June 22

Reform BLOG - Comments and Events on Indigent Defense in Louisiana. (About the author)

Terry Nichols was illustrative in Georgia: absurd spending can lead to the end of your agency. Pyush learned that lesson this summer: absurd spending and broken promises can even humble the most powerful politician in Louisiana! Our State Board must take note and understand that the foundation for success is fiscal responsibility and keeping the coalition together. It really doesn't take much to kill a fledgling program like the State Public Defender. Its been done before, when the 1974 Constitution had set the stage for a State Board that was allowed to die on the vine. You have to be aware of the source of your funds, the public interest must be primary, and selfish folks padding a nest are going to get into trouble. Kudos to the Governor for making the move, even if a bit late. Perhaps a side story on this is be sure your staff has some humility and understanding of politics, but always be ready to admit a mistake and change direction.

JUNE 23, 2008 LOUISIANA'S ALL JAIL TILT - HOW DIFFERENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT

GREENLAW v. UNITED STATES (No. 07-330) web-accessible at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-330.ZS.html deals with whether the Court of Appeal in the Federal System may alter a defendant's sentence as "illegally lenient". As the Court notes, the kind of procedure by which the Court of Appeal can hammer up a sentence is really not at all fair: "In a criminal prosecution, moreover, the defendant would appeal at his peril, with nothing to alert him that, on his own appeal, his sentence would be increased until the appeals court so decreed." Scalia is with the majority on this one!

Why Louisiana has adopted the contrary procedure, by which the D.A. need not appeal and can wait for the Court to handle the issue by sua sponte imposing a harsher sentence, is inexplicable on a policy basis! Only if you consider that politicians in this State continue to run on "stopping crime" as a big ticket to office, including Governor Jindal, who appeared on TV Spots threatening to run sex offenders out of the state. The Courts are not "neutral arbiters" so much as part of law enforcement under an "all jail, all the time" policy that has filled up prisons, made Louisiana number one in inmate population, and given us the reputation as a bizarre and wild west society. Its beginning to break the budget.

When Antonin Scalia seems liberal compared to your local jurisprudence, you are in some deep trouble!

In a very precise, if somewhat faulty manner, Georgia Senator Preston Smith, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, outlines what happens when a full time system lets its conflicts budget sink the entire program. Louisiana needs to pay attention to this. You can't amp up with a bunch of full time state employees and then pay lucrative contracts to the private bar. And you MUST have financial controls and solid, not phoney data, to back up what you do and what you pay. Amazingly, people think they can spend millions of public dollars and not have a paper trail or proper controls to assure some level of efficiency and accountability. Although Smith makes the unfortunate allusion to the "minimal defense" as the rule rather than "the best defense money can buy", he is right that PD programs cannot be immune to fiscal concerns. We can do a good job without wasting money.

We had better be good stewards of our fiscal affairs, lest Senator Smith become a precursor for our own political problems in Louisiana.

A recent 307 Board meeting heard discussion of the State Board coming up with 'best practices' for conflicts representation. Unfortunately, the State Board has no authority to regulate at this time because it has not adopted the objective standards mandated by Act 307. The two step process of going through Administrative Procedures to enact rules, followed by enforcement, hasn't gotten to step one. The interesting question is whether the Board members will give Jean Faria time to get the framework built before they push their own wish list of "things to do". Its critical that the board now step back and give Jean time to create her state office staff and build the foundation for standards enforcement by enacting performance standards. Until that process is complete, major moves by the 307 Board are essentially illlegal.

The unpaid, volunteer paradigm in not working for the La. PD Board. Its most dramatic moment is whether somebody will walk in and enable the Board to actually do business! The Statute says "8" is a quorum, even though currently there are vacant seats on the board. In fact, some members terms have expired, including Lucy McGough, whose listed term indicates it expired in January 2008 (assuming the Board web is correct). Others have been dismissed by the Board for missing meetings under Act 307. But despite being down in numbers, the revisions of 2006 put a flat number in the law for this important point, instead of a majority. And the law does not compensate the Board as Louisiana does for many. The result: a scramble for enough attendance to supervise the Public Defenders.

Oh, and by the way, "supervise" is the operative word. It is still somewhat amazing and very disappointing that Board Members who do attend often make sweeping declarations about what should be done, in clear contradiction of the Act 307 Structure. This Board cannot issue mandates: it is tasked with setting standards and enforcing them. Absent a standard or rule, the Board is not empowered to impose change. The Districts are an independent Political Subdivision, in existence independent of the State. The concept of Act 307 is the Board should supervise and the Chief Public Defender should manage.

Now that the Board has removed the excuse that Ed Greenlee was its problem, its becoming apparent that there are problems that have more to do with the Board itself that remain critical and challenging. This is going to be a big effort, and the Public Defenders will have to do some work if this whole thing has any chance. A good first step would be for the Board Members to each get intimately familiar with the Statute.

Another contempt citation for Professor Singer, as yet another Judge (Willard) in Orleans Parish finds him in contempt, this time for refusing to leave a court room. He is also facing contempt in Magistrate's Court for refusing to go TO A COURTROOM!!! He has been charged with contempt for giving free counsel, and threatened with contempt for not having enough free counsel!! So it's "damned if he does, damned if he don't". It makes for funny blogging, particularly when, as only in the River City, a Jesus reference sneaks in.

But then again, maybe its not too funny. What is Steve achieving with these antics? The left seems to seek refuge in the Public Defender offices, and in this case it seems that the system is just too corrupt and too flawed for Steve to get along in it. Nobody is apologizing for the debacle that has been the Battle of New Orleans over indigent defense since Katrina. No matter how bad it gets for the clients, there is still a cheerleading squad standing by for the "finest Public Defender Office" blah, blah, blah. At some point we need lawyers representing clients and not using the continuing drama to promote a political agenda. Teaching the young lawyers just coming on and trying to pass the bar that "contempt" is to be trifled with is a terrible disservice. IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND CAN IMPACT A LAWYER FOR AN ENTIRE CAREER! Hard to imagine that refusing to leave a court room is worth that.

This model had better be studied, and the 307 Board had better renounce it. We need to settle down, get to work addressing client needs, including the Orleans Parish Bar, particularly minorities, in a contract arm of the program, and get clients to lawyers. Put aside the idea that you must have vertical representation in all cases, and that the Judges have to be the enemy. Work within the framework of the rules, draw attention to injustice, object to it, but don't get into a contempt habit. You burned a jury venire, hurt the credibility of your office, and delayed your client's day in court. Some day you'll be praised at some Seminar or Meeting, but your client is wondering what the hell happened.

Some of the best, most effective Criminal Defense Lawyers in the country have never been held in contempt!

Shreveport Attorney Clay Walker, who's father is a long time advocate of a strong Criminal Defense Bar (Henry Walker), is the apparent choice of the 307 Board for State Juvenile Director. The Board has left to Jean Faria the finer points of Clay's contract, including compensation, but the choice solidifies the 307 Board's approach as one of staying in Louisiana for its staffing.

Early in its life, there was a perception that a flood of national applicants would show up in Louisiana for the state positions. That hasn't happened. But its better to have the Louisiana Bar deeply involved in the Public Defender Program: one of the Legislature's "hot buttons" during the run up to the reform was always whether it was going to be co-opted by activists from out of state. New Orleans was criticized for having a lot of new bodies brought in from far away places, often at the expense of its clients.

One of the interesting oversights in the move for reform has been the impact that Contract Programs can have on the Criminal Justice Bar. It remains quite difficult to build a private practice. Going to a "full time" model for indigent defense removes one of the major benefits of Public Defender Programs by eliminating lots of lawyers from the work. Already, one of the complaints in Orleans is that local minority attorneys are no longer getting OPD work: for some reason in the ardor for "full time" we have forgotten that a contract defender can build a law practice with the criminal cases taken under Court Appointment. The 307 Board should make that part of its approach to "systems" as the reform continues.

The ABA and others have long noted the critical importance of a "private bar": Louisiana District Attorneys often include a strong element of private counsel in their offices, as do many Public Defender Programs. These elements often lead to former Public Defenders becoming Judges and Legislators, something that seldom happens with the full time model. But perhaps most importantly, you can boost a strong minority and criminal defense bar with a properly structured Public Defender system built on contracts. We share Justice Johnson's concern, expressed to the State Board, that application of a rigid preference for "full time" can harm the minority bar, but we stress the positive side of that issue: that properly administered contract elements of the Public Defender can enhance and strengthen the Criminal Justice Bar, including minorities.

Some people haven't read Act 307, including perhaps some of the 307 Board! Many have not considered what the process of getting Act 307 demonstrates for the future of the Right to Counsel in Louisiana. But a tiny few continue to lament that the compromise is not really a compromise, and an even smaller number continue to try reviving old arguments to suit their own agenda. That kind of petty and childish nonsense doesn't stand a chance against the Compromise to Consensus. The 307 Board has consistently demonstrated that it is not going to be co-opted by anyone, and it has also made clear that excellence is the goal, not getting by or just doing o.k. That may not work in favor of some people, but its critical to remember that the Public Defenders have long stood for a system in which the policy is the focus, not the individual personalities: that's what Act 307 essentially says when it objectifies the standards and requires the Board to impose rules and enforce them.

The other important point about Act 307 is that nobody is expected to abandon their own perception of what is best, and what will work. For some reason a very few folks in the system continue to fret that "they haven't given up on full-time", referring to advocates for that model of service delivery. Well, "they" never were expected to or required to. LaPDA has advocates for contract and full time among its membership, so why would the organization insist on "one size fits all"? Nor was it ever expected that people in favor of a particular approach would give up and go away.

What is expected is that everybody understands the only way our system will work is through consensus. Act 207 provides plenty of opportunity for the full time advocates to prove its value, and likewise for contract advocates to prove that can work. It is the process of Act 307 that is most instructive: there will be no coup or clique that takes over the Public Defender System: there is no support for that in our Legislature. (And in fact there is overwhelming opposition) At the same time, people have a chance to test their favorite ideas.

There is also no way that anybody is going to prevail by trying to split the coalition with rumors and innuendo. All that will get us is a repeal. Whether we grudgingly compromise or do so enthusiastically, we are at a point where the old battles are over and the new struggle is to work together to see that our common ground is protected.

Kudos to Frank Nuener, the Chairman of the 307 Board, and to Jean Faria, the anticipated new Chief Defender, for supporting the Consensus in word and deed. That's the kind of leadership that gives us a chance to make this work. As David Carroll put it at the Loyola Symposium, there is everything to lose in any effort to return to the divisions of the past, and nothing to gain. Kudos too for NLADA and David for staying with this through some tough times, and being one of the first to stand for that Compromise to Consensus. We haven't always agreed, but we do now. Lets make history instead of trying to relive it!

APRIL 16, 2008 HARRIS COUNTY DEBATES 'FULL TIME PUBLIC DEFENDERS' VS ASSIGNED COUNSEL

Age does funny things to the world. You start to see things replay like old movies. Take for example the current donnybrook over whether Harris County (HOUSTON) Texas should quit appointing members of the bar and go to a Public Defender Office. This is the debate that never happened in New Orleans, but has raged for years, until finally people have started to say "you know what, there's no data on this question!", and therefore no clear support for one form of delivery over another. The lawyers doing the work believe in their work, the ones who will do the work believe in their potential, and the policymakers and funders will jump for the cheapest. All of this happens in the total absence of any empirical data about what is happening or what will happen under any particular "system".

There is a lot of declarative rhetoric, but no facts. Some day we will actually take the time and make an effort to consider a true data set that objectively tells us what works for the client. Here's a prediction: when we do that, the most critical variable will be compensation and resourcing the people who do the work so that they can be sufficiently devoted and provided the tools needed to meet the demands of the Right to Counsel for each client they represent.

One more thing: no client other than the Wall Street type ever has a "full time lawyer", whether its a "State Lawyer" or a private lawyer, unless a single client can pay the going rate for the profession, they only get a part time counsel.

LOYOLA LAW CENTER, NEW ORLEANS, its Friday April 5th and 'experts' have come from around the country to speak at the Journal of Public Policy "Symposium on Louisiana Public Defender Reform". Somewhat surprisingly, the Executive Counsel for the La Public Defenders is on the program. David Carroll of NLADA notes that the historic Louisiana Reform in Act 307 is rooted in a Consensus built by Danny Martiny, and makes clear that "breaking into old factions" would doom any chance of success.

Norm Feldstein of Indiana University Law School sees some 'unusual' things in Act 307, including the diffusion of power in the State Board to hire and fire District Chiefs. In response to a question about why we often hear reformers lobby for a dictatorship, Norm notes that he doesn't mind 'some due process', but that as a Dean, for example, he certainly would not want to have to go through a hearing to fire somebody! When is there enough 'Due Process' seems to be the question. The answer seems to be founded on a preliminary question along the lines of "are you doing the firing, or am I?"

Richard Goemann of NLADA asserts that the Duke boys would have plead guilty if his former PD Program had gotten the case. Several speakers admit what this post has long asserted: there is no gold standard PD system, they all lack funding, have problems with political support, etc. Things work with regard to variables other than "system". It is the MONEY that makes the difference.

The PD Rep from Louisiana notes that all the anecdotes have worn thin. Time to grow up and do actual research which controls variables and makes judgments based on facts. New Orleans transplants Singer and Metzger seem to agree, but then Professor Pam posits that "decriminalization of marijuana" would solve a lot of caseload issues: not recognizing that defacto decriminalization of first offense is pretty much the norm. (pun re NORML is accidental) Urging that more generous rules allowing liability against lawyers for Criminal Malpractice confirm that Professor Metzger is in the Law School, not on the street. The 2,000 hours the LaPDA discussed as total lawyer work time annually (from the ABA) would likely be consumed quickly with the civil suits pouring in!

Overall an interesting day of discussing Act 307 and its potential. Generally its seen as the cutting edge. There was a bit of "cultural change" gospel preached, but every speaker noted the Public Defenders who have worked under the harsh conditions of the past are to be praised, not buried. A refreshing change from the gospel of "get rid of all the shitty lawyers" once widely preached.

Saturday LaPDA's Board met with Federal Defender Jean Faria as special guest, and there was more discussion of data gathering, statistical policy, and helping the State Board draft some regulations. Jean is the 'Chief Defender Elect' and is expected to move down from the better grooming of the Federal Courts this fall to work with the hefty caseloads borne by the PD's at the State Level.

It was another watershed weekend, akin to the ACCD meeting of 2004, and another waypoint on the acceptance of a Compromise to Consensus that could well carry Louisiana to the head of the pack in the Public Defender Profession. Board Chair Frank Neuner was present for most of the Symposium, and continues to promote a policy of openness, inclusion and consultation.

Some seven years ago we met Ed Greenlee, who became the first real "State Public Defender" under statutory authority and a State Board. Ed created the highly respected Regional Capital Programs and saw us through the Katrina / Rita disasters. The State Board decided to turn things over to a new Chief Public Defender, Jean Faria, who in fact was the very first Chief Defender, appointed by the Board created by the Supreme Court in 1994.

For all the discussion about process, inclusiveness and discussion, the Board looked perplexed when, after Remy Stearns reiterated that a search committee recommended Jean, the comment period opened and closed without a word. WHAT IF YOU ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOBODY SPOKE?

LaPDA always considered it likely that the Board would have its own reasons for selection of its Chief of Staff, and that considerations by the board would include internal matters such as meeting preparation, clerical procedures and other issues. We did not think it was our place to "tell" the board anything about its choice. Working together often means stepping back and being open to work with whoever ends up getting the nod of those in authority. It seems this board was looking for a new approach under Act 307 in large part because the new law demands it. The Board unanimously Resolved to thank Ed Greenlee for his service. The Public Defenders certainly know him as a resource for help and hope we have a chance to work with him in the future.

The issue is that our Student Council has enough money to pay for gravel on the faculty parking lot. As SC Pres., I am fighting the idea of Sr. Mary Rose to use our money for their parking lot. I get the flu and during my absence Sister gets the Council to do as she wishes! Talk about education! The definition of politics is "who gets what", and that is in more ways than one!

Consensus is what got us the State Public Defender Board and the chance to have one of the national leaders in Indigent Defense. In fact, there is no State in a position to lay claim to "THE" Public Defender System. Success has been spotty at best, absent at worst. We must continue to build on a foundation of the consensus, even in the operation of the State Board, its creation of policy, and its hiring process. Amazingly, there are still some who want to have a small elite make all the decisions and impose them on everybody else: that is what killed efforts at change for 15 years! The Chairman of the Public Defender Board gave us hope this week with this email to the Board on unity:

" . . . . . we all need to remember we got this far by working together as a team and not as individuals with their own agendas-- . . . . some of our venting has "leaked" and may be used against us during the legislative session. Let's all try to come together for the good of the whole and move indigent defense reform forward. We can only accomplish this by recognizing different views have a place at the table and a better system will result from continuing dialogue."

Solid persuasive writing! Unfortunately, there are still some bent on whispering about exclusion and trying to create an inner circle to rule the roost. That's just destructive. What we need is more loyalty to the overriding "compromise to consensus" that got us to this point. After all, the naysayers and the elitists can still have their say. Its just that they will have to discuss it in the sunshine!!

MARCH 22, 2008 - 'SUNSHINE WEEK', FEATURING LA PD BOARD DECIDING WHETHER TO DISCUSS THINGS!

This is "Sunshine Week", promoted by the media to raise awareness of the Open Meetings Law and the concept that the public has a right to know how the business of the public is being done! Ironically, the State Board in Louisiana is dealing with a few members who apparently think their own knowledge is sufficient, and actually suggesting the balance of the board should not be allowed to question it.

MARCH 21, 2008 URGENT PUSH TO CONFIRM NEW CHIEF - BOUSTANY CRITICIZED FOR QUESTIONING PROCESS AND ASKING FOR DISCUSSION ON MARCH 28

Ah, the power of power! The "Search Committee" of the La PD Board is not the "ultimate selection committee not to be questioned" as in the view of some of its members. Alfred Boustany, the ex officio member of the State Board, has been vilified by a couple of State Board Members for raising a point of order on the procedure, and suggesting the full board should ultimately make the decision. A couple of members suggest the board should just "take our word for it", although its not clear the Board has a contract form or any other procedure in place for the hire.

Its a disservice to the new Chief for people to make the process seem anything but totally open and inclusive. People should know by now that small elites, being called committees or cliques, cannot make the La PD Board a success. REMEMBER: IT WAS COMPROMISE TO CONSENSUS? Apparently its going to be hard to make sure people don't forget. We will keep trying, and we're proud to have Alfred reminding people of that.

For those of us on the outside, its hard to figure how the Board went from "searching" through a committee to suddenly "submitting" its authority. But there's likely a good political reason for it. We wish Jean Faria luck and pledge our support, but this board is going to be a challenge! Our hopeful note of 3/17 (see entry 3/18) is looking like wishful thinking, as the Board seems to be full of people who are more concerned about how they look, whether they are respected and who's done what work than they are about the critically important work to be done! If this continues Act 307 will die before the decade is out.

WE ARE ONE YEAR OLD, AND DON'T HAVE A DECISION ON A SINGLE RULE, HAVE ONLY ONE STATEWIDE HIRE, AND HAVE A STAFF UNDER INCREDIBLE PRESSURE WHILE THE BOARD PLAYS KING OF THE HILL. The answer is not to stifle discussion, its just to focus on the important things.

MARCH 18,2008 - FAST BREAK AFTER FREEZING THE BALL, STATE BOARD TO CONSIDER NEW CHIEF MARCH 28

The new Chair of the State Board has finally gotten the process moving: nearly a year after the passage of Act 307 the State Board has no regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act, has not undertaken more than preliminary steps to name District Chiefs in vacant districts, is not enforcing compliance with the Web Based Data Collector, has not come up with the regulatory contracts for the Districts, etc. etc. . . . . Hopefully, given the end to a rather bitter political process over the State Chief, the Board may allow the staff to get things done and step aside from the micro-management that has characterized its early days.

"By now most of you know that Ed Greenlee is likely not going to get the nod as Chief Defender, as information has it the La Public Defender Board is leaning toward Jean Faria of Baton Rouge. Ed has been a friend to Public Defenders and we're sorry to see this happen to him. We hope he stays with the State Board in some capacity and we think there's room for his expertise and experience. Those of us who've gone through that type of professional changes can sympathize.

"Jean Faria has been actively interested in the plight of Public Defenders for about 15 years, and was active in the 1993 Blue Ribbon Commission that started it all in Louisiana. She was the first State Chief and has been working for the Federal Public Defender's Baton Rouge Office since leaving the State Board. She has been active at the national level in a number of efforts aimed at improving Public Defender Services.

"You should also understand that alone among the candidates for the job, Jean was the only person other than Ed to call me and visit with me about the concerns and support of LaPDA. Some months ago we had a long talk about history and the future of the State Board under Act 307, at her request, and Jean indicated she is going to be committed to working with the public defenders under the act, consulting with them, and recognizing the status of districts under Act 307. Her vision includes a lot of consultation with you as Professionals in this challenging time. She has indicated acceptance of the philosophy of Act 307 and the diversity of District Offices. She has said she wants the support of the public defenders.

"I am sure she is also viewed by the Board as a person who can make the hard calls when necessary under the enforcement provisions of Act 307, so I am not trying to imply anything here other than the fact that Jean, along with LaPDA and LaCDL, professes to have a new vision of our problems and issues. Keeping in mind the provisions of the law, and particularly glad that Jean has reached out to us, I believe we have to do our best to work with Jean should the final action name her to the position. I believe she has made the commitment to do the same.

"What ever unease this kind of change may bring, the purpose of our efforts in getting Act 307 passed, and the Legislature's purpose in passing it, was to bring objective criteria and effective reform to all the Districts. I know some thought our efforts to unite the Criminal Bar might be risky, but in fact that effort has to continue if Act 307 has a chance to succeed. I think many people recognize that, and if anybody forgets it, I have no doubt we can re-educate them in the Legislative Process. But at this point I see no reason to fear that things are going to come apart because of the people the State Board puts into staffing positions.

"Putting aside that we feel bad for a good friend who's going through a tough time, the system will go on, and LaPDA will continue to be an important part of reform in Louisiana. We know how to fight for what we believe in, and we are committed to working in a spirit of compromise until somebody decides to go back in history and refuse that. If that happens we know how to change the law!

In olden days (circa 1993), we were factionalized, and Jean would have had a small circle of friends with whom policy and PD issues were discussed. The closed process would have lead to public positions, policy advocacy, and strategy. The arena is too big for that now! Jean's reaching out to LaPDA was a good first step on what must be a long journey together. Now that this selection is nearly settled, we have the opportunity and the first test of compromise to consensus. Going back to old times would destroy Act 307, so we know the outreach, consultation and cooperation is going to continue.

There is already a rump movement in the Legislature to get an accounting from this Board: anybody who believes Act 307 is anything more than a temporary permit is delusional. We have to address things in Orleans Parish, including complete accounting and hard data, which is lacking. We have to understand that the Public Defender Board is not a platform to promote any ideology, it is a device to provide lawyers to clients and resource those lawyers for counseling and litigation.

Back in 1995, Sam Dalton was one of the PD Board members who selected Jean, as was Walt Sanchez. Jim Boren was involved as well. To date, the reconciliation of the criminal bar in Louisiana has been easy. This is crunch time on the issue of what we've learned and were we go from here. We hope that Frank Neuner, who so ably facilitated compromise during the creation of Act 307, will continue to insist that all stakeholders are involved, engaged and consulted. That, more than a person, or even a policy, is what it will take for Louisiana to be successful in the Public Defender arena: one in which success is rare these days, problems are legion, and always, its about the money!!

MARCH 13, 2008 - HIRING PROCESS IS ARBITRARY, CLOSED . . . NOT IN ACCORD WITH NATIONAL EXPERTS ADVICE

People at the last Board meeting noted that NLADA experts counseled the State Board to hold off on picking the new State Chief until the Board could reach a consensus on goals and resolve other issues. It turns out that some of those issues include the process by which a CEO is being selected. There is scant information on what the Board is doing or how its is doing it. In traditional Louisiana fashion, the Board has simply announced that a selection committee is interviewing March 7 and 14, and will make recommendations to the full board at the March meeting.

Lots of politicking is going on, with a lot of support for former Chief Defender Jean Faria, who was the First State Chief Defender and now works with the Federal Public Defender in Baton Rouge, and for Ed Greenlee, the Interim Director who has the longest term of experience as a State Public Defender, Assistant Director of the Louisiana Appellate Project, and a District Public Defender in Baton Rouge. Other candidates have experience in academia, running State Programs, or practicing law.

But the question is: how is this being decided? It seems that NLADA usually suggests setting some objective criteria so that the new CEO comes in on a wave of clear markers, and the hire becomes a foundation for credibility in the administration of the State Program. There is some indication that Louisiana, in keeping with a tradition dating back to French Colonial Times, has chosen not to make that objective roadmap, and instead try to rush to complete the choice on a political footing clear only in the minds of the decision makers.

It is unfortunate to find that in bringing in national experts, our State Board might cherry pick the advice it wants and leave other things to die on the vine in favor of personality rather than policy.

MARCH 8, 2008 WAITING TO EXHALE - THE STORY OF BIG BOARD POLITICS AND HOW IT CONTRASTS WITH POLICY DISCUSSIONS AT THE LAPDA MEETING YESTERDAY

You would have been impressed on Friday March 7 had you observed 15 Chief Defenders considering how to count cases and calculate workloads. It was a great contrast to the State Public Defender Board Meeting of a week or two before, where a nearly 3 hour segment was devoted to "tell us how you feel", and at least one Board Member clearly didn't feel good about the whole program from NLADA.

As the Board tries to get in touch with itself, Public Defenders work to tweak the state wide computer database which shows the PD's caseloads at over 100,000 active, open cases, and total cases including closed files at about a half million! Discussion focused on what to do with cases that are neither open nor closed, including Juvenile (post adjudication, continuing monitoring); Felons Incapable of Assisting (Stay of Proceedings pending treatment or evaluation); and other matters that could skew data and management issues if not properly defined and recorded. Part of the focus was the first significant rule on the table for discussion: when is data to be entered and how will the State Board require timing of updates.

Its a bit of a stretch to say the State Board only considered its feelings. It was told by the NLADA team several times that "you are not ready to name a Chief Defender because you do not know what your goals are". The board includes some folks so ready to punt current staff that they pressed ahead on interviews for the State Chief during March, apparently in an effort to name the position holder quickly. They have also made two attempts at getting office space, but without any luck. While some Board Members want to blame the staff, most observers find the Board considers its role as management rather than supervision, which is forcing staff to swim through molasses much of the time. You mean you can't let Staff pick an office in Baton Rouge? This is not your honeymoon cabin, its a PD Office, and one not necessarily for client intake or other needs that make location critical.

Ed Greenlee has given the Board an excellent map for going through Administrative Procedures and adopting formally some of the things already extant, including Performance Standards. But too many on the Board are worried more about personalities than policy, and a lot of treading water has been done for fear that the wrong person gets the credit. This is typical Louisiana political gaming, and it doesn't make sense.

In the meantime, LaPDA will meet in April and try to provide some insight for the Board. Not on their self concept, but on the issues of the day, including caseload management, timely rules for data entry, and other pressing needs. There is some agreement with Sam Dalton, again on the State Board, who said during the NLADA program "the board is too big"! But the benefit of inertia at the State Board is that Districts can continue to do their work and improve client service while the official State Board decides who to favor with a State Job.

All of this adds to the impression that this Board would be much better as a paid management team comprised of people with knowledge and experience in Public Defender Services. Oh, and maybe also READING THE STATUTE, which one board member demonstrated hadn't happened when she challenged wording in a proposed regulation. Even after hearing it was the law, she reportedly indicated "I still don't like that language". OK, now that's an interesting approach. We are not encouraged by the pace of Board action and concerned that the power of the consensus that reached Statutory Reform is not being throttled into the State Board's work. There's too much "my agenda" going on and not enough "get input from the professionals".

Most of all, there's too much management being tried on this large board, and not enough policymaking. Policymaking is "we need an office of appropriate size to accommodate staff in Baton Rouge that complies with State Law and is acceptable for the work that will be done". This Board has people more interested in the color of the carpet and whether its a nice drive. MALARKY!

FEB 7, 2008(b) DISAPPOINTED CAREER DEFENDER FRUSTRATED BY ADJUNCT ROLE "To vindicate the Right To Counsel in Louisiana by understanding the needs of lawyers and clients in Louisiana Courts, and meeting those needs with proper resources, training and support."

Oh, by the way - the mission statement above has NOT been adopted. This Board cannot even bring itself to put aside individual interests long enough to adopt a mission statement, even on a temporary basis! Quibbling to a state of paralysis.

The report from the Public Defender's representative on the LaPD Board is, to say the least disappointing. A three hour session on good meetings practice and a kind of modified goals conference. This while Orleans Parish continues to struggle and the major impact of the first 28 million dollar budget remains unclear. At one point Alfred Boustany suggested that "the function of the Board is to find attorneys for clients, insure they are effective, compensated, and get the work done", including New Orleans. Jancey Hoeffel took exception to the comment on Orleans not being successful. However, her husband Steve Singer has noted they are far short of having enough lawyers, and clients continue to suffer as New Orleans insists on "a full time program" with vertical representation, to the prejudice of an efficient delivery of counsel to their clients.

None of that has been discussed by the Board. Some members may want to see full time succeed, but it remains that the core mission of the State Program is to provide functional District Offices, not to vindicate particular theories of operation or philosophies of "Public Defender" propriety. Remarkably, the board continues to tread water while its search for a CEO goes on! Fortunately for our clients, the current staff continues to do the work of day to day management, getting resources to lawyers representing clients.

One of the interesting challenges that has been frustrated by micromanagement of the Board is office space. We understand space has been located, but the Board quibbles about length of the term of the lease, wanting only a one year commitment! This is the kind of decision that frankly is none of the Board's business: when you meet less than once a month, you set policy, broad goals and activities. You don't pick the curtains! It's interesting that some folks blame the staff for not having Baton Rouge digs, but the real problem is the board is putting too much detail into that task, without knowing anything about the market or availability. This is frightening metaphor for operation of a state program . . . one hopes to see the board making the big decisions and letting employees make the little ones.

The PD Board will meet on Friday instead of Tuesday, and plans to interview six finalists for permanent State Chief Defender early in March. NLADA reps ended up in a 3 hour discussion of Board theory, the most notable comment being that the members of the State Board appear to stress personal agendas to the expense of a state agenda. That's consistent with comments here, that the Board has been overly concerned with personalities and minutia.

Disclosure requirements from the new Ethics Law should make things interesting, along with an advisory opinion which LaPDA has secured, making clear that no economic interest for family members or business associates are allowed for Board Members. This includes spouses working in a District Office or lawyers getting paid by non-profits.

Governor Jindal tapped Frank Neuner for Chairman of the State PD Board, proving once again that politics is unpredictable to say the least: during the Session in 2007 Frank was among those opposing the Governor's appointment power and urging the chair be elected by the board! Frank's first meeting offers an ambitious agenda suggesting you might want to bring dinner. A Vice Chair is to be elected, among other things. The 21 items include an executive session and a "NLADA Visions" presentation.

Sam Dalton returns to the state level. He was on the first PD Board which named Jean Faria Chief Defender. Nothing official on the Board web, but we understand Jim Boren will return as Ex Officio for LaCDL as well. Board members are listed on the PD Board site.

Remy Stearns is to report on the search for a State Chief at Tuesday's meeting, which is set for 2 PM on the LSU Campus, at Efferson Hall, LSU Ag Center, Room 212. Its not clear whether the Board might make a move on naming a permanent State Chief. Other applicants we know about are all from Louisiana, including a Law Professor, a Regional Capital Program Director and of course interim Chief Ed Greenlee.

The interesting thing about court cost funding for anything is that most of the collections come from Traffic Cases. That's just where the money is, and the volume. For example, in Lafayette Parish, probably 60% or better of the PD budget used to come from City Court Traffic. Its the same in most areas with an urban center and active traffic court. But the cost of enforcement and the dawn of new technology is starting to change that.

The myth of "traffic tickets bad - general appropriations good" is on its last legs: in many states the Legislative Will has been a poor example of dependable funding. But the whole question will be moot in the next decade as the efficiency of automated traffic enforcement takes over. The pertinent question for the Public Defenders will then be "where's the money?". Ultimately the general fund will be the primary source of funding, and we may fondly recall when the courts sent us a check without any policy input on what we did with it.

The core of Ethics Reform is already going to the House Floor, as the new Governor seems to have the votes he needs to turn back concerns from the Judiciary and current Ethics Commission Chairman Hank Perrett. Although HB 59, which specifically applies to Boards and Commissions, was deferred yesterday, much of the same substance could be placed in in HB 1.

Justice Kimball reportedly urged a committee to let the Supreme Court make the rules for Judges, but suggested amendments were turned back and HB 1 is going to the floor with everybody under the big ethics umbrella. Whether separation of powers prohibits this kind of regulation is open to debate, but it seems the political punch behind ethics reform could hit the judiciary hard at the ballot box. Certainly the Legislature has the power to include Judges under general law for all kinds of issues. Judges are already subject to Legislation on campaign finance, and have to file reports like other candidates.

The Ethics Commission issues are not new: there has been a brewing controversy over the function of a singe commission as Investigator, Judge and Jury for some time. Jindal proposes to have an Administrative Law Judge adjudicate complaints, which makes sense in terms of classic fairness and separation of function. As it is now, once the staff tells you there is a violation and you should pay a fine, that's it: you can't expect the Commission to be independent of its staff.

For LaPDA, whose concern over Public Defender Reform has always been whether policy or politics will rule, this is all good: the more transparent the relationships in government and business, the more ability we've got to insist that policy decisions be made for the right reasons, not for "good ole boy networks".

HB 59 WOULD COVER LA PD BOARD -Requires extensive disclosure, including all sources of income flowing to any business owned by or in which member has an interest. Names of spouse, name of all businesses in which board member holds an interest, name of all income sources for such business. Would show income from a law firm whose work includes State Contracts or work for political subdivision.

Looking back, it seems NONE of the convicted Louisiana Politicians were in the dock at the "Commission on Governmental Ethics" . . . JIM BROWN says Judges should be included . . . . proposals by Governor Jindal to provide advisory opinions without naming names would help Public Defenders understand application of the Code under the new statewide plan. We have been stumped because the Commission wants names and specifics, but there are none because this is all new! (Frankly, part of this is the Commissions bend toward finding violations and collecting fines, which isn't helped by advisory opinions)

Louisiana Judges find themselves in the middle at this point, and are suggesting the Legislature cannot require financial disclosure under the Separation of Powers - tough disclosure rules suggested by the Governor are not sitting well with many, but the Judges have a Constitutional argument.

HAVOC may be too gentle a term for what Governor Jindal is doing in the interest of a business tax cut. Universities are being barred from using new money from last session by an Executive Order that empowers the Commissioner of Administration to make fiscal law: approving or rejecting legally mandated spending. Hospitals likewise are floundering and its difficult to see how one person or one office can legally supplant the will of the Legislature on funding, positions and spending, which has been signed into law already. Public Defenders may see some of the same issues with the State Board. We understand some Board Members are waiting to see what the Governor does with LPDB: anxiously!

We heard during the campaign about brutal bloodletting in the Dept of Health when Jindal ran it for Foster. Deja vu?

There's a Bush book on the shelf I'm planning to read. Simply titled "HUBRIS" and describing the train wreck of the W. Administration. The kind of Hubris shown by Pyush's budget officer, who says she is going to "Right Size" State Government! Apparently coming in with an arbitrary 25% across the board cut is nothing but right. Can it be that every department is that bloated, or is it just right wing dogma in practice?

Given that there is a ONE BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS, its seems that the poor businessmen of the State need 300 million in tax relief and the paltry 700 MILLION that's left will have to be carefully tended to! How much would have to be in the bank for these people to consider things at least "pretty good"? Given that and Pyush's ideas on criminalizing some ethical lapses, one hopes if they allow retroactivity and that failure to report $100,000 in campaign money is not made a crime!

The checks part of checks and balances is going to be tested when the Legislature comes into session. Its kind of insulting to come right out of the box with a figure for cutting state spending so that you can make a firm commitment to business for a $300 million tax cut! This in a State in which our "Worker's Comp Reform" under Mike Foster has done nothing to attract business but a lot to add to the poverty in our state.

JANUARY 16, 08 COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION MUST APPROVE HIRES - BUDGET CUT AT A PRESUMPTIVE 25% - EXPERIENCE COUNTS? TRANSPARENCY WILL MAKE THINGS INTERESTING

Governor Jindal bemoaned bloated government throughout his campaign. He cut spending when running the Department of Health and Hospitals for Governor Foster. His first official moves as Governor of Louisiana have been to freeze executive branch hiring and to proffer a 25% cut in state spending.

Jindal expressed concern over 1,250 new state jobs "created by the Blanco Administration" , perhaps downplaying the fact that the Legislature does that, not the Governor. Included in those jobs of course would be the State level positions for the Public Defender Program, and the Executive Department Hiring Freeze certainly bars retaining any more personnel at the State Level without approval of the Commissioner of Administration. We may miss Jerry Luke Leblanc, who had worked the Public Defender issue for years with LaPDA and understood the issues and the needs. Much of the additional money came with his help and the support of Governor Blanco. We hope our friends Danny Martiny and Joel Chaisson, along with other leaders in State Government, will be able to help the new administration understand that his program is far from a boodoggle or spendthrift, but is a long overdue reform, which must be fully funded.

It is unfortunate that the State Board was unable to complete the State level staffing before the new administration, and now it may literally be months or more before it can be done. Combined with the initial proposal to cut spending by 25%, some are seeing a need for experience in the staff at LaPDB rather than the "new fresh face" some of the board seems to want and has been waiting for. It remains to be seen whether the board will tread water in hopes the salary provisions for the State Chief will be amended: under the current lighting, it appears Jindal might want to resist a "raise" and the board may have few options anyway. Here's hoping we can just get to work and not tread water over personalities. The current staff has been through this with Governor Foster: that counts for a lot.

Another Executive Order we particularly LIKE: the Governor wants a kind of transparency with grants and funding to outside agencies of the State, with internet access! Going back to the days of the Englishman, we have urged that spending of State monies be clearly and publicly accounted for. Particularly when an agency like the State P D Board is providing grants to private corporations, non-profits and others, that money remains public and there should be easy access to who is getting what. We love the internet and look forward to seeing this one unfold. "If you can't stand the light of day, don't come out to play." Most, if not all of the PDB agencies are doing this already, so that should be a feather in the State Board's cap.

L.A. Times piece today about the Kentucky case that SCOTUS will hear today notes that the process for execution is in the dark: secrecy has cloaked the procedure for years since public executions halted. (the aggravating Times "registration" b.s. is worth the trouble this time, though its lame and you can go in on a false name and email if you like)

Unfortunately, it is no exception, what with Appellate Decisions routinely cased as "unreported", allowing rulings to go without citation and as "non-precedent". What an outrageous process! The law is supposed to be evenly applied, and precedent is supposed to give a framework for its application. Courts should not be allowed to render opinions that essentially "don't count". If the purpose was to save paper, the digital era has mooted that, and so what exactly is the purpose? The effect is to free judges from concern that their rulings will be cited, published or relied on in the future, meaning that exceptions can be made.

Killings by the State are not the exception: secret gardens are growing all over. We have the secret records in Louisiana when a child is a victim under Title 46, in which some Appellate Courts have balked at providing the record to defense counsel!! We have Gitmo and CIA renderings (kidnapping in foreign countries), we have "Confidential Informants", and of course "unreported decisions". Not at all the justice system of the Revolution: more Star Chamber than Stars and Stripes.

One would like to have a case to challenge all this. But how do you know about that ruling out there that your client needs to cite without regard to the rule that it cannot be cited? Its not cited, so its out there, but how do you know. That's probably why we're supposed to have a public court system, open and of record. Lets put that on our shopping list for "reform".

JANUARY 2, 2008 PACK ZACH BACK - COURT SENDS INMATE BACK TO PRISON FOUR YEARS AFTER RELEASE WHEN STATE GETS NEW SENTENCE UNDER 15:529.1

Abuse of Process? Accessory convicted of obstruction in Capital Murder beats the Habitual Offender Sentence in a series of two or more hearings. Finally, the State comes up with a Florida record and proceeds with the H.O. charge, and the sentence is doubled from 10 to 20 years: FOUR YEARS AFTER SHE WAS RELEASED!! The First Circuit holds that is OK, because Zachary filed opposition to the Habitual Offender Bill!! STATE V ZACHARY 2007 KA 0678 Damned if you do and damned if you do!

This is an extension of the La Supreme Court's Mohammed decision, which held there can be a 529 proceeding after release, but it appears to be the longest period approved: interestingly, the 1st Circuit refuses to consider part of the Appeal because it would not "review a ruling we made 11 yeas ago"! Apparently time passing means different things for different people!

If the 15:529.1 "sentence" is for the offense of conviction, it seems absurd to allow filing after discharge, at least when four years have passed, and the convict has been released by DOC! How much more jail money do we want to waste? 1/02/08

DECEMBER 18, 2007 MERRY CHRISTMAS, YOU'VE BEEN SUED! 6TH DISTRICT TUSSLE OVER "WHO'S WHO"

Now we know we have enhanced the Public Defenders! This is the first time we know of where somebody actually filed suit to be a Public Defender! Generally, the litigation has been over getting out of the role!

One unfortunate result of a lack of resources in the Public Defender Profession is that we tend to latch on to dogmatic formulas to address our work and our problems. For a long time Louisiana was burdened by the dogma that "only full time" Public Defenders can be effective. We now know that a number of delivery models are nationally accepted and in fact the Louisiana Reform of 2007 is being viewed as a model because it allows a number of models under a State Regulatory and Leadership umbrella.

Is "vertical representation" another dogma? In Orleans Parish the dogma has wagged the dog, so to speak, and sometimes clients have suffered. Orleans tried the impose the "full time only" mantra on its courts, and lost most of its lawyers. Major problem for the clients! The University of Virginia has described the vertical / horizontal models of representation as follows:

"The benefit of vertical representation is that a client is given individual attention from one attorney. The client has one person responsible for his case and can go to that one attorney for advice, answers to questions, and trial strategy. One downside of vertical representation is that an attorney’s development is tied to the quality of the cases of his clients. For example, a brand-new attorney may not have any “triable” cases for
months, thereby limiting her courtroom experience. On the other hand, she may be thrust into a trial or a hearing before she feels ready solely because that is the course her client’s case is taking. Another downside of vertical representation is that an attorney can never control his schedule. If an arraignment shift is scheduled on a weekend or holiday, the attorney must be there. . . . . "

"One benefit of horizontal representation is that attorneys do not move on to another level of litigation until they have mastered all the skills from the previous level. In other words, an attorney will not begin handling suppression hearings until he has had extensive experience arguing before a judge in bail hearings. Through the daily repetition, attorneys gain an expertise in each phase of litigation. An obvious downside of a horizontal system is that a client never has one attorney formulating litigation strategy and an assembly-line system prevails where the client is simply passed from one attorney to the next without any one person taking ultimate responsibility for setting the course of the litigation." PUBLIC DEFENDER MANUAL , Published by the Mortimer Caplin Public Service Center University of Virginia School of Law 580 Massie Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903

Vertical representation is one of those things that policymakers must consider in the harsh light of the realities of funding, resources, caseloads and nature of offenses. To stand on vertical representation to the prejudice of clients in misdemeanor court would be malfeasance. You may be able to better represent at some levels of the system with a horizontal system, particularly in simple cases like traffic and non-violent misdemeanors. In any event, we should avoid getting into Taliban style dogmatic straight jackets. We need to always debate and discuss policy and management on a factual foundation and put our "ideology" aside. To the extent that it ended up in the statute as a dogmatic "must be", we should oppose it. But as a guiding principle that represents an ideal we should work toward, we should embrace it. As with most everything else, the final answer will fall somewhere in between.

JIM LOONEY WRITES: "An update on the district database. This year is one in which at least theoretically all cases are being entered. You may be interested to know that so far in 2007, the districts have been assigned or opened some 110,942 as of today. Of course, cases are constantly being opened and closed. Some cases -- especially misdemeanors -- are closed very quickly. Others -- capital and CINC cases come to mind -- last for considerable time. Open cases, regardless of when they were received, currently stand at 93,981. Another 15,041 cases are in fugitive status, while 1,482 are on diversion, 447 are in drug court and 90 are in mental health court or status.

"These are impressive numbers, higher than many people would have guessed. That is good news in trying to explain to the Legislature and the Executive Branch officials as budgets are considered.

"Unfortunately in looking closely at some of the statistics, we believe these numbers are lower than they should be. That harms us in the budgeting process. It appears that some attorneys are simply not entering cases/data. Conflict counsel seem less responsive in filling in the cases, but that may just be an incorrect observation. What we do know is that some attorneys show up with 0 new cases, 0 pending cases, 0 closed cases. And trying to check on a specific case sometimes reveals that the case is simply not in the database when it should be. [LAP and LPDB check some cases whenever a client or family seeks help with an appeal or otherwise.]"

People need to understand that the new PD system requires attention to detail. Failing to report caseloads should be a firing offense. It probably will be very soon.

Crim Justice Pros can be very reassured that Governor Piyush Jindal has agreed to back Senator Joel Chaisson for President of the Senate. Governor Jindal has placed one of the sponsors of the 2007 Public Defender Act in line for leadership of the Senate in doing so. Joel was enthusiastic in his support and worked with other proponents to gain passage. Chaisson had assisted LaPDA in the previous session to get substantive changes urged by the PDs when he chaired the Senate Jud C Committee in the 2006 Session. We like the idea of having Senator Chaisson at the helm as we try to gain a bit more funding for Criminal Justice in Louisiana next session.

Its not a partisan issue, and the new governor appears to be opening the transition in a true bipartisan fashion. That bodes well for the small amount of money we need to add (relatively speaking) to finalize Public Defender Reform.

A public debate about the Jena Six between public defenders highlighted the exchange of ideas at the Lafayette Hilton. Some were uncomfortable with a clash over whether it's professional to publicly say a lawyer was ineffective. But the 18th year of CLE by PDs shows a maturing criminal bar willing to tackle the tough issues. State vs Kennedy, the landmark case in which Louisiana's Supreme Court seeks to make our state law "cutting edge" on killing child rapists, was also a hot topic. Over 220 lawyers signed up.

The LaPDA Board again endorsed participation in the Tate Awards Dinner in New Orleans on November 30th. The Board also discussed the issue of the year for 2008: caseload definition and management. Conferences are being planned this spring for meetings with experts and consultants to work on reasonable workload definitions under Act 307.

November 5, 2007 READ ABOUT TERRY NICHOLS, AND UNDERSTAND ITS NOT ABOUT SYSTEMS OR STRUCTURES: THERE IS AN INHERENT ISSUE ON SOCIETY WANTING TO USE US FOR ITS PURPOSE: "MAKE IT SEEM LIKE A GOOD DEFENSE. MINIMAL"

But from the inside, its clearly absurd to pay that much on one case. You mean you couldn't hire 3 full time lawyers for less than that? You could pay lawyers $200,000 a year and not spend that much money! So the lesson in Nichols is we have to demand compensation, but we have to also understand the landscape in which we work. We can't short change our clients, but we have to manage our programs so that we don't drive them to ruin.

All the same, it is outrageous for the criminal courts to take advantage of lawyers who defend people and insist they do it for dirt! That is unacceptable. But its up to the criminal defense bar to insist that defending Terry Nichols is as honorable and as important as defending State Farm from the valid claims of its insureds! There is no reason for Nichol's lawyer to accept less for his work, and no reason for the Criminal Justice System to expect or insist on that.

Afghans called the Arabs with Osama "Tourists" when discussing the foreign element in pre-911 Afghanistan. Some on the State PD Board seem intent on having Tourists come in to run the new Louisiana Public Defender System. At yesterday's meeting the unfortunate comment was made that "we have no qualified applicants" for the top job! Seems you have to be a non-resident to impress some people, but in reading Act 307 there is no such mandate, and in fact we would suggest the sentiment in the Legislature in the wake of the debacle in the River City was "no tourists please"! We have seen the work of the DC crew and were not impressed, and the prospect of a re-run at the state level is absolutely unacceptable.

So is insulting good people from Louisiana who are already making themselves available for the job of State Public Defender. Better for the Board to get straight with compensation and benefits and give fair consideration to Mr. Greenlee and the other applicants, a Law Professor and a director from one of the Capital Programs, than to listen to people who have a bias against Louisiana residents. Whatever non resident attachment they have should probably disqualify them from considering the leadership and direction of Indigent Defense in our state.

It is certainly unacceptable to have somebody declare them all "unqualified" in a public meeting! GET OFF OF PERSONALITIES AND GET TO WORK!

Public Defenders should be concerned that a Federal Court has found the Orleans D.A.'s office is subject to seizure for over 3 million dollars in Civil Rights damages arising out of a discrimination case against Eddie Jordan. We have generally viewed State Law as providing governmental subdivisions are not subject to asset seizures, but press reports say Plaintiffs may take assets from the DA to collect their Judgment. Just when you think things cannot get any worse in the Crescent City . . . .

The precedent is not comforting for PD offices who could face similar issues. While one could only hope that PD managers would be more effective that Mr. Jordan has been, it is not good policy to subordinate public good to damage claims in this manner. Shut down the D.A.'s office? The District Judges already have their own clerks, so maybe they can appoint a prosecutor for each section, leaving only the Public Defender as independent. No doubt its been considered. The custom in Orleans Parish is that the Judges have to hold the rest of the system together. Considering the history, one could only imagine how much more of a circus we would have had they not.

Governor Jindal should provide additional funding to the State Public Defender Board as part of his plan to help Louisiana through its recovery. Some $10 to $15 million is needed to fully fund Criminal Justice Defense services. New Orleans still has major, systemic problems and needs $4 to $5 million to get over the impacts of Katrina in the short term. Certainly the days of stonewalling that we saw during the early Foster years are gone, particularly since reform has changed the entire PD system, along with Katrina changing the work in Orleans and St. Bernard. Considering that 3 of the four main candidates were de facto Republicans, it may be the beginning of a long line of Republican Governors, just as the national political landscape shifts to the Democrats. Story of our life in Louisiana.

Some on the new PD Board are very concerned about "who is" and are having a hard time getting the rest of the group to go along. The Board has avoided getting into ridiculous tiffs over positions and has let the current staff get to work. The idea that this is all about "personalities" is a dangerous myth, and Public Defenders appreciate that the State is getting down to important work as it considers positions at the State level.

We understand that Ed Greenlee is interested in staying on as State Chief, and we hear that a Southern Law Professor and one of the Capital Project Directors have submitted applications. The salary issue has become a drag on recruitment, but we congratulate those interested in the job at the $80K rate for having public service as a priority. So far, we don't see a major reason to change leadership, but its up to the best judgment of the State Board. What we do appreciate is the Board not getting into absurd "personality politics" by making hiring a number one priority.

We saw the Cabal get bogged down in New Orleans because it thought the major role of leadership is to get the right personalities in place. More attention to good policy and management of late has brought OPD around to a position of strength, and it appears that putting aside personalities as issue #1 has served OPD clients well. Good example for the State Board to follow. We can't see any major problems that can be fixed simply by changing the face of the current staff, and things seem to be going along smoothly so far. Change for the sake of change, or for the sake of personality choices is not worthy of a State Agency. When change comes in any way at the State Public Defender, it should be based on a rational and considered choice of the best policy, not "the best people". Only because "the best people" is an arbitrary and capricious rule for decision: see George W. Bush in Iraq, congratulating Brownie in Katrina, naming his Attorney General, etc.

The State Board's biggest task ahead is making its regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Not much regulating can take place until the rules are in place. But in the meantime, big decisions loom on issue #1: MONEY! Last week the Board took initial steps at application of Section 161, which provides that districts without any administration are to be assessed, and the Board is to make a choice among 1) naming a District Public Defender through selection panels; 2) contracting with an adjacent district to manage the office; or 3) Regionalization of the headless district into a State System.

Some are finding this confusing because they haven't taken the time to review the statute and understand the overall approach it takes. The reason national authorities are finding our approach a suitable model is that the rigid formulae of the past have not been imposed: the State Board has a great deal of flexibility in confecting solutions that fit particular districts. This was achieved din part by constructing remedies for short term, transitional problems like the headless districts of 161, and also long term remedies as provided later for when the Board has its regs in place and some foolish administrator poo poos standards. We are in phase one.

Critical now of course is the ancient political query: "who gets what". The Crime Commission report out this week makes clear what those of us who have worked in Orleans Parish have come to understand: its different down there! The Commission notes 15,000 arrests in one three month period. Blend that into the context of a devastated city with little ticket revenue compared to its caseload and you are compelled to admit that the state board has to do some heavy lifting and get, as Racehorse Hains would say, "some serious, train-ridin' dollars" into OPD. Some of the factors include:

- Criminal Court nearly every day; No private, secure locations in most court rooms for client conferences;Dilapidated Jail facilities and no private, suitable location for client conferences in jail; more jailed inmates than street clients, meaning fewer chances for office meetings (Orleans does not "summon", they "arrest"); mandate to appear in court for all filings (costing counsel valuable time in the office to stand and wait); confusion in the DA's office impairing case progress and leading to unreasonable delay and processing; and interference in the client/ counsel relationship from the bench.

Certainly given these factors and the devastation of the Parish, the State Board has what amounts to a duty to make Orleans Parish whole so that the gap caused by the twins of 2005 can be closed and clients are served. Anything less will be nothing short of tragedy.

Juvenile Court has notable distinctions from adult criminal court. Juveniles have a Right to Counsel, and the current question is how should that be defined for the Public Defenders. The Louisiana Public Defender Board yesterday adopted a Performance Standard or Policy, to eventually become a binding regulation, that holds the Public Defender must represent kids not only in the initial steps of a proceeding, but also in subsequent review, generally known as "Post Disposition Hearings". The Juvenile Court has continuing authority, if not duty, to review the case and determine the best interests of the child. Any person facing a Court hearing arguably needs a lawyer, and that includes a kid who may have a chance to convince the court he should be released from custody. Louisiana is now embarking on a policy choice to have counsel work this stage of the process. The Board adopted a committee report from a group Chaired by Professor Lucy McGough (LSU) to that effect, noting this does not impose a duty for tracking the kids and investigation of their status. (this assumes one could effectively represent without that)

The Board also appointed a Committee to examine Cameron, Beauregard, and Vernon Parishes as Districts without a District Public Defender, to suggest what the State can do to assist public defenders there in organization and administration. Alfred Boustany, LaPDA's ex officio, is Chair of the Committee, which includes Walt Sanchez of Lake Charles and Frank Neuner of Lafayette. Board member Remy Starns (Baton Rouge) was named to study and provide recommendations for Avoyelles Parish along the same lines. (STATE BOARD MEMBERS - contact info)

Board members have a clear interest in input from the local District Public Defenders regarding other problems, which is consistent with the statutory authority provided in Act 307.

LaPDA Board members unanimously endorsed resolutions calling for cooperation with other Criminal Justice Clubs, and further urged LaPDB to approach districts in an organized method by first making certain those without leadership get what they need to start reform. The defenders suggest that the La Public Defender Board not approach the provisions of Act 307 rigidly, but consider need as a first priority when dealing with the districts.

We don't do a good job with PR on the Right to Counsel. So many people are clueless about it that event he most basic fact: "A lawyer cannot represent 400 felonies" is not accepted by political leaders. SEE - Nevada Crisis, circa. July 2007 No, we want to talk about political issues and broad policies, meanwhile there is little understanding for the foundation of a good system. No lawyer takes all the cases that walk in the door, except the Public Defender in states where there is no caseload limit! Those in Louisiana who want to be apologists for excessive caseload are not unique. But they're still dead wrong.

Most unfortunately, even prosecutors in some districts (New Orleans) are saddled with excessive felony caseloads. This is nonsense, and fertile ground for continued litigation until funding is in place to tackle the excessive number of cases many lawyers are forced to carry.

AUGUST 29, 2007 TAKE THIS JOB, PLEASE!!! ED GREENLEE NAMED INTERIM STATE CHIEF

National interest? Not really. We understand two (2) applicants are pending on the State CEO spot. The LPDB met yesterday and wrestled with what to do, ending up with the same solution posited here on August 21st: "This would be a good time for the Board to work with the present staff and build a state office." The Board named Ed Greenlee "Interim Director" and also voted to enlist NLADA in an effort to headhunt on the positions remaining. Unofficial information is that a Finance Manager will be hired shortly. The dreams of a rush of applicants that some had seem to be REM type visions only, as the reality is this will not be some cushy state job, but a challenging fight for a program that is dear to the heart of a tiny minority. The exit of Governor Blanco at year's end could terminate a honeymoon during which we had a sympathetic ear on the importance of the Right to Counsel, particularly if the next governor is "Mike-like", as in Mike Foster.

In the meantime, LaPDA held an ACTION COMMITTEE meeting and the Public Defenders plan to confect some recommendations on September 17th regarding some of the important issues, including Service Regions, Regionalization Procedures, District Defender Contracts and others. The committee report has been sent to a number of interested persons across the state for comment. It includes some important preliminary issues on the status of the District Defender Offices under the statute.

Ok, it is very long. But as W would say, don't "misunderestimate" the provisions of Act 307. There are a few erroneous perceptions out there. First, and most importantly, the Districts remain. The functions of the District Board now are vested in the Chief Public Defender. The District Fund remains, and the Chief now has whatever legal status and authority the local board had.

State Board does not have to be joined in local litigation underway by the District Board that has now dissolved. DEFINITELY NOT! The local program, in the form of the District Defender Office, remains intact and is not part of a State operation. The State Board has regulatory authority, it is not the fiscal agent or operator of the District Program. The functions of local boards have been transferred to the District Chief Defender. Nowhere does the statute dissolve the local office or district, meaning structurally nothing has changed in terms of administration.

The relationship is not structural, but regulatory. The State can supervise you and regulate some things you do (with explicit standards, not arbitrary rules) by creating rules under the Administrative Procedures Act. But you are not part of the State Public Defender Board, or an employee or agency of that board unless "Regionalization" takes place in accord with the statutory provisions.

Are Chief Defenders State Board employees or will they have to sign contracts with the State to continue operation. The entire Act is premised on the independence of the local District Office, which is subordinated for the purposes of regulation by standards only. The District maintains its own account for funds, writes checks to its employees and contractors, and administers the Public Defender Program just as its District Board did. The relationship with the State is that 307 gives authority to the State Board to make rules and regulations for Districts to comply with. That is not the same as subsuming the District into a State Program. There is some disagreement on this in terms of provisions defining the District Chief as somebody employed by or contracted with the State Board, however because the District is a Political Subdivision, there is at best a conflict in the statute. We are going to have to review this further, for sure. But the State cannot fire a chief who was in office in January 2007, that is certain! Any contract provision is proforma for incumbent Chiefs.

I've been asked what region a district is in. There are no regions. The state "MAY" establish up to 11. You are not in a region until the State Board takes action to create one. There can be a region without "regionalization", meaning that independent districts could have the benefit of a regional office for services like capital defense, experts or whatever, yet still be an independent district office. So a District can either be locally independent in an area without a region, or in a service region. It can be part of the State Program only by Regionalization, either for regulatory purposes or by request of the District.

If there's one thing that a $27 million budget and statewide administration can change, its the wiggle room that you have when you're broke. When you're broke it doesn't matter if you miss a tune-up for the Ford. When you're successful, society expects you to keep things tidy. When you're broke, nobody cares if your trailer lacks a screen door. But in the subdivision, if you put the trash out the wrong way, you will have some trouble. For all the fun of being rich, people expect more of you when you have a few bucks. The "new" PD Board now has its first challenge in the statutory glitch that is the Chief Defender's pay.

If the statute says $80K for salary, that's it. How many times have you told a client that the law is clear and going to trial is not a good idea? Same concept. Yes, we can come up with ideas and concepts we think moot the problem. But unfortunately, we, like our clients, are subject to the specifics of the law, and none of us will be making that decision if there is a case or controversy. This would be a good time for the Board to work with the present staff and build a state office. That would give time for an evaluation of everybody in place (preferably by professionals) and a considered decision on filling positions at the state level. Once the statute is fixed, the board can determine whether it needs a national search and for which positions, and if may need to hire out that work. In the meantime people can get to work. Remember that its policy, not personalities that is going to make this work. Whatever one thinks of an individual person should be subordinated to getting good policy going, ASAP.

Is LPDB suffering from the typical "micritis" that often infects "boards"? It was this "micritis" which finally convinced local defenders that boards were not so good: the idea that a board, in two hours a month, can run the program! Are we so focused on getting new "personalities" that we are going to wallow in this for months more? Get the current LIDAB office the staff support it needs and see if it can work. Time's a wastin'. You can set a course, but you can't steer the ship around every bit of driftwood.

There is also a terrible lack of "process" in the current situation. Nobody is being consulted. The big tent built by Danny Martiny doesn't seem to be in play on the issue of State Positions. That's not right, and its not good policy. How about some public hearings on what/ who / why of the State Chief and other positions? Some subcommittee meetings across the State? Some input? LaPDA will be providing some of that, although we would have liked some kind of welcome or request for it in the nature of a process by the State Board, and so far it seems the board is more interested in its own personal prerogatives. Consequently, nobody really has a clue as to what's up.

Local Boards died with a whimper on August 15th as Act 307 created the District Defender and empowered the Chief Defender as the fiscal/ management agent. During the run up to Act 307 Chiefs started recognizing the inefficiency of a "board" trying to manage a law office. By the birth of Act 307 most Public Defenders considered local boards a bit of an anachronism and many Chiefs were glad to be unfettered from arbitrary and sometimes absurd policy. The most recited complaint: local boards wanted to "save money" even when client services were suffering.

The irony of all this is that now the overall direction of the State is in the hands of, yes, another board! Is there something about a state board that makes the form more effective? Only three members of the State Board have actual experience at the District level. One is a Chief Defender without a vote, another was a board member in a rural parish. Otherwise, the rest of the current board has never been "in the trenches" in Louisiana. One has been a Defender in D.C. Rather than supervise, the board seems determined to manage, and the result is an incredibly slow pace as the Director seems restrained by waiting for instructions that the Board has neither the time nor expertise to deliver. Some are noting there is a sentiment for an out of state "star quality" Chief - an interesting concept considering the recent Crescent City experience, which was less than stellar.

Louisiana has always loved the "board". We have them for everything. The Investigators' Licensing Board, the Lottery Board, the LSU Board of Supervisors, the local School Boards, on and on. Many of these boards become fiefdoms in which true public policy takes a back seat to politics and self interest, leading to disaster. See: Levee Boards, Dock Boards, Dairy Boards, Recovery Boards, and on and on. The "structure" is here. The character of members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board have begun to write its history, starting YESTERDAY!

Plagued by continuing "quorum" problems, the State Defender Board will be under a mandate for regular meetings effective August 15th. Upgrading the powers of the board and providing staff for doing a new job are tops on the agenda. Not much official news other than the position announcements on the LIDAB website (linked on our home page). One would expect some kind of public hearing of solicitation of ideas . . . .

LaPDA is planning to meet in September to discuss local needs, regions and suggestions for initial steps. Perhaps more than anything, this is a time for a "big tent" in which as many people are involved in State PD Policy as possible. Hopefully the silence is not a sign that the State Board has too little time or interest to post up such an inclusive process.

Louisiana PDs are beginning to understand the "NO MAS" Rule: you can only do so much and not only are you not required to take as many cases as come your way, you are under an ethical obligation NOT TO! Interesting to see the "justice" system react to the inconvenience of actually having to provide competent counsel. In Knoxville, the Public Defender's refusal to take excessive cases is causing quite a stir. The authorities seem to want a no limits policy in the PD office. One lawyer has 60 cases set for trial! But the article linked above includes the hard fact that its a long term fight, and the powers that be are not always understanding.

Item from Clark County Nevada, apparently in answer to an anti-PD editorial, reminds us of the first formal contact between LaPDA and NLADA, when David Carroll joined us in St. Francisville to explore the Public Defenders' position on reform. With a national reputation as "objectors", we were pleasantly surprised when NLADA turned out to be the voice of reason, and David Carroll personified a practical approach to principled change. David was also able to learn from early mistakes, read the political tea leaves and in the final push for reform gave NLADA a critical and successful role in changing Louisiana. So, Viva Las Vegas and that Carrolling going on in the desert!

Fresh from the Legislative win, we need to remind LIDAB that the core problem with the Criminal Justice system remains THE MONEY! A study in Nevada in 2002 found the average compensation was over $70,000, and lawyers ranged as high as $350,000: any PD you know making over $200,000? Can you hear the objections to even thinking in those terms? How absurd to push down the pay of certain lawyers the way Louisiana, and many other states have! Government figures show the median income at $55,000 nationwide, with the "middle half" earning $64,000 to $143,000. We think LIDAB should be considering these numbers in planning for systemic change in Louisiana. The immediate question is where do Louisiana Public Defenders stand on the income/ benefits scale, which leads to the corollary question of what are we to do about it?

Whatever you may think of a particular PD office, if the pay does not change you cannot expect to attract additional talent, much less better talent. As Chief Defenders look at caseload reductions, they are suddenly finding a need to attract new people, and realizing that the lack of retirement and other benefits is a major handicap. Act 307 makes clear that the servile pay scale is passé, by pegging the State Chief at around $135,000 a year (based on increases already legislated) and pinning pay to that of an appellate judge. Hopefully LIDAB will pick up that theme instead of becoming mired in the fascinating but wasteful bureaucratic structuring. What the system needs is "resourcing and accountability", as stated throughout the legislative session.

To the extent the LIDAB move to "advertise for all positions" is a major focus instead of "resourcing and accountability", it is a distraction. The idea that somebody can roll in from Yale or other places and solve our problems has been defrocked down on the river. There is plenty of knowledge and talent right here in Louisiana: give them the resources!

JULY 24, 2007 CONFUSION AT LOCAL LEVEL ANOTHER SIDE EFFECT OF SHORT RESOURCES

Some district boards are still clueless on the expiration of their authority on August 15th! The boards end that day, and in the meantime banking authority should be formally transferred to the Chief Defender of the Judicial District. Act 307 makes the Chief the "Fiscal Agent" for the District. There is no "region" for him to answer to. The Act grants the State Board authority to create the regions, but they are not extant now. The State will probably have to build its state office first, then work regions where most needed, so some Districts may not be in a region for a while.

LaPDA is working on venues for some discussion/ training on these issues in September, by which time in may be apparent where the State will go for leadership, budget priorities, and other global issues. The office staff is overwhelmed and under resourced like the rest of us. As one observer notes, "when your sofa's on fire you don't have time to tend the screens on the porch". So this will take time.

The first step would be to read the bill, and materials on this website, including the interim report and other material on our HISTORY OF REFORM page. Then call Ed Greenlee and / or Marsha at LIDAB for further advice and information !

Act 307 takes effect August 15th, and LIDAB yesterday decided to consider all positions as open under the new law, including advertisement for applicants. In addition, the Board accepted plans drawn up by Director Greenlee to assist Orleans Parish with funding for Capital Cases which had run out of money.

LIDAB has reset its meeting to July 18th. There is a lot to discuss. The FY has started, so here's hoping somebody has a plan for the new funding, at least to the extent of existing programs and expenses. The Board is going to be required by law to meet at least 11 times a year, so issue one is "how are we going to do that?" But the more interesting issue is "positions": finally LIDAB will have funding for a real central office, including positions for an IT person, a State Juvenile Director, a Compliance Officer and a Training Director. Beyond that, the State Chief Defender position is established at the salary of a Court of Appeals Judge (we think about $135,000), a considerable boost over current levels. The obvious question is whether Director Ed Greenlee, who holds the post now, will move into that slot, or be part of an application process opening all positions.

It is not too soon for LIDAB to make the early decisions. In the meantime LaPDA is planning some training for Chiefs and First Assistants on administration under the new statute.

JULY 9, 2007 - Public Defender Act Mandates 11 meetings a year - starting August. Good thing. Quorum failure on July 10th meeting is a bad sign

The PD Act of 2007 anticipates an engaged Board. Perhaps asking too much, the law did not include compensation for members of the Board. We recall the problems post Katrina when amidst the disaster the board could not meet and Ed Greenlee has to make critical decisions for LIDAB about emergency moves. But a meeting called for July 10 did not raise a quorum, which does raise a question about whether the current board will be capable of carrying out the mandate of essentially "a meeting a month" starting with the August 15 effective date of the Act.

Its not too early for the Board to consider filling new positions and whether current positions will be opened up for competitive review. In fairness to the current LIDAB staff, that should be done soon, and in fairness to the Public Defenders, guidance is needed for budgeting and other regulatory matters under the LIDAB flag.

LaPDA is planning training in late September on those and other issues. We hope the State will be able to provide some answers, and we believe that will require an engaged and active board backing up the LIDAB staff.

Seems at least some of the 7 "nays" on HB 436 were still hearing ghosts of sessions past when they voted on HB 436. There was concern that "all the money is going to be taken away and sent to New Orleans"! We also understand that a couple of "nays" said they didn't mean to vote "nay" after all! (One "nay" was a co-author) But clearly the LaPDA efforts in the past left some ghosts in Baton Rouge, and if you didn't read the bill and see that the local money was protected, you might have listened to them! On the House side, we understand the one "no" from Vic Bradley's St. Charles changed to "yes", but somebody else voted "no", so history will reflect we still couldn't get a "perfect" 100%!!

JUNE 26, 2007 FINAL PASSAGE WITH HOUSE CONCURRENCE - REFORM MAKES PAST PROLOGUE

Its too quiet! I'm wondering why there's not a lead story on the Nightly News about our HB 436, or why the Satellite Trucks aren't lined up like after Katrina with excited reporters hanging on every word from Danny Martiny, Senator Jackson, or Greg Riley. (Maybe not Greg) But really, this is history people! Not since the 1974 Constitution has Louisiana done anything this major in Crim Justice! You wouldn't believe the time . . . .

For all our angst over this, it is clear that society overall really doesn't much care about the Right to Counsel. Now that we know who the players are, lets make the past prologue to a future where we work together to represent our clients. We owe everybody involved in this effort a great deal, not the least of which, NLADA and ACCD, who, in August of 2004 opened up to LaPDA in a formal joint meeting that convinced the last skeptics that we could get this done, that Public Defenders had a role to play in change, and that (perhaps as importantly) 85% of the people in the system before reform are people who were in the system before.

JUNE 22, 2007 NOT RADICAL ENOUGH FOR THE FRINGE-THEY ALMOST TORPEDOED US ALL

The biggest challenge in the Session has been the bungled N. O. reform effort. Opponents nearly brought down the house except for the fact that the PDs had noted the Orleans experience was the exception and assured that the kind of bull in the china shop approach was not going state wide. Admittedly, there was a need for change. But even today, some year and a few months later, there are not enough lawyers in the PD program, and some of the best were driven off under the "full time" mantra, even before there was anything to replace them with the clients. Even now some sections have only one attorney in felony court. There has been no concept of management and no concern for how choices impact clients: is it really that "vertical representation" is essential to the point that you can let clients go a year without counsel? Is it serving you clients to put your own view of traffic ticket funding ahead of your clients' interest in having counsel so you can file suit and litigate while they rot? Is the Constitution really meant to keep certain people on the PD Board (for the last 45 days of its life)? No. No. No.

We have to work in a real world in which the interests of the clients come before anyone's pet projects or specific views. People who criticized HB 436 because the PDs were not sacked by it are absurdly stupid. In every reform 85% of the PDs after were there before! And when PDs lead reform, it would be another sad joke to try the N.O. experiment state wide: get rid of counsel with no plan to replace them!

Its great to meet the young Law Students from Washington, Minnesota, and other points across the country. But they are leaving. They are great assets, but we have to build Criminal Justice in Louisiana! There is a consensus now on how to do that, and people who want to claim that the policy of consensus is wrong had better be prepared to provide some empirical evidence on that one, including what the alterative solution might be. The burden is surely on the PDs who are now critical to reform, and people need to support them so it can work. But New Orleans is not a model or a guide. It has some lessons for us, but those include major mistakes and mismanagement, over heated egos, and form over substance. We have to take care of the people.

Senate floor action is all that stands before the biggest reform in Criminal Justice in Louisiana history! The Martiny bill will make the first complete change in "Indigent Defense" since the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. We anticipate final action in the Senate in the next two or three days.

JUNE 18, 2007 SENATE FISCAL REVIEW SHOULD QUICKLY SEND HB 436 TO SENATE FLOOR

HB 436 was recommitted to Senate Finance / Fiscal Affairs under Senate Rules mandating that for any bills increasing state spending. With 10 days left in the session, it is anticipated the bill will go to the Senate floor today and reach final passage this week. Unquestionably the biggest thing in Criminal Justice in Louisiana in 33 years, the bill remains only a first step: it provides some tools to improve the system, but that's about it. It will be up to the professionals from all areas of criminal law to make this work.

Quiet but still OK, HB 436 rests in the Senate Finance Committee at this time. Current status would not require a Conference Committee of House and Senate as all amendments were concurred in by Rep. Martiny. Some tweaking recently focused on the status of "out of state lawyers" who are working on Orleans Parish. No major changes to the core elements of the bill.

No problems in Senate Judiciary C today as HB 436 moves closer to final passage. May need to be recommitted to Senate Fiscal Committee from floor, but passage is anticipated within a week. We view the Committee Amendments proposed on the Senate side as having no impact on the core mission of reform.

-1. Floor Action in Senate - Recommit to Senate Finance; 2. - Report by Committee back to Floor; 3. - Senate Passage; 4. - Conference Committee (House + Senate); 5. - Concurrence by House & Senate on Conference Report. This could take the next two weeks, but based on the votes so far, the support is strong enough to get it done.

Any student of politics would know: compromise is the fuel that powers change. Well, not in Venezuela, but certainly in the democratic west. We don't expect Legislatures to slap down constituents in the interest of a small group preaching about some problem or another. When that happens, the democratic powers respond. So we are seeing the Bush Administration implode into the low 30% support range, because folks don't appreciate the ideologues holding the levers of power: particularly when the results are ill conceived policy disasters.

As HB 436 clears a Senate Committee this week and then likely the entire Senate, we should notice that the wages of compromise are success, and that lesson should carry forward under the State Public Defender Board. Anybody who wants to try and use the powers of the Board to impose their will absent compromise is going to live to see the end of reform. We will have plenty to do with districts that are unorganized, unresourced and otherwise ineffective. There will be no shortage of work for all of us to continue our joint efforts.

The wages of compromise are success. Remember that August 15 when the new Public Defender Act of 2007 goes into effect.