Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Attack-ad financiers revealed under deal -- Times-Picayune June 3, 2005 Friday

Morial allies backed anti-Irons TV spots

BYLINE: By Gordon Russell and Frank Donze, Staff writers


LENGTH: 810 words

A lingering mystery from the 2002 mayoral campaign -- who exactly was behind a series of television spots that helped sink then-state Sen. Paulette Irons' campaign -- was quietly put to rest Thursday when the state Board of Ethics approved a settlement that named names.

And the record shows that Irons wasn't far off the mark when she blamed allies of former Mayor Marc Morial for the attack ads, which took her to task for holding two public jobs and for misrepresenting the death of her brother.

The group of 16 contributors includes a number of Morial confidants or corporations they control: restaurateur Stan "Pampy" Barre; Civil District Judge Herbert Cade, who was then a lawyer; businessman Bobby Major; airport planner Anthony Mumphrey; lawyer Roy Rodney; businesswoman and Sewerage & Water Board member Penelope Randolph; businessman and former Regional Transit Authority Chairman Robert Tucker; financier Rafael "Ray" Valdes; contractor Reginald Walker; and Jimmie Woods, who owns a trash hauling company.

The group also includes businessman John Georges, who along with Barre and Rodney was a partner of Mayor Ray Nagin in the New Orleans Brass minor-league hockey team; T.R.C. Construction LLC, whose directors are listed as Sandra Kruebbe and Jamie Santopadre; Management Services USA Inc., whose director is listed as S.F. Brechtel Jr.; and Louisiana Fleet Consultants LLC, whose directors are listed as David Picou and Michael Ecuyer.

The settlement, known as a consent opinion, is a product of a years-long effort by the ethics panel to determine whether the group ran afoul of campaign finance laws. Contributors had to agree to its terms, which include listing the donors' names as well as a $12,000 fine imposed on the four corporations and a political action committee they set up.

Irons, who wound up finishing third in the race behind Nagin and former Police Superintendent Richard Pennington, is now a Civil District Court judge.

She reacted with bemusement to the news.

"This is an old chapter from my life," Irons said. "It's finished, and I've moved on. No one on this list surprises me, except for one."

Irons would not say which of the donors she was referring to.

According to the consent opinion, all but one of the 16 contributors gave $10,000 to one of four corporations set up just weeks before the ads began running to pay for the anti-Irons effort. The exception was Tucker, who gave $20,000. Louisiana Fleet Consultants was later refunded $5,000.

The four companies shared a common registered agent -- accountant Gail Masters, a cousin of Barre -- and were incorporated pro bono by lawyers at Rodney's firm. Though the group set up a political action committee, the New Alliance Business PAC, which also listed Masters as chairwoman, the ads were purchased directly by the four companies Masters represented. That made them political action committees and obliged them to disclose their donors, the ethics opinion said.

Irons, who launched her mayoral campaign with a pledge to "take the for-sale sign off City Hall" -- a clear jab at the patronage practices of the Morial era -- shot up in early polls and was considered the front-runner in fall 2001 as the race began to heat up.

In the final weeks before the 2002 primary, she came under fire for holding more than one public-sector job, as well as for her campaign's insinuation that her brother, who was killed by police during a chase after an armed robbery, had been an innocent victim of violence.

The Irons camp, with its lead slipping away, sought to blame the Pennington and Nagin campaigns for the ads. Irons filed suit in Civil District Court, seeking without success to unmask who was paying for the ads Masters purchased.

The Irons camp questioned Masters' motives, pointing out her relationship to Barre, but Masters at the time said it had been more than 20 years since she took part in a New Orleans political campaign and scoffed at the implication that she was doing someone else's bidding.

Rodney insisted he knew nothing about the attack ads. "The only reason Ms. Irons put me in the suit was so that she could take a shot at Mayor Morial," he said at the time.

Political consultant Cheron Brylski, who advised Irons during the campaign, said that "the attacks were beyond the pale of what is hardball politics. Here is the evidence of what we all believed: that there was an organized effort to destroy her personally and professionally, not just politically."

Attorney John Rawls, who represented the four companies set up to place the ads, countered: "I stand behind those ads. They were truthful, and they performed a valuable public service. And they put the spotlight on misrepresentations and misstatements by a person trying to become mayor of New Orleans."

Monday, February 18, 2008

Bomb-proof, not whim-proof: Times-Picayune, October 3, 2007 Wednesday

New Orleans has plenty of pressing needs as it struggles to recover from Hurricane Katrina, but new trash cans surely don't belong on the list.

The city just bought new trash cans three years ago, and there is plenty to criticize about that deal. The 600 receptacles, which cost $450,000, were bought through a no-bid contract, even though trash cans that provide advertising are typically free to cities, which usually get a share of the ad revenue. What's more, the company that supplied them, Niche Marketing USA, acknowledged a business connection with Terrence Rice, brother of then-Chief Administrative Office Charles Rice -- a relationship that the Rices deny.

But even though the purchase was plainly a bad business move, the trash cans -- touted as bomb-proof -- certainly hadn't worn out this quickly.

That's why it's hard to understand the Nagin administration's decision to get rid of them and spend $335,000 for 500 new wrought-iron trash cans. Sanitation Director Veronica White says she wants to get another 500 if the City Council gives her a large enough budget to do so, which would mean a whopping $670,000 for new trash cans.

The replacements might be more attractive than the receptacles that Mayor Nagin now mocks as "little munchkin trash cans." But if a concern for aesthetics is the driving force here, the administration should be able to find much better uses for the money.

There's a real danger, for example, that New Orleans could lose its distinctive appearance and history to the wrecking ball if salvageable homes and businesses are torn down. Why not give the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority some additional money to hire staff to clear titles of blighted properties so that they can be returned to commerce?

For $335,000, the city could hire additional building inspectors to meet the demand as more and more people rebuild and renovate their flood-damaged homes. The Nagin administration has also promised to add safeguards to prevent unwarranted demolitions, including a final review 48 hours before a teardown is scheduled. That's an important protection, but it's bound to add to the work load.

New Orleans doesn't need a trash can makeover, and the city should have better sense than to waste scarce resources in the midst of recovery.

Clean up the mess; Times Picayune: November 29, 2007 Thursday

The city of New Orleans has made an utter mess of its deals with two trash-hauling companies, signing expensive contracts that don't adequately address the needs of residents who are still cleaning up after Hurricane Katrina.

The contracts refer to unlimited collection of bulky waste, but the city is not holding the companies to that standard. Complicating matters further, the City Council passed an ordinance at the adminstration's request last April that spells out an overly narrow definition of bulky waste.

The Nagin administration needs to renegotiate the contracts with Richard's Disposal and Metro Disposal to get a better deal, one that gives the city its money's worth and doesn't leave residents wondering what they can put out on the curb. The city also may need to revisit the ordinance and fix the definition of bulky waste so that residents get the service they were promised and for which they are footing the bill.

New Orleans is paying roughly double what it spent on trash collection before the storm and more than twice what Jefferson Parish is paying now per capita for more comprehensive service. It doesn't make sense for New Orleans to pay so much more -- a combined $24.6 million -- if the city isn't actually getting more for the money.

That something more could be the "unlimited bulky waste," including demolition matter, that is mentioned in the contracts. But City Attorney Penya Moses-Fields maintains that nothing in the contracts suggests that they were intended to take over storm debris removal.

Even so, the broad, vague language in the contracts leaves room for question. Several companies decided not to bid because they said the unlimited bulky waste provision made it too difficult to estimate costs.

Redoing the contracts would make it possible to spell out in detail what the companies are expected to pick up when it comes to bulky waste. That's something that would benefit the trash haulers as well as the city since the seven-year contracts extend past Mayor Nagin's term. A future administration could have a different interpretation of the contracts' demands.

Clearly, New Orleans still needs more extensive service when it comes to storm debris. Since FEMA quit paying the Army Corps of Engineers to haul away debris in September, waste piles have been springing up across the city. People who are trying to restore their storm-damaged homes have been forced to pay private haulers, and that's not an acceptable situation.

Mayor Nagin's solution is to spend $1.5 million on a separate debris-removal contract, and certainly the city needs to do something to remove the debris and lift the burden from homeowners. City Council President Arnie Fielkow wants to press FEMA to resume paying for the pickup, and that's worth a try.

However, the city shouldn't at the same time continue paying Richards and Metro so much money for routine service. The issue here isn't the performance of the haulers; by all accounts they've done a good job. But a recovering city with pressing needs and limited resources can't afford to overpay for services.