICAL. "Would it be unethical if Jindal told Timmy to go to the suite with business people from out of state, because Bobby couldn't go? "
NO! If the suite was being used to conduct the business of the state then I would have absolutely no problem with it. That is what the suites SHOULD be used for. But Timmy gave them to his family members, using his position to give gifts to his family. That is one of the definitions of unethical behavior, to use ones position to gain some advantage. "I just don't understand where you draw the line." I draw the line at business vs. pleasure. They should use the assets provided to the Governors office to conduct the business of the state and not to "have fun". I will give you an analogy, and maybe you can see it. Let's say that Timmy Teeppel has access to a government vehicle. It would be ethical for Timmy to drive that car to Disney World if the trip was for economic development for the state (perhaps he would be going to entice them to open up some computer animation studio in some new technology park in Louisiana). It would be unethical for Timmy to drive that car to florida so he and his family can go to Disney World on vacation. Do you see the difference? Do you see how the same thing applies to using the governors suite? Do you also see how if the Governor is calling for and end to free tickets for people in government, how it is hypocritical for someone in his office to accept free tickets? Written by Dan
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Collecting money from people in a manner that circumvents the spirit of campaign finance law promotes ethics? I am not sure exactly to what you allude," People wanting to donate more than the stated limit who use multiple corporations to funnel campaign donations to that candidate. "but I can say that I'm not aware that Jindal performed any acts of commission that resulted in a circumvention of the spirit, or letter, of the law." Of course you don't, because you are a Jindal apologist and dont WANT to see it even though it exists. Go search the campaign contribution database, candidate: Jindal zip code: 70345 Then count how many contributions came from PO Box 448. Jimmie Martin donated $35,000 by using all his corporations, clearly circumventing campaign finance limits. "Donations via corporations is not circumventing the law. In fact, special laws are written that deal with how, when, and how much corporations may donate. " Corporations are treated as people, so as with the example above, there is no monetary contribution limit. The only limit on a persons campaign donations is how many corporations they own. How else would jimmie Martin be able to funnel that large amount? "Again, I am not sure to what you allude, but I will try to answer. The ethics by which the Governor's office abides is already the 3rd most stringent in the United States. There is legislation that will pass which will make it 1st. So, we'll be the most transparent state administration, in one of the most transparent countries in the world. I don't think you're going to get much better than that."
Again, i am not shocked you don't know to what I allude, even though I was as clear as day. A bill was proposed in the legislature to open state agencies under the office of the governor to the public records law. Faircloth stated that the administration was against it because it 'would create problems for the governor to freely receive ideas, policy recommendations and communications from legislators and others. He also said it would create problems with investors who want to privately negotiate with the state.' How can you say that this explanation promotes ethics? "Do you really think that? He did not begin collecting his Governor's salary until Jan 14. And, he continued to serve as a Congressman up until that point (I know, he helped me with legislation in Washington)." The last time Bobby Jindal voted was November 14th. He voted on the 14th and the 13th, missed another week. Showed up on the november 6th to vote... and then I have to go back all the way to SEPTEMBER 10th to find another day he showed up to vote AND THEN I have to go all the way back to AUGUST 4th to find another day he bothered to show up. So from AUGUST 5th to JANUARY 14th, Bobby Jindal collected a Congressional paycheck and only showed up to work for FOUR DAYS. I wonder if my employer would like it if I collected a paycheck for 5 months and only did work for FOUR DAYS. And you find this to be ethical behavior?!?!?! Give me a break! Bobby Jindal should have resigned from his Congressional post as soon as he was elected. Period. But I am curious, what legislation did he help you with in Washington. "Voting to weaken ethics standards during the Tom Delay scandal is ethical behavior? What was the bill number and the session in which he did this? "
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll006.xml " Ill answer your questions in the next post. Written by Dan
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
An interesting ethical question for "Professor" - if those seats were rightfully Teepell's, would it have been ethical for him to have sold them? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Influence in the form of persuasion is fine; money isn't. As I've said elsewhere, talk is free. Anyone should be able to petition his or her state legislators, US representative, US senator, about things that (s)he deems important. Lobbyists should be able to live in the capital city to meet with lawmakers about issues important to them. The problem is money. Our elected representatives spend most of their time fund-raising for the next election cycle, all the while passing bills that benefit those who have given them campaign donations. The ONLY way around this is COMPLETE, TOTAL, public funding of elections, with free airtime, and ZERO TOLERANCE of lobbyist perks for lawmakers. That will actual restore, not harm, the spirit of democracy in this country. Finally, a parable (although it's a true story). My brother-in-law, in his capacity as a physician employed by the state, is often given box seats to certain sporting events. Every time, except once when he could not find anyone to take them (and admittedly, it was fun, because I was there!), he has given those seats to charities. That, cher professeur, is the ethical thing to do. It doesn't always have to be a charity - it could be that there is an important set of clients that the state is trying to woo - in that case, it would be appropriate to use the box seats as "state's business." Giving the seats to Timmy Teepell falls far short of that. It is unethical, pure and simple. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Allow me to answer you questions, even though no one has seemed inclined to answer mine. Collecting money from people in a manner that circumvents the spirit of campaign finance law promotes ethics? I am not sure exactly to what you allude, but I can say that I'm not aware that Jindal performed any acts of commission that resulted in a circumvention of the spirit, or letter, of the law. Appointing people who circumvent campaign finance law by donating via corporations to be his executive council is promoting ethical behavior? Donations via corporations is not circumventing the law. In fact, special laws are written that deal with how, when, and how much corporations may donate. HAVING THAT PERSON MAKE A STATEMENT THAT REJECTS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN THE GOVERNORS ADMINISTRATION IS PROMOTING ETHICAL BEHAVIOR?!?!?!?! Again, I am not sure to what you allude, but I will try to answer. The ethics by which the Governor's office abides is already the 3rd most stringent in the United States. There is legislation that will pass which will make it 1st. So, we'll be the most transparent state administration, in one of the most transparent countries in the world. I don't think you're going to get much better than that. Collecting his congressional paycheck instead of resigning as soon as he won the governors election is ethical behavior? Do you really think that? He did not begin collecting his Governor's salary until Jan 14. And, he continued to serve as a Congressman up until that point (I know, he helped me with legislation in Washington). Voting to weaken ethics standards during the Tom Delay scandal is ethical behavior? What was the bill number and the session in which he did this? I don't recall. OK, so now I've answered your questions. Please answer mine. How is it unethical that Timmy got access to the Governor's suite when: the suite is owned by the Office of the Governor; Timmy works in the Office of the Governor? Would it be unethical if Jindal told Timmy to go to the suite with business people from out of state, because Bobby couldn't go? Would it be unethical if he went with people in-state? I just don't understand where you draw the line. I do understand where TeeDub draws it. If I interpret him correctly, he says that election politics should be almost completely isolated from all outside influence. I understand, and disagree. I think that outside influence is what is needed. I think that the influence tells legislators what is important to the people. Written by Professor
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Tom Delay scandal." Really, come on. A Democratic prosecutor convened Delay’s grand jury in Texas. The House of Representatives appoints "special prosecutors" to investigate the wrong-doings of the Executive Branch - ONLY WHEN THE PRESIDENCY IS CONTROLLED BY THE OTHER PARTY. There has yet to be a "Special Prosecutor" appointed by the House to investigate the Presidential branch when the same party controls both the House and Presidency. What-the-{expletive deleted, mais yeah Cher} is "ethical" about any of these clowns - in either party - there's MY question. Written by kerry fox
on 2/19/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Professor: Bobby Jindal stated in his address before the legislative session... "We must change the way business is done in Baton Rouge by passing legislation that will put an end to the lavish meals and free tickets." Yet someone got himself some free tickets. He said: "That same standard should apply to all public servants. " Yet it apparently did not apply to Timmy Teepel. He stated that he wanted members of his administration to set the example for ethics, yet he allowed his chief of staff to get tickets? Do you REALLY call that setting the example? Now, you say "In fact, he has done more to promote ethical and legal behavior than any other single man in Louisiana politics since Reconstruction. " REALLY!?!?! Collecting money from people in a manner that circumvents the spirit of campaign finance law promotes ethics? Appointing people who circumvent campaign finance law by donating via corporations to be his executive council is promoting ethical behavior? HAVING THAT PERSON MAKE A STATEMENT THAT REJECTS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN THE GOVERNORS ADMINISTRATION IS PROMOTING ETHICAL BEHAVIOR?!?!?!?! Collecting his congressional paycheck instead of resigning as soon as he won the governors election is ethical behavior? Voting to weaken ethics standards during the Tom Delay scandal is ethical behavior? The only standards that Jindal has supported are double standards. And of course you resort to the "well look at the other people who did bad things" argument... a pathetic defense that basically shows that you cant defend Jindal's actions, so lets distract other people by talking about other "corrupt clowns". Well here is a news flash, the unethical behavior of other people does not excuse the unethical behavior of Bobby Jindal. Now, could you please stop being an apologist for him and answer the questions I just asked about Jindal's ethical behavior? Written by Dan
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree with Tee Dub. If Gov. Jindal is going to straighten things out in Baton Rouge, then walk the walk. Give the tickets to a Girl Scout troop, take the kids, or donate to a charity...hell, they are our (taxpayer) tickets. If we don't get good ethic's legislation through during this session we will continue to go bakwards as a state. Written by Sid
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh "Professor", Smokescreen, smokescreen, smokescreen! I swear you have such a "Man Crush" (in a totally hetero way, of course) for Bobby Jindal, it's kinda cute. Now maybe I don't count, because you consider me a wingnut, but as for not holding the legislators' feet to the fire, let's see: 1) earlier today on a different thread I wrote: "We need COMPLETE government funding of campaigns, free airtime given by the corporate media, and zero tolerance for money being spent on legislatures - no lunches, no tickets, no nothin' NADA. ZILCH. RIEN DE TOUT. ZERO TOLERANCE. Only then will we see real democracy instead of rule by the rich." 2)regarding Bill Jefferson, this is what I had to say on Jun 4, 2007: "I can't stand the man - Jefferson is as crooked as the day is long." And I've never even responded to Jim Brown's posts - I'm sorry, but I can't take the man seriously. So that's all a smokescreen you're throwing up, and it's all completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is at issue here are the actions of Jindal and that home-schooled wonder Teepell. Yes, what they did was legal - you are correct about that. But I would STRONGLY disagree with your position that it is ethical, especially when one has said that one is here to rescue Louisiana from itself, when one has paraded oneself about as the paragon of virtue. Never mind that people's health deteriorated under his tenure at the healm of Health and Hospitals. He "saved" the state money, kind of! Woopee! Screw the poor, bunch of slackers! Now I'm digressing. Giving tickets to the politically connected stinks to high heaven, and anyone who is remotely detached from the situation, instead of acting like a schoolgirl at a Beatles concert, realizes that. C'est tout. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Most of all, here's what bugs me. Jindal has done nothing illegal. He has done nothing unethical. He has done nothing that will be illegal in the forseeable future. He has done nothing that will be unethical in the forseeable future. In fact, he has done more to promote ethical and legal behavior than any other single man in Louisiana politics since Reconstruction. But, he is being crucified. Yet, people are petitioning him and the Preseident to let Edwards out of jail. A man that came to epitomize corruption and unethical, illegal behavior - they want him out of jail. And, here's another case of hypocrisy. On this very website, a convicted felon has the temerity to lecture on what the state should do about its ethics problem. A man who was charged, indicted, tried and conviced to lying to the FBI writes an article or performs on the radio, and people listen to him as if he is some kind of authority. And, as my coup de grace, another Louisiana politician has been charged with taking bribes and peddling his office in an attempt to obtain favors for himself and his family. Yet, William Jefferson and his family are said to be "victims of persecution"! But, while all of these people are defended, excused, and even idolized, Jindal is being trashed. Classy, people - very classy. Written by Professor
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This is what I don't get. Everyone is going after the Governor selecting his Chief of Staff to go to the concert. But, why is no one saying that it was improper to give them to legislators? And, it's too late for all of you to say, "Well, we think that's wrong, too." I've waited for 5 days for anyone to say it, and you haven't. The tickets are the property of the Office of the Governor. They are not Bobby's personal property. Where does Timmy work? In the Office of the Governor. If Bobby would have gone, and brought Timmy, would anyone be saying anything? If that, too, is wrong, then who do you want the Governor to bring? His immediate family is not that big. But, maybe he shouldn't have a suite at all, right? And, those servants in the mansion - they're a bit of overkill. Speaking of a big mansion - why does he get a big house? He should probably do without that, too. In fact, I don't see why he needs to have a personal escort everywhere he goes - he can drive himself. Written by Professor
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think all you jounalist all over this state need to keep the legislatures feet to the fire. Expose anything that waters down the ethics bill. Keep an eye on those that have been down there many years. They are good at surviving. You are the only way a common citzen is going to be able to keep up with it. Tell them. Written by Bobb y
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Where did these tickets come from? Who paid for them? Were they gifted by the promoter or paid for by the taxpayers? I know the seats are in the Governor's suite but usually the ticket to the concert itself is a separate issue. Written by Dave
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The thing that really makes me pay attention to Jeff's article is that he is a Republican supporter. Whenever I hear criticism "across the aisles" I discount it as partisan. If "reforms" and "change" ever actually take place it will be when the political parties become principled enough to demand correct actions from their own members. A prime example is when a congressperson criticizes the president for military action overseas; this is almost always exclusively aimed at the other party's president. Only when congress is willing to defy their own party's president and take back power the Constitution reserves to congress alone will real change take place.... oh heck, who am I kidding? - that will never happen - our elected officials are too interested in their individual “career path” to ever do what is right, how silly of me. Written by kerry fox
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What is the Gov.'s office supposed to do with his suite ? just not use it? Written by M.J.
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff gets it, "Professor" - what's your excuse? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 2/18/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In this session, it seems that some progress is being made, but much bolder reform needs to be enacted. So far, some of the measures that have failed include a bid to prevent political criminals from receiving their taxpayer funded retirement while they sit in jail. In my view, they should forgo such benefits while behind bars. 
