The B*tch has nerve!
The B*tch has nerve!
They sure do have all bases covered eh.
It looks as if "The Dead Pelican" has scooped "The New York Times."
Again.
Democrat party public employees are ALWAYS politicing, canvassing, gathering signatures, ad nauseum. Rules are only for Republicans and other peons.
It's standard to prohibit gov't employees from conducting politics on the job.
See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973), where a statutory provision against solicitation of money was upheld in a 5-4 decision, and the majority didn't get to the parts of the law that might be more like literal "political speech" and less like "fundraising."
I bet she gets sued.
Gotta link to where I can sign the petition? I'm going to be a Louisiana resident for only one more week, and after reading this, I'd love to sign that thing before I go.
Never mind. I found it. http://impeachblanco.org/petition.html
she looks wasted - is she a boozehead?
Sounds like fear to me.
She's wearing the flour de leis of France. Just where does her loyalty lie?
This guy got dinged for composing a published article. Yikes. I wonder if a letter to the editor is also proscribed activity.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Article X, Section 9(A) of the state constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:
No . . . employee in the classified service shall participate or engage in political activity; . . . except to exercise his right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as he desires.Article X, Section 9(C) defines "political activity" as "an effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or to support a particular political party in an election." The same prohibition is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 14.1(e) and the definition of "political activity" is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 1.24.1.
In this case, respondent wrote, for publication, a column that opposed the election of a candidate (Bush) for political office (the Presidency) and supported a particular political party (the Democratic Party) in an election. This is a clear violation of the Article; respondent far exceeded his right "as a citizen to express his opinion privately."
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, respondent is hereby suspended for a period of 5 working days. At the option of his employing agency, a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a 5 day suspension may be substituted for this suspension. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Commission took into consideration respondent's years of service as well as the fact that the violation was not wilful.
On the future ones, I'll skip the boilerplate that lays out the constitutional provision that is being enforced.Findings of Fact
1. Brian Ducote (Ducote) has been a state classified employee for 15 years. He works for the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), doing maintenance work on the Sunshine Bridge and its toll plaza. He has a tenth grade education and less than a third grade reading level.
2. Ducote and Jeffery Poche (Poche) have been friends since 1987. During the fall of 1995, Poche was a candidate for election to the Ascension Parish Council. Poche asked Ducote to drive his truck for him and Ducote agreed.
3. On three different occasions during the fall of 1995, Ducote drove Poches truck while Poche walked along side, soliciting votes. Poches truck displayed several signs promoting his candidacy. ...
Conclusions of Law
Article X, Section 9(A) of the state constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:
No . . . employee in the classified service shall participate or engage in political activity; . . . except to exercise his right as a citizen to express his opinion privately, to serve as a commissioner or official watcher at the polls, and to cast his vote as he desires.Article X, Section 9(C) defines "political activity" as "an effort to support or oppose the election of a candidate for political office or to support a particular political party in an election." The same prohibition is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 14.1(e) and the definition of "political activity" is reiterated in Civil Service Rule 1.24.1.
Thus, any activity to help a candidate get elected to a public office is prohibited. Here, Ducote drove Poches truck (which prominently displayed Poches campaign signs) to free up Poche so he could actively solicit votes. This is a public display of support for a candidate that is clearly prohibited by the state constitution and the Civil Service Rules.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, Ducote is hereby formally reprimanded and suspended without pay for one working day. At the option of his employing agency, a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a one day suspension may be substituted for this suspension. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Commission took into consideration the following circumstances: Ducotes many years of good work, as attested to by his appointing authority; the unintentional nature of the violation; Ducotes immediate cooperation when the matter was brought to his attention; and Ducotes limited reading ability.
2. During November 1992, respondent found, in a local newspaper, a copy of a petition seeking the recall of Governor Edwin W. Edwards. Respondent brought the newspaper with her to work to make a copy of the petition. Respondent made three copies of the petition. She then signed one copy and left it and two more copies on the table next to the copy machine. Respondent attached her handwritten note to the copies. The note was initialed "kv" and stated: "If you want to sign-I'll send it in."3. Four of respondent's co-workers (also classified state employees) signed the petition before the petition was picked up by the investigator for DSCS. ...
If respondent had just made a copy of the recall petition, signed it and mailed it in, she would not have violated Civil Service Rule 14.1(e)5. However, by making additional copies of the petition and offering to send it in for others, respondent made it easier for others to participate in the recall effort. Therefore, the Commission concludes that respondent took an active part in the recall effort. Respondent's ignorance of the Civil Service Rules does not excuse her actions. The Commission repeats the warning it has previously issued. Classified employees are expected to familiarize themselves with the rules governing their employment, particularly the rules governing prohibited political activity. An employee who does not do so acts at his or her peril.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article X, Section 10(A)(4) of the state constitution, the Commission orders respondent suspended for 30 calendar days. Alternatively, at its option, respondent's employer may subject respondent to a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a 30 calendar day suspension.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010297.HTM
1. Jerald J. Juneau works as a Program Manager for the Department of Education. He has been a classified state employee since January 1995. Before becoming a classified employee, he worked for 25 years as an unclassified employee.2. Fred Dent was a candidate for Mayor. Mr. Juneau has known Mr. Dent since college. On May 5, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed $25 to Mr. Dent's campaign. On July 11, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed $200 to Mr. Dent's campaign. On August 28, 2000, Mr. Juneau contributed an additional $25 to Mr. Dent's campaign.
3. Jim Benham was a candidate for Councilman. Mr. Juneau had been the Kenilworth Civic Association president five times and had met Mr. Benham through Civil Association activities. On August 4, 2000, Mr. Benham asked Mr. Juneau for a contribution to his campaign. Thinking it would benefit the residents of Kenilworth, Mr. Juneau gave Mr. Benham $50. Mr. Benham explained that the Civic Association could not have made the contribution because its by-laws prohibited political activity. ...
Contrary to Mr. Juneau's belief, the prohibition against political activity by state classified employees is not limited to statewide elected offices. It applies to all political offices. By making contributions on four different occasions to two candidates' campaigns for local political offices, Mr. Juneau violated the Civil Service Article and Civil Service Rule 14.1(e). It is particularly disheartening that Mr. Juneau chose to violate the state constitution rather than his Civic Association's by-laws.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, we hereby suspend Mr. Juneau, without pay, for fifteen working days. At its option, the Department of Education may substitute a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a fifteen-day suspension (i.e., $2312.31).
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0014284.html
3. On January 16, 1993, Best's wife came to respondent's house and asked respondent's wife for a contribution to Best's campaign. Respondent's wife wrote a check in the amount of $100 to "James Best Campaign Fund" and gave the check to Best's wife. The check was drawn against a joint checking account maintained by respondent and his wife.4. Respondent was unaware of the contribution. His wife carries the check book and balances the account. Respondent learned about the contribution when the investigator from the DSCS inquired about it.
5. Respondent and his wife do not live within the 18th Judicial District and therefore Best was not a candidate for whom they could vote. ...
In this case, a political contribution was made from funds belonging jointly to respondent and his wife. This is a clear violation of the Civil Service Article and the Civil Service Rules. However, respondent did not personally make the contribution and his completely credible testimony was that he was not even aware that the contribution had been made. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that only a warning is necessary in this case. While an unclassified spouse may make political contributions out of his or her own separate funds, such contributions cannot be made out of funds which belong jointly to a classified employee. A classified employee is expected to discuss the political activity prohibitions with his/her spouse who is not subject to those prohibitions to avoid the situation that presented itself in this case.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby warned that any recurrence of the activity described herein will be severely penalized by demotion, suspension or discharge.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010456.HTM
3. Respondent frequently writes as a guest columnist for the Shreveport Times. He does this as a hobby and is not paid for his columns.4. While the presidential campaign was underway, respondent wrote, for publication, a column which criticized the Republican Party, opposed the reelection of George Bush and supported the Democratic Party. This column was published in the Shreveport Times on September 15, 1992. ...
In this case, respondent wrote, for publication, a column that opposed the election of a candidate (Bush) for political office (the Presidency) and supported a particular political party (the Democratic Party) in an election. This is a clear violation of the Article; respondent far exceeded his right "as a citizen to express his opinion privately."
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 10(A)(4) of the Civil Service Article, respondent is hereby suspended for a period of 5 working days.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0010457.HTM
3. One evening some time later, Ms. Ransom knocked on respondent's door while respondent was cooking supper and asked to speak to respondent's husband. Respondent said he was not home. Ms. Ransom had a piece of paper in her hand and explained that she was out getting signatures of people who felt she had done a good job as Police Juror. Respondent agreed that Ms. Ransom had done a good job and offered to sign the piece of paper. Respondent glanced at the paper but did not read it; it contained only a few typewritten paragraphs. The paper did not indicate to what use it would be put nor did respondent have presence of mind to inquire of Ms. Ransom what she was going to do with the paper. Respondent went back to cooking supper and gave the matter no further thought.4. On October 15, 1991, the Monroe News Star published a political advertisement. The heading read: IMPORTANT NOTICE: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE VOTERS OF POLICE JUROR-DISTRICT "E." The letter touted Ms. Ransom's achievements and concluded:
The below signed voters encourage you to vote and lend your support to Adele Ransom. Help us ensure that our Police Jury representative will be a sincere and caring individual.Respondent's was one of 52 signatures which appeared on the advertisement. ...
The Committee to Re-Elect Adele Ransom
In this case, respondent signed a piece of paper thinking that she was simply thanking an elected official for a job well done. This would not have been a prohibited political activity. Later, without respondent's knowledge, what respondent signed was incorporated into a published political endorsement. Had respondent signed the piece of paper knowing that it was going to be used as part of a political advertisement, she would have been guilty of engaging in prohibited political activity. However, the Commission finds quite believable respondent's testimony (and the corroborating affidavit of Ms. Ransom) that respondent did not know that what she signed would later be used as part of political advertisement. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no penalty should be imposed.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009708.HTM
3. One day, the dispatcher of the Police Department called Mr. Cowser and told him he needed to come by the police station and have his picture taken. Mr. Cowser did so. He did not ask what the picture would be used for.4. When he had his picture taken, Mr. Cowser knew that Wesley Horton, Jonesboro's Chief of Police, was running for reelection. However, he did not connect the two events.
5. Mr. Cowser's wife wrote a statement endorsing Chief Horton's candidacy and delivered it to the police station the day after Mr. Cowser had his picture taken. Mr. Cowser knew his wife was writing a statement endorsing Chief Horton.
6. On October 3, 2002, Mr. Cowser's picture appeared in the Jackson Independent, a local newspaper, under a banner entitled "Jonesboro Police Officers Speak Out." Mr. Cowser was identified as a reserve officer and next to his picture was the statement his wife had written. The statement said, "Wesley Horton has the knowledge, experience and training it takes to fill the position of police chief. He also has a caring concern for all the people of the town of Jonesboro." ...
Mr. Cowser unwittingly violated these prohibitions. His fellow officers who were running the campaign were unaware that Mr. Cowser could not endorse the Chief. Therefore, it would not have occurred to them to warn Mr. Cowser what his picture would be used for. However, Mr. Cowser was aware that his political activity was restricted. He could have avoided the problem by simply asking why the police department wanted his picture. He did not think to do so and as he put it, "When I realized what I had done, it was too late."
Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the state is not well served by dismissing or demoting Mr. Cowser. As an appropriate penalty, we declare him ineligible for the merit increase for which he would otherwise become eligible on March 18, 2003.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0014917.htm
Respondent is a classified state employee who works as an RN Supervisor at the Washington St. Tammany Regional Medical Center. On April 1, 1992, complainant filed formal charges with the Commission wherein he asserts that respondent engaged in prohibited political activity on behalf of her husband, who was a candidate for election to the office of Clerk of Court for Washington Parish. ...1. Respondent was aware that she was prohibited from engaging in political activity and knew that she had an obligation to her job to stay out of her husband's campaign. However, when her entire family became actively involved in her husband's campaign, respondent felt an even stronger obligation to her family and, in her words, she "just got caught up in it."
2. Mr. Crockett cautioned respondent about her political activities on the Tuesday following the primary election. Respondent immediately discontinued her activities. Although respondent's husband made the runoff, respondent did not assist in his campaign between the primary election and the general election.
3. Mr. Crain won the election. ...
In this case, respondent clearly violated these prohibitions. In reaching its decision not to order respondent's dismissal, the Commission takes into consideration respondent's 14 years of unblemished service, the fact that her political activities were on behalf of her husband rather than on behalf of some other candidate and that respondent discontinued her political activities at the point in which they probably would have done her husband the most good - before the general election. Accordingly, respondent is ordered suspended from her position for a period of sixty calendar days or, at the option of her employer, respondent may be subjected to a reduction in pay that is the economic equivalent of a sixty calendar day suspension.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009855.HTM
2. In 1988, respondent and his wife bought a car for their daughter to drive to and from school. Respondent's daughter was and is insured as the primary driver of the car.3. In September or October 1991, the car that respondent's daughter regularly drove needed maintenance so respondent was driving it to and from work 2 or 3 days per week.
4. In October 1991, Don Gerald, an investigator for the Department of State Civil Service, called respondent and asked if he had a bumper sticker on his car. Respondent said that he did not think so, but when he looked at the rear bumper of the car, he found a sticker that read: "Pop Hattaway '92." At this time, Pop Hattaway was a candidate for Sheriff of Grant Parish. Respondent immediately removed the bumper sticker from the car. ...
In cases like this, the respondent's usual defense is that he did not know that the activity was prohibited - a defense that the Commission has rejected. See Investigation of Russell, Laviolette and Delacruz (Docket No. 7129) decided October 17, 1988. However, this case is different. Respondent herein knew that the activity was prohibited; but his uncontradicted testimony was that he did not know that the bumper sticker was on the car. Before an employee can be punished for an activity, it must be shown not that he was aware that the activity was prohibited, but rather that he willfully engaged in the activity. That showing was not made in this case. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no penalty should be imposed.
http://www.dscs.state.la.us/appeals/opinions/0009710.HTM
"Oh, and I'll send you another copy of that memo."