Quantcast
Channel: Opinions – Alabama Political Reporter

There is already a fix to clarify and strengthen the ethics laws

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Before then Attorney General Luther Strange took his ill-fated appointment to the U.S. Senate, his office prepared legislation to clarify and strengthen existing ethics laws.

Amidst all the nascent posturing about a dire need to, “Reform and Clarify” current ethics laws, there seems to be a pretense that no such clarification exists and, therefore, the Legislature needs to do something.

One proposal is to establish a committee to make recommendations for ethics reforms before the 2019 Session is currently the preferred solution thereby stalling any reform measures while giving special interests groups sufficient time to work to muddy laws that hinder their businesses.

But there is already a fix available for the asking.

Some have said they didn’t want to propose legislation that was drafted by only one entity, but this in itself is misleading or at least lacks an understanding of how the attorney general’s bill was drafted.

After several months of working with various stakeholders, the legislation — as proposed by Strange’s office — was approved by Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon, plus various other lawmakers, lobbyists and other interested parties.

Those who reviewed the bill and signed-off on its content included not only Marsh and McCutcheon, but, according to those within the State House at the time, the final measure was accepted by lobbyists/lawyers Greg Butrus, Ted Hosp, Sen. Arthur Orr and several others who were a part of the negotiations.

Once Strange’s bill received approval from the various players, the Republican leadership promised to present the legislation during the 2017 Legislative Session.

However, the attorney general’s bill was never introduced after Steve Marshall was appointed to replace Strange.

Marshall, ever mindful of political positioning, decided not to press ethics reform for fear of offending the wrong people. Republican House and Senate leadership used Marshall’s timidity as an opportunity to do nothing.

Today’s movement to reform and clarify appears to be an effort to weaken the ethics code. Meanwhile, the bill agreed to by Republican leadership in 2016 to clarify and strengthen ethics laws is mostly lost to willful ignorance.

Strange’s bill was widely seen as a response to a call by House Ethics Committee Chair Rep. Mike Ball, a Republican, to form a committee to rewrite the ethics code. Ball, still an unrepentant supporter of disgraced Speaker Mike Hubbard, has repeatedly accused prosecutors in the Hubbard case of criminal misconduct. Only in the world of Montgomery crony politics could a man, who to this day defends Hubbard, be allowed to remain chair of the House Ethics Committee.

In the wake of Hubbard’s conviction on 12 felony counts of public corruption, the ethics laws, as passed by the Republican supermajority in 2010, were under attack by his supporters, especially those un-indicted co-conspirators who were forced to testify at his corruption trial. Many of those same individuals are supporting Marshall’s run for office.

On a political stage where alternative reasoning is often a cover for the actual motivation, recent claims would have the public and uninformed lawmakers believe that a significant reason for ethics reform is because Republicans are having trouble recruiting candidates because the current ethics statutes are too harsh or unclear.

The latest reason given for an ethics committee to rewrite state ethics statues is that “good candidates” are not running for office because of unclear ethics laws. It is also the reason given for many current lawmakers leaving office.

Among the movers behind the so-called “reform and clarify” are those who would dismantle a provision of the law that prohibits principals, subordinates and lobbyists from purchasing legislators as they did in Hubbard’s case.

It is also being pushed so that public officials can trade on their elected position. Recently proposed legislation shows that far too many public officials want to use their office to enrich themselves while hiding their activities under the heading of economic development or secret Ethics Commission opinions.

It remains abundantly evident that the larger issue is not that the rules are ambiguous or unfair but unwelcome by those who, like Hubbard, feel the laws are restrictive to their business interests.

Several lawmakers have said that it’s no longer fun to sit in the Legislature because they can’t enjoy the benefits of lobbyist-paid dinners or other perks that were business-as-usual in the old days.

There is a fix; there is legislation that had broad support — albeit some begrudgingly — before Luther Strange grabbed for the golden ring.

Public service is not a frat party or a reason to expect lavish living on lobbyist and corporate expense accounts.

The facts are clear: there exists a bill that addresses all the questions raised by Hubbard’s conviction.

The problem now is who is honest and strong enough to bring back the bill that was agreed upon before the 2017 Session?

 

The post There is already a fix to clarify and strengthen the ethics laws appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.


BCA’s Canary linked to lobbying firm partnership

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Documents recently uncovered by the Alabama Political Reporter appear to show that Business Council of Alabama (BCA) C.E.O. Billy Canary has personally profited through private ownership of a favored lobbying firm while acting in his official capacity to represent the association’s membership before the State Legislature.

For years, Montgomery’s chattering-class echoed with rumors that lobbyist Dax R. Swatek and Canary enjoyed a profitable business partnership. The recently discovered document reveals there is real substance to the story and now suddenly it appears there is more evidence on how BCA has run their powerful lobbying efforts for more than a decade.

Documents from Experian, the credit reporting agency, show Canary as an ownershow Canary as an owner of Dax R. Swatek and Associates LLC. Other business-reporting agencies also show Canary as the “Owner” of Swatek and Associates. If these reports are accurate, and there is no reason to doubt them, then Canary has, for years, shared in the profits of the Swatek firm, Dax R. Swatek and Associates.

Beyond mere speculation that the duo profited from their previously undisclosed relationship, this revelation may further add to the deterioration of BCA’s once-heralded success as a business lobby. BCA’s legislative influence has declined dramatically over the last two years, culminating in a devastating defeat with Canary’s failure to pass a gasoline tax to support infrastructure improvements in 2017. Canary’s ham-handed efforts have also resulted in public scorn and ridicule from the Senate floor by Republican members who now see BCA as a shameful replacement for the once-loathed Alabama Education Association.

Several reports from reliable sources speaking on background say that in 2017, the Alabama Road Builders Association (ARBA) and at least nine of its leading members wrote checks totaling about $250,000 to help with the passage of HB487, also known as the “Infrastructure bill.” Additionally, sources state that the Road Builders Association and the Alabama Asphalt Paving Association (AAPA) wrote checks totaling $100,000 to one of Swatek’s lobbying interests, Swatek, Howe and Ross (SHR), to push the legislation.

SHR reports ARBA and AAPA among its clients on its 2017 lobbyist filings. Dax Swatek lists Dax Swatek and Associates and SHR as his sole clients. This type of arrangement is often used by one lobbying group to pay another to help service its client base. This allows for money to freely flow without direct disclosure of who is actually doing the work.

After Canary’s epic fail in 2017, many of these various associations are asking what happened to all the money that went into attempts to pass the infrastructure legislation last year. Why did the ARBA and the AAPA have to pay any money at all to help move the bill? Perhaps the picture is clearer now.

During former Republican Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard’s public corruption trial, it was revealed that Canary and Swatek both were key members of Hubbard’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” which met weekly during the legislative session to determine which bills passed and which ones died. Canary no longer profits from such meetings, but his business interest with Swatek may be providing other incentives, or as some suggest, even give the pair a reason to take a client up to the goal line but never cross into the end zone.

Some members of the Road Builders Association say privately they believed during last year’s session that Canary, at times, actually seemed to have been working against the passage of their bill and that he was, in fact, putting up roadblocks. Sources tell APR there was an agreement that if the bill did not pass last session, that another round of large donations would be coming to pave the way for passage in this session or a future session. Obviously, if the infrastructure bill had passed in 2017, there would be a real lost opportunity for profitable work down the road.

For decades, it would seem the close association between BCA and its legislative agenda with the Swatek firm could have been driven by a profit motive – profit for Canary, personally.

Canary, a once feared player, is now himself fearful that his crippled leadership and perhaps his secret business interests will be his undoing according to those who share his confidence.

For months, Alabama’s Republican Senior U.S. Senator Richard Shelby has voiced his wish to see Canary removed from BCA’s leadership. Similarly, according to APR sources, Alabama Power’s top executives have called for Canary’s replacement. Perry Hand, chairman of Volkert, Inc., reportedly has received the message that it’s time for Canary to go.

These latest reports of Canary’s business alignment with a lobbyist who directly profits from BCA’s membership dues is said to be the final nail ensuring his exit.

In an email on Monday morning Swatek wrote: “The only “Owner” or “Partner” in Swatek & Associates since it’s inception (i.e. ever) is myself, Dax Swatek.”

 

The post BCA’s Canary linked to lobbying firm partnership appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Opinion | Is HB317 a return to the orgy of greed and corruption? 

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

At least it seemed for a moment that the cancer eating away at Alabama’s state government was in remission.

The rise of Gov. Kay Ivey and Speaker Mac McCutcheon after the removal of Gov. Robert Bentley and Speaker Mike Hubbard appeared to herald a new day in state politics. But in the State House, bills are offered that would reintroduce the same type of mischief that poisoned the system when Hubbard and Bentley were in office.

As APR reported weeks ago, a prime example of the state’s return to the bad ol’ days is HB317, which, under the guise of economic development, would allow legislators or other public officials to use their influence to promote the awarding of economic development incentives, “by grant or contract or otherwise.” In other words, HB317 would change the definition of lobbyist and lobbying, opening the floodgates for public officials to use their office for personal gain under the auspices of economic development.

Under guise of economic development, legislation would open door for public officials to lobby government

Sponsored in the House by Rep. Ken Johnson, R-Moulton, HB317 is, in reality, the brainchild of Ivey’s Secretary of Commerce Greg Canfield, who it is believed borrowed at least some of the bill’s languages from attorney Greg Butrus, a prime mover behind changing the state’s current ethics laws. The legislation is being considered in the House Committee on Tourism and Economic Development, led by Rep. Allen Harper, R-Northport. Harper, a former Democrat, turned Republican after the 2010 Republican takeover and stood on a stage in Lee County with Hubbard after he was indicted on 23 counts of public corruption, wearing an “I like Mike” sticker on his lapel.

There is a promised amendment, which will supposedly clarify that the legislation doesn’t mean lawmakers and public officials can lobby under the new statute — but don’t believe it.

The greater concern is where are Gov. Ivey and Speaker McCutcheon? Do they not understand or care about the bills being championed by their people? Are they so fooled or out of touch as to not see the clever misdirection inherent in HB317?

Hubbard was convicted on two felony counts of using his office to lobby the executive branch on behalf of a company owned by Bobby Abrams, a New York businessman who paid Hubbard $10,000 a month for economic development. And who did Hubbard lobby? Secretary Canfield.

At Canfield’s urging, ADIT awarded Abrams’ company with around 20 million dollars in workforce training. From Hubbard to Canfield to ADIT, millions were handed out to Abrams’ company under the guise of economic development. HB317 will legalize the same actions Hubbard took to serve his paying client while acting as Speaker of the House.

Recently, APR reached out to Ivey and McCutcheon’s offices with no substantial response to date.

Why does the state once again find itself courting more scandals?

Just two weeks ago, Canfield was called in front of a Montgomery grand jury to answer questions about another economic development deal that may land more Republicans in front of a judge and jury.

How long before this latest scandal lands on Gov. Ivey’s doorstep or that of the Speaker?

And where is the State’s Attorney General Steve Marshall? Is he hiding behind his fat donors?

The taint of Hubbard still reeks in the people’s house, where the cancer he spread has returned. And over at the Capitol, the vestiges of Bentley’s failed governorship are left in place to its new occupant’s detriment.

Both Ivey and McCutcheon have proven to be strong and ethical leaders, it is now time that they take action to assure the public that the orgy of greed and corruption indulged under Hubbard is banished before it, once again, leads to a public pox on the body politic.

 

The post Opinion | Is HB317 a return to the orgy of greed and corruption?  appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Analysis | Gov. Ivey’s campaign kick off solid, steady, shocking

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

When Alabama’s Governor Kay Ivey took the stage at the Montgomery Renaissance Tuesday night to kick-off her campaign for governor, she was buoyant, charming and in command of the evening. Most attendees agreed that Gov. Ivey hit all the right notes in her 10-plus-minute speech.

But it was her introduction by the state’s most wealthy private business owner, Jimmy Rane, that left heads shaking and tongues wagging across the state’s political landscape.

When Rane described meeting Ivey at Auburn University when she was, “A beautiful, fresh-faced girl,” almost everyone who had followed former Speaker Mike Hubbard’s corruption trial remembered how Rane had used almost the same words to describe Hubbard during testimony in Lee County. Rane, the chairman of Great Southern Wood, was a key witness in Hubbard’s trial, ardently defending “his friend,” Hubbard. Even now, he remains perhaps Hubbard’s most loyal ally.

Ivey, who during her speech said she had kept her promise to clean up corruption in Montgomery, was privately mocked for Rane’s appearance. Hubbard was convicted for receiving a thing of value from Rane and was sentenced to 18 months confinement (concurrent), three-and-a-half years suspended, three to five years probation for his crime. His case is still on appeal even though it has been before the Court of Appeals for months.

Recently, Ivey accepted a $50,000.00 campaign donation from Rane – the same amount he reportedly offered disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley to intervene in Hubbard’s public corruption prosecution.

When asked why Rane was chosen to introduce Ivey, her campaign staff claimed ignorance as to who made the arrangements or who had selected Rane.

In 2010, Rane was tapped to introduce ill-fated gubernatorial candidate Bradly Byrne, who was then the hand-picked successor to then Gov. Bob Riley, another player in Hubbard’s public corruption trial.

Other than the introduction, Ivey’s speech was pitch-perfect according to several observers.

Ivey ticked off her administration’s accomplishments including historically low unemployment, a fast-growing economy and its success in luring Toyota-Mazda and a host of other marquee businesses to the state.

Gov. Ivey took office after Bentley resigned over campaign finance violations and an alleged torrid affair with his former senior advisor, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, who is reportedly still under investigation by the State’s Attorney General’s public corruption division.

Ivey remains widely popular with voters, but her competition hopes to tie her to former Gov. Riley and Hubbard. Many staff and cabinet positions in Ivey’s administration are filled by former Riley, Hubbard and Bentley loyalists – a correction Ivey’s advisors have been reluctant to undertake for fear of being embarrassed over bad choices.

ALFA recently endorsed Ivey, and most believe she has a clear opening to winning the governorship in her own right.

But her foes will undoubtedly work to link her to Bentley, Hubbard and Riley – something she can avoid by cleaning house as promised and wisely choosing her surrogates.

 

The post Analysis | Gov. Ivey’s campaign kick off solid, steady, shocking appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Opinion | Prison healthcare contract could be a fool’s errand

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Whether through ignorance, graft or just an unwillingness to look past the second ripple in the pond, the state’s current plan to address the prison healthcare crisis is a boondoggle.

That’s where the Alabama Department of Corrections is with its attempt to secure a new contractor to provide medical and mental health services for state inmates.

It’s time to scrap the current process and start over or risk embroiling Governor Kay Ivey’s administration in an unnecessary scandal in an election year.

The department’s actions, so far, have generated far more questions than answers. Chief among them: Why did the Department of Corrections decide to pursue a contract with Wexford Health Sources, despite its dubious and disturbing conduct in other states?

Wexford has been sued by the Mississippi attorney general, who is asking the company to repay $294 million it allegedly gained as a participant in a bribery scandal that led to criminal charges against Mississippi’s former prison commissioner and a former consultant for Wexford.

And this is not the only thing that has gone awry.

The Department of Corrections says it plans to have the Wexford contract up and running by April 1. Is the date a cruel irony for tempting the fates of political destiny or just happenstance?

Just this past week, the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee refused to consider a $30 million supplemental appropriation, which the Department of Corrections says it needs to pay for Wexford’s services.

Also this last week, court proceedings continued before U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson about the current quality of the state’s mental health care.

While it’s abundantly clear the state will be required to improve services, the extent of the court-ordered remedies is still up in the air. Why is the state rushing to lock in a new contract when it doesn’t yet fully understand what terms the court may impose with regard to inmates’ future care?

From the beginning, sources close to this process have told APR the fear has been that Wexford would submit a “lowball” bid to get Alabama’s business – and then try to bump up the price later to meet minimum standards for care.

That’s a valid concern, but there are many others about how well this company was vetted and how it was selected.

Did a lawyer named Jon Ozmint in South Carolina lobby for the Alabama contract, and if so, should he have registered here as a lobbyist?

Why did Alabama brush aside the serious questions raised about Wexford’s conduct in Mississippi? The attorney general’s lawsuit directly accuses the company of having a “backroom” relationship with the state’s former prison commissioner, funneling bribes and kickbacks to him through a consultant.

Why did the state ignore other red flags about Wexford’s performance in other states?

As APR has previously reported: Under Wexford’s management in the Indiana prison system, staffing levels fell short of requirements, services were backlogged and more than 8,000 doses of a frequently abused pain medication went missing, according to press reports.

In Illinois, Wexford’s work has been criticized, with a court monitor pointing to “grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services.”

Since becoming Governor, Kay Ivey has, with considerable success, portrayed herself as a careful, steady administrator who makes good decisions and avoids political pitfalls.

Would it not be prudent for the governor to take a step back before her staff risks getting her embroiled in controversies like STARRS, CARES, eStart or the other ill-considered contracts of the past?

Facing an election is no time to champion another hasty project that ends up costing Alabama taxpayers millions of dollars with precious little to show for it.

Scrapping all bids for prison healthcare contracts for now while waiting for more guidance from the federal court would seem like the smart course of action. For a process-oriented governor like Ivey, doing nothing is perhaps the hardest thing to do. In an election season with unforeseen difficulties, Ivey’s staffers should be reluctant to hitch the bosses’ wagon to a troubled company like Wexford.

Suspect deals involving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are the very things that can drive a campaign dangerously off course. Even now, political operatives are hard at work to undermine her election. A contract with Wexford, given the company’s recent scandalous headlines, could be just the right fodder for negative campaign ads.

In policy matters, there are times when inaction is a necessary evil. Would it not be wise to wait rather than allowing a cabinet member or others in Gov. Ivey’s administration to push her into another prison debacle like the one that surrounded disgraced Gov. Robert Bentley’s $800 million scheme to build super-max prisons?

There is presently no reasonable explanation for pushing ahead with Wexford’s contract while the Mississippi case is still pending.

It’s becoming more and more evident that trying to push this contract to fruition by April 1 would be the ultimate April Fool’s joke – and the joke would be on Gov. Ivey and the taxpayers of Alabama.

It is simply a fool’s errand.

 

The post Opinion | Prison healthcare contract could be a fool’s errand appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Proposed ethics law revisions offer promising first steps

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

At first glance, an omnibus ethics bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, R-Anniston, is a beast of a bill by Alabama standards, but it may very well be a definite first step toward strengthening and clarifying the state’s toughest-in-the-nation ethics laws.

Widely seen as the work product of former Attorney General Luther Strange and his team, SB343 is an ambitious piece of legislation that would “substantially revise the law relating to ethics of public officials and public employees,” according to the bill’s synopsis.

Weighing in at 118 pages, the long-awaited overhaul of the ethics code takes —in part—aim at regulatory body loopholes, which have been exploited by certain individuals.

Section 36-25-1(b)(38): Makes clear the definition of a regulatory body includes the Ethics Commission and the Public Service Commission.

Over the past few years, a member of the Ethics Commission and a regulator at the PSC have voted on issues with a clear conflict of interest. Section 36-25-12, as found on page 76-78 of the new bill, blocks such action in the future.

Under current law, it is not illegal for a member of the Ethics Commission to vote with a conflict of interest as the Alabama Political Reporter reported about Judge Charles Price’s vote on a ethics opinion concerning the Montgomery Chamber of Commerce.

In October 2017, APR reported a little-known fact: The Alabama Ethics Commission is not governed by the laws it is charged with enforcing.

That was made abundantly clear when Commissioner Judge Charles Price voted with a conflict of interest at an Oct. 5 commission meeting. The conflict arose when he voted yes on an advisory opinion that permitted the city of Montgomery to give money to the local Chamber of Commerce. Price, a retired Montgomery circuit judge, is a board member of the chamber and will shortly become its president.

Ethics Commission: Not Subject to Ethics Laws

Price likely did not commit a felony, nor any crime, for that matter, because the Ethics Commission falls outside the scope of “public officials” or “employees” under the state ethics laws.

Under revisions provided in SB343, the same rules that apply for city councils, county commissions and the Legislature will now apply to the Ethics Commission.

Marsh’s legislation, if passed, would prevent this type of vote from occurring by including the Ethics Commission as a prohibited class.

SB343 also addresses a vote taken by PSC Commissioner Chip Beeker when he voted for a regulatory action that could have potentially offered a financial benefit to him or a family member.

Lease Deal Ended, In-Fighting Still On

Lastly, Section 36-25-12 will close the additional loophole of straw-men businesses giving PSC members a thing of value.

While APR has not made a thorough analysis of all the changes to the state’s ethics code, these two are a welcome start.

The post Proposed ethics law revisions offer promising first steps appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Opinion | New ethics reforms are born to die

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Long-awaited legislation to strengthen and clarify existing ethics laws is being sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, R-Anniston. Senate Bill 343 pointedly addresses significant concerns — both real and theoretical — within the code, from charitable giving, who is a principal, what are acceptable gifts under the friendship exemption clause and who is not covered by the ethics law, just to name a few.

Since former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard’s conviction on 12 felony counts of violating the current ethics laws, a host of lawmakers, lobbyists, lawyers and corporate entities have called for reforms to resolve what they say are ambiguities in the existing laws.

Senate Bill 343 offers the very clarity that is called for by these many groups and individuals.

Reform-minded advocates, including APR, are greatly appreciative of Senator Marsh’s leadership and courage in bringing this historic bill to the legislative body.

The District Attorneys Association vetted SB343 and gave it a unanimous vote of approval. But other than Marsh’s sponsorship and the DA’s support, the bill has few champions.

Attorney General Steve Marshall has not issued a press statement in favor of the bill, much less a held a press conference, despite his office’s propensity to issue press releases and hold press conferences even when a courthouse custodian is convicted of stealing a roll of toilet tissue.

This week, instead of walking the halls of the State House gathering votes for a bill written by his office, Marshall is partying in Washington D.C. with his righthand protege, Katherine Robertson. The two are in “The Swamp” soliciting campaign contributions from the Republican Attorney General’s Association and its donors rather than pressing for ethics reform. Marshall, like the fabled Nero, is fiddling while the ethics bill goes up in flames.

State ethics laws have been under attack on multiple fronts since Hubbard’s conviction.

Marshall, rather than manning-up, has stood by, blithely ignorant of how his mere presence has undercut all notions of ethics reform. From sideshow hearings before the state’s Ethics Commission — which were orchestrated by Hubbard’s former attorneys — claiming charitable contributions are suffering because of confusion in the ethics laws, to wealthy donors who privately offer support to candidates who will weaken the statutes, Marshall has done little more than pay lip-service to change. He has spent the majority of his time pandering to monied donors who profit most when laws are lax.

Far too many business entities want to continue buying legislators favors with gifts of friendship, and even more public officials long for the good ol’ days of freewheeling quid pro quo without serious oversight. Lastly, if all else fails, those who would weaken the ethics laws will settle for a status quo that allows the Ethics Commission to continue “making law” through Advisory Opinions.

Senate Bill 343 could change all this, but it’s doubtful there is will to see the legislation receive any serious consideration other than a brief moment the sun.

Today’s lawmakers yearn for yesteryear, when ethics laws had more in common with Jell-O wrestling and 25-cent peep shows.

Best-case scenario is the bill will be a starting point for an appointed commission to make final recommendations for the 2019 legislative session.

Many in the District Attorneys Association and within the justice arm of state government see SB 343 as the bill which should have been adopted in 2010 rather than the one crafted under the direction of then-Gov. Bob Riley, BCA chieftain Billy Canary and Hubbard.

While Marsh is to be commended, it seems SB 343 is merely window dressing covering a failure of leadership.

No doubt SB 343 was born to die.

The post Opinion | New ethics reforms are born to die appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Opinion | Notes on a theme: Nonsense

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Mammoth prison spending contract headed to contract review

The State of Alabama is entering into a contract to pay Wexford Health Sources Inc., nearly $400 million over the next two years to provide, “comprehensive healthcare including medical and mental health care and management services to state inmates,” according to figures supplied to Legislative Contract Review.

To be exact, $360,481,062.00 of state taxpayers’ money will need to be approved at Thursday’s Contract Review to pay for prison services.

Alabama Department of Corrections has thrown in with Wexford despite a lawsuit pending against the company in Mississippi. Wexford has been sued by the Mississippi attorney general, who is asking the company to repay $294 million it allegedly gained as a participant in a bribery scandal that led to criminal charges against Mississippi’s former prison commissioner and a former consultant for Wexford.

Gov. Kay Ivey’s administration has ignored Wexford’s troubled past and at the urging of ADOC Commissioner Jeff Dunn is moving forward with the Wexford contract.

While Contract Review is sometimes seen as a toothless tiger, it does have the power to hold the contract for 45 days, perhaps giving time for closer consideration of what’s at stake and what’s at risk.

No one has yet to explain the rush to sign Wexford or why Dunn is so keen on the company.

What seems apparent is that while the Ivey administration is scandal adverse, it appears that Dunn — an appointee of disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley — is not.

Republicans on contract review who have primary opponents certainly want to see their Wexford vote in a campaign ad. “Millions spent on prisoners while working families struggle. Drain the Montgomery Swamp,” sounds like a cool commercial.

A mini ethics drama: Pants on fire

Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton voiced his frustration to al.com after Republican attorney general candidate, Alice Martin, a former state chief deputy attorney general and a former U.S. attorney, called him on a piece of legislation that would greatly enlarge his power as director of the ethics commission. As reported by Lee Roop of the Alabama Media Group, Martin said, of Senate Bill 267 if it was to become law, [It] “would grant massive new authority to a politically appointed commission that has often strayed from the law and had to be checked and challenged repeatedly by the Attorney General’s Office when I served as chief deputy AG.”

Anyone with even a remedial understanding of the state’s ethics law understands that Martin is right about SB267. She is also right that the ethics commission, if left unchecked, would make laws, create exceptions for their cronies and always bow to powerful lawmakers and lobbyists.

Where the real issues arose is when Albritton said that the bill was written by the Attorney General’s office, even indicating that Special Prosecution Divison Chief Matt Hart had drafted the bill. This is only accurate in so much as Albritton and the Ethics Commission did a cut and paste job on a bill which was written by the team that crafted SB343, which is the large ethics reform bill that now sits in the Senate.

SB267 is sponsored by Sen. Cam Ward who says that the bill as written was only partially developed by the AG’s office – the rest was crafted by Albritton and his staff.

Albritton replied to Martin’s comments by tell Loop, “I am disappointed by the fact that she has now taken a piece of legislation about which there was uniform agreement not only from her own office, but also from our office as well as the Office of Prosecution Services (the DAs) and is distorting it for what can only be political gain.”

In fact, there was never a vote taken by the Office of Prosecution Services on SB267, according to the group’s chief, Barry Matson. Matson says OPS members have not voiced any opposition to Albritton’s bill, but it has not received an up or down vote like SB343. Albritton’s statement has caused concern among several district attorneys and other justice officials.

Homeless-helper Steve to the rescue

Yellowhammer News and Todd Stacy’s blog this week reported on how Attorney General Steve Marshall came to rescue a homeless woman after the Republican Winter Dinner at the Renaissance in downtown Montgomery last weekend.

In a staff report — which generally means a report with information supplied by an outside source and published without attributing the actual writer — claims that, when “Marshall and a group of colleagues were walking back from the Alabama Republican Party’s dinner last Friday night in Montgomery, an apparently homeless woman asked the group for money.” Marshall came to the woman’s rescue by not giving her money as she had asked but, “[S]poke with the woman and then walked with her several blocks to a nearby homeless shelter.”

The nearest shelter being some 12 blocks away, Marshall and the unidentified woman must have enjoyed a pleasant stroll.

Also according to the report, “A bystander snapped a smartphone picture of the incident and sent it to Yellowhammer News.”

How handy that an unknown bystander just happened to document Marshall’s good Samaritan moment.

It’s a good thing the homeless woman wasn’t sexually assaulted by someone from Marshall’s office, or she might have ended up in a basement calling for help on a walkie-talkie.

After woman’s “horrific” sexual assault, what did Steve Marshall do?

The report by Yellowhammer also included a reference to Matthew 25:35, which reads, “For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger, and you invited me in.”

Too bad Marshall didn’t heed that verse when dealing with sexual assault in his office.

Let’s just be thankful that on this occasion, Marshall had no political agenda as with a woman who he ignored and humiliated when she was sexually assaulted by another man while working in Marshall’s office. The homeless woman was truly fortunate – some are not so lucky.

Opinion | This is why women don’t come forward

The post Opinion | Notes on a theme: Nonsense appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.


Opinion | Crusaders against payday lenders sink to new low

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

When well-intentioned organizations host speakers whose goal is to tar a particular individual or business, it dirties the good works mission of the group and cast doubts over the program’s real purpose. So it was when Leadership Birmingham invited Dr. Neal Berte.

e, retired head of Birmingham Southern College to speak about payday lending at a recent gathering of the 2018 class of Birmingham-based leadership program.

According to two individuals who attended the gathering of Birmingham’s rising stars it wasn’t about small lending but a virulent attack on an individual who happens to run a very successful alternative consumer lending company.

Instead of the pros and cons of payday lending the presentation centered on the life of Ted Saunders, who serves as Chairman & CEO of Community Choice Financial Inc., a company which among its many businesses offers payday lending.

Why would Dr. Berte once a member of the board of directors for a banking institution—whose catastrophic failure caused millions in wealth to vanish— think it was right to cast aspersions on Saunders’ character and prosperity?

“It was wholly inappropriate,” said a witness to the attacks on Saunders. “Dr. Berte embarrassed himself.”

Both attendees who spoke to the Alabama Political Reporter on background described the presentation as nothing more than character assassination.

Berte according to individuals who attended the presentation say the presentation  showed pictures of Saunders’, home, listed his income and more to disparage his success.

As one attendee said, “I felt like I was watching a primer on character assassination.” Another individual said “I felt the presentation was over the top and I was seriously concerned that Leadership Birmingham was pushing an agenda rather than offering an educational program.”

In response to APR‘s request for information about the event Ann Florie, Executive Director of Leadership Birmingham, said all events and there content is protected by a confidentiality agreement.

As a successful businessman, Saunders has helped other Birmingham-centric entrepreneurs to also achieve enormous success.

As an early investor in Shipt a leading online same-day delivery platform, Saunders’ belief in the Birmingham company was essential to its much-lauded success. Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) purchased Shipt in December 2017 for $500 million in cash. According to those present at the leadership presentation, Berte and Farley failed to mention Saunders contributions to making the Magic City a center for business opportunities.

Liberal groups, especially during the Obama Administration era, marked businesses like Community Choice simply because they found objectionable.

Taking its lead from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau— birthed by Democrat U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren— several progressive groups have taken tough stands on alternative lending.

As if it were a holy mission to protect working Alabamians from short term high-risk  lenders many have gone from a push for reasonable regulation to outright wars on those who offer short-term loans to people who have nowhere else to turn for ready cash in cases of an emergency or unforeseen financial needs.

In recent years some of these groups have stooped to misleading legislators about the intentions of a bill they are promoting. On several occasions, certain organizations have cherrypicked news article to claim Republican support for bills falsely.

Surprisingly, it has been Republican lawmakers like Decatur State Senator Arthur Orr who have championed these liberal groups agenda. Even with liberal leanings, Orr has remained the chair of the state’s education budget a position that offers him enormous power despite the amazement of many conservatives in the Senate.

While those who hope to stamp out payday lending have in the past used questionable methods until now, they resisted character assassination.

In an odd piece of news found when researching old archives for this report APR found where Dr. Berte was a part of an elite group that courted Saudi princes to invest in Birmingham in 1978.

According to the book “The American House of Saud, The Secret Petrodollar Connection,” Berte was part of a group of 25 Birmingham heavy hitters who were “going to be the best damn friends the Saudis ever had,” back in late 1970’s and 80’s. The story gets a lot more interesting as it dives into how Saudi princes and an ex-CIA operative turn Birmingham business and educations leaders into rogue agents for their oil-kingdom.

Perhaps the next time Dr. Berte is asked to speak, he will share the facts of his involvement with The American House of Saud instead of meddling in a business owners life.

 

The post Opinion | Crusaders against payday lenders sink to new low appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.

Opinion | Piecemeal approach to ethics reform continues, and it’s questionable

0
0

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Two bills designed to dramatically alter current ethics laws were approved by the House Ethics Committee last week. As introduced in the House, HB387, sponsored by Republican lawmaker Rep. Rich Wingo, would among other things allow public officials to hide potentially illegal acts under a new notifications rule. Wingo’s bill is companion legislation to SB221, sponsored by Republican Sen. Trip Pittman.

Another stab at rewriting current ethics laws is found in HB432, sponsored by Republican Rep. Alan Baker, which will greatly expand the powers and purview of the executive director of the Ethics Commission.

Earlier this month in a press conference, Republican lawmakers Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, Attorney General Steve Marshall, Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton, Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon, Sen. Arthur Orr and Rep. Mike Jones seemed to signal a halt to any new ethics legislation during the current legislative session.

In announcing a newly formed commission to study and make recommendations as proposed by SB343, these powerful Republican legislators said the issue of ethics reform was better left until the 2019 legislative session.

Ethics reform bill to sit on hold until next session as lawmakers begin discussions

However, last week, without the simplest acknowledgment of irony, HB387 and HB432 were championed by House Ethics Committee Chair Rep. Mike Ball, R-Madison. Ball, an intemperate critic of the laws that convicted his friend, former Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard, hustled the bills out of his committee despite leadership’s suggestion just days earlier.

Ball not only defended Hubbard after his conviction on felony offenses, he has also repeatedly accused the state prosecution team members of criminal acts during Hubbard’s trial. Despite Ball’s unfounded claims and outspoken desire to kill ethics laws that convicted Hubbard, he remains head of the House Ethics Committee.

HB387 and HB432: Potential for Mischief

A detailed analysis of the two bills’ potential damage to state ethics laws is perhaps too exhaustive to enumerate without it becoming a somnolent potion, however, even a top-level reading of the bills casts light on just how dangerous these laws could be in the wrong hands.

Pittman-Wingo deals a blow to transparency

On its face, the Pittman-Wingo bills do little more than create a meaningless “notification” requirement. But a deeper dive shows that under this new notification provision, a lawmaker may take a job or a consulting contract with a principal – forbidden under current law, or any business without seeking an ethics advisory opinion.

Under this statute, the Ethics Commission is neither authorized or required to do anything at all with the notification, and while the lawmaker’s employment would be public record, someone would need to know about the filing to ever know to look for it.

These bills, as written, make no distinction between consulting contracts from principals or other businesses that do not hire lobbyists.

As APR has pointed out on numerous occasions, all revisions, additions or alterations to the present Ethics Act must be viewed in light of the Hubbard prosecution and conviction.

Under the Pittman-Wingo scheme, with a simple notification to the ethics commission, legislators may enter into a consulting contract or job without needing a review.

Imagine the fun Hubbard’s lawyer would have had with this statute.

“Thank God, for these notifications. Poor Mike filed his paperwork with the commission, and now the attorney general from Timbuktu is trying to throw this good-Christian-family-man in prison for just working to put food on his family.”

These are just a few examples of latent possibilities for misconduct under the Pittman-Wingo scheme.

Expanding powers of the executive director

HB432, carried in the House by Rep. Baker, with its companion legislation, sponsored by Sen. Cam Ward – both Republicans – would significantly expand the sphere of influence of the Ethics Commission’s executive director.

Any examination of laws governing the state ethics commission should begin with questioning the effectiveness of the commission as it presently functions.

Comprised of political appointees who, at times, appear to rule with the caprice of a Marseilles madame, the commission on occasion has created laws while stretching the existing ones beyond any reasonable facsimile of their intended meanings.

The commission’s executive director is hired by the commission and is likewise subject to its whims or will be fired.

A summary of the bill’s intentions, as APR discussed with Ward and Ethics Director Tom Albritton, would permit more flexibility for minor ethics violations and allow the director to “self-generate[d]” a complaint. It would also empower the director and his staff to go beyond the “four corners” of a complaint. If passed in its current form, these companion bills would authorize the director to bypass the state’s attorney general or district attorneys in favor of the U.S. attorney in public corruption cases.

Some of these provisions run counter to current law and give unelected bureaucrats more power and influence than they already command.

While granting the executive director more flexibility on minor offenses, it would seem wholly imprudent to undermine the attorney general’s role as a constitutional officer and top law enforcement official in the state. With this in mind, should the law allow political appointees to usurp power granted to the attorney general?

If enacted, these bills would massively expand the investigative authority of the commission. Current Director Albritton has argued publicly that the commission already has power to self-generate a complaint, and that is true, but only by degrees. There is a process whereby the commission can initiate an investigation without receiving a formal complaint from outside sources. A procedural process is currently in place that somewhat safeguards against an unscrupulous use of an ethics investigation. Director Albritton may never abuse his power, but that doesn’t mean the next director will not.

There are other questions unanswered by these bills that should be thoroughly vetted before passage.

President Pro Tem Marsh said of sweeping ethics reforms, “It deserves all the questions to be asked to make sure we are covering everything.”

A piecemeal approach has been rejected by most in Republican leadership. Perhaps it’s time for Ball and others to follow suit.

 

The post Opinion | Piecemeal approach to ethics reform continues, and it’s questionable appeared first on Alabama Political Reporter.





Latest Images