What wicked webs we weave...

Friday, I received the portion of the transcript from the Wisner hearing which details the argument City Attorney Sharonda Williams made to Judge Zeno that the Mayor should be allowed to spend the City's portion of the Wisner funds without approval from the Wisner Trust Donation Advisory Committee.  Here 'tis:

Winser v CNO Court Transcript - Sept. 24, 2013 - City Attorney Sharonda Williams

As I stated before, the City's entire argument was predicated on the premise that the Mayor is not subject to the approval of the Advisory Committee in order to spend the funds because once the money is transferred into the city coffers it becomes a public issue.  That would mean the money is public and the legislative branch, City Council, then becomes the oversight body.

William's own words from the transcript:

"And when you look at the City Code that talks about establishment of the Advisory Committee, one of the portions of the Code is that; '...Direction and functions of the Advisory Committee are subject to the control and direction of the Council, which contemplates the normal checks and balances of any governmental entity, the Council and the executive branch.' That's the checks and balances"

....and...

"What if, just for hypothetical sake, what if the Mayor did decide to give grants to some entity, the Advisory Committee says, yes, we agree with the Mayor, we're going to give you our consent, but then the Council decides that they do not agree with that?  What would the Advisory Committee do then?  They just don't have a place in that process.  It's the traditional government model in a democracy.  It's checks and balanced, executive and legislative branch."

The Advisory Committee is here to give advice and consent that the Mayor may act on related to matters having to do with the Trust.  This is not a matter related to the Trust.  This is a matter related to civic city government."

Zeno goes on to ask her if City Council has the authority to amend the role of the Advisory Committee and Williams responds:

"They can.  They can amend it.  Of course they can.  That is part of their legislative ability."

So now...flash forward to the November 6th City Council meeting concerning the city budget.  Video here:



For some reason the video embed link only has 7 seconds.  You can find the video at the CC website here, scroll down to the November 6th City Council meeting.  The Wisner issues first start at about 28 minutes into the session with Head addressing Cedric Grant.  It picks back up at 57 minutes into the session...although you may want to skip over Jackie Clarkson cackling about how she doesn't think the Wisner funds should go through the Council because they never have before and this Mayor doesn't need to be scrutinized.  Then finally at 1:12, the conversation between Head and Erica Beck takes place.

Councilperson Head questions the Mayor's peeps about why the Wisner budget line item is "$0".  City Attorney and the Mayor's appointee to the Advisory Committee, Erica Beck, responds and tells Head the Council has no control over the Wisner funds.  She sat in the courtroom and listened to the argument made by her colleague, Williams, to Judge Zeno then she stood up in front of City Council and told them they have no dominion over the Wisner funds or how the Mayor spends the money.

The Mayor's office is either misleading the judge, misleading City Council...or it's misleading both.  I'm not going to go so far as to say Beck lied to Head...but she certainly dissembled in respect to the stance they took in court, particularly at 1:17 in the video when Beck claims that no one (in the Mayor's admin.) would envision a process where Council oversees the Wisner budget.  I guess no one but the city attorney arguing that point to the judge.

In fact, when Head asked Beck about a "check and balance system" (1:16 into the video), Beck retorted that she didn't know where Head was getting that language.  I know where that language comes from....from the goddamn case they, themselves, made to Judge Zeno...it's right there in the transcript in black and white.

As if this isn't schizo enough...Beck and the Mayor's office have now come back to the Advisory Committee seeking their approval to award the 2013 grants.  Yes...you read that correctly....after going to court and arguing that the Mayor didn't have to get the Advisory Committee's approval to spend the Wisner money, they are now coming back to the Advisory Committee and asking for approval.

Email from November 21, 2013 to all members of the Edward Wisner Trust Advisory Committee

Why would they do this?  I think for two reasons: 1. The mayor is desperate to spend this money in 2013 with his re-election campaign and a possible run for governor on the near horizon.  2.  They are freaking out because Head is actually threatening to exercise Counsel's right to oversight of the funds.  They would rather let the oversight occur with the Advisory Committee because they think they have that vote locked down....City Council, not so much.

The whole thing would be quite humorous if it wasn't hurting the legitimate entities who need the money.  The Mayor's own hubris and greed to take over the entire Wisner motherlode has lead to his inability to spend any of the money...all this done supposedly under the guise of "transparency".   Now they are forced to spin deceitful webs in a desperate attempt to undo the damage they've done to themselves and the City itself.  

And I know many people are interested in who the City is proposing to give the 2013 grants to....here is that List:

2013 Proposed Wisner Grants for CNO

One thing I just noticed is that in the City Council meeting when Head is questioning Cary Grant about the $600k (approx.) in Wisner line items for Ceasfire and Nola For Life (28 minutes in the video), they state that they included this money in the general budget because it's appropriated to salaries (I think that was the reason, not 100% sure).  However, they are also listing Ceasefire ($100,180) and Nola for Life (under Greater New Orleans Foundation - $250,000) in the proposed 2013 grants.  


  

Public-ishy-ness

I got to watch a short segment today of the City Council meeting where the City's portion of the Wisner Funds was discussed in respect to what responsibility and oversight the Council has over how the funds are spent.  I'll defer to the Lens and Maldanado who was actually there:

Council members seek more accountability in Wisner, NOLA for Life spending

The budget does not, however, include more than $1.5 million in Wisner-funded grants the city usually gives to local charities. As long as the lawsuit is winding through appeals courts, the city doesn’t plan to allocate any Wisner grant money. That could put some of those charities in a bind. 

But even if the money were included, Landrieu’s General Counsel Erica Beck said, the council would have no control of it. 

“The council has traditionally not appropriated any of that grant money,” Beck told the council. “We’ve received no indication from the judge that we need to change.” 

But as blogger Jason Berry recently pointed out, New Orleans Municipal Code appears to give the council control of the fund. In fact, Berry reported, that “check and balance” was central to the city’s argument that the fund should be declared public. 

“If there is in fact council oversight,” asked Head, “and there is a check and balance for this government fund, when do I have that council oversight that is part and parcel to that check and balance?” 

During her remarks on the Wisner Fund, Head also objected to the process for handing out NOLA for Life grant funds, saying it wasn’t transparent, which led to funds going to charities that lacked proper financial documentation.

That is....almost incomprehensible to me....Beck's statements.

She sat in the same courtroom I did and listened to her fellow City Attorney, Sharonda Williams, argue to Judge Zeno that there was no need for the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee to review and provide oversight of how the Mayor spent the City's portion of the money because there was already a check and balance system in place with City Council, who oversees all expenditures of public money by the Mayor.

If they're now arguing that City Council has no oversight or control of the money we need to have another hearing and inform the judge that Sharonda Williams totally misinformed him in the courtroom.

As it stands right now, there is no oversight of how the Mayor spends the money...PUBLIC money.  He could go take out a Wisner Amex and blow millions of dollars on Cheetos, blow jobs, Miller Hi-Life and Angry Bird apps and there would be no legal recourse to stop him....none.

The judge ruled the Trust was PUBLIC.  As of right now, this money is PUBLIC money.  It's not "publicy" money.  It's not kinda-sorta public.  It's not a little bit public....it's fucking PUBLIC.

There shouldn't even be a question of whether or not City Council has control and oversight of how the executive branch spends the money but even if there was a question the City Code clearly states City Council has dominion.  Beck's argument that Council hasn't traditionally appropriated the grant money is moot....when the Mayor decided to attempt to bust the trust and bypass the "traditional appropriation of the money" he negated whatever M.O. was in place.

In fact, City Council now has a fiduciary duty to provide oversight.  If the Mayor did blow the money on Cheetos and blow jobs,  according to the City Code, Council could be held accountable as well.

Yes, I'm being outrageous but not so much in a city that is vaunted for corruption and misappropriation of public funds.  It's not only possible that the Wisner funds will be used as a personal slush fund for the Mayor's pet projects and to pay off political cronies....it's likely.

So Beck is saying that the judge gave them no indication that they need to change yet they must have misled the judge in their legal argument if this is the position they're taking now.  I think City Council needs to get a clarification from Judge Zeno on this matter and find out if he truly intended to turn over millions of public dollars generated annually to the Mayor without any oversight or action for recourse.

Hell, I may run for Mayor and go bankroll all my peeps' private ventures with Wisner funds if that's the case.

I'm waiting for the archived video to be loaded on City Council's website so I can watch the whole thing.  I'm also trying to obtain the transcript from the hearing...I went by Div. D today but the court reporter is on vacation and I wasn't able to get it.  I'll keep you posted.

The Wisner Trust - Not so fast, Mr. Mayor

The Wisner heirs recently filed a suspensive appeal in Div. D to stop the Mayor from spending the City's portion of the Wisner Trust funds until the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals can hear the case.  To my utter surprise, Judge Zeno granted the suspension.

Suspensive Appeal Order by Judge Zeno

This basically cock blocks the Mayor from spending any of the money he's allocated (without oversight) from the City's Wisner fund.  I would also note that it gives City Council time to take up their responsibility as an oversight body as dictated by the City Code, a role that was acknowledged by the Mayor's counsel in the hearing.

I'm betting this puts the Mayor in a bind as I'm sure there are a lot of folks waiting to get their hands on that dinero.

Speaking of that, I was excited to see a tweet last week from The Lens' Charles Maldonado that he had finally received the Mayor's Wisner budget (not sure which years) per a public records request he had file some four months ago.   I guess transparency is like a fine wine, it needs time to age.

UPDATE:  actually a clarification...the heirs did not file the suspensive appeal to block the money being spent by the City, it was filed in order to suspend the overall effects of Zeno's judgement until the Appellate Court can hear the case.  The heirs have deferred to the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee to decide whether or not the Mayor should be allowed to spend the City's portion of the Wisner money until the case is heard by the 4th Circuit.