Commentary: Mayor Nagin left high and dry as Cerasoli support mounts

New Orleans CityBusiness, Nov 19, 2007 by Terry O'Connor

Mayor C. Ray Nagin missed the boat on landing credit for his post- Katrina leadership.

The mayor offered creative plans (Remember Casino Alley on Poydras Street?) and was roundly panned for them.

He's conferred more closely and effectively with President Bush than Gov. Katherine Babineaux Blanco yet it's explained away by W's clear dislike for the Democratic state CEO.

His many absences cost him credibility at home at a time when people wanted to believe in their leaders.

Now, our mayor is missing the boat again. Big time. Nagin made a poor decision in attempting to tie a property tax increase to funding the Inspector General's Office. It will backfire on the mayor judging by the 80-percent approval rating from respondents backing full, unfettered funding for Inspector General Robert Cerasoli in last week's CityBusiness Question of the Week.

Political missteps have long characterized the Nagin administration and robbed it of its creativity. The mayor offers imaginative, even brilliant, ideas and solutions on occasion but is unable to realize them for want of political support.

The Inspector General Office is a perfect example.

There is no possible way anyone in their right mind could claim New Orleans does not have a corruption problem. Yet, the mayor's failure to support Cerasoli makes his judgment suspect. It makes it seem as if Nagin is either corrupt himself or blissfully unaware of the need for a corruption fighter.

Neither one is a flattering conclusion.

It allows Nagin's political contemporaries to look great by comparison.

For example, Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal could spend $1 million or so in state funds to back Cerasoli. It would send the right message and really ignite Jindal's planned special session on ethics reform.

Cerasoli is all for it.

"All Jindal has to do is say, 'Here it is. Go do your thing.' We'll get some results. I'm going to do it whether I get the money or not. But it's going to be a lot more difficult without funding."

The New Orleans City Council will look great if it fully funds Cerasoli's $2.92-million budget request. And it will do so, vows Council President Arnie Fielkow.

"The inspector general is going to be fully funded," Fielkow said. "He's going to get 100 percent of what he's asked for. I've said 40-hundred times we can't control the process. It's not that City Council is not taking action. We disagree with the mayor substantially."

Even private backers could step up and fund the inspector general if the funding stonewall continues.

Cerasoli's request amounts to a fraction of a percentage point in the mayor's $912.5-million budget yet its impact is much greater than that.

It's one of the largest statements Nagin could make in terms of his legacy. And he's missing the boat again.

Cause for applause

Glazer's Distributors quietly created a profitable keepsake in Absolut New Orleans, a peppery, mango vodka put out in limited edition. The commemorative vodka sold for $23 originally and is now listed at $54.99 on eBay. Sales of some 30,000 cases also generated $2 million in profits, which were donated to the New Orleans recovery effort.

The vodka will be re-released under an Absolut name in the future. No matter the name, it's already a proven winner.

Last word

A Times-Picayune story based on an anonymous source cast a shadow over Una Anderson's campaign to be state representative for District 95. The shaky story was immediately seized upon by her rival Walker Hines, who tarred Anderson with veiled slurs regarding her honesty.

"District 95 needs new, untainted leadership removed from the status quo and corrupt politics of our past," Hines wrote in a campaign e-mail.

When asked if he knew the story alleging a corruption investigation centered on Anderson to be true, Hines admitted he did not. It's a shame the T-P didn't do the same.

This sort of electioneering game is also distressingly played by the FBI, which for some reason believes it should not release news of its investigation until after an election involving a suspect is completed.

Why not simply release the news so voters can go into the booth and make choices based on facts and not speculation? FBI investigations should come to a head when the facts warrant, not when Election Day rolls around.

In allegedly trying to avoid influencing the elections by post- dating its investigation information release, the FBI ensures our elections are influenced by such omissions.

A good example is the election involving Rep. William Jefferson, who was indicted on charges of influence peddling after his re- election. None of the FBI charges were a big surprise thanks to detailed reporting about his activities. But if the indictment had been confirmed before the election, Jefferson might not have been re- elected.

It's always better to go by facts and not speculation. It's a shame the FBI does not recognize that fact when it comes to political suspects.