[StBernard] Point of View by Ron Chapman

[Westley Annis]

Yes Ron Chapman, its all well said.  We, the people of St. Bernard do want
to know those answers.  I'm afraid we won't get them, but keep after them.
The truth will set them free or maybe it will put some of them behind bars.
Craig K.

--------
Point of View

St. Bernard expected a reasonable response to the questions poised in Point
of View.  Instead of dispassionate answers to citizens' questions, residents
received a public display of sarcasm and misrepresentation. This is sad,
because St. Bernard is in so much need of straight answers.

Perhaps this stems from a misunderstanding of the role of an editorialist.
I am not an "investigative reporter." I do not interview people to make a
story.  My role is to represent the citizens by expressing a viewpoint and
raising critical questions.  My column has served that purpose for 19 years.

I was pilloried because my research did not "include a single phone call or
conversation" to a member of the council or administration. Why seek answers
from one when you can get them all with a single query.that was the reason
for the article: to publicly ask those questions foremost on citizen's minds
so that the government could respond to their constituents.  The intent was
to provide a needed service.an open forum. No accusations were made.   
I will
continue in that vein.

Now to the meat of the council's response:

.  The question of Private vs. Corps contractors.  Now that is an
interesting one.  The Council raised the issue of comparative costs.  
When
has the parish council ever been concerned about what the federal government
pays for a service? The difference between the Corps contractors costs and
URG's is immaterial if you are not paying the tab.

   I am fully aware that FEMA expects a reimbursement of 10% on what has
become a shifting deadline (now June 30th).   HOWEVER. given that the  
Corps
destroyed us, they would be politically difficult for them to make us pay
for clean up if they failed to meet the deadline.  When you pay a private
contractor, however, you bear responsibility for timely debris removal
yourself.  Why put St. Bernard in such a critical financial position?

If a private contractor fails to meet the deadline, it is your problem. If
the Corps fails, you have a right to criticize the government for yet
another fiasco in its mission to protect St. Bernard.   The Parish  
could at
least make that case against having to pay anything to clean up the Corps'
mess.  Now St. Bernard cannot play that political card with Congress.  
Clean
up is ours after June 30th.

In addition, had the parish contracted with the Corps we would not be in the
present mess.  Clean up would never have stopped because local government
would not be responsible for payment! Any financial investigations by state
auditors would not have impacted parish clean-up efforts at all.

As a side thought has anyone done the math?  According to the council's
response the clean up cost is $700 for 4.5 million yard of debris.  $700
Million dollars divided by 4.5 million yards equates to $155.55 per cubic
yard!  How much are the actual haulers making? I hear under $10 per yard.
Is that true? Who gets the rest?

I am accused of misrepresenting St. Bernard's diminished Tax Base. The
argument is that the Assessor has appraised property taxes at 74% of last
year.  No one envy's our assessor at this point in time.  Her job is
thankless.   Because of the scale of the devastation, the assessor  
has not
been able to re-assess property nor has she been able to send out
assessments for last year because of the horrors residents and businesses
have experienced.   As a result no money has been collected. Is that
refuted?

What are the sales taxes revenues when nearly 100% of businesses were
destroyed?  The response states that it is "Higher than expected"; a dollar
is higher than expected when you expect nothing. Numbers please!  The fact
remains that the tax base for the present is practically gone, we all know
that.  In fact, the Parish President has used that argument to get federal
funding for services. That is why our school system is suffering so terribly
and why basic services are at a minimum.  Lets not play word games here, it
unbecoming.

The response stated that "St Bernard is not married to URG, but there is a
contract." Marriage is a contract!  Both are legally binding. That is merely
another unfortunate play on words.  Similar to Clinton's what is "is."

As for the curious timing of URG's becoming incorporated the response proved
to be telling: "Yes, there was a presumption that the company was a
legitimate company in good standing."  Presumption?  This is not a hit on
URG, but does one "presume" when one signs $700 million contract?  This
gives the federal government an "out" for not paying.  FEMA's guidelines
allow them to determine if a business is a "responsible contractor."  If
not, they are under no obligation to pay.  This is a very nebulous phrase
and one that should frighten anyone signing with an outside contractor no
matter how good or inexpensive.

I appear to have been criticized for not being present during the hurricane.
No doubt that was intended as a personal affront.questioning my personal
heroism.  Fact: I was not "essential."  Non-essential persons were "urged"
to leave. That's what an evacuation is all about.  I, thankfully like most
others, did what I was asked to do and left.  That made rescue easier for
our first responders.  In fact, more should have left.

Who negotiated the contract?  I believe I may owe Mr. Martin an apology.  I
stated that it "appears that the duty fell to Mr. Clyde Martin" the engineer
in charge of the Pubic Works Department.  According to the council's
response, the contract was actually negotiated by the Parish's Legal
Council.  Forgive me, but I would have thought that the parish engineer and
head of the Public Works Department would have been an essential player in
the largest Public Works Project in St. Bernard's History. If this is wrong,
this too is telling, and I beg Mr. Martin's forgiveness for assuming the
obvious that he participated in contract negotiations.

However. this argument stands in stark contrast to a November 2005 article
in a local paper, which quotes Mr. Martin as saying that he chose United.
Why is there a mystery about who selected URG?

I was accused of having an "issue with the President." The quotes used in
the article were from a WAFB News report. The President's own words were
used, that's all. My concerns about Junior Rodriquez as Parish President
were established before the election in a column.

The answer to the $24 million bond is most intriguing, again, the council
response attempts to splits hair and confuse.  The council admits it sought
$20 million from a bank, but could not obtain the loan.   The Council  
then
began the process of setting up a bond sale with bonding agents for $24
million. That has been published in the local papers.  Whether it received
this money, completed the process, or not, is not the issue.  The admission
of seeking that money is sufficient to prove the truth of my statement.
Thank you for the confirmation.

The respondent stated that"There is money in the pipeline" to pay the
contractor's overdue bills.  However, this money is held up by an army of
state auditors who are holding everything up until $31 million is accounted
for.  If the parish had contracted with the Corps, this halt in debris
picked would not have occurred. FEMA, not the parish would be responsible
for payment and the $31 missing millions would not have stopped debris
removal.

Now this part is particularly interesting.  The response states that "No
money is missing".  Really, when you have a team of people trying to find
something that seems to fit the definition for "missing." When you can't
find your keys, they are "missing". When you can't find your wallet, it is
"missing ". The state auditors can't find $31 million.so it is "missing".
The word "missing" applies. until it is found.  Hopefully, that will be
soon. I prefer to believe that it is a bookkeeping problem.and not something
else.  Again, this is another: What is "is" statement.

In a response the council states that ".to address each other or the
president in the news media only serves to create the same political chaos
as some of our neighbors."    When has public disclosure through a  
public
medium created "chaos"?  It generates discussion, is that chaos?  Public
disclosure about matters of direct concern to citizens is a public service!
That is what open government is all about.serving the people.

Finally, so many of the questions presented were not answered. Please just
simply and unemotionally respond to St. Bernard's residents.  They want
answers.  Period!  Again, no one is accusing anyone of anything.  
These are
serious questions that deserve straightforward answers and none were given.

Again, I wish to emphasize that that my concerns are for the parish I love
and my neighbors whose friendship I cherish.  With no debris pick up for the
past three weeks the parish is a mess. It creates a health issue as well as
making residents justifiably feel that it is not safe to return.   
This is
not good for St. Bernard's recovery because it keeps people from coming
home.

Flies are everywhere, soon rats and other vermin will be taking over
abandoned homes, weeds are overgrowing homes, and with the onset of warm
weather mosquitoes will ravage us.  This last threat is most worrisome
because pockets of fresh water are abundant and that is the breeding ground
for the vectors of West Nile virus.

Also, my concerns are for the contractors themselves.... those individuals
actually picking up the trash.  I was a victim of the 1984 World's Fair.  I
know what it is like to work hard and not get paid. My concern is that once
back payment is made, many of these dedicated people will leave the area.
They will fear a repeat of the same thing if they work again.  That is
exactly what happened in 1984. Contractors were left holding the bag.  If
the trucks and dozers depart.what will happen to St. Bernard?  These people
stepped up to the plate to help us.they deserve timely payment for their
efforts. Like us, they are victims.

In a final note, I fully intend to continue to represent the citizens of St
Bernard through Point of View.  My intention to provide a public service by
bringing serious concerns out into the open was met with derision.
Obviously, these questions struck a nerve.  What politicians may think of me
is of no matter.what they think of voters should matter! .  And make no
mistake about it; there will be more questions.many more questions.
Citizens deserve clear and unimpassioned answers in these troubled times.
Local government should willingly seize this opportunity to set the record
straight, but should do so in a civil manner.

I love St. Bernard.  I want my friends and parish back.  I want to see
businesses prospering again. I want to see government functioning as it was
designed with "checks and balances" on power brokering.  This cannot and
will not occur until St. Bernard is cleaned up and safe for our friends and
their children to return!