Val Bracy had the story – Public records bill under fire from councilman – but,I’m not so certain Jefferson Parish Councilman John Young, or anyone on the Council for that matter, really understands the concept of open government. Young’s proposed resolution is a step in the right direction but it should not take heat for any elected official to see the light on open public records:
The Jefferson Parish council is expected to undo a controversial step it took at its last meeting. The council voted in favor of having the parish’s legislative delegation sponsor a bill that would make changes to state public records laws.
On Wednesday, Councilman John Young will introduce a resolution rescinding the council’s support.
“I think there was some communication and some misinformation. Obviously, it was our understanding, or my understanding, that the US Attorney had a problem with the grand jury subpoenas. I’ve since learned that that’s not a problem,” said Young.
While Young “makes nice”, Senator Danny Martiny offers an excuse that only a Parish-puppet would let come out of his mouth:
Sen. Danny Martiny says the bill, which would extend the time to release public records being used in a criminal investigation, wasn’t his idea. The Jefferson Parish Attorney’s Office asked him to sponsor it.
“The way it was explained to me it had to do with maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. I said I think that makes sense we’ll do that,” said Martiny.
Before each legislative session, parish government gives its legislative delegation a list of bills to sponsor on the parish’s behalf. Although Martiny thinks the bill has merit, he’s willing to withdraw it if the council passes Young’s resolution.
“The thing that bothers me more than anything is that it seems to be that the mentality of the people that are opposed to it is not only that I’m wrong but that I must be corrupt or that I must be here trying to protect somebody,” said Martiny.
Well, duh, Senator, offer some evidence that you’re not. Where is your correspondence confirming the USA’s position? Where is evidence of your integrity and support of open government? How many indictments does it take for you figure out you need to question any and everything the Parish Attorney supports?
Young’s resolution also addresses another public records bill the council voted for at the last meeting. That resolution dealt with the confidentiality of documents related to ethics investigations.
Young says that bill is unnecessary because the issue is already covered under Ethics Board rules.
Just a suggestion, Councilman, but you might was to take a closer look at what those rules cover and see if Louis Gruntz didn’t break one by misleading the Council about the USA’s position. Until the Council demands otherwise, there is constant risk of a set-up by the Theriot-led executive branch of Parish government.
Councilman Young has offered a step in the right direction. Let’s hope there are more to come.
Oddly, the Villio signs that were in front of the Liljeberg building no longer are. Maybe it had something to do with whitmergate’s reference to the judicial canons/cannons, or maybe they know she cannot win the runoff. Hancock Bank, however, has added to and reinforced its Villio signage.
In true tone deaf fashion, John Young is having a $1,000 per person “breakfast” in a few weeks.
Thanks for that update, Sock. As to “tone deaf”, that’s a much better way to say what I intended with “Young at heart” – I just don’t get any sense from anyone in JP government that reality is sinking in. Honestly, it’s gone on so long that I suspect it will take some sort of mandatory training in ethics for there to be a common understanding of right v wrong. Even the most well-intended has no model to follow.
I’m curious, how does one have the intelligence to become an elected official, yet they seem so mislead and misunderstood when they get caught with thier hands in the cookie jar. Nice try councilman Young and Senator Danny the “puppetman”, the voting public are not buying the BS and will vote accordingly in the next election.And again I’m curious Mr.Theriot, as Mr.President of Jefferson Parish, should not you be calling in Mr.Gruntz, deputy parish attorney,who you can fire at will and find out why he is trying every trick in the book to stop the outflow of public records requests and trying to dilute the public records law; and tell Mr.Gruntz to focus on making our government more transparent;and if he does not do as per your good government instructions replace him with someone who will.Of course Mr.Theriot I don’t think you want transparent government right now because you were placed in your Presidency to cover-up for the powers that be in the Parish and not to reveal more of their corruption!
What curiousgeorge just did is called “knocking the ball out of the park.”
Mr. Young, you want to be on the forefront of real reform, not just a cosmetic knee-jerk vote reversal, then step up and call for the resignation of Ms. Barton, Mr. Gruntz, Mr. Fos, Mr. Giangrosso and any other hangers on of the Wilkinson Posse that still have a stranglehold of incompetence on the Parish Attorney’ Office. Your only hope of becoming Parish President is with the taxpayers who are yelling for cleaning up this cesspool. Well be like a Roto-Rooter man and begin unclogging this crap.
Mr. Gruntz’s latest stunt is just more example of an administration imploding it’s stonewall, using tactics of the Coulon/Whitmer/Wilkinson/Broussard mindset of the recent past. Mr. Theriot you may not have had much of a present but your past may come sooner than you expect !
Whitmergate, if and when Honorable Councilman ever acts like a giant Roto-rooter man and begins to unclog the political public records obstructionist crap in the Parish’s Attorney office I’m calling for a 100 mile mandatory odor doomsday evacuation plan-how does that ozone country place the dunce sent the pump operators to sound to you? Perhaps we might just take some nose clips/gas masks just in case the Gulf southerly breezes kick up!
After hearing he had basically said nothing during the public expressions of disgust on TheRiot’s SLAPP suit the other day, I was gratified to read today (in a minor footnote in the TP metro section minimized way below the emphasis it deserved) that Young had abstained on the Phelps Dumbar / Stanley Reuter contract vote.
He did that on the vote to bring in TheRiot too. Not sure what these abstentions are supposed to mean – why not just vote No? – but still it’s the lone positive step taking by the Council/
Does anyone know the actual outcome of that vote? The TP did not actually report it.
Young did abstain on Theriot. I do not think he is strong enough to do what is right on his own.
sop
sop
If I’m not mistaken he abstained because the subcontractor they were adding under Phelps is currently involved in a case he is handling in his private pratice
But, hey, his council aide is a Burke, right?
One of the Connick Burkes?
One of the Burkes as in the Lagniappe Burkes? Etc.?
So where does that take it?
Takes it to an inextricably incestuous level.
Unless I miss my guess the powers that be are bring this new firm in for reasons beyond and unrelated to the orginal suit.
My guess would be it involes this area of there practice.
http://www.sfr-lawfirm.com/legalethics.htm
” After such knowledge, what forgiveness ? Think
now
History has many cunning passages, contrived
corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. ”
T.S. Elliot, La Figlia Che Piange (1917)
Discussing John Young’s votes on a myriad of subjects will demand that we first understand the distinction between voting NO or voting to ABSTAIN or voting YES. When using any of these words relative to the act of voting, NO means negative and ABSTAIN means to refrain, and accordingly a YES vote is positive.
Mr. Young voted to ABSTAIN when it came to vote on Theriot being appointed Parish President. He then further qualifies his abstention to not agreeing with the process of how Theriot was appointed, not Theriot himself. He subsequently voted to abstain a second time when the other Council members tried to cover their illegal act of appointing Theriot in violation of the open meeting laws of Louisiana. ( “The Sunshine Law”) The question is, why didn’t Mr. Young not vote NO to both the process and Theriot. Why did he not expose the violation of the law by the other Council members at the public meeting, and give support to the citizens of Jefferson Parish who had this man shoved down our throat ? I know why and you know why, GO ALONG, TO GET ALONG, TO GET ELECTED !
Mr. Young voted YES to authorize Gruntz to write legislation to futher limit the public’s right to Public Records. Only when there became public outcry to such an abhorrent scheme, did Mr. Young vote YES to rescind that resolution. However the Parish Attorney’s office continues a policy to stymy public access to Public Records, and Mr. Young has voiced no desire to have the Parish Attorneys involved with this disgraceful conduct reprimanded or removed. I know why, and you know why, GO ALONG, TO GET ALONG, TO BE ELECTED !
A month ago, Mr. Young voted YES to hire Phelps, Dunbar to defend the indefensible, the whistleblower claim of Amv. Not once has Mr. Young voiced his concern about the allegations of wrongdoing by the Parish Officials cited with wrongdoing. I know why, and you know why, GO ALONG, TO GET ALONG, TO BE ELECTED !
Now Mr. Young has voted to ABSTAIN to hire additional counsel, citing a conflict as his reasons. Mr. Young could have voted NO, he did not. This is yet another unconscionable act of arrogance and stupity. I know why, and you know why, GO ALONG, TO GET ALONG, TO BE ELECTED !
All this lawyering up to SLAPP Ms. Vandenweghe, to further harass her, retaliate for her telling these thugs they are thugs, is that it ? Is this your idea of good government Mr. Young, to persecute the person who was and still is doing her job professionally ? To act in collusion with the other Council members who are out to get AMV because she reported wrongdoing of your colleagues as mandated by employee policy ? Is this how you expect to gain the support of people who want honest change in our governmental affairs ?
Ignatius, I suggest that there were plenty of reasons for Mr. Young to have abstained from voting, but they have nothing to do about any of the above. I referred back to the blog site, The Jefferson Report to peruse Mr. Young’s contributors list and began to highlight a few of the names of who do business with JP : 1) Adams & Reese $1500
2) BCG Engineering & Consulting $1500
3) Peter Butler, Jr. $2300 ( Heebe, River Birch, WJGH )
4) Chehardy, Sherman & Ellis $1500
5) Digital Engineering & Imaging $1500
6) Fleming Construction Co $1200
7) Pepper & Associates $2000
8) Solutient $2300
9) Tomba Comunications & Electronics $1200
This list is in no way complete of all the contributors who contract with the JP, but are both representative of and did contribute to Mr. Young. You may ask so what ? Well this is the so what: Jefferson Code of Ordinances, Part II, Chapter 23. Personnel, Article V ETHICAL STANDARDS, Div. 3-Elected Officials Ethical Standards, Sec 23-132.1 Abtentions or Statement by certain elected Officials relative to Campaign Contributions :
(paraphrasing) Any Council member called to vote on a matter that
would economically benefit any person who has made a contribution(s)
to said member within 48 months prior to the date of the vote where the
sum exceeds an aggregate amount of $1000 the Council member SHALL
ABSTAIN from the vote OR SHALL SUBMIT to the Parish Clerk immediately
prior to the vote a statement signed by the Council member stating the reasons
why said vote would be fair, objective and in the public’s interests. The
Parish Clerk SHALL CAUSE the statement to be recorded in the official
Journal. Person SHALL MEAN an individual, partnership, association, labor
union, political committee, corporation, or any other legal entity, including
their successors and heirs.
We are now beginning to correlate when votes in favor of a Council member’s contributor would trigger this provision were cast. What I can tell you is that Mr. Young did not file any vote notes period !
So I wonder, is this why they hired an ethics lawyer, to defend themselves of malfeasance and have the taxpayers pick up the tab yet again for their arrogance and stupidity ?
I will continue this any other matters that we all should know by reading the Charter and Code of Ordinances. It will not only enlighten, but enable every citizen to begin action to hold these people accountable.
Postscript: Here are some other JP contractors who contributed to Mr. Young but did not exceed the $1000 cap:
1) Barowka & Bonura Engineers & Consultants $1000
2) Breazeale, Sache & Wilson $1000 (Butler, Jr. partner) $1000
3) Burglass & Tankersley $1000
4) Connick & Connick $1000 (Paul is DA)
5) Gibbs Construction $1000
6) Haly, McNamara & Hall $1000
7) New Era Information Technology $1000
8) Veolia Transportation $1000
Many, if not most, of the names of Mr. Young’s contributors reads like the usual suspects that represent business as usual. Electing Mr. Young Parish President would only be to perpetuate the Same Old Same Old. Good government alright, whatever’s good for Young, the Connick’s, the Burke’s, River Birch, outside crony counsel ie Chehardy, Burglass, Adams & Reese et al.
I would suggest reviewing all Council members contributors’ list prior to election time.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeee Witmergate, I was swinging in the cool rain this morning but noticed your post on the JP council voting ethics rules Sec.23-132.1 which requires ALL council people to send a written statement to the Parish Clerk explaining a vote concerning a campaign contributor and for the Clerk to publish such statement in the Parish Jounal. I would guess that this rule is ALWAYS violated and NEVER followed and I would guess it would be futile to request a Public Records Request of all the voting statements submitted by all council people in the last year because our own Attorney Office denys all requests. Just like it was perfectly OK for Ms. Villio and MR. Wilkinson to violate the personnel elections rules of JP and not fear prosecution— but on the otherhand if a peasant worker of JP would contribute to an election candidate or put a sign out on their lawn that they indeed would get reported and prosecuted.!!!!!!!! I WOULD IMAGINE THE CURRENT JP CLERK IS ALSO A TEAM PLAYER, PROBABLY RELATED TO POWERS THAT BE, WHO “GOES ALONG TO GET ALONG” and fails to obey the Ethics rules clearly statedin you post above;and also has failed to collect such statements to be published in the Parish Jounal,namely the infamous TP. So Mr. Young you as the leader of the council need to check into if the council is abiding by the ethics voting rules mentioned above before it becomes another issue of how the “top cats” can violate existing rules without fear of prosecution. And if you find that such rules are being violated to immediately require all councilpeople to start submitting their statements explaining why their vote concerning a campaign contributor does not compromise the good of the Parish. Finally,before I peel my morning nana’ I must again ask Mr.Theriot if Mr.Giangrosso has reported to your office and admitted to receiving a 40% raise as an asst.Parish attorney just months before assuming ann marie vandenweghe’s public records position? You asked for this kind of information Mr. president from bloggers(i.e. lawsuit) and reqested from the council names of all people who received pay raises in violation of JP’s executive pay plan. So now we expect you to act on this information and perhaps a public thanks (hint-some Winn-Dixie nanas’)for this information would be nice! Mr.Young and Mr.Theriot—I’ll be blogging this information until you all address these concerns cause all my uncle and I have to do all day is happy swinging!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I am just wondering how Veolia got the contract to run the Jefferson RTA (see above post on John Young contributors). Oh, and look at that, Connick & Connick defends them on all JRTA litigation. How cozy! I’d be interested in the amount of legal fees spent defending Veolia/JRTA. Just asking…….
Whitmergate: Re the hiring of Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford
A friend who has been down a similar road as the Phelps folks opined that Stanley, Reuter may have been hired to guide Phelps re the ethical issues and due diligence problems they may now have as a result of the idiotic lawsuit…if this is true then We the People are now paying more legal fees to protect the lawyers We the People did not hire but are paying for because they got themselves and our not-elected Interim Parish Prez in hot water.
Oy vey.
Is it only me or have we all gone down the rabbit hole?
Shouldn’t they have done this BEFORE they launched this Titanic lawsuit? Wouldn’t it have been due diligence to have done this BEFORE they allegedly filed a lawsuit, authenticated by their client’s signature , which the client now denies knowing anything about?
Is Stanley, Reuter on board to keep JP and TheRiot from suing Phelps?
TheRiot may want to go on the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board and pull up the form entitled ETHICAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT. It does say to submit a separate complaint for each individual attorney and it is 3 pages so if TheRiot really goes after every attorney that has given him BAD ADVICE he will have plenty to keep him busy.
At least it will take the shovel away from him.
STOP THE MADNESS.