OPEN GOVERNMENT UNDER ASSUALT IN LOUISIANA!

Monday, April 29th, 2024
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

OPEN GOVERNMENT UNDER ASSUALT IN LOUISIANA!

Does the average Louisiana citizen have a legal right to follow the internal workings of government in Louisiana? Not just in Baton Rouge at the state capital, but in deliberations that take place by school boards, city councils, police juries and any other sanctioned public body? For the past 50 years, open meetings and public records availability we’re stronger in the Bayou State than any other place in the country.

Now I know that some readers of this column may wonder why making public records available for review is so important? Simply put, every one of us are the losers with public officials hide basic information and records from public view. In the old days, pre-1974, it was often impossible for the average Joe (OK, or Jane) to look over deliberations, records, and even the actual contracts entered into by public officials in the state. I found out the problem firsthand shortly after I was elected to the state Senate back in the early 1970s.

The local Levee board up in Northeast Louisiana had entered into number of contracts with out-of-state firms. They were rumors of inside wheeling and dealing that were called my attention, and I asked to see a list of all the public records involved in the decision of who got the contracts. Even though I was a legislator, I kept getting the runaround. After months of prodding and threatening to bring in the district attorney and force legal action, I finally got the records I was seeking. The process took place behind closed doors, and there was a calculated cover-up to keep the records from public view.

It was an understatement to say that I was mad as all get out. These were public proceedings with public records that should have been available not just to me as a public official, but to any citizen who wanted to review the process.

As a delegate to the 1973 constitutional convention, I authored a provision that specifically protected public access to government records with just a few exceptions. A few years later, I met with then Governor Edwin Edwards and asked for his support in my proposed legislation to make strong Open public meetings and public records legislation a part of Louisiana’s statutes. He readily agreed, and the legislature overwhelmingly voted in favor of these new laws to give the public greater access to the inner workings of state and local government. At the time, Louisiana could proudly boast of having the strongest public records and open meetings laws as compared to any other state in America. It sure was good to be at the top of one of the best lists for a change.

But little by little, opponents to open government started chipping away. Former governor Bobby Jindal slipped through legislation the allowed most of what happened in the Governor’s Office to stay secret. Other state agencies followed Jindal’s lead. Today, instead of being the beacon for openness and leading the nation in transparency, Louisiana ranks a poor 43rd out of the fifty states. And under proposed legislation that imposes more barriers to obtain public records that is currently moving through the legislature, Louisiana will fall to the bottom of the heap by surrounding itself with even greater secrecy.

It’s a crying shame that most of us live in the state that surrounds itself with such concealment. The documents controlled by state and local officials do not belong to them. They are your and my records. That’s why they are called public records. And our right to have access should not be compromised.
Senator Russell Long put it this way when he was representing Louisiana. “A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty.”
The singing group, The Fifth Dimension sang it best. “Let the sunshine, Let the sunshine in.” Let’s hope our legislators get the message.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also listen to his weekly podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.

PREVNEXT

TRUMP HAS FAT CHANCE IN NEW YORK COURT!

Monday, April 22^nd, 2024

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

 

TRUMP HAS FAT CHANCE IN NEW YORK COURT!

 

Let’s just call it like it is. Former President Donald Trump doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of been found not guilty in his current New York Court case. Now I know the case has just barely started. But you can take that to the bank, and I’ll tell you why.  Whether you like Trump or not, he just has too many cards wrongly stacked against him.

 

First and foremost, Trump has a judge who seems to be dead set against him. Judge Juan Merchan is the prosecutor’s dream. I’m sure they were doing high-fives in the District Attorney’s Office when they heard that Merchan was going to be the judge trying Trump.  Merchan has donated money to both President Biden and other Democratic causes. He  has even made donations to a group dedicated to “resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” And the judge’s daughter actively works as a consultant for a number of Democratic candidates, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial. A juror with this background would not be able to serve on Trump’s jury.

 

Judge Merchan should have removed himself from presiding over the Trump trial. Judges have tremendous sway on what the jury gets to hear and what it doesn’t get to hear. When the judge overseeing one’s trial has contributed money to a group that calls Trump a radical right winger, you know you’re in trouble right from the get-go.

 

The judge has ordered an anonymous jury and put a gag order on the former president. Look, we all agree that Trump shoots his mouth all too much. What he is facing are charges that could send him to jail and destroy his political career. Judge Markham has allowed a veil of secrecy based on the fact that everyone knows who Trump is. But all Trump knows is the names of the jurors. When the Unabomber trial took place in New York and the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh was held, both defendants were given basic information about the jurors. But not so with Trump.

 

Trump is allowed to step outside the courtroom, and even there he is limited as to what he can say.  Here’s what often happens. The prosecution can file charge after charge, and motion at the motion, making all types of outrageous allegations that are front page news, yet the gagged  defendant can do you little more than rant and rave and say nothing. 

 

And why is the judge fearful of letting the trial be televised? In a democracy, the public has a right to see the court system in operation, close up. We have a strong tradition of public trials in this country. In earlier years, citizens would come to town and watch the defendants being tried, knew when judges issued ridiculous rulings, and saw firsthand when justice was perverted. The televising of Trump’s trial would merely be an extension of how things used to be.

 

Some would argue that televising the trial would create a circus atmosphere. But millions of Americans can remember back to the O.J. Simpson trial. Would anyone who watched this riveting melodrama want to keep those proceedings away from the public at large, and not have it televised? Of course not.

 

As Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in his book “Reasonable Doubts”:

 

Live television coverage may magnify the faults in the legal system, and show it, warts and all. But in a democracy the public has the right to see its institutions in operation, close up.

 

A judge has no business deciding the outcome of the trial against Trump or anyone else. Any judge in state or federal courts should assume the role of  a referee, a mediator if you will.  Not someone who by his or her rulings directly affect the outcome of any trial.  But that seems to be exactly what Trump’s judge is dead set on doing.

 

Maybe I’m wrong about this pre-determined outcome. But with a judge like Juan Merchan overseeing the case, dark clouds are already surrounding the New York courtroom. And this bodes ill will for the former president.

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also listen to his weekly podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE SAGA OF O.J. SIMPSON!

April 15^th, 2024. (Tax Day)

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

 

THE SAGA OF O.J. SIMPSON!

 

O.J. Simpson died last week. Many younger people will just say “So?” To anyone over 50, his life and his actions created riveting news, and poised him, both good and bad, as one of the most recognizable personalities in American history. O. J. was a little of everything. A football star in both college an in the NFL.  He was the highest paid football player in the pros, and broke the all-time rushing record held by Jim Brown. (Unfortunately, no relation.). But he was also many other things. Yes a hero to so many of us, but also a liar, an actor, an abuser and a killer.

 

Back in his football days, everyone called him “Juice”, because of his energetic athletic ability and  because his initials also stood for “orange juice.” He also was  a member of a world-record-setting 440-yard relay team while at the University of Southern California in 1968. I was a member of the U.S. 440-yard relay team in 1963, and avidly followed O.J.’s track career. I had turned down a track scholarship at USC myself, and briefly  attended law school there. While visiting some old friends at the track facility, someone pointed out the superstar to me as he was working out. In hindsight, I probably should have taken the time to say hello.

 

In June of 2024, 95 million viewers watched for hours as a white Ford Bronco, driven by a friend, attempted to make a low speed escape from a number of law enforcement vehicles as O.J. hid in the backseat.  When the bronco headed back to O.J.’s home, he was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife and a friend.

 

What a trial.  The proceedings were televised and rightly so.  Judges too often keep the public from seeing just what happens in an American courtroom. And what a soap opera it was to watch. Viewers by the millions talked their bosses into letting them watch the daily proceedings around the water cooler, and some even smuggled small handheld tv devices into their desk drawers. To say that America was mesmerized by the trial would be an understatement. 

 

Many felt the case was open and shut against Simpson.  Others felt charges brought by the prosecution were built on fraud, and that the police investigators were racist. Defense attorneys argued that incriminating evidence was either mishandled or illegally planted.  A glove, supposedly worn by the killer, was found at the crime scene. Attorneys for O.J. said the glove seemed way too small for his hand. Then the famous quote was put forth by the defense.  “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” 

 

The trial lasted for more than eight months. Then, on October 2, 1965, the jury reached a verdict. Last week’s Wall Street Journal put the anticipation this way. “No one in America did a bit of work from the moment it was announced that the jury had a verdict. Everyone ran to a TV set. Even President Bill Clinton left the Oval Office to join his secretaries. In court, cries of ‘Yes!’ and ‘Oh, No!’ we’re echoed across the nation as the verdict left many Black people jubilant and many white people aghast.”

 

Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan hit the nail right on the head. “Before O.J., American blacks lacked confidence in the legal system. After OJ., everyone lack confidence in the legal system. It looked cynical, performative, agenda driven, and not on the level.”

 

The racial divide was vividly on display during O.J.s trial. But is it really any different today?  There’s a strong feeling  among many Americans, both black and white, that the American judicial system is still significantly defective. Many feel that a number of charges against former President Donald Trump are unjustly flawed as his trial begins this week.

 

It's obvious that America still has a long way to go, both with race relations as well as with prosecutorial misconduct and judicial fairness. The “Juice” was finally able to get away from the legal and media mess that he created.  The rest of us still have to put up with it.

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also listen to his weekly podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.

 

 

TREAD CAUTIOUSLY FOR A NEW LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION!

Monday, April 8^th, 2024

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

 

 

TREAD CAUTIOUSLY FOR A NEW  LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION!

 

There has been a lot of chatter in recent months about the need to rewrite Louisiana’s Constitution. And for good reason. This original slim document has now blossomed into the nation’s seventh longest state charter with over 83,000 words. The United States constitution, written in 1787, only has 4543 words.

 

Former state legislator Ron Faucheux said it well in a recent column: “Constitutions are not plumber’s manuals that dictate every detail. Instead, a Louisiana constitution should be limited to general principles that outlines the rights of the state citizens and provide basic framework for the scope and operation of government.”

 

Louisiana’s current constitution was written 50 years ago. I happen to know about it quite well. As a state senator at that time, I was a co- author of the legislation to create a constitutional convention, and I was a delegate at the convention that wrote the state’s current document. I can tell you for personal experience. You do not want to rush into any effort for a rewrite or revision. And a rush seem to be taking place for such an effort at the state capital right now.

 

A call for a new constitution in the Bayou State is nothing new. When some obscure candidate for governor back in 1987 published his plan for Louisiana’s future called the Brown papers, one of his initial proposals was to rewrite the state’s constitution. That was 37 years ago. Unfortunately the current document has been  filled with 214 amendments.

 

Delegates back then concluded that a constitution should be flexible enough to allow for changing times. A responsible legislature should have the tools to deal with current emergencies, catastrophes, new innovative programs that needed state funding, and have the ability to curtail or eliminate programs that had outlived their usefulness. What was important in 1974 may be irrelevant in 2024.

 

But the process was not rushed. Delegates met for one year, often five days a week.  We looked back at past Louisiana constitutions, and reviewed documents from states all over America. What took place was a slow, deliberative process that developed into a workable document that should have worked well for years. And there was lots of input from average citizens who wanted to voice their opinion.

 

Former governor Buddy Roemer and I co- chaired the finance committee of CC 73. (the name  for the 1973 convention.).  After the workday was over, we often gathered up members of our committee, met at a local pizza joint, and talked for hours about forming a short, practical and workable section of a new constitution that Louisiana voters would find acceptable.

 

But year after year since then, one special interest group after  another  lobbied legislators to offer amendments that  opened up our present constitution  with provisions that often tie the hands of future governors and legislatures. So there seems to be general agreement that it is time to make major revisions in the present Louisiana Constitution. The question is how we go about it.

 

              The governor wants to tackle a rewrite by calling the legislature  into another  special session to quickly make numerous changes.  But there has been little consideration for public input.  In addition, many legislators are just plain worn down. Since the governor took office less than four months ago, there has  been three special sessions plus this current regular session. Part-time legislators in many instances run businesses back home that need attention.

 

               Louisiana’s new governor wants to hit the ground running and has a loaded agenda for change. That’s fine for legislators to consider.  But when a knew basic document is proposed that affects the lives of every citizen, it is important that a deliberative process take place.  There certainly should be plenty of time for a cross-section of organizations and average Louisiana citizens to give their input. The governing train is speeding out of the station. It’s time to slow things down.

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also listen to his weekly podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN MOTORCYCLE HELMET DEBATE!

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2024

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN MOTORCYCLE HELMET DEBATE!

One of the hot issues in the current session of the Louisiana Legislature, meeting at the state capitol in Baton Rouge, is the repeal of a law that currently mandates the wearing of a safety helmet when riding a motorcycle.  Proponents of such a repeal site “freedom of choice” concerns, saying it should be an individual decision as to whether to wear or not wear a helmet.  They say there should be no role for government to play in this decision.  And I sure agree that the issue is one of freedom of choice (but read on).

You really have missed a thrill if you never have ridden a motorcycle on a back country road on a fall day, as the leaves are changing and the breeze is blowing in your face. I’ve tasted the good vibes of such breezes on many occasions, and have ridden a “bike” most of my life.  A Kawasaki off-road 250cc in my early Ferriday days after college, an Italian Vespa at Tulane Law School to get around New Orleans, and a BMW 1150 GS as I grew older.

There just is something special about a challenging ride on a good motorcycle. But you know what?  I always wore a helmet.  And for one simple reason.  You are an absolute idiot if you do not. And if you think otherwise, just take this test.

Find a large immovable object like an enormous oak tree or a brick wall.
Stand about 30 paces away, then run toward this sizeable, fixed obstruction. As you get close, place your hands to your side, put your arms crosswise, and put your face up, continuing to run as fast as you can. Notice how it feels when you hit this large sapling head on. You know what many of us call a cyclist who doesn’t wear a helmet? An organ donor.

So how did you do on the test?  See where I am coming from? But what about the “freedom of choice” argument?  Isn’t that a personal decision where government should have no say so?  Why should any government entity tell an individual what to wear when no one else is involved?  But that’s the catch.  There is someone else involved! And it’s you and me and our right to “freedom of choice.” You see, a large number of motorcyclists have minimum required insurance, or no insurance at all.  Louisiana only requires at $15,000 dollar policy, the lowest amount in the country.  Most states required a minimum of $25,000.

So here is what happens. A motorcyclist gets into a serious wreck, doesn’t have on a helmet, receives major head injuries, and the cost of medical care is astronomical. Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Riders who don’t wear helmets and who experience a crash are 40 percent more likely to sustain a fatal head injury.  If there is a minimum insurance policy involved, the $15,000 barely covers the ambulance and initial basic care cost of getting to the hospital. If there is a brain injury, and there often is when no helmet is worn, the costs could run up to a $1 million or more.  Many such injuries require medical care for the rest of the patient’s life.

The injured rider must then turn to Medicaid or the charity hospital system for continuing care that often lasts for years.  And guess who pays?  That’s right.  You and I as taxpayers.  We have to pay the bill for the irresponsible rider who suffers the injuries, then passes the cost on to us.  So isn’t our “freedom of choice,” not to be burdened with someone else’s irresponsible behavior, being infringed upon?

One option might be considered to protect the taxpayer’s “freedom of choice.”  If a motorcyclist wants to ride bareheaded, raise the insurance requirements on this “free spirit” to $500,000.  For those who wear helmets, leave the requirement as is. That way, there would be funds available to pay for the massive medical costs involved when a rider receives a head injury.

So yes, keep your right to choose.  But allow me the same freedom not to be saddled with the cost of your mistake.  Either pay up with high insurance limits, or use some common sense and wear a helmet.  Either way, I want my freedom of choice too.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also listen to his weekly podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.