Suchergebnisse

Russian authorities are struggling to sell the war to potential soldiers, but an electronic drafting system might change the game

Campaign finance disclosures, or sometime lack of
these, give some clues as to whether wholesale changes may come to the Bossier
Parish Police Jury's composition staring next year.

While all but one incumbent chose to run for
reelection, and a few didn't draw an opponent, according to reports that detail
spending and activity three challengers stand a decent chance of displacing an
incumbent starting this week, and at least a couple more have an outside chance of doing so. The
reports ten days prior to the general election cover an important period in local
campaigns that demonstrate the seriousness of a candidacy and tactics used. For
this level of races, the most effective campaigning is door-to-door canvassing,
followed by direct mailing, eye-level signage (yard signs better than
billboards), canvassing before groups such as at high school football games, display
print advertising, and lastly electronic means such as ads and texting.

The reports show some vulnerable incumbents. District
1, with three challengers to Republican Bob Brotherton, has the most candidates
but not much active campaigning. Only two have filed reports, with the
incumbent not being one of them. That doesn't mean campaigning isn't going on –
reports are necessary only if there is a donation the exceeds $200 or more than
$2,500 spent – but that it is occurring at most at a low level, it at all.

According to that reporting, only Republican small
businessman Michael
Farris – almost exclusively with his own funds – has made an extensive campaigning
effort with signage and canvassing. Brotherton, who has been ailing physically
for an extended period that caused him to miss most Jury meetings this year,
does have some signs up, as does Democrat trucking executive Andre
Wilson. This makes Farris the most likely to knock off an incumbent this
cycle.

As well placing emphasis on canvassing is District
12 Republican challenger small businessman Keith
Sutton. He has raised about $8,000, almost all his own funds, and spent
most on signage, mailings, and canvassing. By contrast, Republican incumbent Mac Plummer,
while reporting raising about half that much money from himself, has not spent
any even as yard signs of his have appeared. Unless these are leftovers from
his 2015 or earlier campaigns, that would indicate failure to properly file campaign
expenditures. Sutton's activity suggests he also stands a good chance of toppling
an incumbent.

Also very competitive is Republican former juror Barry
Butler, challenging the incumbent with perhaps the most extensive campaign
infrastructure, Republican Julianna
Parks in District 5. Butler's largely self-financed campaign has been
all-of-the-above, a mix of electronic contact, eye-level signage, and
canvassing. Parks has raised and spent almost as much, with a higher proportion
coming from donors with heavy representation from the Bossier political
establishment and attorneys (she is one and her husband Santi is the elected Bossier
City Court judge), with more emphasis placed on electronic contact. This looks
to become the highest-spending contest, by far.

Another challenger making a concerted effort is
Republican former executive director of the Cypress Black Bayou Recreation and
Water Conservation District Robert
Berry. In District 6, he has sunk over $7,000 of his own money into canvassing,
signage, and mail. Incumbent Republican Chis
Marsiglia didn't file the latest report due, but a previous report shows
about $1,500 spent on small amounts of signage and mail (with all $4,000 in
donations from firms connected to politically-active businessman Jerry Juneau).

And while demographics suggest an uphill battle
for her, District 9 Republican challenger Pam Glorioso is
making a go at it against Democrat incumbent Charles Gray.
Until recently chief executive officer of Bossier City, she has drawn over $7,000
in donations mainly from the Bossier political establishment in a reversal of the
trend in other contests spent mainly on electronic and mail contact and
signage. Gary didn't turn in the most recent required report, but previously
had raised almost as much but concentrated on advertising.

Perhaps banking on name recognition, former school
board member Democrat Julius Darby has done much visible campaigning with no finance
reporting – his older brother Jerome gave up the District 10 seat after 40
years. Retiree Democrat James
Carley did file to show some signage and canvassing activity, while another
retiree Democrat Mary Giles didn't but has put up signs (some apparently on
public right-a-ways).

Other contests also appear lower key in nature. District
3, Republican challenger and constable Andy
Modica has spent about $1,000 on electronic contact and canvassing, while
Republican incumbent Philip
Rodgers has tripled up on that amount, mainly on mail and signage. In District
4, incumbent Republican John Ed Jorden didn't file nor did his Democrat
challenger Donald Stephens, while his Republican opponent appraiser Jack Harvill spent
only on push cards.

All in all, if things break right for challengers
they could send half of incumbents packing. More likely, at least a couple of
new faces will show up on the Jury in 2024.

It's the electronic equivalent of laying down asphalt
on parish roads right before an election: after three years of assurances this
was around the corner, Bossier Parish finally is getting around to creating facilities
to broadcast professionally its jury meetings – a day late and a dollar short
of needed transparency.

For years, to broadcast proceedings the
nine-figure annual revenue Bossier Parish has done so by slapping down on a
table a device that tries to capture the entire panorama of twelve jurors by
video and streaming it by Facebook Live. With little technical improvement, the
arrangement continues until this day. Audio often is terrible that requires guesswork
as to who speaks and there's no opportunity to view presentations or vote
tabulations.

As a result, at the start of the Jury's meeting
last week local web site operator Wes Merriott of Sobo Live made it an offer. Perhaps more known
for his biting remarks during public commentary periods of the Bossier City
Council, Merriott at the Jury's interval for public comments offered his technical
services to improve the live stream capacity at no charge.

Despite the price, it was an offer the Jury could
refuse. At the meeting's end during time set aside for juror comments, Republican
Juror Julianna
Parks revealed a sandbagging of Merriott. She had a parish functionary explain
that an appropriation of $850,000 had been made to upgrade transmission facilities
in 26th District courtrooms and the Jury chambers, with the
courtrooms having priority.

Of course, citizens
might have missed that because of what was called a transmission error occurring
for the meeting last December dealing with the budget that led to no audio/visual
streaming or archiving. And the minutes, produced after the fact sometimes
weeks later, of that meeting only have the barest documentation of what the
budget looks like, unlike every other major governmental body in the region
which posts online much more detailed budgeting documentation, before meeting
on it.

Regardless, by the end of the month the Jury
should vote to move the project forward and its information and technology folks
felt possibly the entire project for the chamber would be complete by the end
of the year – that is, right after juror elections for the next four years. Merriott
for his trouble was given the promise of a chat about transmission quality.

Naturally, all of this should have happened years
ago. Almost three years ago I contacted the parish's public information officer
Pat Culverhouse about the very issues Merriott had said had been brought to his
attention. The reply I received then was that improvements were in the offing and
to be patient. So, this has been known for a long time yet the parish made no
targeted effort for improvement until two years had passed.

Parks tried to prompt IT staff to explain away the
delay as a product of supply chain difficulties. But that strains credulity
that this would knock things back by three years; certainly, starting when the
Wuhan coronavirus pandemic descended to show the inadequacy of the current
setup would have resolved the problem long ago.

In truth, greater transparency through clearer
meeting presentation and therefore archiving wasn't desired by Parks or jurors
generally until they realized it would become a campaign issue – and conveniently
decided to tackle that only on the year of elections in a way making the
solution available after elections. And the Jury still, unlike every other
major government body in the region that posts this on the web, seems to have
no plans to provide prior to meetings any documentation of agenda items other
than item titles and summaries, except for maps for certain zoning decisions.
That information is vital for citizens to understand issues and formulate input
on items before the Jury acts upon these.

This is just another game by incumbent jurors – all
of whom but one are running for reelection (and in that instance the incumbent qualified
but then withdrew and has his brother running instead) – to trick the public
into believing they respond and are accountable to citizens primarily when
actually they are more motivated to preserve maximal ability to fulfill their
insider needs first. Otherwise, the Jury wouldn't be tolerating the con game it lets
its Parish Administrator Butch Ford play to evade
state law about where he actually resides and is eligible to vote, or illegally
placing its own on the parish's Library Board of Control, nor would it have
taken so long to usher off the Cypress Black Bayou Recreation and Water Conservation
District's Board of
Commissioners its designee Robert Berry for illegally serving in two
officers until legal judgments dictated it do so (Berry now is challenging for
a spot on the Jury).

At least improving meeting transmission is minimal
progress that needs immediate follow-through by putting thorough documentation
of each meeting agenda item online when the agenda is published. But it still has
to rectify other things as well and has a long way to go to win back the
confidence of the citizenry, which may require wholesale changes through elections
this fall.

Stuck pigs on the Bossier City Council squeal, a recent
leaked audio clip reveals, that forecasts as a reactive attempt, its
origins likely illegal, to restrict public input and comment on Council
matters.

Over
the past six weeks a majority faction on the Council has taken a public
relations beating. Over a series of votes five of its members – Republicans David Montgomery,
Jeff Free,
and Vince
Maggio, and Democrat Bubba Williams
and no party Jeff Darby
– have on as many as four occasions voted in a manner to obstruct the placing
of term limits into the city charter, with two of those votes violating the
charter itself. The amendment would set a three term, lifetime and retroactive
limit that would prevent all but Maggio from running again in 2025.

Even if limits don't make it into the charter in
time to apply to that election – that majority bloc at the last Council meeting voted
to ask Bossier Parish Registrar Stephanie Agee to step outside the law to
decertify the voters' petition that the charter forces the Council to call for
an election on it, and also voted to pursue other legal action trying to derail
the petition, both over questions about the petition's format – extensive political
damage detrimental to their continuing their political careers has happened. Probing
and sometimes sharp-tongued citizen commentary when the items dealing with the
petition and related issue of term limits have come up, illuminating hypocrisy
and bad faith in the bloc's actions that raises unflattering public awareness,
not to mention producing visuals that beg to appear in negative campaign
advertising down the road.

So, it would appear the bloc wants to minimize its
bleeding. Internet podcasters/narrowcasters Bossier Watch, the duo of Rex Moncrief
and Duke Lowrie, obtained anonymously audio recordings
with the identifiable voices of Darby, Montgomery, and Council Clerk Phyllis
McGraw, with others not identified. The sparse information attached gave few
clues as to when and where it took place, but from the context of the remarks
likely it occurred nearby the Council chambers not long after the last, Sep. 5,
meeting where blistering comments occurred, in one instance prompting Montgomery
to ask for city marshals to remove from the premises local web site operator Wes Merriott.

Although Council Pres. Free himself interacted intemperately
with Merriott, he wisely declined given the troubling
current Council rules that leave it open to First Amendment violations if administering
these more than lightly. But that incident and other comments may lead to changes
to rein in the public's opportunity and ability to make comments.

The audio features Darby instructing McGraw to prepare
changes to those rules to group all comments at a period near a meeting's
start, instead of the current format where commentary may occur on each agenda
item and action. It also has Montgomery orally working out the mechanics of
passing the resolution McGraw apparently is to prepare, which would have to
occur during a Council meeting in public with comments permitted, where he
notes that Free will be absent and assumes the remainder of his bloc with vote
for it and the other two Councilors who have been supportive of term limits,
Republicans Chris
Smith and Brian Hammons,
won't.

Darby's rationale is that the volume and tone of
negative comments – being apparently oblivious or unwilling to admit that his
and others' actions spawn that – makes them "look bad" and terms the robustness
"out of control behavior," while Montgomery, egged on inappropriately by McGraw
who as clerk should remain neutral on matters of policy, complains about frequent
commenter David Crockett, alleging he's "repetitive" and goes over the three-minute
interval permitted for speakers. Never mind that the existing rules allow the presiding
officer to prevent both of these if committed, although it's far from certain Crockett
does either and enforcement easily could run afoul of the First Amendment. Both
the "look bad/out of control" complaint of Darby and the desire of Montgomery
to limit further speech rather than explore rules enforcement display thinly-disguised
arrogance and thin skins to any criticism.

Montgomery also was captured on audio making a
comment that "… all I can say to the people of Bossier City is 'welcome to
Shreveport,' 'cause that's what's going to happen." That appears to be an
attempt to cast aspersions on Shreveport city council governance, for motives
and meaning only guessable. Possibly he opines that the more robust exercise of
citizen commentary of recent vintage makes the city less governable; i.e.
shifts power out of his hands and a few others towards more democratic practice.

Actually, in many ways the Shreveport
model is more restrictive than the one currently in use in Bossier City. Section
1.11 of its City Council Rules of Procedure requires prior registration at the
meeting or online to speak at a point early in the agenda, specifying which
agenda item is the subject. The chairman or vice chairman then decides the
ordering of who speaks when, with commentary limited to three minutes unless unanimous
council approval extends that (or suspends the rules by a two-thirds vote). An
exception is made logically enough when an agenda item is to be added, when
speaking can occur without prior notification. However, during administrative
conferences, held the day prior to the regular meeting that reviews the agenda
(a practice once followed by Bossier City's), the public can bring up anything
about which to speak.

Yet it's difficult to see how a change to
frontloaded commentary by itself would discourage citizen input, unless other
rules are changed. Existing rules limit to four speakers of three minutes on each
item with no more than 45 minutes total, and apparently with no mechanism for
extensions beyond the three or 45 minutes. Shunting commentary to upfront only
removes on-the-fly commentary from discussion by the Council prior to the comment
period on each item.

But other changes really could stifle citizen
input, given Louisiana
statute puts almost no brakes on how far government can go to limit
expression, with the law merely establishing that any rules be "reasonable" and
requiring all bodies to provide a period before business as a whole or before
each item except for school boards which have to have comment on each item. This
can accommodate extremely restrictive regulations such as prior registration
and presiding officers selection liberties, limitation to agenda items, short
time limits for each item and in total,
and vague "niceness" parameters.

Therefore, the Council majority at its most extreme to
squelch potential criticism could take the Shreveport model putting comments
before business but remove the general commentary option, keep the number of speakers
per item restrictions, add the registration requirement, and shorten the total
time period, and likely this would pass state constitutional muster. Thus, the
public can expect a resolution incorporating some or all of these changes to
appear at the Sep. 19 meeting, with Free expected to be absent. That would leave
Smith as vice president in charge, creating an interesting situation as he is anticipated
to be against this change.

As disappointing, yet illustrative of the majority's
bloc's contempt for and fear of the public, as an extreme model would be, worse
is how the closed-door meeting of at least two councilors likely violated
statute. Public officials of collective decision-making bodies cannot circumvent
quorum or transparency requirements by deciding official business by
intentional arrangement (meaning on premises in a facility used for official
business, or off premises if prearranged, or by outreach such as electronic
communication including voice) even if the group in on the discussion contains
less than a quorum. Possibly as many as two councilors in addition to Darby and
Montgomery were present when they concocted their game plan – at least one
other unidentified voice is audible that appears to come from another councilor
– but the mentions of Free and two dissenting votes unlikely means any more were
present. Even if only two or three had been present, discussion of the matter and
vote-counting would violate the law if either or both of Darby and Montgomery
subsequently brought up the matter to and polled other councilors on how they
would vote.

To Darby, Montgomery, and their ilk, closed
government and its unflattering aspects allowed to fester by this opaqueness increases
their power and privilege and they must remain as inoculated as possible from
criticism for the rot to continue and spread. Any attempt to increase restrictions
on Council public commenting illuminates their escalating concern over the
advent of burgeoning democratic discourse.