Here is the original public records request I submitted to Gov. Jeff Landry on Thursday:

From: Tom Aswell
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 2:15 PM
To: GovPublicRecords@la.gov
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

“Pursuant to LA. R.S. 44.1 (et seq.), I hereby submit my formal request for the opportunity to examine, inspect, and otherwise review all correspondence (including all emails and texts between Gov. Jeff Landry or any and all of his designees and State Sen. Heather Cloud relative to public records and Senate Bill 482. According to state law, I have the option of reviewing records before committing to any purchase of documents.

Thank you.

Here is the response from the governor’s office that I received on Friday (after I found it necessary to follow up with a gentle reminder):

From: Gov Public Records <GovPublicRecords@la.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Tom Aswell <louisianavoice@outlook.com>
Subject: RE: RESPONSE REQUESTED FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Mr. Aswell,

Our office received your public records request below, dated April 25, 2024, generally concerning “public records and SB 482”. 

After reviewing your request, we find your request as it relates to “any and all of his designees” vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and we ask that you please specify or narrow your request.  Can you please specify or narrow your request to any particular employee or employees whose records you would like to request? 

Additionally, can you please provide a date range for the records you would like to request?  Please note the custodian for any records of the Office of the Governor prior to January 8, 2024 is the Louisiana State Archives, 3851 Essen Lane, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, pursuant to La. R.S. 44:5.  You may make a public records request for the office of State Archives here:  https://coraweb.sos.la.gov/Contact/ContactForm.aspx?recipient=Public%20Records%20Request&subject=Public%20Records%20Request%20Inquiry&returnto=/pages/default.aspx.

With regard to the remainder of your request, our office will begin determining what, if any, records are subject to your request, as well as any whether any exceptions or exemptions apply.  Please note that pursuant to La. R.S. 44.1 et seq., and particularly La. R.S. 44:5, certain records may not be disclosed.  You will be notified within 30 days of this email whether we have located any records responsive to your request, and what, if any, privileges may apply.

Thank you.

And, to bring you up to date, here is my response to Wale’s response (sent on Saturday):

Jeffrey Wale   
Deputy Executive Counsel

Office of Governor Jeff Landry

Mr. Wale:

First of all, it is not “vague” or “overly broad.” My request is very specific in that I am asking for all communications between Gov. Landry and/or any of his designees and Sen. Heather Cloud relative to any proposed changes to the Louisiana Public Records statute, (LA. R.S. 44.1 [et seq.]). As you well know, Gov. Landry did not take office until Jan. 8, so I would think the date range is obvious. His “designee” would include anyone communicating with Sen. Cloud on Gov. Landry’s behalf about proposed changes in the public records law, but certainly I particularly want to examine all communications (emails, faxes, texts, etc.) between Gov. Landry and Sen. Cloud (limited specifically to public records) during the time period dating from Jan. 8, 2024, forward to the current date.

As for as my request being burdensome, that is a smokescreen argument. All you have to do is to type in key words, “Cloud” and “public records” on Gov. Landry’s email server and hit ENTER and presto, all relative emails on this subject will appear on your computer screen in a nano-second. And you do not have 30 days in which to comply. The law is quite clear on that. You may be familiar with this from Jeff Landry when he was the Louisiana Attorney General:

https://www.brla.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7145/LADOJ-Public-Records-Presentation-Outline

Here is a paragraph from the above document:

X. Timeline to Respond A. La. R.S. 44:33(B)(1) provides that if the public record applied for is immediately available, the public record shall be immediately presented to the authorized persona applying for it. B. La. R.S. 44:33(B)(1) provides that if the public record is not immediately available because it is in active use at the time of application, this shall be certified in writing and a time shall be set within three days for reviewing the record. C. La. R.S. 44:35(A) allows the custodian to send an estimate of the time reasonably necessary for collection, segregation, redaction, examination, or review of a records request. D. La. R.S. 44:32(D) states an exception shall be asserted within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays, of the receipt of the request. An exception must be asserted in writing and refer to the provision of law that excepts such record. E. La. R.S. 44:33(A)(2) directs that, “if… segregating the record would be unreasonably burdensome or expensive… the official shall so state in writing and shall state the location of the requested record

Please comply in full with this request by close of business Wednesday, May 1, 2024.

And now we wait.

A story in the Louisiana Record, a reputable online news service trumpeted a headline way back in 2015, during Jeff Landry’s successful bid to oust incumbent Attorney General Buddy Caldwell that said:

A.G. candidate Landry pledges transparency

The first paragraph of that now infamous promise said, “An organization working to hold attorney general candidates accountable says Louisiana attorney general candidate Jeff Landry has made a pledge to be transparent in office.”

To read the entire text of that story, go HERE.

Fast forward to March of 2021 and we see a vastly different headline in the Louisiana Illuminator, another trustworthy online service, which said:

AG Jeff Landry gets dubious ‘Black Hole Award’

for ‘outright contempt’ of government transparency

Here’s the first sentence of that story: “The Society of Professional Journalists is giving its annual “Black Hole Award” to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry for his attempt to block a public records request by filing a lawsuit against the reporter who made the request…”

Wait. He did what? Yep, he actually filed suit against a Baton Rouge Advocate reporter who had the audacity to make a public records request.

But don’t take my word for it; read it for yourself HERE.

Now that he’s governor, he’s thrown his bantam weight behind Senate Bill 482 by Sen. Heather Cloud (R-Turkey Creek) who obviously takes her marching orders from the State Capitol’s fourth floor.

And if you want to hear the most absurd, most juvenile justification for Landry’s desire to shut down access to public records, try this: He said you don’t go into a restaurant, order food and then watch to see how the cook prepares it, so why would we entrust elected officials not to do the right thing by insisting on examining records and correspondence to see how a particular decision was reached?

Again, you can read (and watch) it HERE.

Are you freaking kidding me? I cannot recall any elected official uttering that inane an “explanation” of anything. It’s not even worthy of a middle schooler, for which Landry might be mistaken, given his robust physique.

That video, by the way, is courtesy of WVUE in New Orleans (a Fox station, no less), which does a damn sight better job of covering state government than any of the Baton Rouge TV stations which seem to prefer cramming as many injury lawyer ads and weather updates into a 30-minute “news” cast as humanly possible.

And just in case you think I’m exaggerating, there is another WVUE story that informs us that Cloud and Landry also defend SB 482 by making some sort of comparison between media transparency and government accountability. They whine that reporters are not forced to reveal their sources for investigative stories, so why should elected officials be required to give up information? Isn’t it just amazing how they concocted such similar arguments? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Click HERE to see story and video.

Well, Guv and Sen. Cloud, the reasons are many-fold. First reporters are not elected officials who swear an oath to protect the interest of the citizens. They can – and are – fired if they violate a trust. Elected officials, on the other hand, are not so easy to fire and many take full advantage of their positions to make timely investments to enrich themselves. And before any troll out there can remind me, I’m acutely aware that that’s true of either party – Democrat and Republican. Reporters do indeed have a responsibility to tell the truth and when they do not adhere to that responsibility, there are consequences. Politicians have the same responsibility but when has a politician not lied when it was expedient to do so. You can’t sue a politician for lying (there’d be no politicians) but when a reporter lies, there is a legal remedy.

Reporters are not making daily decisions with taxpayer money – like approving the expenditure of public funds to make a purchase monetarily beneficial to the elected official approving the expenditure. If someone chooses to terminate a subscription or to cease watching a news station, there is no one to stop him. That same option is not available when it comes to paying taxes, so we should have some insight as to how our money is being used.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said if he had to choose a government with no free press or a free press with no government, he would not hesitate to choose the latter. Without a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or in Louisiana’s case, a Public Records Act (LA. R.S. 44.1 (et seq.), there will be absolutely no governmental accountability. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero, Zip.

Yet, this is precisely what Landry wants through his puppet Sen. Cloud. He also wants to make it downright illegal for an out-of-state individual to make public records requests.

He claims public records requests have become “weaponized.” Sounds a little like Don Snoreleone, aka the Nodfather, also aka Ebenezer Snooze.

And irony of irony, today I made the following public records request of Landry: “Pursuant to LA. R.S. 44.1 (et seq.), I hereby submit my formal request for the opportunity to examine, inspect, and otherwise review all correspondence between Gov. Jeff Landry or any and all of his designees and State Sen. Heather Cloud relative to public records and Senate Bill 482. According to state law, I have the option of reviewing records before committing to any purchase of documents.”

Anyone taking odds on the outcome of this request?

I’ll keep pounding away at this theme, so remember what I say about Landry and his minions: These people are not your friends.

The so-called “conservative movement” in St. Tammany has received the support of the Slidell Ministers Association in the hysterical effort to solve the suddenly critical problem of accessibility to “inappropriate” material in parish libraries – just like dozens of other parishes in Louisiana that all at once, and curiously, altogether, discovered this plague that has somehow surpassed drugs, broken homes and myriad other problems facing our youth.

The association has parish Councilman David Cougle in distributing yet another questionnaire about libraries to citizens. Combatting hunger, spousal abuse, homelessness and a multitude of other maladies confronting society, have now taken a back seat to dirty books, which seem to have made their way to the top of the list of concerns of these men of God.

It’s strangely curious how this issue has popped up simultaneously across the state. That being said, here is the questionnaire being sent out by the ministers:

Slidell Ministers Association

Library Control Board Nomination

SurveyTop of Form

Important SMA Survey

Nominations have been finalized to serve on the St Tammany Library Control Board by the St Tammany Parish Council. The Slidell Ministers Association (SMA) has created a survey with eight (8) statements you can respond to on a scale of one to five. One being Strongly Disagree and five being Strongly Agree.

Please make every effort to finish the survey before Friday April 26, 2024, so the survey can be compiled and distributed to the council before they vote.  Your names will not be distributed.

Thank You for participating.

1) The St Tammany Library Control Board members are subject to the appointment and/or removal by The St Tammany Parish Council.

2) Sexually explicit books deemed pornographic with no educational value are not harmful to underage children.

3) Public Libraries should not expose children to sexually explicit books deemed pornographic and of no educational value.

4) Library Control Board members must abide by the predominate conservative values of St Tammany Parish.

5) Library Control Board members must resist all efforts to allow sexually explicit books and material in St Tammany libraries.

6) Restricting access to sexually explicit books is about protecting the innocence of children not banning books.

7) Library Control Board members need to be held accountable if they approve sexually explicit books that are harmful to children.

8) The principles espoused by our Founding Fathers as stated by President John Adams 1798: “the Constitution, is made only for a moral and religious people.”

This questionnaire was not sent to me but it did provide an opportunity for anyone to respond. So, I’m responding:

1. This is a loaded question but yes, of course the parish council has the authority – and responsibility to appoint library board members. That, however, does not give the parish council authority to interfere in the operation of the libraries by professionals specifically trained for that purpose.

2. First of all, “no educational value” is a subjective call if ever there was one. Who makes that determination? A kid who aspires to become a doctor would find an illustrated book of human anatomy educational, But of course, any responsible parent would see to it what a child is reading; it’s not the duty of self-appointed morality police to impose their standards of right and wrong.

3. Again, who “deems” a book to be “pornographic” and of no educational value? As above, this is an attempt to force someone’s beliefs onto others. During the Dark Ages, Christians were burning non-believers at the stake and boiling them alive in efforts to “convert” them.

4. See above.

5. Are you suggesting that librarians and board members “resist all efforts” to allow the Holy Bible into libraries? I suggest that these ministers go back and re-read some of the scriptures and decide if Lott’s offering his two virgin daughters to a Sodomite mob or when Lott impregnated his two daughters. Or perhaps they can explain how Adam and Eve propagated the human species when the only children attributed to them were a couple of sons. And even if Cain Abel had any sisters, the same question still applies. They might also wish to review Ezekiel 23:20 and Numbers 31:18 for explicit sexual and violent passages. Also, if God is truly all-knowing, why did he require the Israelites to smear blood on their doorposts so that the angel of death would know to “Passover” those households? And for pure violence, why did God deem it necessary to kill babies?

6. I call B.S. This silly nonsense is all about banning books. Why else would To Kill a Mockingbird be on the hit list? Why would there be emphasis on material deemed “inappropriate” to white adults? To try to claim that your crusade is only about protecting the “innocence of children” would be laughable if it were not such a blatant lie.

7. See numbers 3 and 4.

8. John Adams also vehemently disagreed that women and non-property owners should be allowed to vote, so what’s your point?

Miss me yet?

(I too, wanted absolute power… but at least I was inept)

More headlines that are relevant to the planned takeover of all phases of state government by Jeff Landry who, I have already said more than once, will have us longing for the days of Jindal before he is finished wreaking his carnage:

Child labor laws are under attack in states across the country

States relax child labor laws amid tight labor market: ‘Benefits to kids’

States are weakening child labor laws, 8 decades after the feds took kids out of the workforce

Child labor remains a key state legislative issue in 2024

Some lawmakers propose loosening child labor laws to fill worker shortage

America is divided over major efforts to rewrite child labor laws

States Are Loosening Restrictions on Child Labor

Republicans continue effort to erode US child labor rules despite teen deaths

Illegal child labor is on the rise in a tight job market

So, how are these developments in other states relevant to Louisiana? Because of this headline in today’s Baton Rouge Advocate:

Bill could take lunch break off the menu for young workers in Louisiana

Wait. What?

Yes, you read it correctly. A bill by a clown in my parish, Rep. Roger Wilder, actually wants to REPEAL requirements that teenage workers be given a lunch break. Wilder’s logic? Because “children want to work without having to take lunch breaks.”

State Rep. Roger Wilder (R-Denham Springs)

That off-the-wall reasoning begs the question of just how many “children” he polled in coming to this asinine conclusion?

The answer is, of course, zero. There was no poll conducted for him to arrive at this knee-jerk opinion. He is simply taking his marching orders from the Republican playbook as passed down by Gov. Jeff Landry.

Wild man Wilder’s bill has already attracted national attention with this story:

What the HELL is Going On in Louisiana?

And this one from MSNBC:

Louisiana Republicans vote to end lunch breaks for child workersttps

His “children want to work…” is eerily reminiscent of the utterances of the Great Orange One, who loves to say things like, “people tell me…,” “you wouldn’t believe…,” “I hire only the best people” and “I’ll be working; I won’t have time for golf.”

One of the above headlines is particularly revealing:

Some lawmakers propose loosening child labor laws to fill worker shortage

Worker shortage? I wonder why? Could it be because Republican lawmakers are so damned reluctant to pay employees a living wage? When was the last adjustment to the minimum wage? Why, I do declare, it was in 2009 when it was bumped up from $6.55 an hour to a whopping $7.25 where it has remained now for 15 years.

But here’s an interesting fact that should (but probably won’t) jolt you out of your complacent comfort zone:

Since 1965 the wage DISPARITY between typical workers and CEOs has increased from 21:1 to today’s astronomical level of 400:1.

But yet, we are inundated with these headlines from red states:

State Cuts Continue to Unravel Basic Support for Unemployed Workers

States cutting unemployment benefits didn’t get people back to work, study finds

Cutting unemployment insurance benefits did not boost job growth

Cutoff of Jobless Benefits Is Found to Get Few Back to Work

States That Cut Unemployment Benefits Saw Limited Impact on Job Growth

So, we have seemingly coordinated efforts to loosen child labor laws and to TIGHTEN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS in an effort to get folks back to work.

I seem to recall there was no real labor shortage as long as we had migrant farm workers to pick the oranges, strawberries, apples and vegetables that the corporate farmers plant and sell to feed America’s 300 million citizens. But then the Republicans, thanks to the same Great Orange One, grabbed onto the illegal immigration issue that Republican governors obligingly picked up on as a hot button issue.

I’m not saying we don’t have an immigration problem; we do. But Republicans are capitalizing on the issue to harvest votes like immigrants harvested fruits and vegetables in Florida, Texas and California. So, the obvious solution is to get more work out of teenagers and to cut the benefits of the unemployed.

At the risk of being too redundant, I’ll repeat what I said in the POST below this one:

These people are not our friends.

And neither are these:

When you peruse some of the recent news stories around the country, it was inevitable that Gov. Jeff Landry, never one to be accused of coming up with an original idea, would fall in line with other red states in attempting to slam the door on public access to “public” records.

Just look at some of the actual headlines:

Worries over secrecy grow as state officials shield records from the public

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders proposes carve-out of Arkansas public records law during tax cut session

DeSantis is squeezing the sunshine out of Florida’s public records law, critics say

Attorney fees proposal could hurt access to Florida public records, watchdogs say

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott suspends part of open-meetings law

Arizona’s GOP legislators vote to shield themselves from public records laws

More secrecy than sunshine: Lawmakers push for exemptions to public records, open meetings laws

Senate advances bill that could chill access to public records

NORTH CAROLINA GOP HIDES REDISTRICTING PROCESS FROM STATE PUBLIC RECORDS LAW

NEWS ROUNDUP: ATTACKS ON PUBLIC RECORDS ACCESS IN THE STATES

And just to acknowledge that these efforts are exclusive to Republicans, there’s this from decidedly blue New Jersey:

New Jersey Democrats Attack the Public’s Right to Government Records

Unwilling to take a back seat to any other state in the sweepstakes to conceal actions from public view, we have this in the gret stet of Louisiana:

Jeff Landry pushes bill that would block public from viewing government records

Long time readers of this blog know by now that LouisianaVoice has found it necessary to file lawsuits on several occasions in order to obtain records that are clearly public. We also filed suit, along with four former SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY professors when we were barred from a hearing on their dismissals. State law (currently) provides that a public employee may request that his or her hearing be held in public as opposed to closed-door, or executive session.

All four of the professors requested an open hearing but Southern’s committee which hears professors’ claims decided otherwise – without a vote to go into executive session, which also is illegal (for now). We sued and won a judgment of $1,000 for each of the five plaintiffs but Southern has yet to pay up some five years later.

I use the words “currently” and “for now” because now, like the red states of Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Arizona, Ohio and Texas, Louisiana’s governor is chomping at the bit to exempt public officials from the public records laws.

Landry also wants to disqualify any out-of-state resident from seeking public records.

Wonder why? What on earth could Republican legislators and the governor be contemplating hiding? Surely, they are planning to do something that citizens might object to. Well, let’s see:

• Several top DEQ employees have abruptly quit over differences with Landry’s policies.
• Legislators are taking aim at public libraries, ostensibly over something called “inappropriate content.”
• Landry is determined to make it impossible for those wrongly convicted of crimes to get a new look at evidence – even though there have been no fewer than 97 documented cases in which people have been wrongly convicted of murders, robberies, rapes, and other crimes who have since been exonerated. There certainly are others.
• Our Huey Long wannabe governor wants to remove the job requirement stipulation for approval of industrial tax exemptions because, he says, the industrial tax exemption program “is not about job creating; it’s about capital investment.” That means it’s immaterial if an industry wants to locate in Louisiana or if an existing company wants to expand, even if all the work is to be done by robots while eliminating a few thousand jobs because it ain’t about jobs, it’s about capital improvements.
• Landry has voiced his intentions to hold a constitutional convention to re-write the Louisiana Constitution – over a two-week period. The last constitutional convention took more than a year to craft and Landry wants to do it in two weeks? C’mon! Just try to imagine how much special-interest matters would be shoved through with no time for public comment.
• And Landry showed his colors early when, while he was attorney general, he sued a reporter who had the temerity to request public records.

So, now maybe you have a little better handle on why the guv is dead-set on closing the books on public records. The fact is, he and his Republican legislature don’t want you to see what they’re doing.

It’s only a matter of time before there is an effort to conduct closed-door legislative committee hearings on bills and that the online video coverage goes black.

These people are insidiously untrustworthy, folks, and you’d better wake up to the fact that they’re not your friends.

It’s no wonder that the Washington Post carries this slogan beneath its Page One masthead:

Deocracy Dies in Darkness

Or that LouisianaVoice has chosen to go with this one:

It is understandable when a child is afraid of the dark

but unforgivable when a man fears the light