Last Modified: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:04 PM
Is our governor’s salary reduced when he leaves Louisiana to work for the campaigns of politicians in other states?
State law fixes the governor’s annual salary at $130,000, “payable monthly upon his own warrant.”
The Associated Press reported on Feb. 18 that Louisiana has paid a quarter-million dollars or so since Gov. Bobby Jindal took office in 2008 to transport, feed and accommodate the governor’s state police security detail on unofficial trips out of state.
On the same day, The Advocate of Baton Rouge pegged the costs for 2012 — when Jindal spent 86 days outside Louisiana — at $65,000.
Both the AP and the newspaper said Jindal’s own flight, meal and hotel costs were covered by his campaign or by the groups or politicians on whose behalf he traveled.
In response to The Advocate’s queries about travel costs, the governor’s office released a statement:
“The state does not pay for my unofficial travel out of state. As far as State Police, they have a legal duty to provide protection. As far as how, when, and where they do that — that’s up to them. We leave all security determinations up to the State Police. I trust them to do their job — and I am grateful for their service. I wouldn’t want anyone else interfering with their security determinations.”
The AP received the same statement — although in the wire service’s case it was modified a bit, being delivered as the words of a spokesman and not those of the governor.
Is there a law that addresses businesses that have extremely bright lights that shine on public roads, causing a safety hazard for drivers? Also, is there a restriction on intensely lighted signs?
No, said Russ Adams, Lake Charles’ head of planning and development.
“The city has no ordinances dealing with extremely bright lights that shine on public roads, causing a safety hazard for drivers, or restriction on intensely lighted signs. I am not aware that any exist in any other cities,” he wrote in an email.
“It would be extremely difficult to write and/or enforce such an ordinance because of the many variables involved: What would be the standard for hazardous light levels? How would it be measured? At what distance and at what angle would it be measured? How could you account for varying levels of light sensitivity in people?
“Enforcing such ordinances would be based on very subjective evidence which would not likely survive a legal challenge.”
The Informer answers questions from readers each Sunday, Monday and Wednesday. It is researched and written by Andrew Perzo, an American Press staff writer. To ask a question, call 494-4098, press 5 and leave voice mail, or email email@example.com