City Council ordinance seeks to limit Mayor's discretionary powers, but only this one time

Yesterday, I wrote about the potential for increased federal scrutiny over the manner in which D-CDBG funds are being monitored by the LRA and used in Orleans Parish.

Recently, Mayor Ray Nagin revived plans to purchase the Chevron Building even though City Council had voted against pursuing such an agreement last summer. The Nagin administration has argued that because only funding sources independent of the city budget would be used - the revolver fund or D-CDBG money - Council has no legal oversight authority. Presumably, that logic would extent to every project the Mayor might pursue using non-budget recovery dollars.

I've now learned that City Councilmembers Jackie Clarkson, Arnie Fielkow, Stacy Head, and Shelley Midura have cosponsored an ordinance that would require the Mayor to disclose plans to use money from the capital project fund or D-CDBG funds and to obtain Council approval for those plans.

Read the ordinance here.

The ordinance only applies to "City Hall Project Worksheet 7746," which represents the proposed purchase of the Chevron Building.

It does not tackle the larger questions about the mayor's power to use D-CDBG and revolver fund money in a discretionary fashion and would not preclude the mayor from applying recovery dollars to other projects such as the proposed LSU/VA hospital or the proposed renovation of Municipal Auditorium with little disclosure or oversight.

The measure will be up for a vote at City Council on Thursday, January 21st.

HUD Monitoring Disaster CDBG Funding More Closely?

For more than a few weeks, American Zombie and I have been wondering aloud Mayor Ray Nagin administration's interpretation of laws governing money outside the parameters of the regular city budget, as well as City Council's oversight of that money.

Of particular concern is the "revolver fund" that the Louisiana Recovery Authority established to advance cash to parishes to pay for projects that will eventually get FEMA reimbursement. Nagin wants to use some of that money to buy the Chevron Building and convert it into a new city hall - even though the council has already rejected such a move.

A statement from Nagin spokeswoman Ceeon Quiett makes it clear the administration believes it has discretionary power over funding streams like the revolver fund and that the council has no legal oversight.

"The matter before the City Council was the appropriation of funding from one capitol [sic] account to another ..not an approval of the acquisition. Funding appropriation –Legislative Branch authority per the charter, Purchases –Executive Branch authority per the charter."

To clarify, Quiett is saying that the proposal to buy the Chevron building that was shot down by City Council over the summer involved the city budget. Because the most recent proposal only uses money from state and federal sources, such as the revolver fund, there is no formal oversight process through which the administration must seek City Planning Commission or City Council approval. Whether that is accurate is debatable, but it is the administration's position nonetheless.

Presumably, that position extends to the city's use of the Disaster Community Development Block Grant money, for which the LRA is the local administrator of federal funds from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department. The City Council had obligations when it comes to this money in that the LRA required a recovery plan with community buy-in, including Council approval, before the agency would release the HUD funds.

However, when it comes time to allocate real capital to a specific project, the modification of the original plans accepted by the LRA, or the reallocation of surplus money from a specific project, it would appear that the Mayor has vast powers.

Once the Council approves a framework for yearly DCDBG expenditures, only the LRA or HUD would be in position to block funding for a specific project submitted by Nagin on the grounds that it deviates from the original recovery plan, anticipated expenditures were vaguely documented or if HUD regulations are otherwise violated.

Since the Obama administration took office and Shaun Donovan was sworn in as the new secretary, HUD has been more proactive about cracking down on dysfunctional projects. HUD's receivership of the Housing Authority of New Orleans, for instance, has been totally reshuffled amid widespread allegations of graft and waste.

There is also evidence that HUD is taking a fresh look at its role in the hurricane recovery process both in New Orleans and elsewhere.

In November, AP reported that a HUD review had discovered over 11 million in unaccounted disaster money at the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA) that had fallen victim to poor record keeping or a failure to follow HUD regulations.

That same week AP also reported that HUD had rejected Texas' recovery plan for rebuilding areas badly battered by Hurricane Ike in 2008. The notification letter from HUD, which you can read here, suggests that Texas' plan was denied for failures to comply with federal citizen participation requirements.

Are these recent actions highlighting regulatory compliance issues in New Orleans and Texas indicative of a much more widespread concern on the part of HUD administrators that processes governing the efficient use of recovery money were poorly constructed, inattentively followed or even explicitly violated?

What effect will increased federal scrutiny have on controversial local projects, such as the Municipal Auditorium renovation and the purchase of the Chevron Building, for which the Nagin administration claims the City Council has no stipulated oversight authority?

To what extent does the council concede or dispute the administration's interpretation of their oversight authority over irregular DCDBG and revolver funds? How does that effect their ability to halt the mayor from spending money on major developments should they wish to do so?

While the upcoming elections have clearly taken center stage, the dispute between the outgoing administration and the City Council over the discretionary use of federal and state recovery dollars is the most important subplot for engaged citizens to closely monitor. It is this fundamental interpretation of City Charter and of HUD rules and regulations that looms over the individual development controversies that grab headlines - from Municipal Auditorium to Lower Mid-City and the proposed medical complex.

When news broke that the Chevron Building purchase was revived, City Council members expressed surprise and confusion. Yet since the New Year, there appears to have been no follow-up. It should be very interesting to watch what happens as specific projects begin to initiate expenditures.

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.

Don’t like to hear where I can’t go - updated

Is it true that President Obama's scheduled trip to New Orleans coincides with Mayor Nagin's scheduled trip to Cuba?

How convenient!

I wonder if President Obama - juggling two wars, a limping economy, a critical healthcare reform initiative, and the coming climate change catastrophe - was asked to reschedule to accommodate Mayor Nagin?

--

My own views on Cuba are similar to those of Jackson Browne:

Maybe I’ll go through Mexico
Old Jesse Helms don’t have to know
Anyway all the allies of the USA
Travel to Cuba everyday

--

Update: Mayor Nagin has, I'm told, rescheduled his trip to Cuba. I suppose this does confirm that Obama's trip to New Orleans coincided with Nagin's junket - which is interesting. I didn't mean to suggest that the Mayor was giving serious thought to going ahead with his trip. I don't have those kinds of sources.

While we're on the subject, let me applaud Mayor C. Ray Nagin.

No need to adjust your screens. I would like to genuinely tip my hat to the Mayor for reaching out to Cuba and I hope he can reschedule his trip as soon as possible. I think the next Mayor should market New Orleans as destination for transnational tourism and immigration. The embargo against Cuba is going to end sooner or later. Our cultural similarities are so similar we'd be really dumb not to position ourselves to capitalize on the opportunities that may arise from loosened restrictions on travel and trade. It almost always seems like we fall behind the curve on stuff like this but this time maybe New Orleans might be shrewd enough to get ahead.

Since we're here, I really think New Orleans should do more to attract immigrants both legal and illegal. I think we should become a sanctuary city - like most other major cities - by adopting laws that protect illegal immigrants. Though I'm sure there are economic benefits to derive from opening up our arms to the world, my rationale is more based on my own anecdotal observation that this place would be more awesome if we had more immigrants from more places - I'm thinking especially Brazil, West Africa, and Cuba - to hang with.

Which is it?

The strange comings and goings at City Hall this week didn't just look weird to those of us on the outside. Perdido Streeters are not having a good week at the office, that much is clear.

Lots of sweating and scrambling.

Are we seeing a purge or an exodus?

Botched

Not even a promotion could keep Austin Penny from jumping ship.

Three days after Austin Penny was named a top director in Mayor Ray Nagin's next-generation recovery bureaucracy, a city spokesman confirmed Thursday that Penny is poised to leave city government, setting up another leadership transition in New Orleans' ongoing rebuilding effort.

Wacky stuff.

Some rats swim away, other rats swim back.

Mayor Nagin had Jeff Thomas walk the plank today. It appears he was fired.

Kenya Smith is back on board to replace him.

Thomas sent out an email announcing his departure earlier.

I wanted to let you know that as of today I will no longer be an
employee of the City of New Orleans.

With the City transitioning from disaster-recovery policy development to
implementation, the Administration is restructuring.

Jeff out, Kenya back in.

I guess this is what passes for recycling in Ray Nagin's administration.

Bold Move

Slow Friday no more.

From a press release received just minutes ago:

New Orleans, LA – James Perry, as a taxpayer in good standing, filed a request for a preliminary injunction today against the Nagin Administration in Civil District Court.

James Perry, New Orleans Mayoral Candidate: “My hope with today’s filing of a request for preliminary injunction is that the court will act expeditiously to halt the abuse of power by the Nagin Administration by awarding contracts in violation of the City’s Home Rule Charter.”

“As a private citizen I have serious concerns when my government begins to operate outside of its governing charter and without regard or respect for the rule of law,” said Perry. “The City Charter expressly prohibits any city department or agency with the exception of the Sewerage & Water Board, Civil Service Department, the Public Belt Railroad Commission and the Board of Liquidation from the hiring of special counsel without the approval of two-thirds of the New Orleans City Council.”

“I say enough is enough with this use of semantics and creative interpretation by the Nagin Administration to justify the awarding of contracts in violation of the city charter.”

This, the latest lawsuit against the Mayor for abuse of power, comes as a result of the recent contracts totaling $660,000 given to outside law firms. The firms have been retained to help the Mayor fend off prior lawsuits against his administration.

If you've been paying attention to this unfolding drama, you may have noticed a little foreshadowing hidden not-so-subtly in David Hammer's Wednesday article in the T-P.

David Marcello, who served as executive counsel to Mayor Dutch Morial and who chaired a committee that revised the charter in 1995, said there are only two categories of city lawyers established in the charter: those in the City Attorney's Office and "special counsel." Those categories have not changed since the charter was adopted in 1954, he said.

"There's no functional difference between special counsel and outside counsel," Marcello said.

Sal Anzelmo, who served as city attorney under Dutch Morial, agreed.

"That's like saying 'and' and 'also' are different; it's ridiculous to make those kinds of statements," Anzelmo said. "I think when you read that charter, there's no question -- it's not even debatable -- that the council has to approve outside counsel."

City Council Vice President Jackie Clarkson, who signed a letter Tuesday calling on the council's lawyer to review the practice and consider legal remedies, is likewise skeptical.

"You can argue semantics all day long, but this is obviously a violation of the intent of the charter," she said.

Marcello said the clearest way to settle the question would be for a citizen to file a lawsuit in Civil District Court.

Mr. James Perry has stepped up to be that citizen in what is conveniently, also a pretty smart political move for a guy that hasn't even been able to get his name in the paper when his campaign HQ is just missed by stray bullets from a gun battle.

The Census Progressive

Mayor Nagin was criticized by some fairly recently for calling on displaced New Orleanians to misrepresent their living situations on the 2010 census to boost the city's population numbers thus leading to more federal funding where dollars are distributed proportionally based on population.

I'd support Mayor Nagin's move around census standards if he considered his displaced neighbors to be something more than a statistical prop.

I'd have his back, if his policies did something - anything - to help displaced residents return home. Remember what this man's stance toward public and affordable housing has been and continues to be.

The treatment of displaced and poor New Orleans remains antithetical to the UN's standards on human rights.

More on City Hall, Place, and Protest

Adrastros smartly flagged this op-ed by Richard Campanella and John Klingman about the plan to move City Hall into the Chevron Building. However, I thought it fell short of the expectations set by the title of the piece, City Hall not just a place, but a statement.

Klingman and Campanella argue that moving City Hall is a poor choice because civic institutions as important as a city hall should located in places that reflect that importance:

All three of our city halls were designed as iconic civic structures positioned to face important public urban spaces. They reflected visionary thinking.

The rest of the article alludes to the why public space at a City Hall matters, referring to it as a critical place that "serves important ceremonial and civic purposes," but it doesn't actually come out and say 'it.'

In his post, Adrastros does:

I suspect that what Nagin *really* likes about the Chevron building is that there's no place for people to demonstrate against him.

Now that's not quite right, as Mayor Nagin will be out of office before the Chevron building is open for business but the spirit is dead-on.

The title of the Klingman and Campenlla op-ed, "City Hall not just a place, but a statement," would suggest the kind of article I wish they'd written.

One of the more interesting fields I studied at university is the sociology of social movements. One very interesting topic was about the importance of public space for the exercise of the democracy - freedom of assembly - and how these spaces have been systematically eroded following the urban disorders of the second half of the last century. One of my faves on the topic, Fortress Los Angeles (available to read), discusses the militarization of space in L.A. following the Rodney King riots in the '90s. For more, also see this chapter from The Right to the City.

My objection to the relocation of City Hall has nothing to do with the design of the Chevron building or the fact that it is not an "iconic" structure. Rather, I wrote just the other day that this project concerned me precisely because it is along the same lines of so many other poorly conceived development projects the city has undertaken since Katrina that seem to reflect an unhealthy concern for the traditional benchmarks of individual political legacy instead of smart investments in quality of life, neighborhood infrastructure, and existential sustainability.

However, a secondary concern involves the proposal itself: not the look of the Chevron building but its location. Think about the absence of Duncan Plaza over the last year. Has its function as a gathering place for citizens looking to petition the government been replaced? What about its significance as a camp for the homeless? Did they not exert a symbolic and real pressure on the Mayor and Council to address the largely ignored challenge of poverty? If we're going to spend $9 million on something designed to promote the personal legacy of the current Mayor, I'd rather invest in remaking Duncan Plaza into a more pedestrian-friendly town square than moving City Hall into a fortress.

The plan to move City Hall reflects an uncomfortable authoritarianism that mostly seeks to commemorate the paranoia of the man proposing it instead of to substantively bolster this important municipal institution in a manner that will increase civic participation and strengthen local democracy.

Jumping the shark

Mayor Nagin quarantined in Shanghai after possible Swine Flu exposure.

Totally surreal.

Did Mr. Nagin name an acting mayor before his journey? Would it be the role of City Council to appoint one in the event he did not? Is the Mayor going to be fit to lead if he now must face down this mutant cyborg super flu?

This is actually one of the most graceful Nagin resignation scenarios out there.

Drink fluids.

Speaking of The_Swine_Flu: (nsfw)

Pinch me

From the Lagniappe section today:

Just as New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin is beginning to recall what he was doing a few months after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city, along comes a reminder of what he was doing just a few days before the storm struck.

On Aug. 23, 2005, when forecasts still were predicting that New Orleans would be spared the brunt of the storm, Nagin was on the steps of Gallier Hall, filming some of his scenes for the family adventure tale "Labou," the mayor's acting debut.

The movie, written and directed by Greg Aronowitz, was released directly to DVD on May 19.

--

In the film, three children get lost in a swamp near New Orleans while hunting for the ghost of a 19th century pirate. During their adventure, they meet the titular swamp creature (whose whistling race -- part Yoda, part Gremlin -- is said to have inspired the birth of jazz music), stumble upon a crooked development deal that can be traced back to City Hall and discover the pirate's treasure.

--

Nagin plays Mayor Adams, New Orleans' corrupt leader, who agrees to seize privately owned land in order to sell it to oil company executives looking for a spot to build a huge refinery, regardless of the effect on the environment. When confronted with revelations about the deal, Mayor Adams responds, "There were offers, but nothing firm was put on the table."

Accepting such a role was a risky choice for a sitting mayor. Those wondering if the risk pays off can rest assured that Denzel Washington's career is safe.

Wow. I don't there's anything anyone can add. Just wow.

Teaser

I feel like most people already saw this New York Times article about C. Ray Nagin's last year in office. The piece represents the first time a national news gathering organization has really alluded to the swirling e-maelstrom.

Now, however, that sense is coming to an end, after accusations arose in a civil lawsuit concerning city technology contracts. In a deposition, a former city official said he took a Hawaiian vacation with Mr. Nagin and their families in 2004 that was paid for by a company whose owner did extensive business with the city through other companies. Claims of other trips raising ethics questions were raised in later testimony.

At a news conference on April 7, the mayor defended the Hawaiian vacation. “I don’t see it as a violation of any law, any ethics rules,” he said, because he had been told that the city official — Greg Meffert, the former chief of technology for New Orleans — was paying for the trip, not the contractor.

“It’s been cleverly portrayed that there’s something wrong here, and no one has proven that yet,” Mr. Nagin said at the time. He acknowledged, however, that “there’s still a question whether this is illegal or unethical.” He declined requests for an interview.

There's certainly nothing ground-breaking about the report, it's just an interesting first. We're going to see a lot more national news attention as the last year of Nagin unravels and as our upcoming Mayoral race exposes itself as a comic tragedy clusterf*ck. I think the NYT is going to regret pulling it's regular beat guy. They're going to be paying for a lot of flights here or a lot of AP reprints.

Budget Negotations and Council Effectiveness Overall

I have fallen so far behind in my writing that today I'm going to bring up a T-P article that appeared in last Saturday's paper. I thought it was so important that I packed it up and brought it with me when I moved.

N.O. budget methods slammed in report

The report, sent Thursday to Mayor Ray Nagin and City Council members, said the way Nagin's team, like previous administrations, creates and presents the budget "has been anything but inclusive and has provided no opportunity for outside input" until after the document is revealed. At that point, there's usually only a month left before the council's Dec. 1 deadline to vote on it.

Odom said the recommendations in the report could be implemented before the 2010 budget, the last one Nagin will present, is prepared and debated.

--

The report notes that since 2007 the administration "purports to have adopted" a process known as "budgeting for outcomes," which "is intended to promote transparency, accountability and inclusion in the budget process."

However, it says, even though that process calls for involving a broad spectrum of "stakeholders, including citizens, community leaders and council members, in establishing the city's budget priorities," the city's actual procedures "offer no effective opportunities for discussion" until after the mayor unveils his proposals.

The lack of outside participation, especially by council members, in preparing the mayor's 2009 budget "became evident in the struggle that ensued after the mayor submitted" his proposals on Oct. 28, the report says.

As a result, the report says, "all the extensive planning work that had gone into prioritizing programs through the 'budgeting for outcomes' ranking system went out the door when the final spending decisions were made."

This year, the report says, the administration should make "a meaningful effort to involve citizens" in setting priorities, and above all it should involve the council at each step of the process.

-

It also says the council should start assessing the performance of key departments and the revenue outlook for 2010 months before it receives the final budget recommendations.

I am very thankful for this report. If you followed last year's budget "negotiations" even a little bit you saw what I witnessed actually sitting in Council chambers. That process made an absolute mockery of municipal government. Poor Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, Chair of the budget committee, looked like she was going to hang herself by the end of that process. The way it worked was that the Mayor proposed a budget and then Council had about ten or twenty working days to analyze that spending via the testimony of different department heads before they were more-or-less expected to provide a rubber stamp.

It is the Mayor's job to prepare and propose a budget. That's all fine and dandy and shouldn't change just because this Mayor isn't particularly good at it. The problem with the process was Council's inability to effectively vet the various proposals. Though one issue is that the Council only has about a month to look it over, it would appear to me that simply moving forward the Mayor's submission deadline to give Council more time doesn't do enough to address the meat of the matter.

Council needs to be able to get deeper into the progress of city departments over the course of the year. If Council is performing quarterly audits of every city department in which they're really getting into the nitty gritty of what we're getting for our money, I haven't noticed. If Council effectively exercised their oversight powers on a regular established schedule, the 3rd Quarter September evaluation would perfectly segue into the budget process and would make the testimony of department heads during those negotiations less hurried and sensational. As it is, the budget hearings appear to be the only forum Council members have to investigate public and private allegations of waste or incompetence from various departments. This is what made this past year's budget negotiations so contentious and counterproductive.

If Council was regularly evaluating department performance, the ineffective budget process we have now wouldn't be nearly as bad because it would be much clearer which programs are working and which are not going into negotiations. Mayors would be less likely to ramrod bad spending into the budget because Council oversight would have already exposed the waste in the preceding months. Reasonably good Mayors, even average Mayors would naturally adopt IG Odom's suggestions of inclusion and discussion in the budget but this Council needed to be more effective in terms of providing public oversight year-round to safeguard against this particular horrible Mayor. That's not to call out this particular Council or the members that comprise it. I imagine that Council has never really established effective oversight systems. I actually think this Council is capable of starting to institute those kinds of reforms. The budget process is a great place to start and I'd like to salute Cynthia Hedge-Morrell for calling on the IG office to supply this initial advice.

I think we citizens are going to need to get real about how much we compensate our Councilors as well. It's a full time job that requires incredible dedication and expertise. But they make peanuts, certainly not enough to support a family unless they're already totally loaded. I think their salaries should double. Immediately. The quality of your choices each election day will be much better. I'm tellin' ya.

More

Nagin spokesman James Ross' response to the IG's report was insulting, off-base, and tone-deaf. I don't think I have a shred of sympathy left for this administration or anyone still associated with it after all this time. They're scorching the earth and salting it for good measure.

James Ross, a Nagin spokesman, said Friday that the administration "has not had an opportunity to read" the 10-page report "and therefore is unable to respond to it with great specificity."

But he said it was "unfortunate that the office of the inspector general has failed to take an opportunity to herald the vision, best practices and commitment of the (administration) to look beyond the challenges of this recovery and implement an open, transparent budget process that this city government has never had before."

Ross said the administration in fact "utilized the information from community meetings hosted by the mayor to serve as guiding points" in creating the 2009 budget. "Hundreds of New Orleans citizens from every walk of life were part of these meetings," he said.

No public announcement of such meetings was made at the time.

Wouldn't a much more effective response be something along the lines of:

"The Mayor's reforms to the budget process were groundbreaking but clearly more work needs to be done. The Mayor has read every page of the report and would like to thank the IG for his suggestions. He will take them under advisement as he makes tweaks for this next and last budget."

But no, Ross couldn't help but dump more gasoline onto already fallow fields.

Reed denies Nagin is a client

I reached Criminal Defense Attorney John Reed over the phone.

Is he providing council to the Mayor?

"It's not true and there's no basis for it."

I was the third person to call, Reed said he told WWL and WDSU the same thing.

Moving on...

--

There just aren't that many big time defense attorneys with experience doing white collar cases believe it or not. Some other possibilities include Arthur "Buddy" Lemann III and Eddie Castaing out of New Orleans and Lewis Unglesby out of Baton Rouge. There are some others but too many.

From up above?

I'm hearing that Nagin didn't get a letter from Letten. But I have also heard that he's now retained personal council, perhaps someone up in Baton Rouge. I haven't been able to confirm it.

If the letter came from D.C., what would that mean? Grand Jury?

Letter from Letten: "Lawyer Up!"

UPDATE: False alarm?

I can back up Dambala. It seems a lot of people are saying that Mayor Nagin has indeed received a "target letter" from US Attorney Jim Letten.

But what exactly is a target letter?

Here's an interesting article at TalkLeft.

I'm beginning to see some people, including at least one news service, misapply the term "target letter." Just so it's clear, a "target letter" is what the prosecutor provides to a witness who has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. It is an advisement of rights, particularly the right to counsel and the right to not testify.

Once the investigation is complete and the grand jury has heard all the evidence and is about to return Indictments, target letters are no longer used. [ Addition by LNILR: They are not re-issued everytime a witness/target comes in. Any competent defense lawyer has already met with the prosecutor to learn the client's status and role in the alleged offense under investigation. Target letters go out after the targets and subjects are identified by the prosecutor and investigators. The investigation may be years old before target letters go out. A "target letter" is just what it implies: You are likely going to be indicted, and you better act accordingly.]

Once an indictment is returned, the Prosecutor may notify the lawyer for the indicted person to make agreements on whether a summons will issue or arrest warrants, and, if it's going to be an arrest warrant, whether the person will be allowed to surrender at the courthouse or FBI office rather than be arrested at home or at work and bail amounts can be agreed upon. At this point, the case is past the "target letter" stage. The notification of indictment and arranging surrender can be formal (by letter) or by a telephone call.

Wow. So Mr. Ray Nagin is going to have to scramble to find a white collar defense attorney. How many of those haven't already been snatched up? Might be slim pickings... This is why it was so bizarre that he hadn't already retained private council in this matter, instead choosing to continue to rely on city attorneys Bob Ellis and Penya Moses-Fields, who are representing the municipality in an official capacity.

Also, here's a sample target letter from the Department of Justice website:

This letter is supplied to a witness scheduled to appear before the federal Grand Jury in order to provide helpful background information about the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury consists of from sixteen to twenty-three persons from the District of ___. It is their responsibility to inquire into federal crimes which may have been committed in this District.

As a Grand Jury witness you will be asked to testify and answer questions, and to produce records and documents. Only the members of the Grand Jury, attorneys for the United States and a stenographer are permitted in the Grand Jury room while you testify.

We advise you that the Grand Jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving, but not necessarily limited to *. You are advised that the destruction or alteration of any document required to be produced before the grand jury constitutes serious violation of federal law, including but not limited to Obstruction of Justice.

You are advised that you are a target of the Grand Jury's investigation. You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. Anything that you do or say may be used against you in a subsequent legal proceeding. If you have retained counsel, who represents you personally, the Grand Jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the Grand Jury room and confer with counsel if you desire.

Cordially,

Feel free to sign cordially in the comments section...

Vay-Cay!

David Hammer: Attorney claims Nagin, Meffert took 'plenty of other trips' paid for by city vendor

Meanwhile, the attorney for two companies who are suing the city over a controversial crime camera project told The Times-Picayune that he plans to question the mayor about a series of other lavish trips when his deposition resumes. The attorney, Glad Jones, said credit card statements show those trips were also financed by NetMethods, owned by the city vendor, Mark St. Pierre.

NetMethods also paid for a vacation that former Chief Technology Officer Greg Meffert, the mayor and their families took to Hawaii in December 2004.

Nagin and Meffert took "plenty of other trips" at NetMethods' expense, said Jones, attorney for plaintiffs Southern Electronics and Active Solutions, though he would not divulge the number of trips or the destinations. The two companies are suing the city and other contractors for what they claim were unfair labor practices in the handling of the city's crime cameras.

"They were destinations that didn't look like places New Orleans would have any business in, " he said.

We might be able to figure some of those out.

1. How about November, 2005?

Link!

Then Mayor Nagin took a trip to Jamaica, a place he called "the first place we are looking to rebuild and strengthen relationships" after Katrina.

2. How about November, 2007?

Link!

Then, Mayor Nagin skipped a critical budget hearing because he was rumored to again be on the beaches of Jamaica. Nagin spokeswoman Ceeon Quiett would neither confirm nor deny those charges, which originated when (former?) Nagin confidant and former Republican legislator Gary Forster mentioned it on his radio show.

-

I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that both of those were NetMethods-financed trips.

What others come to mind?

E-maelstrom: Double Vision

Given my apparent famousness, it should be obvious to readers that I'm pretty much constantly having fancy orgy cocaine parties with other talented celebrities. We do drugs you've never even heard of, drugs that aren't even named until we name them. One thing that's really hot on the scene - excuse me - was hot on the scene, was something we called human ecstaopiajuana, which required a willing female to donate her body for use as something best described as a soft bong. Where on earth do we find these girls?

--

Back on April 6th, parts of former Chief Technology Officer and Deputy Mayor Greg Meffert's deposition in a civil suit related to stolen crime camera technology began to leak. I picked up on one new disclosure rather quickly, Mr. Meffert's admission that he'd let city vendors pay for his excursions to Visions, a gentleman's club known for its 2683 Myspace friends.

Specifically, Meffert said, "sometimes they'd pay."

--

Meffert and me, we're a different kind of famous.

He borrows his friend's Ponchartrain yacht for a party with the Mayor.

I, on the other hand, own my own yacht.

In space.

Gregory Meffert might have thought he was the cock of the walk getting to go out to Visions using "OPM," otherwise known as "Other People's Money" or the Vince Fumo Memorial Payment Plan.

But real celebrities, we don't go to Visions.

Visions comes to us.

--

I was sitting outside eating breakfast and recovering from one of my fancy sexy space-yacht parties over this past weekend when up walks this nice young lady who seemed determined to sit nearby. No complaints. It always feels good when blonds feel compelled to bask in my aura.

But when she decided to strike up an unprovoked conversation about the high price of mangoes in the Greater New Orleans area compared to the Austin market while I was so clearly busy looking for pictures of myself in Rolling Stone magazine, I became a little annoyed.

How do I get out of this conversation?

She uncrossed her legs to get up, "I have to go home to get ready for work."

Problem solved!

"I'm sorry to hear that, where do you work?"

"Visions on the East Bank."

At this point, the biggest, dumbest smile imaginable took over control of my face.

Visions on the East Bank

"You guys out there have done us a great service."

She made me explain at this point, after which she got defensive because I think she took away from my abridged summary that I was saying that Visions was somewhat at fault.

"Strip clubs get a bad rap."

"I agree. That's not what I meant."

Pause

"So do you know anybody named... eh never mind."

--

Mr. Meffert said "sometimes they'd pay."

Who paid all the other times?

I think we could find out pretty soon.

--

In other news, yesterday Mayor Ray Nagin was deposed in that same civil suit over stolen crime camera technology. I actually don't expect too much scandalous stuff to come out when the transcripts are released to the public. I imagine that lawyers for the plaintiffs will explore more than just the trips to Chicago and Hawaii - it won't just be stuff that's already been in the paper. But I don't think there will be anything earth-shattering.

I do think that we've now officially entered into some really bizarre legal territory that I hope someone can comment about.

Mayor Nagin has not yet retained private council. This has struck me as peculiar not because I'm assuming that Mayor Nagin is guilty of some criminal behavior, but because it seems inherent that there might be conflicts in terms of the interests of the Office of the Mayor compared to the interests of Mr. Ray Nagin. Bob Ellis is not Mayor Nagin's personal attorney. He's a city attorney.

And now that the city has taken legal action against Dell Inc., one of their own co-defendants in the crime camera civil case, it would appear that much more important for the Mayor to retain a separate criminal defense attorney. I mean, the City Attorney's office is simultaneously fighting charges with Dell while leveraging charges against Dell. I think that the T-P's Michelle Krupa asked about this in one of her most recent pieces but I can't find precisely where now that I'm trying to link to it... Michelle Krupa indicates that indeed that question was asked of Penya Moses-Fields in her article about the cross-suit.

Moses-Fields said Nagin's testimony Monday about the travels squares with what he has said previously and should dispel any notion that the mayor acted inappropriately. She added that Nagin was not a party to the conspiracy alleged by the plaintiffs and should be dropped as a defendant.

"It's very clear that the city believes that the mayor has done nothing wrong, " Moses-Fields said.

Responding to questions, Moses-Fields said neither she nor the mayor has received subpoenas from a federal grand jury investigating the crime camera program. She said she believes Nagin has no criminal exposure in the case and that he has not retained his own defense attorney; the city attorney's office will continue to represent him, she said.

--

One more thing to watch is the impending release of the City Council emails. Yesterday, a judge blocked their release after finding the action taken by the City Attorney's office to retract privileged information to have been "inadequate."

But that stuff is going to come out soon. Within a couple of weeks. I would advice you not be surprised if release of the Council emails was timed conveniently with the unsealing of Mayor Nagin's complete deposition transcript.

--

We're always receiving these improper gifts of coincidence in New Orleans.

Sometimes they pay. Sometimes we pay.

Phelps

I love the Yellow Blog's latest.