Quantcast
Channel: Opinions – Alabama Political Reporter
Viewing all 122 articles
Browse latest View live

The best “Justice” money could buy

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

When Gov. Kay Ivey announced that Lyn Stuart would lead Alabama’s Judicial system as Supreme Court Chief Justice, she said, “To ensure a continuity of leadership and a smooth transition that keeps the ship of State steady, I have appointed Justice Lyn Stuart as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”

Stuart was appointed as Acting Chief Justice by then Gov. Robert Bentley after the Judicial Inquiry Commission suspiciously found probable cause to charge Chief Justice Moore with ethics violations that led to his removal from office. Stuart’s actions during the period in which she served as Acting Chief Justice would seem to cast a large shadow over the Ivey Administration’s campaign for transparency and honesty while righting the ship of State.

It appears the Ivey administration once again failed to vet their appointee leaving it vulnerable to embarrassing revelations about Stuart as it has with the appointment on Bryan Taylor as legal counsel.

Many questions remain concerning Stuart’s role in the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore. But, what is clear, as Acting Chief Justice in October 2016, she called for a statewide pay freeze on Judicial Merit employees while giving her staff substantial pay increases (Stuart verbally issued the pay freeze in October, but waited until December to send a memo).

At the end of October 2016, Stuart’s staff attorney, Renee Michael received a two-step increase of 5 percent, raising her salary from $48,44.90 per pay period to $5093.00. In January 2017 Michael was given an additional 2.5 percent bump in pay to $5,221.50 each pay period. Stuart’s Secretary Holly Clarke received a 5 percent increase in October and a 19 percent increase in January. Stuart also arranged a 9.5 percent raise in October from $4,174.90 to $4,391.80 per pay period for staff attorney, Lars Longnecker.

In February, Stuart appeared before the Legislative Joint Budget hearing to plead for more money from lawmakers, including $1.5 million for merit raises for court employees. Bemoaning the fate of underpaid court employees, Justice Stuart failed to mention the massive pay increases to those who served her wishes.

But, such sly maneuvers shouldn’t surprise anyone who observed Stuart’s actions during her tenure as Acting Chief Justice. In December, APR reported on how Stuart pushed for backpay from 2004 for herself, a feat she accomplished on September 7, 2016 (Stuart received $17,651 in a complicated legal arrangement that involved Stuart, Associate Justice Mike Bolin, and former Attorney General Luther Strange).

After more than a decade, Acting Chief Justice Lyn Stuart receives back pay

None of this is shocking, given her role in the prosecution of Chief Justice Moore. Stuart, along with Justices Bolin, and Jim Main, have yet to explain why they failed to recuse in Moore’s sealed case, hiding their actions from public view, in violation of the Open Courts provision of the Alabama Constitution. Stuart also conspired with Bolin and Main demanding Moore remove all his personal items from his office. They also fired Moore’s staff while his case was still under appeal.

Coming soon, APR will have a full report on their failure to recuse themselves.

Perhaps more telling than the pay raises for her people, or the fight to get money from 2004, or even the mysterious actions she took in the Moore case, is the fact that Stuart is a creature of the Business Council of Alabama (BCA). In her 2006 campaign, Stuart raised a total of $1,799,235. General Business contributed $1,315,250, or 73.10 percent of the total. Transportation was the second largest industry to back her campaign with $130,100, or 7.23 percent. And Lawyers and Lobbyists were the third largest industry Stuart relied upon for campaign funds, receiving $113,983, or 6.34 percent from those special interests, according to Ballotpedia.

On her appointment as Chief Justice BCA, chieftain Bill Canary said, “Chief Justice Stuart has a proven track record of being fair and impartial in her 16 years of service on the high court.” Adding. “No individual has served as Chief Justice with such outstanding credentials. Clearly, she is ready to serve on day one. Her commitment to the rule of law and conservative judicial philosophy is second to none, and I applaud Governor Ivey for making this appointment.”

Such a glowing commendation from a man who was joined at the hip with former Speaker and convicted felon, Mike Hubbard, as he swindled, cheated, and sold his office to the highest bidder is certainly not shocking to those who know Stuart’s record. She, like so many others in Montgomery demonstrate this truth: The most reliable politicians are those who are bought, and stay bought.

The promise of the Ivey Administration is to “right the ship of State,” but it now seems to be listing badly. Well, at least with Stuart, they got the best “Justice” money could buy.

 

The post The best “Justice” money could buy appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.


Ivey Administration waylaid by privateers and scalawags

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Over the past 18 months, political upheaval in Alabama has ruined lives, shattered faith in our institutions and still the stench of corruption hangs around the neck of the body politic like a rotting corpse.

Russell Kirk, one of the founders of the traditional conservative movement in America in the late 20th Century believed, “A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society whatever political machinery it may utilize.” He also rightly surmised, “[A] society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society.”

After taking the oath of office, Governor Kay Ivey said, “I pledge to each of you that I will do my best. The Ivey Administration will be open, it will be transparent, and it will be honest.”

Since taking office, some of Ivey’s key appointments have cast doubt on those words. Ivey’s decision to embrace allies of former Gov. Bob Riley, former Speaker and convicted felon, Mike Hubbard, and Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Chief, Billy Canary is seen as a bad omen for the nascent administration. As one State Senator lamented, “I’m afraid we’re witnessing the beginning of Bob Riley’s third term.”

Days after promising to govern with openness, transparency, and honesty, Ivey held a “meet and greet” with the Capitol Press Corps where she confirmed her support ethics reform. Since the conviction of Hubbard on 12 counts of public corruption, the Attorney General’s Office has worked tirelessly to clarify and strengthen the State’s Ethics Laws. However, the same negative forces which now surrounds Gov. Ivey, namely Riley Inc, BCA, and the remnants of the Hubbardites, have fought in the shadows to hinder any effort to codify Ethics Reforms.

At Ivey’s presser, this reporter asked Gov. Ivey if she would support the ethics package prepared by the Attorney General’s Office. Ivey said, “I believe in ethics. I believe you do too, Bill.” Ivey said she had not read the bill, but, “Truly, I think there are some needs for clarity in the current Ethics Law. I will sure be supportive of clarity and making sure we’re all on the straight and narrow.”

It is believed that Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh and Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon agreed to bring the Ethics Package prepared by the Attorney General’s Office to a vote of the full body. But, that was a commitment made to Luther Strange before his appointment to the US Senate, and with six days left in the 2017 Legislative Session, there is little sign that the bill will see the light of day. Ivey accept at the presser has failed to weigh-in on the package painstakingly prepared by the Attorney General’s Office.

Perhaps being surround by those who claim ethical behavior but fail to live it has tainted Gov. Ivey’s perspective. The following acts would suggest that Ivey is either not vetting appointees, or has joined league with Riley, Inc.

Last week, Gov. Ivey appointed Hubbard ally Ken Boswell, the Mayor of Enterprise, to replace Jim Byard at ADECA. It was Boswell who helped hire Hubbard to represent Southeast Alabama Gas District (SEAGD) which fell under suspicion during the Hubbard criminal investigation. Hubbard was not convicted on charges related to SEAGD due to an informal opinion from the State’s Ethics Commission. However, Boswell was part of the group that approved paying Hubbard $12,000.00 a month (a total of $208,848.88) to work as an “economic development consultant” from March 2012 to August 2013 for the rural co-op.

Recently, Ivey appointed Justice Lyn Stuart to replace Chief Justice Moore, knowing full well that Stuart was part of the “gang of three” that denied Moore’s petition. Moore requested an examination of facts related to the action taken by the Judicial Inquire Commission, and members of the Supreme Court, prior to charges being filed against him. Stuart along with Justices Jim Main and Mike Bolin failed to recuse and Moore’s petition was never granted. Beyond being a darling of the Business Council of Alabama (BCA), Stuart’s failure to disclose her dealings the the Moore case leave her actions suspect.

“Chief” Legal Council Bryan Taylor, formerly one of Riley’s boys, serves as Ivey’s close confidant. Taylor’s wife runs a grant writing company and has worked on projects closely associated with Ivey as Lt. Governor. Recently, Mrs. Taylor landed a lucrative contract with Medicaid.

And it would be hard to ignore Ivey’s $6.5 million dollar giveaway to Riley’s lobbying client, Airbus. In a press release, Ivey claims the development of an aviation center is a partnership. But in this case, one partner (the State taxpayers) put in the money, and the other one receives the benefits.

While Gov. Ivey has acted honorably on several major issues, her reliance on those with long ties to Riley, Hubbard, and Canary raises the specter of corruptions past.

As for transparency, APR has made several requests to sit with the Governor, only to have our appeals to Administration officials ignored. Maybe there’s more to hide in the Capitol than just the gathering strength of Riley Inc., and BCA. What is evident is that some in this administration are morally adrift. Appointments and other decisions are being made out of political self-interest, and not with the honesty and integrity Ivey vowed.

Is Gov. Ivey complicit, or like Bentley, is she in a bubble of ignorance. If she is aware of the impact her alliance with dark forces is having on public confidence then it’s time she awakened to the truth of what people outside the insular North Wing of the Capitol are saying.

While it is too earlier to write the administration off as lost, it does appear that Ivey’s mission to “right the ship of State” has been commandeered by privateers and scalawags.

 

The post Ivey Administration waylaid by privateers and scalawags appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

SPLC, fundraising, and rich ironies

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which promotes itself as a champion for the poor and oppressed, has amassed a $319 million fortune, part of it stashed away in offshore bank accounts, according to its latest posted tax return.

Over the last six years, this left-leaning organization has made deep inroads into Alabama’s Republican supermajority. Each year, their lawyers, accompanied by high-paid lobbyists, butter-up Republican lawmakers to further the organization’s liberal agenda. And, if the sweet-talk fails, they turn on the pressure. Note their recent campaign to shame or trick Legislators into passing “lending” reforms that will leave lower-income Alabamians without a means of borrowing much-needed cash.

Their 2015 taxes show the Montgomery-based nonprofit’s notorious endowment has now swelled to historical levels, up from $302 million the year before.

SPLC’s bulging bank accounts, along with its relentless and often suspect fundraising schemes, have been well-documented for decades by some very respectable publications and watchdog groups.

The SPLC has consistently received a grade of “F” by CharityWatch, an independent association that monitors and rates charitable organizations. The “F” is related to SPLC’s stockpiling of cash, which goes well beyond what CharityWatch considers a prudent reserve for a charitable organization.

The SPLC also spends a larger percent of its budget on fundraising and other overhead expenses than CharityWatch considers indefensible.

CharityWatch rates spending up to 25 percent on administrative needs “highly efficient.” It 2016, they reported that SPLC spent 41 percent of its budget on administrative expenses.

In 2015, SPLC reported spending less than $1.9 million on expenses related to actual litigation. It reported spending more than five times as much — almost $9.7 million on total fundraising expenses.

Tax documents seem to reveal where the Southern Poverty Law Center’s actually priorities lie.

SPLC’s fight against “predatory lenders” who reap huge profits while allegedly bilking the poor and misleading minorities, seems disingenuous considering SPLC millions with a substantial amount held in financial accounts located in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda, according to their latest tax report.

Its 2015, tax form also reveals fundraising activities all over the world including: Antigua; Aruba; Bahamas; Australia; Brunei; Burma; Cambodia; Albania; Andorra; Austria; Belgium; Algeria; Bahrain; Djibouti; Egypt; Angola; Benin; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Argentina; Bolivia; Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Ecuador.

In an article for The Weekly Standard in 2013, under the headline of “King of Fearmongers,” Charlotte Allen wrote:

“Thanks to the generosity of four decades worth of donors, many of whom, as SPLC President Richard Cohen himself noted in a telephone interview with me, are aging ‘Northern-State 1960s liberals who continue to associate Southern and Poverty with lynchings, white-hooded Klansmen, and sitting at the back of the bus,’ and thanks to what can only be described as the sheer genius at direct-mail marketing of Dees, the SPLC is probably the richest poverty organization in the history of the world.”

SPLC also makes a small fortune suing the State of Alabama, but more often the legislators make the State an easy target. Even the recent lawsuits over the State’s failed prison system would not have occurred if the legislature would have shown the problem attention before it was out of control.

All this is not to disparage the good work of the SPLC, but to point out the group’s funding activities leave little room for them to judge those in the small loan industry.

The idea that the SPLC is helping lead the charge against so-called unscrupulous and greedy lenders, who exploit their clients and take more than they need to survive, is a rich irony if you’ll pardon the pun.

SPLC Form 990 tax returns

See tax returns here.

1.) Foreign accounts:
Question about interest or control in foreign accounts is raised on page 6 of 51. (Question 4a)
The detailed answer is on page 49 of 51 (second from bottom)

2.) Morris Dees compensation:
Pages 8 and 45 of 51.

3.) Fundraising activities in other countries
Page 34 of 51.

4.) Endowment fund
Page 30 of 51 (Part V) If you look, it across the rows, it shows you the growth over the past few years.

5.) Litigation expenses (presumably case cost expenses)
Page 11 of 51, Line 24d.

6.) Total fundraising expenses:
Page 2 of 51, Part 1, line 16b.

Charity Watch Documents

Charity Watch

CharityWatch Criteria & Methodology

CharityWatch High Asset Charities

 

The post SPLC, fundraising, and rich ironies appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Politics continue to overrule ethics

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

The State Legislature begins its four-day sprint to the finish this Tuesday. To-date, 1025 bills were introduced over the 27 days, and still, there is much more to be accomplished. The Legislative leadership hopes to sine die on Friday, ending a drama-filled Session that saw Governor Robert Bentley resign, Governor Ivey sworn in, topping the melee of competing interests that always seems to accompany a Legislative Session.

Perhaps more telling than what did happen is what didn’t happen during the 2017 Session.

The most important bill of the session was never introduced and now lies on a desk in the Office of Attorney General Steve Marshall.

For over a year, top lawyers at the Attorney General’s Office have worked to craft legislation to clarify and strengthen the State’s Ethics Laws. The proposed bill was ready before the Session but was never introduced because of political interests. Large companies and special interests could be blamed for the bill never making it in, but in reality, it was a lack of leadership that killed this single, most important piece of Legislation.

It has almost been a full year since Mike Hubbard was convicted on 12 counts of felony public corruption. Hubbard remains out of jail pending appeal, and there are those who are working in the shadows to make sure Hubbard is the only person ever convicted under the current Ethics laws.

Some lobbyists, business principals, and lawmakers want to return to the old days, before the Ethics Reforms of 2010. Others know those laws hastily passed and written by Bryan Taylor, Gov. Kay Ivey’s Chief Legal Counsel to empower the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) and former Gov. Bob Riley’s business interests need to be amended. But, the leadership chose to do nothing, and the blame can be laid at the feet of Attorney General, Steve Marshall.

Marshall inherited this Ethics bill “dilemma” when he was appointed Attorney General after former Gov. Robert Bentley anointed Luther Strange to replace Senator Jeff Sessions. Marshall has privately used the excuse that the bill was not his own and therefore could not champion the Legislation.

Marshall is a smart man. He could have very easily read what was in the Ethics bill in a few days. There was ample time for him to have made the changes he felt necessary and championed his Ethics Legislation at the State House. Instead, he is currently working on an Ethics package with the help of his legal advisor, Katherine Roberts, a former columnist and consultant with the Alabama Policy Institute. API, far from being just a joke, is a dangerous policy shop that churns out blowhard so-called conservative position papers to satisfy its donors. It may stun Roberts to discover that cutting and pasting articles from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute does not even remotely prepare someone to tackle the morass of writing a code of Ethics.

Before Strange traded his integrity for a seat in the US Senate, he and his people met with the House and Senate leadership, where he received a promise from Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh and Speaker Mac McCutcheon to pass the Ethics package during the 2017 Session. Marsh and McCutcheon worked with Strange’s team to reach an acceptable bill. Many lawyers and stakeholders who questioned any new provisions were counsulted. But even with all the players mostly in agreement, Marshall gave them all a way out, because he chose to be a politician and not a lawman.

Every politician knows that any ethics bill with teeth is going to make someone mad; more importantly, it’s going to alienate some in the monied class, those with the big bucks count come campaign season.

Marshall is not weak, corrupt or anything of that nature; but what he has proven is that he’s a politician first. Politicians make decisions based on the next election. They concluded that it is better to win an election than to take a principled stand if there’s another way. Most rationalize that if they win the next election, they can then do the more difficult things they wanted to do. The problem: there is always another election.

At The Alabama Political Reporter, our staff is often admonished not to fear to report a story that might cause them to anger or needle powerful politicians, or even an advertiser. Our job is too important to compromise today and hope to live to write an uncompromising story tomorrow.

The same goes for a prosecutor. Any prosecutor that will not take a case because it might end his career is in the wrong job.

When a journalist cowers in the face of power, when a prosecutor turns away from the severe cases, justice and the rule of law are always the first victims. Personally, I often remind myself, “What profits a man if he gains the world, but loses his soul.” ~ Mark 8:36

In politics as in life, there are times when hard choices slam up against self-preservation. Like the athlete who throws himself in front of a 350-pound lineman to protect a pass or the soldier who runs headlong into a fire-fight, Attorney Generals, District Attorneys, and prosecutors must be willing to enter the political fray without a sense of self-preservation.

Of course, Marshall can recover. He’s a good guy. He was in a tough spot, but he should have done more.

Our State is always in want of needful things, but too often Alabama’s lawmakers lack the courage to fight to bring them home.

The Lee County Grand Jury remains empaneled; there are many more Hubbard.

In this case, politics ruled the day, and we are all the worse for it.

 

The post Politics continue to overrule ethics appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Fake news, a frivolous lawsuit, and the Ivey Administration’s unknown unknowns

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Recently, Governor Kay Ivey’s “chief” legal counsel Bryan Taylor took to social media to explain to his followers how to spot a fake news account. He also conducted a Twitter poll that asked if people believed Yellowhammer News, AL Today, or The Alabama Political Reporter were credible news sources.

The idea that any news report that doesn’t fit with a particular group’s or person’s pre-conceived narrative of a person, event, or thing is “fake news” is not new. It is perhaps just a bit more pervasive due to the proliferation of news outlets that carpet bomb the public 24-hours-a-day. But, blaming the messenger is always a line of defense for the scoundrel; because it works.

When covering a movement, be it political, ideological, basically, any actions taken on the public stage, the media is always subject to calls of bias, ignorance, or outright lying. To say that some in the media are at times unfair, uninformed, or favor a particular narrative, is a legitimate complaint. But, even in those instances to call it fake is, well, dishonest.

There is little doubt that the national media, as a whole, is piling on the Trump administration. When attacked, the tendency, even for reporters, and editors, is to strike back. But, as always, we at APR are focused on what happening here at home.

There are those who wrongly believed that APR has a personal beef with former Speaker and convicted felon Mike Hubbard. It was only personal to the extent that he tried to put us out of business, and tried to discredit our reporting. It’s the same with Taylor. If Gov. Ivey’s legal counsel were suing John Archibald or Steve Flowers, we would take the same position, because an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

But this is not the first time APR has stood alone against forces in State government, who would mute our reporting, or try the destroy our business. APR labored long and hard for four years to expose Hubbard’s corruption while others in the news media stood by, with some even giving Hubbard aid and comfort.

Taylor sued us three years ago, and we never made a public announcement or attacked Taylor during those years, choosing to let the situation play out quietly in the courts, knowing we would prevail. However, when Gov. Kay Ivey tapped Taylor as her closest legal advisor, the matter rose in its importance, especially since Taylor had not informed Ivey or her staff about the lawsuit. Even then, rather than going public, APR appealed to Gov. Ivey’s office asking to discuss the issue in private. According to our sources, Ivey’s private and political confidant, Will Sellers, brought Taylor on board. Sellers, who is said to be a candidate for a Federal judgeship in the Trump administration, has otherwise been, at least publicly, absent from the workings of the administration.

Why Sellers felt Taylor was the best lawyer in the State to serve Ivey, or what connection Taylor has to Sellers is unknown. There are rumors, as always, that there is an underlying relationship between the two men not readily visible. Most believe that former Gov. Bob Riley is behind the union of one of his most faithful acolytes and the Ivey Administration. Before becoming Ivey’s legal counsel, Taylor found work as chief legal advisor for Acting Finance Director Bill Newton. Newton only informed former Gov. Robert Bentley of Taylor’s hiring after the fact. Seller’s brother-in-law Rex McDowell served as Assistant Finance Director under Newton. Both men were ushered out soon after Clinton Carter was named Finance Director. The Department of Finance confirmed that Taylor never informed Carter of his lawsuit against APR, even though as a high-ranking public employee his legal actions could result in the State being enjoined to the litigation. After Carter had become aware of Taylor’s lawsuit, Taylor filed for a gag order to be placed on APR. Within days of joining the Ivey Administration, Taylor asked that the hearing for the gag order be moved to an earlier date. We again asked Gov. Ivey’s office to have this handled privately, and they ignored our request.

Toward the end of April, APR received a call from a member of Ivey’s inter circle, asking that we consider a settlement proposed by Taylor. This was strange news, as we had not heard of an offer to settle. The individual seemed shocked having been informed by Taylor that a settlement had been offered. Taylor has served as his own counsel in this suit against APR but has also relied on his former partner, Steven Brom. The day after Ivey’s confidant called APR to encourage a settlement, of which we had no knowledge Taylor’s attorney called our attorney offering a vague outline of conditions.

The following day, APR’s attorneys spoke with Brom again describing conditions. Since the second call around April 27, APR’s lawyers have not heard from Brom or Taylor. However, those within Ivey’s circle confirm that Taylor has informed Gov. Ivey and Chief of Staff Steve Pelham that the matter has been settled.

Ivey’s staff says she reads news reports. If she or Pelham read this one, be assured, APR’s attorneys have only been contacted twice in April and, as one of our attorneys said about the case being settled, “That’s BS.”

For three years, APR allowed the case against it to move quietly to a legal resolution. Taylor failed to tell his bosses at Finance and the Governor’s office about the suit. APR made several requests for a meeting with Ivey Administration which were denied.

Our original report on Taylor was factual; he didn’t like it, so he sued. His boss at Finance found out, and he sought a gag order. Then he asked for an expedited gag order once he joined the Ivey Administration. Now he wants to give lessons on how to spot fake news and conduct polls on who is a legitimate news outlet?

So, allow me to offer a brief primer for those who want to identify a frivolous lawsuit.

1. It is filed by a thin-skinned public official who draws up a complaint while having a temper tantrum.

2. It is filed by a lawyer representing himself (President Abraham Lincoln said, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”).

3. The person filing the lawsuit wants it sealed so that employment records cannot be seen.

4. The lawsuit is hidden from his employer.

5. The lawsuit, if filed by the chief legal advisor to the governor, who takes to social media in the wee hours of the morning to defend the indefensible.

6. Lastly, the suit is filed by Bryan Taylor against a news outlet that survived Hubbard’s attacks to see him convicted on 12 counts of felony public corruption, related to stories that this news organization broke.

As far as a Twitter poll: I might suggest “Who is the bigger fool? Gov. Ivey, who appointed Taylor? Will Sellers, who got him the job? Or Ivey’s chief of staff Steve Pelham, who doesn’t know when he’s being lied too?

As for fake news verses real news: it’s not difficult to spot the difference. To recognize real news, just see which soft-skin politician rails against it. Fake news? Well, I’ll leave that to one of the three news outlets Taylor polled.

As for the Ivey Administration, it doesn’t have a clue, because they don’t know what they don’t know. To paraphrase President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: “There are known knowns.. there are known unknowns… and unknown unknowns.”

At APR, we never fake the news because we almost always know the unknown unknowns, that people in power don’t want known.

 

The post Fake news, a frivolous lawsuit, and the Ivey Administration’s unknown unknowns appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

The Session’s biggest loser

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

The 2017 Legislative Session saw the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) fail to deliver on its stated agenda. The State’s so-called powerful business lobby is the Session’s biggest loser. Only Governor Kay Ivey can give them a win.

BCA’s push for an infrastructure package collapsed, as did the latest Triple-A education giveaway. Its team of lobbyists couldn’t stop the anti-gay adoption Legislation, or the Autism Bill from passage despite their best efforts (They did manage to kill the Gun Bill).

Gov. Ivey can still give BCA another victory by not signing the Monument Bill, which, according to the Governor’s office, her legal team is reviewing. Perhaps this is a chance for her legal advisor, Bryan Taylor, to show his chops (Taylor, who unlike most lawyers, refuses to allow his legal work to be peer reviewed at Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings). Surely Taylor can justify giving BCA at least one more check in the win column because to quote Gov. Ivey’s spokesperson Eileen Jones, “he is an excellent lawyer; excellent!”

In 2010, former Gov. Bob Riley, then-Speaker Mike Hubbard, and BCA’s Billy Canary were sitting in the catbird seat, and for six years they ruled the State House as their fiefdom. But things began to change after Hubbard’s conviction on 12 counts of felony public corruption. Hubbard’s fall brought about a reversal of fortune, not only for BCA but Riley Incorporated as well. While this Session demonstrates BCA’s loss of influences, it now appears that Kay Ivey’s ascendancy to the Governor’s office is also a boom for Riley Inc.

The Ivey administration is looking more like Riley 3.0 as this week she will likely add more Riley loyalists to her cabinet (Goodbye Gunter Guy?).

BCA is no longer the dominate force in the State House, and at best, Canary is losing big-time. But here again, the Ivey gang may mean a rebound for the Riley Clan. Canary is damaged goods and his days appear to be numbered as head of BCA. If nothing else, the big power players should watch a replay of Canary and other BCA board members squirming in the witness box, as they tried to explain why it was better for BCA to own Hubbard than someone else.

So far Canary has survived, but this latest Legislative shellacking should send a message: “It’s time to fly, fly away little bird.”
As one lawmaker stated after Hubbard’s conviction, “Even with Hubbard gone, as long as Riley and Canary retain power, the State doesn’t stand a chance.”

This Session, Senators and Representatives finally stood up to BCA. As for Canary, he mainly lurked in the shadows like a defanged Count Orlok, from the film, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. Kudos really must go to the 2014 Class of Lawmakers, many of whom came to the House not owing Hubbard, Riley, or BCA for their elections.

There was a time when BCA was a respected organization; it can be again, but not as long as Canary leads it. Few respect him, fewer fear him, and unless Gov. Ivey throws him a bone, that dog is going to limp away from the 2017 Session emaciated and hungry.

As for the Ivey administration, things aren’t looking good, so who knows what they will do. I mean, seriously, it took them five days to rebuff our report on her hospitalization. Altitude sickness? That must cause amnesia or a pathetic case of “how to lie badly.”

There was great hope for Gov. Ivey to succeed and do well, a hope which she continues to squander by doubling down on mistakes. Hubris got Hubbard, Bentley too, and it will likely fail her administration as well.

Good news: There are honest men and women who are tired of BCA and Canary. But, if Gov. Ivey, Steve Pelham, and Bryan Taylor think the truth will stay hidden, they are as blind as those who surrounded Hubbard.

 

The post The Session’s biggest loser appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Greater love: Honoring those who died in uniform

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Memorial Day is the day we as a nation set aside to remember those who died in service of our country.

Not to be confused with Veteran’s Day, a time we celebrate all those who served in our Armed Forces, Memorial Day is when we pay homage to those who paid the ultimate price for our peace and freedom.

The Prussian General and military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”

What is death? No one truly knows. Is it the beginning of a grand and glorious welcome into eternal bliss or just the end of life? What we do know is that life is beautiful, wonderful, precious and amazing. The men and women we honor on Memorial Day relinquished all of life’s magnificence, for us. It is, therefore, our duty as the recipients of so great a gift, to give proper meaning to their sacrifice.

Have you ever gathered with your community on the courthouse lawn to hear the names of the fallen read aloud on Memorial Day? Have you ever watched the children playing on the grounds, vaguely aware of the moment’s meaning, while older veterans meditate upon their service and those who were lost?

It is a profoundly moving experience.

And, as our flag is raised quickly to full staff, then slowly lowered to half-staff, there is, for most of us, a tug on our heartstrings, unlike any other observances.

At noon, our flag is returned to the top of the staff. There, under the Star Spangled Banner, waving at noonday, our sorrow gives way to hope. The promise of one generation to another that liberty and justice for all will not vanish under this flag.

Memorial Day is without a doubt, of greater importance than any observance we undertake as a nation.

Those of us who work in the world of politics understand the words of Pericles when he said, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics, doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you!” The foundation of our political system rests on the will of the people, which means we all share in the making of war and are morally tied to every act of war and peace. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant that our Nation’s ability to make war is strong, but is also judicious and inline with our shared values.

Just a few years ago, there was a disagreement between a State Senator and a State Representative over how to spend tax dollars on a county project: One wanted to build a war memorial; the other a baseball field for the children of the county.

My wife’s father was a POW, and mine was a combat veteran, and yes, we talked about which side they would be on. Since they had both passed on, we had to examine their lives to know how we thought they would choose. It was the ball field hands down. While the war had shaped their lives in unimaginable ways, they dedicated their lives to their children to the prospect that we would have better lives.

We need memorials. We need statues and symbols that remind us of the sacrifice others have made so we can better understand the burden we must carry. Susan’s father was awarded a bronze star for being a prisoner of war. He reluctantly accepted the honor which he felt more rightly belonged to others who had done a lot more than just survive.

I disagree.

Susan’s dad weighed less than 90 pounds when he was liberated from the POW camp. Being a country boy, he knew that dandelions were an excellent source of nutrition (vitamins C and B6, thiamin, riboflavin, calcium, iron, potassium, manganese, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, and copper). He taught his fellow prisoners how to pick them and add them to a watery soup, which was the only meal they were given. He never thought if it saved a life, it was just something he knew that would help those who were enduring the same fate. He was placed before a firing squad several times to make him talk, suffered other horrible tortures, but just like my dad, seldom spoke of the war. Neither of these men felt they were heroes or had done more than what was expected of them. They served because it was what was necessary.

We as a Nation have cheapened the word “hero” to the point that it has no meaning. As a result, questioning the political purposes of a particular war, or the military’s actions has become next to impossible because such critics are deemed unpatriotic.

We as citizens should question every act taken in our name by politicians. We should always stand ready to lend our voice to descent, rather than blindly following like sheep. Questioning those in authority is another way of honoring the memory of those who died for this nation. Shared sacrifice, shared service to our country is happening less than ever, and the virtues of service have given way to self-service and personal gain.

The men and women we honor on Memorial Day deserve to be revered and lionized.

The scriptures in John 15:13 teach that there is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend. Our honored dead proved their love, and we should not only remember, but pass that love along.

The post Greater love: Honoring those who died in uniform appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Why does the Ivey Administration continue to mislead the public and press?

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

In mid-May, the Alabama Political Reporter published an account of how then-Lt. Gov. Kay Ivey’s chief of staff tried to cover up her stay in a 2015 Colorado hospital after suffering stroke-like symptoms. Since the report, the Ivey Administration has given several different accounts of the events that occurred on April 2015. Rather than answering APR‘s questions directly, Governor Ivey and her staff have slowly trotted out contradictory explanations to friendly media.

When a political figure wants to avoid an unpleasant story or side-step the truth, they do the following:

—First, deny.

—Next, change the answer to a question that wasn’t in the report.

—Then, omit a fact or two.

—Finally, they admit to portions of the report, but in a manner that muddies the original story.

On May 17th, APR sent Governor Ivey a list of questions concerning her hospitalization in 2015. Some eight-hours later, the Administration said they would look into it. We have yet to receive an answer.

Our report said Ivey was admitted to a Colorado hospital after suffering “stroke-like” symptoms. Our sources, who had direct knowledge of the events, agreed that the reports received from Colorado at the time of the incident stated Ivey suffered a series of Transient Ischemic Attacks (TIAs), which are often referred to as “mini-strokes.” According to the report’s sources, Ivey’s Chief of Staff Steve Pelham told her Security Officer Thomas Andrew “Drew” Brooks not to repeat what happened in Colorado, and was transferred as a result of informing his superiors. The account also stated that Ivey was in the hospital for four days.

Ivey’s staff and the Governor herself have said she didn’t have a stroke. Never once did APR or its high-placed sources say that Ivey had a stroke.

Why deny a stroke when we never said she had one?

After APR’s story broke Ivey’s spokesperson Eileen Jones told al.com’s Leada Gore, “Did she get checked out at a hospital when at the conference? Yes. Did she have a stroke? No. Was she in the hospital 4 days? No.”

Jones said Ivey was stricken with “altitude sickness,” not a stroke. Jones also said she was not in the hospital for four days. However, later, Ivey herself would confirm she was hospitalized for three days.

Technically, Jones didn’t lie, only misled, when she said Ivey was not in the hospital for four days. Why would Jones, a respected news reporter, answer the question in such a way as to hide the truth by omitting Ivey was in the hospital three days, and not four?

Was Jones lied to, and if so, by whom? Did Jones purposefully omit the fact that it was three days, and not four, and if so, why?

Jones’ answer to Gore, “Was she in the hospital four days?” “No.”

Her answer is correct, but it leaves the reader with the impression that APR‘s story is false. When the State’s Lt. Governor is kept in the hospital for three days, is it less important than if she were hospitalized for four days?

In an interview with al.com’s Mike Cason, Ivey said she didn’t have a stroke, but again, we never said she had one, so why keep bring up the issue?

APR also reported that not only did Pelham work to hide what happened in Colorado, he told Officer Brooks not to report the events of April 2015 to his superiors.
In a separate story, Pelham told al.com that APR‘s report was not true, and that “There was no directive and there was no punishment of Officer Brooks.”

“No directive,” said Pelham. Do people actually issue ‘directives’ when ordering a cover-up? He further asserts that Brooks accompanied Ivey to a subsequent conference in LA as proof that Brooks was not dismissed. APR never claimed Brooks was immediately reassigned.

However, to double down on the cover-up of the cover-up, Ivey’s staff added ALEA into the mix. Robyn Bradley Bryan, a spokeswoman for ALEA, wrote in an email to Cason, “A short time later, when he learned there was a vacancy to run the Driver License District Office in Dothan, Cpl. Brooks requested a transfer. He wanted to be closer to home, and the position in Driver License was more conducive to family life.”

There is more to the Brooks story, and Pelham and the Governor know it, but that will be left for another report.

Ivey’s administration, after our first report, held a high-level conference including “Chief” Legal Counsel Bryan Taylor to discuss how to handle the fallout. It was concluded that Jones would issue a statement to a friendly reporter who wouldn’t ask “too many questions.” When that failed to slow the bleeding speculations, Ivey’s staff called on Cason. When the second story didn’t halt the chatter about Ivey’s health and the handling of the cover-up, Pelham and ALEA weighed-in.

Here’s what we know:

A benign story about Ivey’s health from 2015 caused her administration to lie by omission, then lie directly, even soliciting the State’s top law enforcement agency in its deception.

Is this simply an inept administration’s attempt to tamp-down an unflattering news story, or a corrupt enterprise’s efforts to deceive the public?

Gov. Ivey promised the people her administration would be open, honest and transparent. Why she chose to mislead the people and the press in this situation calls for her promise into question.

What are they hiding?

We will find out in time.

 

The post Why does the Ivey Administration continue to mislead the public and press? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.


Going nuclear: Big money, bigger risk, and political power on the line

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

When a billion dollar out-of-state investment fund pays three times the starting price for a 40-year-old nuclear plant that has never produced one kilowatt of energy, there are reasons to explore events surrounding its purchase.

The June 2016 issue of Popular Mechanics found that “nuclear development in the United States today [is] slow, over-budget, economically untenable.”

However, in November 2016, a group led by Tennessee billionaire real estate developer Franklin Haney placed the winning bid on the unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant just north of Scottsboro. He paid $111 million for a facility whose owners, power-giant Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), never completed and abandoned all ideas of reviving in 2015. At the time of purchase, the Washington, DC-based Nuclear Holdings LLC said it planned to invest $13 billion in the site.

Lawmakers applauded the venture for its potential to create jobs in Northeast Alabama, despite TVA’s assessment that there was an insufficient demand to risk finishing the project. As stated by an industry newsgroup, “If an organization as sophisticated as TVA pronounces the need for a big new plant in the area is superfluous, then many will assume the math has been done, and there would be nothing more to do than to hold a funeral for the project.”

TVA began building the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in the 1970s, but halted all meaningful construction on the site in 1988.

Haney, who has made substantial investments in real estate and Alabama politicians, sees something TVA could not. He said around the time of purchase, “Bellefonte can service all the Southern states.”

According to a report in Nuclear World News, Bellefonte Unit 1 is now thought to be no more than 55 percent complete because, since the late 1980s, TVA has sold or transferred many of the unit’s components.

Rather than investing further capital in Bellefonte, TVA focused on its Tennessee Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, at a completion cost of over $12 billion. Unit 2 is the first civilian reactor to come online in the United States in the 21st Century. The project was required to undergo significant redesign after the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan so as to avoid a similar catastrophe.

TVA and Haney said the purchase of Bellefonte is about economic development: “Our primary goal in selling the site is to provide the best long-term economic return to the surrounding communities and the people of the Tennessee Valley,” says Jim Chardos, TVA Bellefonte plant manager, in a press release. “Each bidder needed to provide an end-use and investment plan to demonstrate that they can do just that: promote economic investment in the area.”

Kyle Whitmire and John Archibald have outlined much of Haney’s investments in Alabama in a series of unflattering articles regarding the nexus of his business interests and political influence. In May 2016, the pair wrote, “On one end of the money pipe is a Tennessee real estate mogul and financier with a national network of political connections and a plan to turn a half-built nuclear power plant in Northeast Alabama into an operational, private, money-making enterprise.

“On the other end of the pipe is a scandal-plagued, former Alabama Governor under investigation by an alphabet soup of Federal and State agencies.”

Whitmire and Archibald track a total about $300,000 from Haney’s business interests to former Gov. Robert Bentley’s campaign account, as well as funds to ACEgov, a dark-money 501(c)4 that was used to supplement the activities of Bentley’s alleged paramour, Rebekah Caldwell Mason.

Whitmire and Archibald describe Haney as a “government’s landlord,” who, through a network of companies, has used, “sophisticated tax-exempt financing, leasebacks and public-private partnerships to build a real estate empire throughout the Southeast, with State and Federal government agencies as his biggest tenants.”

Over his career, Haney has favored Democrats with his political contributions, but as reported by The Daily Caller, “For a politically astute businessman [Haney] looking to get into the nuclear power industry, a series of contributions to influential Legislators could cut some of the inevitable red tape. But, a million-dollar gift to Donald Trump’s Inauguration might help seal the deal.” The right-leaning newsgroup also said, “Haney chipped in for the Inauguration only after embarking on a business venture that would require favorable treatment from Trump administration regulators.”

Haney has made many “generous” donations to other Republican officeholders over the last election cycle, which The Daily Caller claims is an attempt to “cut through the red tape that ‘dogs’ most nuclear power projects.”

While State lawmaker’s praise Haney’s investment in Bellefonte and enjoy his generous donations, few have questioned why a savvy businessperson would venture so much money on an incomplete and aging nuclear facility?

As part of the sale of Bellefonte, TVA is requiring Nuclear Development, LLC to make a $25 million minimum investment in the property during the five-year period following the closing.

Nuclear Development, LLC has up to two years to close on the property. Until then, TVA will maintain the site.

 

The post Going nuclear: Big money, bigger risk, and political power on the line appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Instructional videos an excellent example of leadership

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

It would not be a stretch to say that under the direction of Secretary of State John Merrill, the once sleepy office is now a bustling hub of information, innovation, and efficiency.

Beginning this month, State law will require all office holders, principal campaign committees, and political action committees that file with the Probate Judge’s Office, other than candidates for municipal office, to file campaign disclosure reports electronically with the Secretary of State.

Rather than leaving public officials and campaign committees guessing at how to comply with the new law, Secretary Merrill and his team designed an easy-to-follow instructional video with a step-by-step guide to the required filings.

The video guides are now available on YouTube.

FCPA Filing System Instructional Video

FCPA Filing System – How to Navigate the System

FCPA Filing System – How to File a Report

FCPA Filing System – How to Dissolve a Committee
Filing Guide Book available digitally

Making these videos available to the people of Alabama is just the latest innovation coming from Merrill and his staff. Under his watch as the 53rd Secretary of State, Merrill has revamped the entire website. It is now more user-friendly and compatible with a variety of devices used to access the internet.

His office recently digitized nearly 200 years of Legislative Acts. “This was accomplished through a collaboration between the Office of the Secretary of State and the Alabama Department of Archives and History (State Archives) that has made nearly 200 years of Legislative acts available online,” said Merrill’s office. “Previously, the State Archives digitized all of the Acts of Alabama from 1819 to 1901, and the Secretary of State covered everything from 2000 to the present. This new partnership will fill the existing 100-year gap in the twentieth century. This entire project was completed for less than $23,000.”

Merrill is doing what other Republicans have only promised, and that is to streamline his office making it more efficient while doing more with less. Merrill’s staff has decreased while its offerings to the public have increased.

Merrill’s continuing efforts have also vastly improved business services. The Secretary of State’s website offers online business services, including the ability to complete domestic business registration pre-filings and name reservations (if not previously applied for) in a single transaction. Through the pre-filing service, the Secretary of State’s office can access the company’s stored pre-file data, thereby reducing errors and accelerating the filing process that previously took between five and seven months. This process is now complete within 24 hours of receipt from the probate office, and an expedite fee is no longer necessary.

The Secretary’s office offers a smartphone voting app and other innovations to give the citizens of the State tools to exercise their constitutional rights, as well as keep an eye on public officeholders.

The Secretary of State’s instructional video offering is a shining example of how good leadership is the key ingredient to better government. Merrill’s commitment to service through innovative, coherent, and dynamic management is evident by what he has produced.

 

The post Instructional videos an excellent example of leadership appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Government by default

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Currently, our State’s Governor, Chief Justice, and Attorney General were not elected to the positions they now hold.

These individuals obtained their current high status because of either scandal or corruption. Their ascendency by default is not meant to disparage these people in any way, but to highlight this unprecedented situation (As is the State’s junior U.S. Senator and an associate supreme court justice).

Kay Ivey was elected to step in should the Governor fall, but what do we know about her agenda?

Other than reelection to their appointed offices, does anyone know what’s on the mind of Chief Justice Lyn Stuart or Attorney General Steve Marshall?

Stop for a moment and think about the absurdity of it all.

Ivey became Governor because Robert Bentley lacked the moral compass to maintain the office.

Stuart was appointed Acting Chief Justice by Bentley after a coup removed the duly elected Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Marshall was made Attorney General by the same wayward Governor after Luther Strange entered into what many perceive as a corrupt bargain with the man who will be forever known as the “Luv Guv.”

This entire surreal scenario reads like a bad work of fiction, minus the dead body.

Gov. Ivey, who appointed Stuart Chief Justice, said, “To ensure a continuity of leadership and a smooth transition that keeps the ship of State steady, I have appointed Justice Lyn Stuart as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.”

If the Special Supreme Court nominated by Stuart and Bentley had not denied The Alabama Political Reporter’s request to unseal the documents in the case of Justice Moore, we might have a better idea of Stuart’s role in his removal, and what type of continuity of leadership she brings to the State.

And Justice Stuart, what does she stand for other than herself?

Many questions remain concerning Stuart’s role in the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore. But, what is clear is, as Acting Chief Justice in October 2016, she called for a statewide pay freeze on Judicial Merit employees while giving her staff substantial pay increases (Stuart verbally issued the pay freeze in October, but waited until December to send a memo).

She, like many others on the State’s highest court, has effectually used pretzel logic to decide cases which would impact big business positively or gaming negatively. Stuart is a creature of the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) and more beholden to BCA chieftain Billy Canary and the machine he operates, along with former Gov. Bob Riley, than to the rule of law.

Stuart’s failure to recuse herself from certain aspects of the Moore case should disqualify her from serving as Chief Justice, but because the Judges she and Bentley handpicked have the Moore files under seal, there in no way to prove her culpability in Moore’s removal.

However, Justice Tom Parker is slated to run against her in the next election for Chief Justice and may rid the State of another BCA tool.

As for Marshall, considered a good district attorney, he has abandoned the single-best accomplishment of his predecessor, which was fighting public corruption. Luther Strange, as Attorney General, had the political wisdom and courage to stand behind his Special Prosecution Division, giving them the resources to pursue public corruption at the highest levels of State government. Strange also championed an ethics reform package that would have clarified and strengthened the State’s Ethics Code. However, Marshall let the Legislation die on his desk for political consideration, on the advice of Kathrine Robertson, his Chief Legal Counsel.

Marshall told Yellowhammer News that his priorities as Attorney General were: the heroin/opioid addiction problem, Human trafficking, Technology Crimes, Public Corruption, and advancing best practices cases.

While opioid/substance abuse and human trafficking are serious issues, they are also popular non-confrontational ones. In light of the felony conviction of former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and the fallout that has frightened big-business donors, it’s understandable that Marshall might temper his tone on the fight to rid our State of corrupting influences.

There are no awards for jailing prominent lawmakers or the monied class, but there are many for “fighting” drugs and prostitution. Of course in Montgomery, the most addictive opioid is power, and the best hooker is a lawmaker you can buy cheap, who stays bought.

There is a District Attorney in St. Clair County named Richard Minor. There is a sign hanging in his office that reads, “If you are not willing to take the case that will end your career, then you shouldn’t be a DA.” This adage is doubly true for an Attorney General.

Marshall will be challenged in the race for Attorney General by Alice Martin, one of the nations top US Attorneys whose office successfully prosecuted a record number of white collar criminal cases during her tenure. Martin also served as Chief Deputy under Strange, doggedly restoring integrity to an office is disarray.

As for Gov. Ivey, she is what she is. She’s made some good calls and some bad ones The bad one made out of ignorance or hubris, which at times can appear to be the same thing.

We should all wish that these individuals succeed even if they gained power haplessly by default.

Like the trees at Toomer’s Corner, each branch of our State government was poisoned by those who came before. Perhaps in 2018, there will be a new planting of trees, from which the fruits of justice, honesty, and prosperity can flower.

 

The post Government by default appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Martin brings experience of fighting for justice to Attorney General’s race

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

If Alabama is looking for an Attorney General who is tough on crime, smart as a whip, and fair, then the search is over. Former US Attorney Alice Martin, who announced this week, her intention to seek the office, is one to watch.

Recently, The Alabama Political Reporter spoke with Martin and asked about her history, ethics, and priorities if she becomes Attorney General.

“I want to fight corruption, and I think Alabamians are really disillusioned and disgusted by corruption at all levels, their local town hall, their local mayor’s office, all the way to Legislative and Executive Branches of our State government,” said Martin. “So, I want to fight corruption, that is my number one objective.”

Former deputies at the State’s Attorney General’s office often refer to Martin as “The Iron Lady,” not simply because she stands up to the power-elite, but because she stays focused on the mission, and will join her team in the trenches.

Martin has an unmatched resume of doggedly pursuing public corruption, white-collar crime, and defending the State in Civil Litigation.

From former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford to the two-college scandal, Martin has fought public corruption as a US Attorney. And just ask former Speaker Mike Hubbard, or former Governor Robert Bentley, how, as Chief Deputy, Martin held the “powerful” to the same standards as a drug dealer or a thug.

While public corruption is not her only focus, it is a top priority should she become the State’s first female Attorney General. “This is more than holding the political elite accountable, it is about restoring public trust,” said Martin.

According to the FBI, public corruption is its “top criminal investigative priority; it poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life.” It affects everything, including economic development, according to the Bureau, and Martin knows it first hand.

Martin has met with economic development leaders who say recruiting new business to the State is difficult because the number one thing people are talking about is the public corruption.

“Public corruption does more than just line one man’s pocket, it takes the money out of somebody else’s pocket, out of a program where it could have benefited people, and it causes economic developers to have to work doubly and triply hard to attract businesses to the State,” Martin said. She also knows that fighting corruption is not a one-time job, but a continuing effort. “Public corruption has a serious impact. So, I think of it as ‘cleaning house.’ You have got to keep cleaning it, you can’t just do it once, and you’re done.”

Martin was involved in the investigation into then Gov. Bentley but was asked to leave her post by Bentley’s appointee, Steve Marshall, who recused himself from the case appointing a former Montgomery County District Attorney to handle the investigation. Martin says she was disappointed with the outcome of the Bentley case. “I thought it was a slap on the wrist and disappointing, and that does not restore trust,” Martin said. “When people in high places get treated differently, everyday citizens are disgusted and have every right to be. Powerful people in powerful positions should be held to a higher standard of accountability, not less.”

Martin said, “I can imagine a number of people who I prosecuted would have loved to have felony offenses reduced down to misdemeanor and me say, ‘And why don’t you just resign from office and we will call it a day.’ I suspect Mayor Langford would have liked that. Maybe Roy Johnson would have liked that too.”

Martin says she has the highest regard for the hard work of the State’s DA’s office and counts them as the frontline warriors to keep the public safe. “The DAs are the top Law Enforcement officials of their county. That doesn’t change no matter who the AG is,” said Martin. “DAs don’t report to or answer to the AG. They are going to react to things in their county with their law enforcement like dealing with opioid problems, and the like.” But she says typically, public corruption in the purview of the Attorney General’s Office. “So that is why it is my number one priority. It doesn’t mean you don’t do the other things to support Law Enforcement, but my number one will be corruption.”

She says if elected, the Attorney General’s office rooting out public corruption, white-collar crime, and other criminal activities will not be her only priority, as the office serves as the ‘chief civil litigation firm’ for the State. There is a lot of civil litigation that is done in defending the State when it gets sued and also in defending other entities,” said Martin. She also stated it is vital that the State has an Attorney General who will fight when Federal courts attack issues of States’ rights. Our State is constantly challenged in Federal court. So, the Constitutional Defense section and the Solicitor General’s section of the AG’s office is very important.”

In her introductory commercial Martin cites:

25 years prosecuting public corruption, white-collar, and violent crime.

Serving as a Federal prosecutor for President Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

After 9/11 as US Attorney for President George W. Bush.

Martin has prosecuted over 4,600 Federal firearms, narcotic, child pornography and violent crimes.

Resolved over 8,200 civil cases.

Recovered $750 million in Healthcare fraud.

Formed the North Alabama Public Corruption Task Force.

Obtained 140 federal corruption convictions.

 

The post Martin brings experience of fighting for justice to Attorney General’s race appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

A further look at revelations in final report on scheme to smear Pouncey

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

A recently exposed internal investigation by the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE), alleges five individuals devised a “scheme” in July of 2016, to deny Dr. Craig Pouncey a fair chance of being selected as the State Superintendent of the Department of Education.

The internal investigation also found that an unnamed individual or individuals participated in the plot to discredit Pouncey. At this time it is unclear who, other than the five people named in the report, may have colluded in the actions taken to derail Pouncey’s election. A statement by attorney Dennis Bailey at Wednesday’s Board meeting may reveal some tantalizing clues.

According to the final report accepted by the State Board of Education last week in a 6 to 1 vote, a plan was hatched and executed by Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) board member, Mary Scott Hunter, then-Interim Superintendent Philip Cleveland, and ALSDE attorneys Juliana Teixeira Dean, James R Ward III, and Susan Tudor Crowther.

The report states: “Most regrettably, these five participants have caused grave and serious harm, and casts a major shadow on the veracity and credibility of the State Department of Education and the State Board of Education (through no fault of the majority) that still lingers to the present day.”

Who are the others that may have participated in the alleged scheme?

Bailey, a partner at Rushton Stakely, is representing Dean, Crowther and Ward, three of the five people named in the report.  Bailey is being paid to represent the trio from a taxpayer-supported insurance fund.

On Friday, Bailey said Dean, Crowther, and Ward were following the advice of counsel in their handling of the anonymous complaint against Pouncey. Is Bailey laying the groundwork for an “advice of counsel” defense for the three attorneys? Are Dean, Crowther, and Ward going to accuse other attorneys for their actions against Pouncey?

Who is the legal counsel Bailey is referencing?

The final report submitted by ALSDE attorney Michael Meyer contains emails between Balch Bingham lawyers and those, which Meyer says, were participants in the scheme. Emails show Balch Bingham attorneys Dorman Walker and David Boyd, who serve as outside counsel for the Department, were in contact in some way with the five individuals accused of executing the plan to tarnish Pouncey. Also, the evidence present by Meyer found that only board member, Hunter, was aware of these discussions.

Why are Balch Bingham lawyers giving advice on a matter that the report finds outside of official department duties?

If this was as the report states a “scheme” by Hunter and four others, why are Walker and Boyd giving advice in a smear campaign? The report shows Hunter was the only Board member aware of this information.

According to the report, “In a memorandum dated July 22, 2016, Associate General Counsel, James Ward, wrote a memo to General Counsel Dean and Associate Attorney, Susan Crowther, in conjunction with submission to [Balch Bingham attorney] Mr. Dorman Walker, departmental outside legal counsel, outlining four ways that the legal staff could pursue an investigation of Dr. Pouncey.”

According to the report, “relevant e-mails and documents beginning on July 22, 2016, thumb drive submission,” were given to Cleveland and Dean that would have cleared Pouncey’s name.

However, the investigation found that despite having information exonerating Pouncey, neither “General Counsel
Dean nor Dr. Cleveland displayed the professionalism, initiative, or fairness to acknowledge it to Dr. Pouncey, Senator Dial’s Joint Investigative Committee, or the State Board members (except Mary Scott Hunter).”

Why if Hunter, Dean, and Cleveland “beginning on July 22, 2016” had the evidence proving Pouncey’s innocence did Dean seek advice from outside counsel Walker on how to proceed with the investigation? Why did Hunter, Dean and Cleveland leave Pouncey’s reputation in doubt when the report says they had the information to clear him in their possession?

Also why did Dean feel a need to write Walker about reviewing Ward’s four steps to investigate the Pouncy allegation when according to the report she had all the relevant emails and the thumb drive information? On July 22, 2016, she writes, “Dorman [Walker], Good morning. We would appreciate your review so that the three of us can discuss at a later time.”

On August 11, 2016, in a 5 to 4 vote, Sentance was elected Superintendent.

On August 30, 2016, Balch Bingham attorney David Boyd (with Walker copied) suggested Dean and Cleveland follow up with the Ethics Commission given the information that came to light when Hunter “demanded that Mr. Pope conduct a computer search, as the departmental Chief Information Security Officer, for all e-mails and documents regarding the anonymous allegations.”

Boyd wrote, “I understand that the Department’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) [Pope] has personally advised you as well as Dr. Cleveland that he has identified certain archived emails or other documents that may shed light on the veracity or not of the allegations against Dr. Pouncey.” He further advised, “Finally, let me add a point in case there might be any misunderstanding of the significance, or lack thereof, of the fact that the Pouncey-related emails that surfaced recently were from an anonymous source. Whether receipt of documents or information from an anonymous source could trigger a reporting obligation under ’36-25- l 7′ is irrelevant here. The CISO [Pope] has confirmed the existence in the Department’s records of certain documents that may be relevant to a potential violation of the law. It is that information, not the earlier anonymous distribution, that prompts the need for further investigation, evaluation, and potential reporting under ’36-25-17.'”

Pope later testified that neither Dean or Cleveland acted on the information he gave them. Those emails, the final report concluded, would have cleared Pouncey of any wrong-doing.

Why, after Sentance was elected Superintendent, did no one reveal the documents that would have cleared Pouncey? Why did Hunter and the others remain silent?

Even now, the cloud of conspiracy hangs overhead as Sentance tried to hide the final report that would clear Pouncey, while casting Hunter, Cleveland, and the three attorneys as the prime movers in the scheme to ruin Pouncey?

Why are Sentance, Hunter, and Dean even now trying to discredit the report by bringing in retired Judge Bernard Harwood to punch holes in its conclusions?

Who are the others? We don’t know. But, the probe into this smear campaign is far from over, no matter how hard the schemers work to cover their tracks.

 

The post A further look at revelations in final report on scheme to smear Pouncey appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

No one is safe: Lawyer who uncovered Pouncey smear is now a target of similar campaign

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a scheme to derail the candidacy of Dr. Craig Pouncey for the job of State Superintendent, now threatens to crush the man tasked with investigating the smear campaign.

Apparently, corruption is written into the DNA of the Department of Education. Every year, hundreds of millions of federal and state tax dollars pour into Alabama’s education system, but the State remains near or at the bottom of the heap by every legitimate metric.

Investment versus outcome in the State’s education system should alert even the dull-witted, that available dollars are being squandered, misappropriated, or stolen in devious ways that involve legal and illegal corruption.

If in fact, the love of money is the root of all evil, then believing there is evil intent to gain control of the billion dollar school funds is not hard to understand.

Almost immediately after State Superintendent Michael Sentance tasked staff attorney Michael Meyer with conducting an internal investigation into events surrounding an anonymous ethics complaint against Pouncey, he discovered that he and his wife were also targets of a proposed ethics complaint.

Meyer’s report presented to Sentance on June 7, 2017, found that the plan to discredit Pouncey was devised and executed by ALSDE board member, Mary Scott Hunter, then-Interim Superintendent Philip Cleveland, and ALSDE attorneys Juliana Dean, James R. Ward, III, and Susan Tudor Crowther.

Just days after accepting Meyer’s report, which found evidence of wrongdoing, Sentance backed away from its findings, calling it a draft, even though it was, in fact, the final report. It was accepted as such by the State Board of Education on a 6 to 1 vote, with Hunter as the only no vote.

But even the Board’s approval to send the report on to the Attorney General and Ethics Commission isn’t slowing the effort to discredit the report. If anything, the plan has accelerated the urgency to paint Meyer as a disgruntled employee out for revenge.

The story line that Meyer is a man hell-bent on retaliation leads back to a memo composed by Chief Counsel Juliana Dean in January 2017, claiming that Meyer and his wife Tracey, also an employee at the Department of Education, were in violation of provisions of the Ethics Code.

But, what were the crimes Dean was accusing the Meyers of doing?

According to Dean’s memo in June 2013, Meyer’s wife Tracey used her ALSDE email to “solicit a position” for her husband. She also claimed Michael Meyer had used his work email account to set up interviews with CNN and Good Morning America about a Christmas video that showed their then-11-year-old son receiving tickets to the National Championship without filing for leave time. She further claimed Michael Meyer used State time and resources to complete course work related to earning the rank of Lt. Colonel in the military. She admitted that in this instance he had sought leave time, but she didn’t believe the leave covered the time he must have spent on the course work. Dean concludes her memo stating, “I believe these acts are in violation of Alabama Code 36-25-5.”

So, in January, as Meyer embarked on his investigation, was Dean trying to smear him to stop the investigation, or as a reason to claim the final report was biased because of her ethics memo?

To think that Dean and Hunter were clever enough to pull off such a coup by themselves is to stretch reason beyond the breaking point; confirmed by how easy it was to catch them in the act as APR did in June 2016.

Many questions remain:

Why did Ethics Director Tom Albritton expedite a letter acknowledging the anonymous complaint against Pouncey?

Why did Hunter, Dean, and others not inform the Board that they were sending the complaint?

Did any of the five cited as conspirators in Meyer’s report know the anonymous complaint against Pouncey was false before it was sent to Ethics?

Did anyone receive a thing of value to distribute this false allegation?

Who composed the complaint with cut and paste emails?

How were the emails obtained, through a former lawsuit or perhaps a secretary?

Were any documents destroyed?

Why did Meyer not demand copies of the text message between the five and others?

Why did Dean and others receive advice from attorneys at Balch Bingham?

It is unclear how the Attorney General’s Office or the Ethics Commission will proceed. But the latest plot to crush Meyer should have a chilling effect on every State employee, because if a false Ethics report can smear Pouncey and Meyer, no one is safe.

 

The post No one is safe: Lawyer who uncovered Pouncey smear is now a target of similar campaign appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

APR stands by Rogers report

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

An article published by The Alabama Political Reporter (APR) has drawn fire from campaign operatives for freshman Senator Luther Strange and his attorney at his old law firm, Bradley Arrant.

An email containing a letter from Bradley partner Joseph B. Mays, Jr., was received by APR on June 30, in which he demands, “…removal and retraction of false and libelous statements in an article on your website titled, ‘Source: State Rep. Offered Superfund Bribe with Strange Present.'”

SEE LETTER HERE

The story revolves around a Federal probe that ensnared former State Rep. Oliver Robinson, who earlier this month reached a plea agreement to Federal charges of fraud, bribery, corruption, and tax evasion. The agreement is related to Robinson allegedly accepting bribes from a powerful Birmingham law firm, Balch Bingham. According to the release, Robinson was paid to advocate against the expansion of a massive EPA Superfund site in Birmingham. Balch Bingham’s client, Drummond Coal, and its affiliate ABC Coke would have potentially had to pay millions for the cleanup. A Balch attorney and a Drummond executive are both listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the release from the US Attorney’s Office in Birmingham.

Last year, shortly after Robinson resigned from the Alabama House of Representatives, claiming a conflict of interest (because his daughter was working for then-Governor Robert Bentley), State Rep. John Rogers began telling how the same people had approached him as Robinson, but that he turned them down.

During the beginning days of the 2017 Legislative Session, Rogers approached APR with this story. But as there was no context from which to draw a conclusion or make a printable narrative, Rogers allegations stayed mostly within the halls of the State House.

However, in June, Rogers told US Senate candidate Dr. Randy Brinson, who is running against Strange, that he told Federal investigators that Drummond Coal executives offered him a similar deal to Robinson’s. According to Brinson and others present, Rogers agreed to go public with his story at a press conference with Brinson.

After confirming the facts with Rogers and his close associates, APR’s Josh Moon published Rogers’ claims that Strange was present when Rogers received what he believed to be a bribe offer from those acting on Drummond’s behalf.

An email to Strange’s Senate and campaign spokesperson, Shana Teehan, by APR the evening before the Moon story, was to be published. Teehan, the former Shanna Kluck, was communications director for the Alabama Republican Party under Bill Armistead and has had APR’s email and cell phone contact for years. APR has received countless emails from Teehan as Strange’s Senate Communications Director and as campaign staff.

A quick check of my APR email shows 14 emails from Teehan from June 1 until June 28 with well over two dozen pages of emails from her.

In a statement, Strange’s operatives said, “As Alabama’s Attorney General, Sen. Strange led the National fight against the over-reaching Obama EPA in order to protect jobs in Alabama and across the country. The allegations in Josh Moon’s article are simply not true and smack of the same fake news that President Trump and Jeff Sessions are dealing with. As shown by the recent Veritas videos exposing CNN, too many in the media are unaccountable and have dropped all pretense of having standards, abusing and using the First Amendment as a cover for lying about their political enemies and boosting their ratings.”

Strange’s office didn’t send the statement to APR even though they regularly carpet bomb its email with press reports. A quick check of bbritt@alreporter.com finds 14 emails from Teehan from June 1 until June 28. Both she and Strange have my cell number, and I have theirs, but no calls were made to refute the story.

The day following our report on Rogers’ allegation, he began to backtrack by saying Strange had not been present at the meeting in which be believed he was offered a bribe.

On June 30, just 24 hours after APR’s first report, Moon revealed that Rogers had confirmed the original report but Rogers had asked that his confirmation statements not be made public until he could “tell all” on a local Birmingham radio show that Friday.

Strange’s high-powered Bradley Arrant lawyer wrote APR saying, “the fact that it was published without confirmation from the key source – Rep. Rogers – suggests on its face that your actions were malicious. These facts indicate that you intentionally published these false and defamatory statements or, at the least, that you published them with a reckless disregard for their falsity.”

The original report was confirmed with Rogers, before publication, it was checked with several individuals who Rogers had told the same story that he told APR during the 2017 Session.

Of course, none of this has stopped Strange from claiming “fake news” on Yellowhammer Radio.

This is the same Luther Strange who as Attorney General claimed he never “said” there was an investigation into Gov. Robert Bentley just before Bentley appointed him Senator. There was an investigation and he knew it. The same man who recused himself from the Speaker Mike Hubbard investigation because he took money from Hubbard’s Political Action Committee and then within 24 spent the same amount with one of Hubbard’s business interests. Hubbard, the former Speaker of the House, who was convicted of 12 counts of public corruption. However, as Attorney General, Strange allowed his Chief Deputy Kevin Turner to collude with others on his staff to derail Hubbard’s prosecution. Turner now serves as Strange’s chief of staff.

It is not yet clear if Rogers lied to APR and to others, or if he is lying now. Rogers claimed Strange was present when he was offered what he considered a bribe. Then he changed his story to Strange not being present. By the end of last week, Rogers was denying everything, telling WSFA News, “No, he was not there and there was no bribe. I haven’t talked to Drummond Coal either. That is not true. That is not true.”

 

The post APR stands by Rogers report appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.


What kind of change will come?

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

When the Alabama Republican Party swept into power during the November 2010 elections, they promised us change. In his book, Storming the State House, Mike Hubbard wrote of that November evening, “It would fundamentally change the direction of Alabama, and of my own life, forever.”

Republicans have controlled Alabama’s State government for nearly seven years, and the only justification they offer for their shortcomings is, “It would have been worse under the Democrats.”

The real problem, however, is instead of a sound policy rooted in principle, Hubbard’s brand of Republicanism, like many others of his ilk, lacks real ideology, and is therefore bound to only interests that further their success. This political bent is a type of opportunism, that can be wrapped with any label, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Anarchist, or any “ism” because it is malleable, able to mold neatly around any political interest of the moment. If politics is at its most basic “who gets what” and if the process is one of “what is possible” within a given political context, then how do we as a State proceed?

Our State’s problems are many but solvable. What is absent is a willingness to change the culture that not only created the problems but sustains them.

How can anything be made better when those in power can’t say no to special interests?

How can ideas of reform or progress take hold when lobbyists coopt the agents of change? This is the pox that rests on the House of both Democrats and Republicans.

Hubbard, who set the agenda for the 2010 takeover, along with former Gov. Bob Riley, BCA Chieftain Billy Canary, and a handful of others, did fundamentally change the State; but not for the better. Their plan did not alter how business in Montgomery is conducted; they just realigned the power base.

The first of their big ticket items began during Riley’s last term in office when he and Hubbard set about destroying the Democrats funding efforts but targeting gaming interests and the Alabama Education Association. Secondly, they, along with Canary’s input, passed so-called Ethics reforms with loopholes for the Business Council of Alabama and Riley’s business interests.

Ethics reform was a magic trick that was to go undetected. However, Hubbard’s embrace and expansion of the culture of corruption exposed it as a lie.

Of course, that did completely change Hubbard’s life forever, because he was convicted of 12 felony counts of public corruption. So, his words on the night of the Republican’s 2010 victory were prophetic; just not what Hubbard had in mind when he uttered them.

Hubbard, sentenced to prison over a year ago yet still remains free on bail, and many of his cronies are still in power. But Hubbard, like his mentor former Gov. Bob Riley, never intended to change the workings of Montgomery, except in how it paid them and their cronies.

Again, in Storming the State House, Hubbard shows the hollowness of his and Riley’s promises. Recalling a rally where Riley was to lay out his plan if elected Governor, he writes, “Riley, wearing a tie and a blue dress shirt that quickly became dark with sweat, laid out his campaign platform. His reform-minded agenda included changing the State budget process to lessen the possibility of mid-year proration, road-building based on priorities rather than politics, focusing on economic development, and building a world-class education system.”

We are well over a decade removed from Riley’s “reform-minded agenda,” and all that is noticeable is how he has prospered by co-opting road builders, education policy, and economic development to enrich himself as a lobbyist. Sadly, this is the current legacy of the Republican movement in Alabama, but it doesn’t have to stay this way. Even so, to fundamentally change State government in a positive way that benefits the governed and not the governing class, there must be a movement to change the culture guided by principles, not proverbs.

When a political movement forfeits ideas for catchphrases, sound policy is hard to achieve, because there is no real foundation from which to govern.

On a State level, the Alabama Democratic Party is controlled by a leadership team that has passed its sell-by date long ago, and on the other side, the way forward coming from the ALGOP is by-in-large as stale as week-old bread.

Both parties are out of real ideas on how to address the most pressing issues facing our State.

Months before Governor Bentley resigned in disgrace, a close associate of then-Lieutenant Gov. Kay Ivey phoned me, and, in essence asked, “Wouldn’t it be exciting to be a part of a government where for two years, the focus would be ‘righting the ship of state’ without thought of the next election; to make real and enduring change based on principle?”

Gov. Ivey promised to do just that, but so far, other than calling a Special Election for US Senate, there is little evidence that principled change is at hand. Missteps coupled with an insular and secretive management style has led to suspicion and perceived weakness or worse, further corruption.

The Ivey Administration’s reliance on Riley/Hubbard retreads for leadership positions casts a dark cloud over the whole enterprise. Some in the administration have complained that past association with the Riley/Hubbard gang should not disqualify a candidate for public office, which is true. But when an administration’s first hires and appointments are those who have participated in schemes to empower and enrich Riley/Hubbard/Canary and their families, it is difficult to believe it has picked the best or the brightest.

While the next election cycle is already upon us, there are still hours to work toward significant progress, should the Administration embrace the idea of principled change as expressed in the call I received last year.

For the better part of the last seven years, Hubbard, along with the BCA chieftain Canary, and choice lobbyists including Riley Inc., ran the State House for their profit. Canary, the chosen lobbyist, and Riley Inc. are still on the prowl and continue to manipulate State government. Add to that the bullies who control big, short-sighted associations and there remains a threat to good government based on sound policy.

Last Session’s failure to pass a reasonable infrastructure tax and ignoring the much-needed clarification and strengthening of the Ethics laws is a further example of how the system is fractured at its core. Add to that, the Ivey Administration’s tabling of the final report by the Gaming Taskforce, and the Legislature’s refusal to address the State’s prison problems all point to a lack of political courage. Granted the players may be new in their positions, but they are not new to the game, and the major problems we face are decades old.

There is new leadership in the Governor’s office and in the House of Representatives, where there is an opportunity to reshape our State government; but is there a willingness?

Change will come. It always does. But what kind of change will it be?

 

The post What kind of change will come? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Do words have meaning? A closer look at Subsection (g)

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Subsection (g) of Section 36-25-13 of the Code of Alabama 1975, is often overlooked because, on its face, this portion of the Alabama Ethics Code seems pretty straightforward (if you are not a lawyer looking to help your client find an exception to the two-year revolving door provision of the code).

Former Acting Finance Director, Bill Newton, intends to open a consulting business. So, he asked the Alabama Ethics Commission to grant him permission to use his years of government service as leverage, to provide professional services/advice, request information from public officials/employees, to aid his potential clients, under what they hope may be an exception to the two-year ban on such activities.

Setting aside personalities or who is seeking clarification or an exception under this section of code, let’s acknowledge that words have meaning. Sentences are constructed to further shed light on the words and in this light are considered to say what they mean and mean what they say. Lawyers make millions arguing what the meaning of “is” is, but editors and reporters read to find what the plain language means.

Subsection (g) of Section 36-25-13 of the Code is part of the greater language on prohibitions that block public officials or public employees from representing clients, including his or her employer before a board, agency, commission, department, or legislative body, from two years after departure from government service.

In its tone, Subsection (g), formerly Subsection (f), seems to apply to adversarial proceedings that are of a judicial nature, to which the State is a party.; but the strict language of the section points to a broader prohibition.

Subsection (g) reads in part, “No former public official or public employee of the State may, within two years after termination of office or employment, act as attorney for any person other than himself or herself or the State, or aid, counsel, advise, consult or assist in representing any other person, in connection with any judicial proceeding or other matter.…”

In this sentence, the word judicial is being used as an adjective to modify the word proceeding. If the code stops there or isn’t followed by, or other matter, then it would be talking about one thing.

Even if it read, “judicial proceeding ‘AND’ other matter” it would only be referring to judicial proceedings; but it doesn’t.

The code reads, “judicial proceeding or other matter.” The word other in this sentence is an adjective which modifies matter. Therefore, a strict reading concludes that it is referring to groups other than lawyers. This may not be the intent of the draft, but that’s what it says. And to some, it may look like it applies to only lawyers in a judicial proceeding, but that’s not the way it was written.

So in context, Subsection (g) means, no former public official or public employee of the State may, within two years after termination of office or employment aid, counsel, advise, consult or assist clients before the State period.

Now, a high-paid attorney is going to argue, among other things, that I don’t have a law degree. They will also argue intent, which they will, over the next few months, to find yet another loophole to allow an insider to use their years in government to make lots of money.

Republicans who claim to stand by a strict interpretation of the law will now be faced with allowing an exception or enact legislation clarifying Subsection (g) of Section 36-25-13.

The post Do words have meaning? A closer look at Subsection (g) appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

A curious case of Canarys

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

It has become common to hear lawmakers say “BCA is the new AEA.” This statement refers to the fact that, under the leadership of convicted felon, former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard, the Business Council of Alabama has risen to control the State’s Legislative agenda, much like the Alabama Education Association did in years past.

So egregious is BCA’s CEO Billy Canary’s latest behavior that he is receiving widespread criticism not only in Montgomery but in Washington DC, as well. High-level operatives and agents say Canary is no longer welcome in some Senate and Congressional offices. Lawmaker’s in the Nation’s Capital, as well as Montgomery, are set on isolating him until the BCA Board sees the light.

Even with Hubbard awaiting prison for 12 felony counts of public corruption, Canary still struts the halls of the State House like a little Napoleon. From Common Core to Second Amendment rights, Canary manipulates lawmakers by threat or promise to kill or enact Legislation he favors. But, Canary’s actions are now under the microscope as law enforcement agencies scrutinizing his actions. Also, efforts by his wife, Leura, who serves as General Legal Council to the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA), have garnered attention from law enforcement. Officials are keen to understand the circumstances that resulted in over $120 million dollars in retirees’ money being loaned to a company that once employed Hubbard as a lobbyist.

During the last Legislative Session, Canary met resistance from lawmakers who have grown tired of his bullying leaving BCA with little success on its Legislative agenda. Canary further infuriated friend and foe with his “bare knuckle fight” against providing insurance to families with Autistic children. So petty was Canary’s response to defeat on the Autism bill, that he uninvited its sponsor to BCA’s lavish soiree in Point Clear.

The Canarys have grown wealthy off of retirees and business interests. On top of the hundreds of thousands BCA pays Billy, his wife Leura makes over $225,000 at RSA, placing her in the upper echelon of management pay.

But for all of their accumulated power and wealth, the couple remains politically unpopular among many in government, as well as rank and file Republicans.

Hubbard’s trial revealed that BCA’s Canary was a member of Hubbard’s so-called “kitchen cabinet,” an exclusive club of lobbyists who decided which bills should pass and which should fail. Canary has lost that power, but continues to caress and cajole House and Senate leadership.

In March, State Senator J. T. “Jabo” Waggoner (R-Vestavia Hills) testified before a Federal Grand Jury in Birmingham concerning the 35th Avenue Superfund site. The inquiry focused primarily on a joint resolution condemning EPA actions in Jefferson County according to those with knowledge of events surrounding his testimony. Perhaps, not strikingly, the conversations among investigators have turned to BCA’s possible involvement and Canary’s role in the matter.

In an Op-Ed written in June 2015, Canary once again may have linked the reputation of BCA to the growing public corruption scandal as he did in the Hubbard trial. In his opinion piece, Canary attacked the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts in Jefferson County. Former State lawmaker Rep. Oliver Robinson accepted a plea bargain to Federal charges of fraud, bribery, corruption, and tax evasion. Robinson allegedly took over $300,000 in bribes from the Balch Bingham law firm to persuade Birmingham residents to resist the EPA’s inspection of their property.

In racist tinged code-speak, Canary accused the EPA’s project to remove tons of toxic soil from a predominately African-American community as, “a social engineering experiment.”

Canary also praises efforts to halt any clean-ups saying, “With the combined efforts of the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature, and the State’s Congressional delegation, Alabama can be successful in beating back the attempted usurpation of authority and force the EPA to operate within the established rules and guidelines that govern it.”

At the time of Canary’s comments, Robert Bentley was Governor, Luther Strange was Attorney General and Mike Hubbard was Speaker of the House. Bentley and Hubbard have left office in disgrace and Strange’s perceived corrupt bargain to become US Senator has tainted his career.

Canary cites the “combined efforts” of these men along with the legislature and Congressional delegation as a joint force to stop initiatives to ensure that citizens are not poisoned by the businesses that pay his salary or fill their campaign coffers.

Canary’s statement in his opinion piece published in various news outlets across the State speaks to “coordination,” which is a subject of interest to both Federal and State Grand Juries currently impaneled in the Magic City.

As for the Leura Canary, an investment by RSA into SiO2 has been questioned by pubic corruption investigators.

SiO2 is owned by Robert Abrams. Hubbard was convicted on several charges related to his association with Abrams. It was not publicly known before Hubbard’s indictments that he was working as a consultant for Robert Abrams d/b/a CV Holdings, LLC. It was known that Abrams had contributed liberally to Hubbard’s and former Gov. Bob Riley’s 2014PAC and that he also had business before the State, as well as RSA.

Around 2010, Abrams began to seek investments in SiO2, which develops and manufactures “silicon-oxide coated containers” utilizing “plasma glass coating technology” for medical products.

CV Holdings, LLC., needed $90 million to build the SiO2 research and manufacturing facility in Auburn. In 2012, they received $78 million in a loan from RSA to realize that plan.

In March 2012, Bentley, Hubbard, Commerce Secretary Greg Canfield, RSA Chief Dr. Bronner and others announced the development of the SiO2 facility and a reported 300 jobs that would be created as a result of the project.

According to RSA records, the SiO2 loan was secured by “37 patents and other intellectual property, covering the company’s developments, a pledge of stock, and all other assets of the company at an interest rate of 8 percent.” The loan according to the last meeting of the RSA board meeting has ballooned to over $120 million. Abrams spoke to the board at its most recent gathering. When asked if SiO2 was profitable he answered, “No.”

It is believed by those inside RSA and state government that hiring Leura Canary was the price Bronner needed to pay to keep Hubbard from ousting him at RSA. Over the years, Br

onner has fended off many attacks, but Hubbard and his cronies were committed to his overthrow until Canary was hired as General Council. Was SiO2 part of the bargain as well?

Hubbard was convicted over his dealings with Abram’s companies, and the Grand Jury in Lee County is still active.

What is now coming into focus is that Canary’s leadership style at BCA is becoming a noose around BCA’s neck.

It is presently unclear how much longer the Canarys can hold on to power, but many are now reciting an old Southern expression, “They’ve worn out their welcome.”

The post A curious case of Canarys appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Government affairs or an orgy of greed and corruption?

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

How much food and booze does it take to wash away embarrassment and shame? Is money the seductive elixir that so easily chills honest introspection, that allows our State’s leaders to dine freely on the spoils of corruption?

In August, many of the State’s top leaders will embark on an annual pilgrimage to Point Clear for the Business Council of Alabama’s (BCA) Governmental Affairs Conference.

Even though several BCA board members and its CEO, Billy Canary, were deeply involved in some of the schemes related to former Speaker Mike Hubbard’s conviction on 12 felony counts of public corruption, many State lawmakers, Supreme Court Justices, and the current Attorney General will be on hand at the BCA affair to pay homage to the lords of business. It is surprising that so many so-called public servants willingly feast at a table set by Canary and paid for by those who hope to use the guests for political gains. But perhaps they see Canary as a kind of  King Ferrante I of Naples who kept his people in submission and many of his enemies killed and mummified so that he could dine with them in peace.

What does this say about the integrity of these so-called public servants? Can an elected official eat at a table provided by those who according to the Hubbard trial sought to “buy the Speaker of the House” and serve in the House at the same time?

As scripture teaches, “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” — Book of Proverbs (KJV) 26:11.

Can the State Justices partake of the BCA’s riches and hospitality and remain impartial under the law?

Is the public to believe this is an educational experience and not merely a political buffet to fatten the bellies and egos of our State’s office holders? Isn’t it the wining and dining that leads to a roll in the sheets?

Canary, as head of BCA, has turned that once proud association into little more than a whorehouse for political elites and wannabes.

Canary and his kind put the “Affair” in government conferences. Psychology Today says, “an affair means you’re living a lie in some form… but if you fool yourself about the reasons for your affair and what it may set in motion, you can squander irreplaceable years, trapped within illusions and rationalizations.”

Sound familiar?

This passage is followed by the consequences: “When it all comes crashing down, loneliness and emptiness may be all that remains.”

Recently Canary had his underlings call several State lawmakers to uninvite them the summer gathering because they dared vote for the Autism bill that helps parents aid children with this debilitating malady.

After APR had reported on the uninvited, we received an email asking, “If you have to do something a certain way to get invited to the BCA conference, does conference attendance not then become a quid pro quo gratuity or thing of value?”

That would be a good question for Ethics Director Tom Albritton. Wonder if he’s invited?

BCA’s Senior Vice President for Communications, Nancy Hewston, recently told Yellowhammer News no one was uninvited calling our reports “Fake News.”

“The implication that our guest list was developed solely on one issue is false, and anyone who writes that is promoting fake news,” said Hewston.  “Let me be clear – no one was uninvited from this event.”

Hewston, it appears, like her boss Canary, has a rare relationship with the truth, in that it’s seldom used. Or perhaps she holds it in such high regard that she thinks it is too precious to be wasted on the public.

Hewston, also informed Yellowhammer—once Hubbard’s chosen forum for his news—”[W]e are proud that this annual event has such widespread interest and appeal.”

Former Attorney General Luther Strange was unwelcome at BCA events once his team began to investigate Hubbard. So what does it say about Strange’s replacement Steve Marshall who is not only a welcome guest he will also be a principal speaker at the BCA’s breakfast soiree, sponsored by Alliance for Alabama’s Infrastructure. And what is the Alliance for Alabama’s Infrastructure? It’s sleekly designed website claims it is a non-profit, which is focused on developing the State’s infrastructure. Oddly, its board is comprised of several individuals who could potentially profit personally from legislation funding of infrastructure projects.

Its web address is alabamaroads.org, and there are plenty of road builders and their partner’s listed on the site. Wonder if any of them deal in Astro-turf? A search of the Secretary of State’s records doesn’t return an Alabama Roads or Alliance for Alabama’s Infrastructure. Perhaps it’s listed some other way. What is evident from the nonprofit’s website is that BCA is playing a prominent role in this alliance.

Canary was very cross with Speaker Mac McCutcheon for not pushing through a gas tax for infrastructure. Was the Speaker uninvited? I doubt it.

BCA is the 800-pound gorilla for now, but it is as stinky and unruly as any wild beast. But is there anyone willing to bring it to heel?

There are those honest souls in Montgomery and Washington DC that are fighting for a change of leadership at BCA. There are a few who have no appetite for Canary tainted delights.

Hubbard, Canary, and former Gov. Bob Riley have feasted at an orgy of greed and corruption for years; this Summer’s BCA affair is just the scraps from their table.

Perhaps it is they who should be seated around King Ferrante’s table.

APR hopes to obtain a list of attendees for publication.

The post Government affairs or an orgy of greed and corruption? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

What’s the going rate?

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

What are we to make of an Attorney General who takes campaign donations from a lawyer/lobbyist who would gut the State’s Ethics laws?

In the political world, friends give campaign donations, but political action committees, lawyers, lobbyists, and businesses invest; and they expect a return on their investment.

So, it is with our State’s Attorney General Steve Marshall. He has taken campaign contributions that can be linked to people and industries with a special interest in matters before the Attorney General’s Office. And now, he has taken two contributions from a PAC led by Edward “Ted” Hosp who has aggressively lobbied to roll back Ethics reform. Marshall received two contributions from Hosp’s GoodPac: one for $2,500 on June 12, and another one for $2500 on June 13.

This is not meant to criticize Hosp. He is a lawyer/lobbyist who represents clients who would like to alter the playing field to their advantage. And in this, he is just doing what lawyers and lobbyists do. There is not an ethical consideration. They serve as hired guns. Those of us who want to strengthen and clarify the Ethics code to make it more enforceable might not like what they do, but that’s what they get paid for, “Have Gun-Will Travel” is their calling card.

But Marshall is the one man who foremost stands for the principle of law and order in our State and therefore shouldn’t be accepting money from those who are paid to compromise his work.

Within days of the former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard being convicted on 12 felony counts of public corruption various business interests, as well as a host of lawyers, went on the offensive to blunt the impact of Hubbard’s conviction. Just days after the Hubbard trial concluded, Hosp and other lawyers with Maynard, Cooper, and Gale were at work deconstructing the case and even pointing out how Hubbard might win on appeal. Hosp and others argued that the judge, jury, and prosecutors from the State’s Attorney General’s office broadly interpreted portions of the Ethics laws, as related to the guilty verdict in the Hubbard case.

In their analysis, the prosecution and jury broadly interpreted the term “principal” as well as the phrase “thing of value,” and expanded a conflict of interest beyond what they believed was the Legislative definition.

But these lawyers didn’t sit around and daydream about a day when the Court of Criminal Appeals might overturn Hubbard’s verdict, they went to work and none more so than Hosp.

Using a pretense that charities were at risk under the McCalla Opinion issued by the state’ ethics commission which clarified questions concerning public officials soliciting lobbyists and principals for contributions to a charitable organization. Hubbard’s former criminal defense attorney, J. Mark White, Hosp, and others used the McCalla opinion to sow confusion trying to weaken the Ethics laws.

In December, Ethics Commissioners Jerry Fielding, Butch Ellis, and Charles Price (all lawyers) reversed an earlier unanimous advisory opinion concerning Friends of McCalla.

On September 1, 2016, the Commission issued advisory opinion 2016-24 on the Friends of McCalla, which it believed clarified the question regarding public officials soliciting lobbyists and principals for contributions to a charitable organization, operating as a 501(c)(3) non-profit. However, this opinion was used to fumigate widespread panic among Alabama’s charitable organizations, allowing lawyers for the business interests to present an over-subtle and fraudulent construction of the opinion, contrary to what was written and unanimously approved by the Ethics Commission in Friends of McCalla.

Marshall for his part has cozied up to the very business interests, lawyers, and lobbyists who have declared open season on Ethics reform, including BCA’s Billy Canary.

Marshall prattles on about opioids and working with District Attorneys on that issue, as well as human trafficking. The District Attorney doesn’t report to the Attorney General. Marshall doesn’t seem to understand that the Attorney General’s job is to represent the State, and his or her’s most important job is to insure that State laws are enforced, especially public corruption. No County District Attorney has the resources to battle high-level public corruption, but the Attorney General does.

It is beneath the office of Attorney General to accept campaign contributions from those who are hired to pummel the Ethics laws into dust.

It is beneath the dignity of the office to wine-and-dine with the likes of BCA boss, Canary, who is persona non grata in the highest offices in Washington, DC.

It appears Marshall wants the job former Gov. Robert Bentley gave him so badly, that he will take an investment from anyone.

They say every man has his price. So, what’s the going rate for the integrity of the Attorney General?

The post What’s the going rate? appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Viewing all 122 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images