Process Matters: The Revolver Fund and the Chevron Deal

I think WDSU was the first to report on it but the Times-Picayune has a story as well.

I also learned earlier today that the city was again pursuing the acquisition of the Chevron Building and the abandonment of City Hall. The section 106 (historic review process) notice is here and supporting material is here.

Both of those articles remind us why this is news. Over the summer, the administration negotiated with Chevron Corporation to potentially purchase the Chevron Building from the oil giant for the price of $8 million, pending the process stipulated by City Charter.

There was a process. The City Planning Commission held a hearing and a vote. The City Council held a hearing and a vote.

City Council voted against the project.

So some members were apparently surprised today to learn that the administration was going to go ahead with the purchase and relocation anyway. Travers Mackel reeled in Shelley Midura:

"This is news to me," she said. "(The information) is not factual. The city determined in July that it would not buy the Chevron Building and would not move any city offices into that building."

Frank Donze also caught up with the Councilmember from District A:

She said she has "serious concerns about what is going on here" and described any effort to acquire the Chevron complex with state and federal money as "an undisguised attempt to avoid the council's involvement, and, unfortunately, part of a disturbing pattern of this administration."

Later, I emailed Councilman Arnie Fielkow for his thoughts:

We only learned of this today and are trying to get many of the same questions answered. I, and many other cms, do not support this! The entire project needs to be better thought out, master planned and left to the next administration and council!

And Councilwoman Stacy Head for hers:

I have no idea how he plans to do this without council approval. I am calling around to find out.

I also emailed Ceeon Quiett at the Mayor's Office of Communications. Here is what she wrote back:

The matter before the City Council was the appropriation of funding from one capitol account to another ..not an approval of the acquisition. Funding appropriation –Legislative Branch authority per the charter, Purchases –Executive Branch authority per the charter. The Mayor and the City Council both believe in the relocation of City Hall and the viability of the Chevron building. To this day, as the media has reported, leaking roofs, lack of hot water, broken elevators remain. As you remember FEMA has recognized the depth of damages to 1300 Perdido St. City Hall. Over $5million has been approved by FEMA for City Hall.

--

I think the administration is arguing that City Council and the City Planning Commission had oversight power over the original proposal to acquire the Chevron Building and mothball 1300 Perdido St. from this past spring and summer because at that time, they were being asked to fund the purchase using the city's capital budget.

Indeed, the city's original deal was to purchase the Chevron building for $8 million by using the $5 million FEMA has pledged for damage to our current City Hall and cobbling together the other $3 million through bond sales and the capital improvement budget.

This time is different, from the Mayor's perspective, because the executive is simply moving forward with the execution of a purchase and is not pursuing funds from the budget, which would reengage the a cycle of public hearings and votes by Council and the City Planning Commission.

The administration's position is that it did not need approval for the project itself, just the funds to move forward with the purchase. Ms. Quiett reminds us that FEMA has already allocated $5 million. That still leaves the same $3 million shortage for the price of purchase alone, ignoring the cost of renovation as a factor. I suppose that means that this time, administration is going to fill in the rest using funds that they have the authority to move around in a discretionary fashion without triggering a cycle of hearings.

--

I closely followed Dambala's recent piece about the potential pitfalls involved with discretionary use of Disaster Community Development Block Grant (DCDBG) funds, which come from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are administered by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA).*

Today, he has a post about today's new controversy about the Cheveron Building in which he indicates the administration is planning to use what is called "the revolver fund" to avoid initiating the CPC and Council oversight process.

The revolver fund was set up by the LRA to help hurricane-damaged parishes scrounge up the cash to initiate recovery projects. For instance, when FEMA agrees to reimburse the City of New Orleans a certain amount of money for damage to a public building, they don't just cut the check so the city can go and hire a construction firm. Instead, FEMA reimburses the city once the work has begun. This protects taxpayers by ensuring that these recovery dollars are applied to restore the infrastructure that was damaged and not to other purposes but it also hurts the liquidity of parish level and municipal governments by requiring them to front the cash for all of these projects. To fix the problem, the LRA created revolver funds to help parish and municipal governments get cash up front. New Orleans can now tap revolver money to pay for projects and then repay the revolver fund when FEMA reimbursement checks cleared.

Dambala says today that:

The problem with that equation is that any money spent under the Revolver system must meet FEMA requirements for spending. If you recall in my previous post, the FEMA requirements state the the money can't be used for new development....they can only be used for repairs of exising infrastructure.

But FEMA requirements aren't that inflexible. FEMA money can be applied to a new development, if it is classified as an "improved project." That is what the city requested in its letter (see the WDSU story or the attachments linked at the top of this post) to FEMA.

I am trying to understand, from a procedural standpoint, how the administration can use revolver money for discretionary purposes. The idea is that the fund fronts the city cash for a specific, reimbursement approved project and then the city reimburses the revolver once the FEMA money comes through. Seems like a simple, clean transaction. But it's more complicated than that.

For instance, under the School Facilities Master Plan, the Recovery School District is not rebuilding every single school for which it is receiving FEMA reimbursement money. Or, under the plan guiding construction for the New Orleans Public Library, the city is not rebuilding every single branch for which it is receiving money from FEMA for flood damage.

One would assume that the city would apply every dollar from FEMA toward reimbursement for damaged libraries (just as an example) to building new libraries, even if the plan is to build fewer libraries in a more consolidated system. But maybe that's not the case. Conceivably, if the city spends less out of the revolver fund than they take in reimbursement money from FEMA, there would be a stash of surplus cash sitting in the revolver fund.

FEMA is not, I don't think, supposed to reimburse for construction that is not performed. If the city uses $10 million in revolver money, they're only supposed to get a $10 million check from FEMA to repay the revolver even if FEMA had budgeted $20 million for their assessment of damage. But I don't really know how it works in practice. It might be that the City allocates money from the revolver and gets an expedited reimbursement based on the allocation instead of the actual expenditure.

Some reader insight on this would be great.

Dambala says it is understood that the money leftover in the revolver when it is no longer needed to front anticipated reimbursements would go into the city's pot of remaining DCDBG funds and could be reapplied to other purposes. Is that what is understood and is that what is happening now?

I also want to know more about how oversight and administration of the revolver fund works. My sense is that it is something the LRA created for the Mayor's office to help with cashflow, is not something that is considered a part of the city's revenue or spending streams, and is therefore hidden from the regular budget process. Does that mean that a hypothetical surplus in the revolver fund is purely a discretionary tool for the executive branch? If Council doesn't have oversight over that money, does the LRA?

If there's anybody out there who can add some detail, answer some questions, or correct my mistakes, please leave a comment or email me.


*I have additional analysis and questions on this matter as well that I'll have to tease out in another post. I have been very curious about unaccounted discretionary spending, the 2010 budget, and the use of DCDBG funds as it relates to the demolition of Lower Mid-City and the proposed LSU/VA. If you've been itching for more information about what Dambala might be talking about, check out this story and video. It'll get your brain churning a little bit but it might give you more new questions than new answers.

Perry outclasses those that bothered to show in CJ reform debate

What an outrage! I cannot believe some campaign produced a largely unoffensive YouTube video! I give the story that an anti-Mitch video was online for all of an hour a big fat who cares. The Gamblog called it "virtual mud," but I call it unnoticeable dandruff. The only thing I don't understand is why a campaign wouldn't just stand behind the video. It's not a swift-boating, it's a PG-rated parody.

I could be wrong though, I noticed Landrieu skipped out on last night's Mayoral forum. Maybe poor Mitch was still crying about that meanie meanster video.

In other news, there was indeed a forum for the Mayoral candidates yesterday on the issue voters and every candidates agree is the most important issue facing the city, criminal justice.

Only James Perry, Troy Henry, Nadine Ramsey, and Ed Murray made it. Seems a bit odd that there would be any no-shows for a forum on the hottest issue in town, let alone three. The Landrieu and Georges campaigns sent representatives with statements. The Couhig campaign avoided it entirely. I guess they felt it was too risky to send someone across State Street after dark.

To dispense with the sarcasm, last night's forum was very interesting. I wish it had been televised. The candidates were asked to sign onto a ten point platform prepared by the host organizations, which included Safe Streets/Strong Communities and the Juvenile Justice Project. The platform is far from radical, it reflects a lot of the principles that a comprehensive community policing strategy ought to entail. Since most candidates profess to support something called "community policing," it was helpful to have a forum in which some of the ideas that actually make "community policing" different from what we have now were spelled out in at least a little bit of detail.

I will paraphrase the platform that candidates were asked to endorse.

1. National search for a reform-oriented police chief
2. End incarcerations for traffic violations and/or municipal offensives; end incarcerations for people charged with "marijuana 1st offense."
3. End practice of charging suspects of simple solicitation with felony crime against nature
4. Prioritize youth/recreation programs, access to drug treatment and mental health services as part of crime prevention strategy.
5. Create incentives in city contracting process to encourage employers to hire formerly incarcerated individuals
6. Establish certificates of good conduct to help those with criminal records find jobs
7. Establish Office of Formerly Incarcerated Affairs in Mayor's Office
8. Convert vacant properties into housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated and low income families
9. Create a public-works style program to improve public transportation
10. Increase youth opportunities by investing in alternatives to incarceration including employment programs, recreation programs; building positive behavior supports in public schools, and rebuilding the Youth Study Center in way that respects human dignity of inmates.

All pretty benign and unobjectionable, don't you think? Certainly, some planks, like the suggestion of a public works style program for public transportation, are entirely vague, but why would a candidate have a problem endorsing a reform platform like this? Wouldn't this platform seem to generally outline what a real community policing strategy would look like?

Strangely, in addition to those candidates that weren't even there, Ed Murray and Nadine Ramsey refused to endorse the suggestions, saying they don't make campaign pledges as a matter of principle (amazing). Only James Perry and Troy Henry did.

James Perry put on a clinic at this debate. He is well-versed in criminal justice reform issues and spoke very decisively, drawing applause on several occasions.

Henry was also a confident speaker but his constant reiteration of his executive experience and desire to bring a CEO's mentality to the Mayor's office did not play particularly well with an audience more geared up to hear about criminal justice reform than economic development. He also left himself open to Perry's implication that certain candidates (Henry) were "empty suits" and "Nagin third-termers."

I don't know Perry's campaign is really up to the challenge of actually winning an election but he certainly won last night's debate and won it pretty damn emphatically.

Murray was totally uninspiring. He is not a good public speaker at all. His mumbling cadance is one thing, but his closing statement, in which he talked about realistic political expectations, was so bad it was almost funny. Even allowing that Murray was providing an genuine reality check, nobody has ever won an election with a message of 'lower your expectations.'

I was surprised that no-show candidates didn't juggle their schedules to attend and astonished that some candidates refused to sign onto the reform platform given the shamefully low approval ratings for the NOPD and the current direction of our much-maligned CJ system.

One would think that candidates would fall all over each other to carry the criminal justice reform mantle. However, Perry didn't really have a whole lot of competition last night.

And then there were... fewer than before

Leslie Jacobs has abandoned her campaign for Mayor.

"I'll be going on a mini-vacation," she said. "I want to read a book of no intellectual value and watch the waves for a few days."

This was not unexpected. It had been widely rumored that Mitch Landrieu's last minute entry in the race would ultimately force Jacobs to yield.

In an interview, Jacobs said she made her decision after reviewing results from a poll she commissioned last week.

"Those numbers confirmed what I thought: Once Mitch entered the race, I could not win," she said. "I am a Democrat, he's a Democrat. And I think it's safe to say our bases overlap -- very much so."

Jacobs, a wealthy businesswoman who had been waging an aggressive television campaign, confirmed earlier reports that she consulted with Landrieu before announcing her candidacy on Nov. 18, about three weeks before qualifying opened.

At the time of their meeting, Jacobs said Landrieu told her "there was a possibility, not a probability" that he would run after announcing in July that he would not.

"He said the odds were low," Jacobs said, "but that he would leave that door open. So I took a calculated risk on my part. Mitch had the luxury of name recognition so he could decide at the last minute. I didn't have that luxury."

What does this mean for other candidates?

On the face of it, it would appear that Mitch Landrieu is the most direct beneficiary of Jacobs' decision to sit out. The two were essentially competing for the same pool of voters. I'm sure Jacobs' poll showed Landrieu way out ahead of the field. That he no longer has a well-heeled challenger biting at his heels, he has less work to do.

John Georges is also probably pretty happy that he has one less WMA (White Mitch Alternative) with whom he'll have to compete. Jacobs was going to be the only candidate capable of buying TV commercial time to the extent Georges can. He'll be able to dominate the airwaves.

James Perry might also squeeze a few votes out of the situation. Jacobs was definitely hoping to win over some of the post-Katrina young transplants that Perry has courted aggressively.

Analysis: Meh

This forum did not lend itself to serious candidates truly distinguishing themselves. As much as people are frustrated by talking points, it is kind of hard to do anything but stick to sound bites when you only have fifteen seconds to outline how you're going to reduce crime. That said, before I watch the rebroadcast this debate to see how it came across on television, I want to share my thoughts on how the candidates fared.

First of all, considering what he had to do, I thought Norman Robinson pulled off one of the slickest, smoothest debates I've ever seen. He was charming and he kept it moving. Big props.

Manny Bruno was hilarious. He should do this every year until he is dead or finally elected Mayor. Jonah Bascle did a great job with his opening statement. I think he should file a lawsuit if they don't do the obvious and switch a few of the red, handicap-accessible streetcars onto the St. Charles line.

Marijuana was also a big winner tonight. Very nice to have two people bring it up, even if it wasn't any of the "real" candidates. I was surprised that no candidate spun off of the laugh lines to make a serious point about how decriminalization of marijuana possession is a big part of real community policing policy, how simple pot arrests suck resources out of our criminal justice system, or to commend DA Cannizzaro for his progressive views on this issue. That would have been a big move for someone with direct knowledge about this like Judge Nadine Ramsey. She whiffed though. I don't know why candidates are still too scared to talk about this like grownups.


The Good:


As for the major contenders, I think that if there was a winner, it was Troy Henry.

His delivery was strong and direct and he didn't repeat himself as much as other candidates. In a forum like this, I think that you have to be unafraid to say I and me. You have to be loud and in charge. Henry did this well. I think he raised a lot of eyebrows.

James Perry also did a pretty good job. Similarly, he was not afraid to be loud and direct. He spoke firmly. He needs do more to emphasize his work as a civil rights attorney fighting housing discrimination and less to emphasize that one time he was a lifeguard for NORD.


The Bad:


Ed Murray needs to get his money back from whoever has been coaching him. You might be able to get away with mumbling one-on-one to a constituent but you can't mumble during a debate. During one answer, he started to say something about the Beacon of Hope but then just trailed off. It was weird.

On more than one occasion, Mitch Landrieu repeated lines verbatim from the youtube announcement of his candidacy released last week. I would have expected something a little better from someone with actual charisma. It came off as phony.

John Georges also had a mumbling problem and had trouble thoroughly answering questions without straying onto other topics or talking points.


The Boring:

Leslie Jacobs, Nadine Ramsey, and Rob Couhig were largely forgettable.

If I were Ramsey, I'd have rather been bad than forgettable.

Leslie Jacobs was really timid and uninspiring. Since Mitch Landrieu jumped in the race, she has had to work hard just to convince people she is still interested in the office. She should have used this opportunity to show that to people. She needed to be louder, more confident, even fiery. She seemed nervous and reticent.

Rob Couhig is just not someone I'm interested in. People told me he was going to make fireworks or something but he was stiff and I didn't pay attention to him.

Stay tuned. I will update this post with additional thoughts once I've watched video.


UPDATE: After watching pieces of the debate on television, I don't think I have much to add. Nadine Ramsey looked even more uncomfortable than she sounded.

The Great Boilerplate Debate

Just got home from debate number 1. I do have some summary thoughts but first I thought I would publish, unedited, my shorthand version of tonight's debate.

I typed while they talked. I had intended to just write a couple of things down but found it enjoyable to just try and type everything I heard. The fluffy words of the candidates came into my ears but my fingers were only able to type the distilled essence of the product. So if you don't have time to actually watch the debate because candidates spend too much time thanking the moderator, you can just read this summary of the most popular and repetitive catch phrases and buzzwords.

I didn't catch everything and my notation may be a little confusing. I apologize.

I tended to transcribe rote boilerplate when candidates delivered their statements clearly and forcefully and tended to stop typing when candidates began to drone.

Italics reflect cheap thoughts of mine, regular font reflects the candidates' intonations.

Again, these are my actual, almost entirely unedited notes from tonight's candidate forum:

6:01 Norman in.

6:04 Introductions over. Apparently everybody’s poll numbers say crime is the biggest issue. Good for Troy Henry and the intentional comedians to think of something creative.

6:05 Leslie Jacobs gets her first crack at it. Crime on. We need leadership, accountability, collaboration, trust. “Community policing experience.” It’s not just police… I want all NORD centers reopened.

6:06 Ed Murray wants national search. “Community Policing,” knowing people in neighborhoods. Long term it is about education. I’m going to create an office of education in the Mayor’s office. NORD.

6:07: Jerry Jacobs – Look at reasons for crime, not the manifestation of the crime. The law is incorrect. The law of prohibition of marijuana is the worst thing ever. Legalize marijuana! Repeal marijuana laws. Glad Georges and Copelin got this guy in.

6:08 Nadine Ramsey – My solution is “neighborhood policing.” It’s a long-term commitment. We must listen to our neighborhoods. Get the faith-based community engaged, after-school programs, old people.

6:09 Troy Henry – I’m talking about reengineering city government. A comprehensive approach that’s a five legged stool. We need transparency, more jobs, housing/blight. I missed some of his legs, sorry.

6:10 Jonah Bascle – Equal access. New Orleans is dysfunctional for everyone. St. Charles street cars need to be handicap accessible now. You can just switch 5 streetcars from Canal line to St. Charles line. Honest and transparent government. I had to run for Mayor because I’ve been trying to get this done for months and this is my last resort. This kid is just got himself some streetcars moved.

6:11 James Perry – I’m the only candidate that has made a real commitment. I won’t run if I can’t bring the murder rate down 40%. That same day I kicked ass in a debate when people didn’t know a jail from an after-school program. I am going to invest in NORD.

6:12 Manny Chevrolet – I want to go on the record right now by saying I’m against crime. How can we fight crime when police themselves are criminals? Nice. Also let’s grow lots of pot and tax the hell out of it. Two people! Yes!!! Soon they'll stop laughing...

6:13 John Georges wants leadership. Our leaders are in the private sector. With strong leadership we can do anything!

6:14 Some guy named Lambert says we need lots of transparency.

6:15 Mitch Landrieu loves this city with his heart and soul. He’s going to fix it with the children. This is regurgitated word for word from his internet message. We need a national search and hold the next chief accountable. I’m going to stop kids from getting into crime in the first place. I want a public-private partnership for NORD.

6:16 Rob Couhig – I love you Dr. Francis! Police chief needs integrity. Integrity again. New chief. New chief.

6:17 for Leslie Jacobs – re: what is the criteria for a new police chief – national search, for someone with experience leading major change. Someone who will drive accountability up and down. Three I want someone who embraces technology. One time I had a hard time getting an accident report filed. It sucked. It was like the 1950s. We need hiring standards. When the head of PANO that the police can no longer police themselves, it’s time for a new commission..

6:18 for Murray re what the mayor can do - I am going to open up an office of education that is going to coordinate all of the issues between and amongst the different school systems. Times-Pic wrote article (Sarah Carr series, go read G-Bitch) about how difficult it is for parents… We need to coordinate funding for public education. I think that I can get more money for education from BR and DC

6:19 for Mr. Jacobs – what about the racial divide? – Finances really matter. Crime matters. If we had more money, we would be able to do whatever we want. What I want to do, legalize pot, and raise money, we can reduce crime and give everyone money to get whatever resources they need.

6:20 Norman. If we have weed legalized, everyone can just chill…

6:21 for Ramsey- what about more revenue? We need a comprehensive review of our budget. There is a distinction between what we want and what we can afford. We need to see if there are any millages out there.

Norman – what about raising taxes?

Ramsey – No.

6:22 – What is your strategy for blight reduction?

Henry – I have a 2fold approach. Let’s use enforcement tools we have – liens, sheriffs sales, etc. Two is to do what we did in Ponch Park. Use incentives to help residents buy homes.

Perry – Murray made it harder for NORA to buy blighted property, so bad that he had to rewrite his law. We need properties put back into commerce. I have leadership skills.

Bruno – I am also against blight. One way to redevelop blighted neighborhoods is to bring Amish down here. They can build barns in a day. Imagine what they could do with a city block.

Georges – We should do what Jeff Parish does. We need coordination between code enforcement and other departments. I want citizens to be able to go around NORA to buy these homes. We need to add more people to code enforcement but we need to add this step before NORA so that people can buy these things. NORA adds cost to the process.

Lambert – I cannot solve any of these problems. It’s a we thing. There is no I in team. I’m going to use code enforcement. We thing. No I.

Landrieu – This is an experience issue. City Hall is dysfunctional. Blight is strangling us. We have to stop demolishing homes by accident.

Couhig – The Mayor made life hard for me at NORA. We need a Mayor who is disciplined and hard working. We need someone who wants to be Mayor. Livability is a big issue. Blight.

Leslie Jacobs – Let’s get code enforcement going. Let’s invest in NORA. We need to change the constitution to make it easier to expropriate abandoned property. Beacon of Hope is a great example of awesomeness in Lakeview. We also have commercial blight. We need a master plan.

Murray – This constitutional amendment is not a problem. NORA needs proper funding. They have statutory resources but not money. We need neighborhood associations engaged. Beacon of Hope… mumbling… something about passing savings onto NORA.

Jerry Jacobs – The definition of blight can also be poverty. The city needs money. The only way is to legalize marijuana. It will reduce workload of NOPD.

Nadine Ramsey – We need to enforce existing laws. Adequate funding for NORA is one step. 58-60k blighted properties is not a small number.

Troy Henry – We need to rehabilitate juvenile criminals. Let’s reengineer YSC.

On the IG

Bascle – Let’s not just award political pals.

NORD

Perry – I think the core issue is funding. Story about being lifeguard with NORD. Less funding now than when I was a kid. The key issue is leadership for that Dept. and true investment.

Making City Hall customer friendly

Bruno – My face will be everywhere so everyone knows who is in charge. I will hire the right people. Hostesses. Friendly customer service.

Top 3 industries for new business?

Georges – we have to change our image from partying to historic. We need to enhance the tourism industry, attract airlines, we need the immediate reopening of Charity Hospital so we can redevelop downtown, etc. Healthcare jobs. Save Charity, he says.

Re: Charity

Lambert – I’d like to talk about crime instead.

Re: Public Private Partnership

Landrieu – Biomedical, Nagin blew it.

Re: Young people

Couhig – my whole campaign is young people! We will have great customer service and transparency.

Norman – what is the city’s bond indebtedness?

Lambert – Don’t know

Couhig – I don’t know.

Jacobs – Don’t know.

Mr. Jacobs – Can’t see the

Ramsey – Don’t know.

Henry – don’t know

Perry – don’t know

Bruno – A lot

Bascle – A lot

Georges – I know what the Youth Study Center is.

The correct answer is 524-525 million.

Next one: What % does the city receive in sales tax?

Jacobs – after rephrase....

Norman -Does anyone know?

32%, 31%?

Norman is sorry he went there.

Closing statements:

Leslie Jacobs – Leadership, results, regional coalition. Quality of life stuff. I lead a movement to retain youth. I took on our schools. Today our schools have a lower performance gap. We have a powerful charter school movement and it is getting better. We need our next Mayor to get results. More economic development

Murray – I am unique because of my experience in the legislator. I have been floor leader for lots of stuff and I get results. There isn’t a single business here that has asked me for help and hasn’t gotten it. (Maybe the fail of the night if I got this quote right) The Mayor and Council needs to be civil and get together. The Mayor needs to spread the word on economic inclusion. All of those things need to happen, I ask for your vote.

Jerry Jacobs – I’m a Tulane grad and did life insurance. I took a ton of courses until I retired. I learned how to look into peoples’ minds. The city is riddled with crime, economic disaster. We don’t have enough money. I have the ability to look into that. I know how to increase revenue and reduce waste. And it won’t be popular.

Ramsey – Politicians always say what they have done. But why is our city in the condition that it is in. I want a crime plan for each neighborhood, not just one for the city. It will get input. It will hold politicians accountable. We have been failed by big promises and big plans. Politicians need to trust citizens instead of the other way around.

Henry – I’m most qualified and experienced. I have managed big budgets and big numbers of people. I know the recovery needs of all departments and neighborhoods. I’m the only one who has developed an energy efficiency program. If you want experience it is me, if you want on the job training it is everyone else.

Bascle – Let’s stop ignoring handicap accessibility. If we can’t do something that takes no money and no time like streetcar accessibility, how do we fix anything else? I hate how much money there is in these things. Take campaign funds and plug the budget with them. I personally experience failing services every day, nobody deserves it.

Perry – Our best days are ahead but only if we get safer and more prosperous. Our opportunity is in less than two months. They can choose dramatic change. It is the difference between past and future… Remember Barack Obama? Hope. My name is James Perry.

Manny Bruno – Gandhi, King, me. This city is so divided. It can’t be a black thing or a white thing it has to be a right thing. We have problems. It is insanity here. We need a radical, revolutionary thing.

Georges – This is about leadership. I am optimistic. Small family business and now I’m rich! I employ locals. I will fix everything. I will make you feel proud. My name is John Georges.

Lambert – My name is Lambert. I am a working class stiff. My platform is….

Landrieu – I am running for Mayor because I love New Orleans with my heart and soul. Wow regurgitating video again…. Schools, jobs. We need to bring everybody together. AAs whites, Vietnamese, Hispanics walking in same direction. I want to lead this effort.

Couhig – I have listened I’m in talk radio. Livability, affordability, opportunity, fairness. Jobs. Hard-working, disciplined.

Norman out.

Bad Coroner: Port of Call New Orleans

There is a lot to say about this week's gripping series by Frontline, The Times-Picayune, and Pro-Publica, and I wish I had a few hours to go on at length. Unfortunately, I'll have to dart in and out.

If you haven't been keeping up, please get yourself started now.

I don't know exactly what's coming up in this series but I would like to briefly to discuss the race for coroner.

Though it had been assumed for a long time that the longtime incumbent coroner, Dr. Frank Minyard would retire at the end of his term, he has decided to run for reelection. At first, it appeared as though he would be unchallenged but an opponent did surface before the end of qualifying.


Dr. Dwight McKenna has entered the race.

Dr. McKenna was also once an employee of the Orleans Parish Coroner's Office, so he is not an inexperienced candidate. He and his wife, another doctor who was recently involved in a tragic and horrible car accident, are behind the McKenna Museum of African American Art and the New Orleans Tribune.

--

Minyard came under fire after Katrina for the slow pace at which his office was able to identify victims and for apparently refusing aid that would have bolstered his staff.

Minyard has been on my own radar since I began researching material for this unflattering profile of Police Superintendent Warren Riley. Minyard came up when I was reading about the death of Adolph Archie, who was beaten to death while in custody after he was arrested for the murder of a police officer. You can check out this scanned clipping of the AP story reporting Minyard's new story, this account in Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force pg. 33, or this one from a 1995 New York Times column by Bob Hebert.

He also was a major impediment to A.C. Thompson's exposure of violent racist vigilantism in Algiers Point after the levee failure. From an interview with Thompson:

The lawsuit brought by me and the Nation Institute's Investigative Fund also gobbled up many months. We sued Orleans Parish Coroner Frank Minyard for the right to copy every single autopsy report tied to Hurricane Katrina. All we really wanted were the autopsies documenting shooting victims, but Minyard refused to give us those, saying he couldn't sort them out from all the other autopsies. So we wound up demanding everything, as we were allowed under Louisiana law. We won. And the coroner now owes the Investigative Fund some $10,000 in attorney fees, which he hasn't paid.

Dr. Minyard is 80 years old now. At some point or another, someone else is going to be leading the Coroner's office. I have a hard time thinking of another city that elects its coroners. Are their any? What are the advantages of having the coroner subject to the political process?

Update: Does Dr. Frank Minyard still live in New Orleans anymore?

End of Qualifying

Eddie Sapir is indeed qualified to run at-large. So is Darren Mire, of the BOLD political machine. That's going to be interesting. I'll update this post later with more details and thoughts if I can.

Arnie out, Eddie in

WDSU says Arnie Fielkow is undecided about seeking reelection as Councilman at-large. I hear he is decided. He is not going to seek reelection. I have also heard that the "family issues" cited cryptically by WDSU involve his wife's career and not something weird.

Meanwhile, 71-year-old former Councilman and Municipal Court Judge, Eddie Sapir is going to be qualifying for an at-large run first thing tomorrow.

Update: To be clear, Sapir is in whether Arnie Fielkow qualifies or not.

Update II: Times-Pic says Fielkow is back in! Wow dude, make a decision.

Update III: That story seems thin. I bet he's still undecided. We'll have a better idea tomorrow.

Between Sapir and Jackie Clarkson, the other candidates might have to agree to keep all debates between 5 and 7PM, after dinner and in time for bed.

Another thing the senior circuit will agree on: it's drafty in here.

--

Might James Perry also seize the opportunity and shift his meager resources from the Mayoral election into an at-large bid? It's hard to find evidence that he's gaining enough traction in the analog world to earn a fighting underdog's share of the vote in the Mayor's race, let alone seriously threaten for a spot in the runoff. He missed his opportunity to knock on doors and organize and he'll never raise enough money to play the traditional TV/radio game in any real way. It's not as hard to envision Perry making an honorable go of it for one of the two at-large openings.

If he is warm to the idea, he should get moving.

--

Though the Jacobs campaign denies it, it's hard to avoid hearing rumors that she is still considering dropping out of the Mayor's race now that Mitch Landrieu is running.

She could jump into the at-large fray herself.


--

Elsewhere:

Austin Badon has qualified for District E and Stacy Head has qualified for District B.

Marlin Gusman has no challenger for Criminal Sheriff.

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell may also run unopposed.

Coroner Frank Minyard has broken his promise not to seek reelection. I hope someone challenges him. Do other cities have elected coroners?

Tomorrow, Virginia Blanque is still expected to join the fray for District A and Corey Watson for District B. I think District A could get even more crowded. Same for District C.

--

Just one more day of qualifying. We'll know for sure who is running for what by the end of the day tomorrow.

--

Late update:

If Arnie qualifies, runs, and wins. He's signed up for four years.

If he's qualifying because he's really still undecided and ultimately decides to drop out because he wants to make more money and he or his wife want to take a job out of state, that's fine.

But if he runs and wins and then resigns, it will cost all of us as taxpayers and set up one of those undemocratic low-turnout special elections.

That would be lame.

He should really think it over.

Jerry!

I was at the courthouse this morning to check out the open of the candidate qualifying period. It was boring, just a stupid media set piece where candidates are filmed walking up steps and answering questions like "why do you want to run for Mayor."

It is exactly like a beauty pageant except all of the contestants are ugly.

Walking the gray carpet today:

For Mayor:

John Georges
Troy Henry
James Perry
Leslie Jacobs
Nadine Ramsey
Rob Couhig

For Council:

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (D)
Susan Guidry (A)
Cynthia Willard-Lewis (At-Large)
Kristin Palmer (C)
Tom Arnold (C)
Jay Batt (A)

Also qualifying, though I must have missed them:

Mitch Landrieu (Mayor), Nolan Marshall III (At-Large), Jackie Clarkson (At-Large), Cindi Nguyen (E), Jerrelda Drummer-Sanders (E), Nathaniel Jones (C), William "Poppa" Gant (At-Large)



Georges had sign-wavers in the neutral ground for the entirety of his visit and rolled up with what was by far, the largest entourage.

He also brought his friend, some dude named Jerry Jacobs.

Jerry Jacobs is running for Mayor at the behest of Georges and former State Rep. Sherman Copelin to distract voters intending to vote for Leslie Jacobs. He qualified today. His name will be on the ballot.

Copelin and Georges telegraphed the move at a meeting of the Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee last week so it came as no surprise to the Jacobs campaign.

(Update: In fact, the Jacobs campaign press flack, Cheron Brylski included this tidbit in a Krewe of Truth e-blast today.)

Not that it would come as much of a surprise to anybody...

The Race Race

What was once a primary campaign to determine which white person and which black person will face one another in a runoff is still a primary campaign to determine which white person and which black person will face one another in a runoff.

Mitch Landrieu's candidacy is so intriguing because he, more than any other candidate, has an opportunity to undercut this dynamic to some degree.

I don't know if it is the conventional wisdom that Mitch Landrieu is a shoo-in to be in the runoff, but it shouldn't be.

Leslie Jacobs is apparently furious with Mitch Landrieu for lying to her about his intentions. She reportedly went to him just two weeks ago to secure his promise that he wouldn't be running before she spent all kinds of money on television advertising. Her campaign staff is putting the word out that she is staying in the race and intending to win it. She will be putting in qualifying papers first thing tomorrow so we'll know by mid-morning tomorrow whether or not she has any second thoughts. Apparently, before Georges announced his candidacy, he was similarly deferential to Mitch Landrieu but I see no indication that he has any interest in quitting now.

Though Landrieu has important name-recognition and a star power quality that will give him an immediate short term advantage and the ability to tap into some real buyer's remorse from 2006, Georges and Jacobs should not be viewed as setting suns. Georges and Jacobs are millionaires. They can afford to get their names out there. Mitch Landrieu has his vulnerabilities just like everyone else.

On the surface, the three of them will be vying for different slices of similar electorates. Georges will try to capture Lakeview, old uptown families, and is going to try hard to mobilize some measure of cross-over African American support. Jacobs is going to try to capture young voters, women, and a lot of business council types who pretend to like John Georges but secretly think he's an a-hole. If Georges and Jacobs stay in, as it looks like they will, they'll have enough campaign power to capture large bases of support.

But Landrieu is still a wild card. As the only candidate with legitimate star power, he'll have the luxury of setting the debate. Depending on how he structures his platform and campaign, he could emerge as a shoe-in for the run off or he could be in for a much tougher fight.

Does Landrieu analyze this election as distilling down to a white primary, a black primary, and a runoff? Does he feel he needs to fight off Jacobs and Georges for a large enough share of the white vote to get into the runoff?

Is he just going to be a more charismatic version of Arnie Fielkow?

Or, does he instead aspire to earn widespread African American support?

Georges is definitely attempting to coddle together some votes in the black community but it's hard to imagine his largely appearance-based efforts will yield substantive results. Jacobs may want to put together that kind of coalition but I don't think she even knows where to begin.

Mitch Landrieu has the Civil Rights legacy of his father, Moon.

Will Mitch Landrieu run on that legacy by demonstrating his value as a bridge builder willing to fight for compromises from entrenched power structures?

Or, will he campaign for citywide office like he and his sister have campaigned for statewide office, as the consensus candidates of the Democratic Party and the chamber of commerce?

He can run as super-Arnie and either win or lose a much harder than anticipated white people primary, and then lose in the runoff to Ed Murray, who, for his part, is reaching out to white voters though his district and his allies in the developer class.

Or, Mitch Landrieu can run as Moon Landrieu's son and take a stab at a real consensus coalition.

He might still lose the election doing it that way, but I'd like him and his chances a heckuva lot better.

---

Quick power rankings:


In it to spin it:

8. Rob Couhig
7. Nadine Ramsey


Lurking not looming:

6. Troy Henry
5. James Perry


Looming not lurking:

4. John Georges
3. Leslie Jacobs


Until further notice:

2. Mitch Landrieu
1. Ed Murray

Mitch Again?

According to sources close to the Landrieu political operation, Mitch Landrieu is expected to announce his candidacy for Mayor of New Orleans.

This totally rearranges the field.

Maybe he liked what he heard out of that poll he was running a few weeks ago.

It's not paradise

What a difference in just two years.

The homicide rate is down almost 24 percent since 2007. Violent crime receded 10 percent this year.

Single-stream recycling saved $400,000 in landfill fees in September alone.

The number of homeless people is down 26 percent since last year, thanks to a new partnership with the Philadelphia Housing Authority.

The city's inspector general, with more resources, is rooting out corruption on an unprecedented scale.

Members of the city's criminal-justice system have reduced the prison population 11 percent in a huge reversal of past yearly increases.

Licenses and Inspections is processing building-permit applications within two days, and customer satisfaction at L&I counter service is soaring.

The city fleet is smaller by 400 vehicles.

Since last year, filled, full-time positions in city government were reduced 705 to a total of 22,625.

We're writing a new zoning code to replace our 46-year-old version.

And the 311 Call Center has handled almost a million calls in less than a year of operation.

It's just Philadelphia under Michael Nutter.

It certainly hasn't been all roses. These are tough economic times in Philly and not everyone is happy about the cuts that he had to make, but an 11% reduction in the prison population in the midst of a 26% drop in homicides is a pretty stunning achievement for a place bit hard by tough-on-crime sloganeers. It's impossible to read Nutter's op-ed in the Inquirer and not hurt over our failure in New Orleans to come together around these kinds of pragmatic reforms. Mayor Nutter broke a cycle of racially divisive municipal campaigns by putting together a working coalition and won election by the largest margin in Philadelphia history. It was a mandate.

And now, for the first time in a long time, Philly has a game plan.

It's an important reminder not just that our issues are not totally unique, but also that solutions are not so impossible to achieve.

Just need a leader with a little vision and big enough guts to put together a coalition for pragmatic progressive reforms similar to those listed in Mayor Nutter's retrospective.

Would anyone be left unsatisfied with a list of accomplishments like this from our Mayor in his or her second state of the city address?

Blast from the past

Murderous corrupt cop Len Davis is seeking to avoid the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty and I hope this man is instead forced to rot in prison for the rest of his life. I wrote about Len Davis and Warren Riley's role protecting him from a domestic violence investigation last spring. Riley is a cop's cop, they say.

I'm John Georges and I hate running for Mayor (and this prop dog)

What the hell kind of campaign ad is this? Not only does the guy look like he hates the dog he's sitting with but it also looks like he hates running for Mayor. The ad is, I guess, designed to highlight Georges' aggressive desire for the office of Mayor but this ad kind of makes it seem like he hates running for office, doesn't think he should have to actually campaign, and thinks he deserves an immediate coronation.




The Times-Pic got in touch with the media consultant behind the ad:

"We wanted to show that John was willing to poke fun at himself," she said. "We're trying to re-introduce him and show all sides of him. Then we'll get to the issues."

It doesn't look like Georges is poking fun at himself. He looks authentically uncomfortable.

I'm sure Karen Carvin Sachat has all kinds of focus group info on this but it doesn't seem to me that people are skeptical of John Georges because he's too aggressive or too committed to being mayor. I think it's more like people think John Georges is a spoiled brat on a power trip. To me, this commercial explicitly reinforces that perception and as a result, might be one of the worst commercials I've ever seen.

I'll miss Pam Dashiell

I was absolutely floored by the news that she is gone. I saw her just two weeks ago at Wally Thurman's 80th birthday party in Lower Mid-City. Though we didn't know each other particularly well, it was easy to tell that she was something of a kindrid spirit. Not many people really find that sweet spot where sarcastic outrage and unending optimism find balance. I asked her about her recent trip to the White House and went on and on (tongue in cheek) about how I had heard through the grapevine that she had been summoned by the President himself and picked up in a military helicopter at her front door at dawn.

Of course it hadn't really gone down that way.

It was, like it is too often for Ninth Ward advocates, a schlep.

She would have deserved that kind of urgency though.

She once spoke to Open Sound about a vision for St. Claude Avenue.

In my dreams, she was District E's City Councilwoman.