Margie Seeman would like a word with the Slabbed Nation. Following is the last Citizens for Good Government Email blast in total:
The speeches at the end of the Jefferson Parish Council meeting by Citizens for Good Government Chairman Margaret Baird and myself were on discrepancies between the campaign contributions reported by the councilmen and the amounts shown on the campaign contribution affidavits submitted by contractors. These affidavits are now required to be submitted by any person or firm contracting or proposing to contract with Jefferson Parish, and most are now available online.
In my speech I stated that Citizens for Good Government has been an enthusiastic supporter of this ordinance, which provided for campaign contribution disclosure by contractors, and we commended the Council for passing this ordinance, and also commended Ms. Eula Lopez and her staff for making available online so many campaign disclosure affidavits.
However, we identified a number of discrepancies between the campaign disclosure affidavits and the campaign finance reports which the councilmen submitted to the Ethics Board, and which are also available online.
I said, “By the way, Citizens for Good Government is very concerned about numerous discrepancies which we have identified between the campaign contribution information provided by our councilmen in some of their campaign contribution disclosure reports and the campaign contribution amounts which contractors have reported in their SWORN, NOTARIZED affidavits. I am sure that some of the discrepancies are honest errors.”
I then said, “However, some of the discrepancies do concern us a great deal. For example, the Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion affidavit indicates that Councilman Roberts had received campaign contributions from them of $7,600 for the period January 2008 to February 2011. However, Councilman Roberts’ Campaign Finance Report indicates that he only received a $5,000 contribution from Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins & Gremillion for this same time period. Of course, $5,000 is the maximum permissible campaign contribution according to” and I was interrupted at this point, as Councilman Capella called on Councilman Roberts.
Councilman Roberts said, “Actually the way that we wrote the ordinance would require inclusive of any personal, along with corporate, campaign contributions that would be involved from that entity, and if there were any contributions which exceeded the state amount they would have been returned to whoever made the contribution.” Later, Councilman Roberts further clarified his explanation by indicating that the contributions of partners or other employees of the company could be included in the amount stated on the contractor affidavit.
For informational purposes, the Campaign Contribution Affidavit states the following:
“Attached hereto is a list of all campaign contributions made to elected officials of the Parish of Jefferson during the current term, and that he/she has not made any contributions to or in support of elected officials of the Parish of Jefferson through or in the name of another person or legal entity, either directly or indirectly.”
By the way, it is disturbing to us if contractors are getting around the campaign contribution limits by donating in the names of their officers and employees, as apparently was suggested by Councilman Roberts. In our opinion, this defeats the purpose of Revised Statute 1505.2(H)(1)(a), which states:
“The following contribution limits are established for contributions made to candidates or the principal campaign committee and any subsidiary committee of a candidate for the following offices:
(1) Major office – five thousand dollars…”
When CFGG Chairman Margaret Baird spoke, she brought up the discrepancy between the amount of the contribution specified by Burk-Kleinpeter in their affidavit and the amount reported to the Ethics Board by Councilman Elton Lagasse.
The Burk-Kleinpeter affidavit specified the following contributions to Councilman Lagasse:
$5,000.00 on 03/30/09
$1,000.00 on 09/29/09
$2,500.00 on 11/10/10
Since these contributions by Burk-Kleinpeter total $8,500 for this term, and the only campaign contribution from Burk-Kleinpeter listed by Councilman Lagasse in his Campaign Finance Reports to the Ethics Board was the $5,000 contribution, we naturally identified this as a discrepancy. By the way, anyone can verify the information on the Burk-Kleinpeter affidavit, since it is attached to Item 70 of the Agenda/Minutes (http://jp-appserver.jeffparish.net/AGENDA/agenda_affidavit.pdf), and can also be viewed on pages 4 and 5 of the following URL.
We believe that Citizens for Good Government had a valid reason to question these contributions made to Councilman Lagasse by Burk-Kleinpeter, because there was not only a discrepancy in the amount of the contribution, but the contribution greatly exceeded the $5,000 contribution limit for a major office.
Margaret therefore said, “We also identified an even more significant discrepancy for Councilman Elton Lagasse between the campaign contribution of $5,000 from Burk-Kleinpeter which he reported in his campaign finance report, while Burk-Kleinpeter’s affidavit specified an $8,500 contribution to Councilman Lagasse.” (At this point Councilman Lagasse interrupted, which was, by the way, a violation of Sec. 2-36(h)(4) of the Code of Ordinances, as was the earlier interruption of me, since this ordinance states: “No interruptions of the person addressing the council by any of the council members shall be allowed, and all questions shall be addressed to such person only at the conclusion of his or her remarks.”)
When Councilman Lagasse interrupted Margaret the first time about the $8,500 campaign contribution total from the Burk-Kleinpeter affidavit, he said:
Lagasse: “It’s probably over a period of 8 years.”
Margaret: “No, it says for 2009-2010…” (then another illegal interruption)
Lagasse: “I don’t care—I don’t know what Mr. Burk-Kleinpeter is, but I reported by what I get. I can promise you I have not received more than I have, than I have reported, and as far as I’m concerned, the Ethics Board has approved all of my reports, OK. I’m going to leave it at that.”
Margaret: “Well, unfortunately this says the period 2009-2010. So I don’t know. And it says…” (another interruption)
Lagasse: “I can assure—No. I’m tired of this balony.”
Margaret: “OK.”
Lagasse: “I can assure you that we have done nothing unethical…”
Margaret: “Oh, I’m not saying…”
Lagasse: “or illegal”
Margaret: “No I’m not…”
Lagasse (and someone else): “Yes you are.”
Margaret: “No, I’m not…”
Someone else: “Yes, you are.”
Lagasse: “Yes you are. You are accusing us of doing something illegal, ma’m.”
Margaret: “No I’m not. I’m just trying to reconcile…”
Lagasse: “I’ve clarified it for you. I’ve clarified it for you.”
Margaret: “I’m just trying to reconcile—I’m trying to reconcile the differences, that’s all. OK?”
Lagasse: “You need to talk to Burk-Kleinpeter because I report what I receive.”
Margaret: “OK.”
Transcribing this exchange was difficult, because there were so many “Yes you are” responses from individual(s) other than Councilman Lagasse to Margaret’s denial that she accused Mr. Lagasse of doing something illegal, but I did my best. In this exchange, Mr. Lagasse repeatedly interrupted Margaret in the middle of her sentences in violation of the Code of Ordinances. Shouldn’t the Code of Ordinances be enforced? After all, it is the law of the land in Jefferson Parish.
It appears that a possible explanation for the discrepancies between the campaign finance reports of our councilmen and the sworn and notarized affidavits by the contractors is Councilman Roberts’ explanation that the contractors included contributions by individuals who work for their company in the totals reported on the affidavits. However, no employees were identified as contributors in the affidavits. Furthermore, we don’t find this explanation to our liking, because if it is true, it defeats the purpose of our laws limiting campaign contributions made to our politicians.
Margie Seemann
Vice-Chairman, Citizens for Good Government
Filthy lying pigs. That is all you can say. I am completely disgusted with this obvious attempt to thwart the campaign finance laws. They should all be prosecuted.
By whom? POS Paul Connick is the Corruption King of the Parish. That suckass sonofabitch will not prosecute any of his clan & fans for so much as jaywalking! A “real” district attorney giving honest service to the public would not allowed the current conditions to have developed.
Connick is simply a less flamboyant Leander Perez in Jefferson Parish.
And I might add he (Connick) picked up seamlessly from “moon” Landrieu’s old “partner-in-crime” POS John Mamoulides, as capo dei capi of JP Political Mob!
Well, I watched the replay of the conversation between Ms. Baird and “Baloney Boy Lagasse”…and it only reinforced my belief that LaGasse spews BALONEY everytime he opens his mouth.
Lagasse is part of the problem in Jefferson Parish along with the other members of the “Gang 0f 7” …this Council continues to do one thing consistently…they erode the confidence of the Jefferson Parish taxpayers and voters toward the Council everytime they take the podium…
and, I agree with above poster, Connick, J.P. District Attorney, is in a coma and will continue to let this band of crooks run amuck with Jefferson Parish taxpayer dollars.
Lagasse gives new meaning to the phase…”he’s full of baloney”…and , sadly, the constitutes of District 2 continue to suffer with the empty suit which occupies the District 2 Council seat…and, moreover, “Baloney Boy LaGasse” most likely will ask the voters for a promotion later this year so he can feed at the pig trough even longer.
I know you are but what am I?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5P5eQiKNQs
If anyone can upload that segment to Youtube I’d be happy to feature the video embed. If you have a DVR with East Bank Cox and an HD Video capable smartphone (I Phone, Droid etc) the process is seamless.
sop
Of course…no disrespect to the M&M sisters! I admire their articulative skills, tenacity, courage, intellect & their capability to keep their dignity & wits about them while being subjected to the juvenile antics of these reprobates who dare to use the title “Honorable”.
The exchange actually shows how clueless that bunch really is. Chris Roberts, in his zeal to portray himself as a good governement guy drafted an ordinance that may well turn out to be a noose around his own neck. The irony is sweet indeed.
sop
LaGassy: “I don
The “Someone Else” was none other than Assessor Elect, Tom Capella. Watch the Cox rebroadcast.
“Armed with $100 million in federal financing, Jefferson Parish is planning to fix many of the neighborhood streets that remain buckled and broken after flooding during Hurricane Katrina.
The Parish Council hired four private engineering firms and three project managers last month to begin repairs to a series of concrete panels along 800 miles of damaged residential streets.
The council tapped Shaw Coastal Inc. and Burk- Kleinpeter Inc. to manage the projects in West Jefferson … ” – 10.6.10 TP
“Lagasse raised $256,000 in 2009 and had more than $300,000 in the bank at the beginning of this year, according to his report.
Roberts raised $182,000 last year but spent $189,000, leaving him with $93,500, according to his report. He began 2009 with a balance of more than $100,000.
… DONORS
To Roberts: Anthony J. Gendusa Jr. of New Orleans; BLD Services of Kenner; Chehardy Sherman Ellis Murray of Metairie; Frank-Tregre LLC of Metairie; Gaudry Ranson Higgins & Gremillion of Gretna; Mike Carter Construction Co. of Metairie; Perrin & Carter of Metairie; Pete Vicari General Contractor Inc. of Marrero; Paul Prichard of Monroe; Safety Zone Corp. of Marrero; Sizeler Thompson Brown Architectural Group of New Orleans; and Daniel Wagner III of Slidell.
To Lagasse : *****Burk- Kleinpeter Inc. of New Orleans; Davezac Consulting Engineers of Destrehan; H. Davis Cole & Associates of Baton Rouge; Steve C. Hartman of Opelousas; LA Housing Development Corporation of Gretna; Omega Refining of Marrero; and River Parish Disposal Inc. of New Orleans. … ” 2.25.10 TP
“The Jefferson Parish Council on Wednesday approved new contracts and extensions worth at least $1.7 million for nine consulting companies that have contributed more than $200,000 to local political campaigns.
The contracts are as varied as their recipients. Burk- Kleinpeter Inc., for example, is helping restore moorings destroyed by Hurricane Katrina for the fishing fleet in Bucktown, and Linfield, Hunter & Junius is designing renovations to the parish history center in Gretna.
The bulk of the money, however, is going into Jefferson’s road bond program, a massive endeavor in its ninth year with a budget that is ballooning from $113 million to about $210 million. The council has asked for an additional $75 million this year to expand the project even further.
In a new $1.1 million contract connected to the road program, the council awarded the underwriting duties for future bonds to Morgan Keegan & Co. and Sisung Securities Corp. The law firm Becknell & Tomeny will oversee the program’s legal aspects to the tune of $250,000.
But an engineering firm with oversight of the road projects saw its contract extension deferred Wednesday. Several council members said they want to explore completing the work with parish employees, rather than giving URS Corp. an additional nine months and $360,000.
Instead, the council agreed to keep paying URS under its original contract for another 30 days. The company has been charging about $40,000 a month, said Tim Whitmer, top aide to Parish President Aaron Broussard.
High volume
The Parish Council regularly gives or renews contracts to campaign contributors, a practice allowed by state law. But the volume of such decisions on Wednesday’s agenda, seven months before Broussard and the council stand for re-election, was remarkable.
Before the meeting, council Chairman Tom Capella said the council would likely approve the extensions as the fastest means to complete the projects, instead of engaging new consultants.
“We don’t want to change horses in midstream on many of these,” he said.
Councilman Elton Lagasse agreed, saying any effort to advertise the contracts would cost more time and money than the renewals. … ” -3.29.07 TP
“Despite a federal financing lull that is slowing drainage construction in southeast Louisiana, engineers have begun designing the “pump to the river” project to divert storm water from Harahan and River Ridge neighborhoods into the Mississippi River.
Jefferson Parish officials ordered the work to begin last week after the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to make the project a part of its Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control program, the mammoth initiative approved by Congress in 1995 to pay 75 percent of construction costs of major drainage work in three parishes.
Although corps
The complete lack of personal integrity on part of Lagasse and Roberts really shows through huh.
The fact they are rude when confronted shows both men are little more than street thugs. When they are locked up may it be with their own kind.
sop
I am appalled at the lack of professionalism on the part of the ENTIRE COUNCIL.
If I were the Divine M & M Sisters I would file formal complaints with the US Attorney, DA, Ethics Commission, Parish Attorney Foshee and Legislative Auditor regarding the actions of Lagasse and Roberts and any other Councilmember who interupted them. I would also file a Bar Complaint against Capella for his part in the interruptions and/or failure to censure the Council Members guilty thereof.
Finally I would file Public Record Requests every Thursday after the Council Meetings for a copy of the Meeting tape. The Council Clerk, Eula Lopez is the proper party to whom such a request should be made. The Parish Attorney may or may not represent her office but she is the Official Custodian as appointed by the Parish President ( at least IF Young did so as was the custom).
The Secretary of State can tell you who the Official Custodian is for Jefferson Parish. If there has been no designation by Young of Lopez or someone else then Young is the Official Custodian and the PRR form should be sent to him. Irrespective of what the Parish Attorney’s office says the buck begins and ends with Young or his designee.
I would also record one replay of the meeting from the Cox Channel, keeping in mind that for some unknown reason the West Bank meetings are not broadcast … compare the PRR response copy with the live recording from the East Bank…interesting to find out if any ‘editing’ has occurred , which if it did is a direct violation of Record Management and Retention laws of the State of Louisiana.
I’m just saying.
A most relevant and timeless observation by Walker Percy considering the insolent conduct acted out by members of the JP Council of Clowns, Lagasse, Roberts and Capella:
And we get this follow-up to my previous comment regarding elections, Jefferson Parish style, by Ms. Grace in her early morning opinion:
Buried in a somewhat “redundant” Op-Ed by James Gill in this A.M.’s “Times-Pick -Your-Nose” (Mr. Gill has said most of this previously) is a juicy “tidbit”, namely: Heebe was paying Mouton long before 2003, and was paying him when Heebe was being considered for the post of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District. This certainly means that “The Federal Bureau of Constipation” knew about these payments BUT DID NOTHING ABOUT THEM, which is why no “Heebe payments to Mouton” prior to 2003 are included in the Mouton Indictment. Somehow this all has a familiar “ring”, like in “The Federal Bureau of Constipation investigated G.T. Ortous prior to his confirmation by the Senate in 1994, but the Federal Government never indicted G.T. Ortous for any crime.” SICKENING and DISGUSTING. SPIT! Ashton O’Dwyer.
Stephanie Grace who just loved to shit and giggle with the likes of Coulon and Broussard? The same SG who then , as a spurned harlot, decries the conduct in which she participated ( albeit without admitting HER culpability in the activities)!
Oh puhleeze Stephanie, you media harlot, give us a break. Sleep with the enemy if you want to but don’t expect anyone to cry for you when you are shown to the world for the harlot you are and were and continue to be. You gave up your cherry to the wrong guys honey. Period. I don’t know who is dumber, you or them. UGH.
Anybody ever seen this?
“JEFFERSON PARISH CONTRIBUTIONS INFO
Eula Lopez, Clerk of Court, has clarified the often-confusing Question 9f – Contributions made to elected officials of Jefferson Parish. Per Eula’s message:
You are only obligated to show contributions for the current term. All submittals would be obligated to show contributions for any of the [sitting] JP Councilmembers.
Also note that, even if the council person has been in office for several terms, you are only obligated to show contributions for the most current term.”
http://web.mac.com/coreworks/Coreworks/Home.html
Who is this guy, what is his company and what exactly do they do?
http://web.mac.com/coreworks/Coreworks/Home.html
Look at this client list:
http://web.mac.com/coreworks/Coreworks/Clients.html
It sure looks like Ralph Fontcuberta’s son, per the LA SOS? Apparently a contractor’s progeny advises the Council how to fill out their own contribution forms.
Brilliant.
Let’s guess, is there a contract for this?
“Type(s) Registered: TRADE NAME
Registered Name: CREATIVE WRITING RESOURCES
Applicant: RALPH FONTCUBERTA, III
1000 W. ESPLANADE AVE.#102-103
KENNER, LA 70065
Type Of Business: WRITING & EDITING REPORTS, LETTERS, ETC.
Book #: 50-2368
Current Status: INACTIVE
Inactive Reason: EXPIRED
Dates
Registration Date: 12/9/1992
Expiration Date: 12/9/2002
Date First Used: 11/11/1992
Date First Used (in La.): 11/11/1992
Current Classes
No Current Classes
Expired Classes
No Expired Classes
Amendments On File
No Amendments on file”
Wouldn’t Adobe form central be much cheaper?
sop
Uhm, it seems to me yes there are probably (probably) a lot of ways to skin this kat that a corporation or governmental entity could identify.
But not only that but this lil’ group appears to be advising as to the substance of what is being entered/reported, not just providing the forms (judging by the notice on the home page).