Feb 032014

Owen Courreges

Sometime after the Iran-Iraq broke out in 1980, Henry Kissinger was quoted as saying: “It’s a pity they can’t both lose.”

These words seem appropriate following the results of the Orleans Sheriff’s election day this past Saturday.  Incumbent Marlin Gusman received 49% of the vote, falling just short of the amount required to avoid a runoff.  The runner up with 29% of the vote, Charles Foti, is also Gusman’s predecessor. Each of these men have made their own contributions to a Sheriff’s office that is beyond dysfunctional.

Take an incident that occurred last month, when an Orleans Parish Prison inmate arrived in Criminal District Court acting a bit quirky.  Willis Turner could not stand, and a bailiff had to lift him up.

A medical condition perhaps?  No.  Turner was, to use modern vernacular, “totally tripping balls.”  Drug testing revealed that he was under the influence of opiates.

Judge Frank Marullo was not amused.  “This is the third time that I have had this defendant here, and he can’t even walk,” Marullo lectured.  Later, the exasperated judge wondered aloud how in the heck the Sheriff’s Department got Turner to the courtroom given his state.

Of course, none of this should have come as a shock to the electorate.  Last April, a video was released during hearings on the federal consent decree that showed OPP inmates drinking, using drugs and even flashing a pistol – all from the confines of their cells.

Given Judge Marullo’s experience with the drug-addled Mr. Turner, it does not appear much has changed.  OPP’s chronic mistreatment of inmates belies a complete lack of security, placing everyone at risk.  And of course, all of this came to light as Gusman was staring down reelection.  The incident probably cost Gusman the additional votes he needed avoid a runoff.

For his part, Foti has argued that his prior experience as Sheriff renders him qualified to reform OPP “I fixed the problems once before, and I can come back and fix them again.”  Gusman accurately retorts that Foti fixed nothing – that he left a gargantuan “prison-industrial complex” with nearly three times as many inmates as now.  Gusman also meekly emphasizes that he is still working to reform the jail.

Both candidates are right, which is to say that neither are particularly good candidates.  Foti is correct that the problems with the jail are inexcusable, while Gusman is correct in pointing out that Foti didn’t fare better when he was at the helm.  Foti’s reign as Sheriff was notorious for illegal strip searches, with chronic grumblings about inmate abuse and inmate neglect.

Perhaps Foti managed to keep prisoners from using drugs, but he has his own skeletons, particularly relative to his most recent tenure as State Attorney General.  To use another tired metaphor, Foti is throwing a lot of stones in his glass house.

Nevertheless, if Gusman has improved anything, it’s not exactly obvious.  The federal consent decree is a testament to that.  Gusman is quick to point out that he is in the process of building a new facility for OPP, but it’s unclear that a new building is going to change matters.  The quality of the facilities certainly makes a difference, but it won’t solve the underlying problems any more than buying new golf clubs will cure your slice.

Of course, OPP is chronically underfunded.  It might be that no sheriff could run a proper jail with the budget the city provides, which is less than half per inmate than state prisons.  I’ve often said that we’re trying to run a major urban prison on a rural parish jail’s budget.

Irrespectively, the reality is that the city is unlikely to provide more funding to OPP beyond that which is required by the consent decree.  The budget is tight and the welfare of OPP inmates doesn’t rank high on the priority list of New Orleans taxpayers.

Accordingly, we need a Sheriff who can meet minimum standards on a minimal budget.  I, for one, do not believe either Foti or Gusman fit the bill.

Alas, in the runoff, they can’t both lose.

Owen Courrèges, a New Orleans attorney and resident of the Garden District, offers his opinions for UptownMessenger.com on Mondays. He has previously written for the Reason Public Policy Foundation.

  15 Responses to “Owen Courreges: The “can’t-lose” runoff for sheriff”

  1. I didn’t vote for either one of them on Saturday and I’d feel dirty voting for either one of them in the runoff election. I may just stay home.

    • There’s nothing wrong with staying home when you don’t have a preference. I may wind up staying home as well if I can’t find a good reason to favor one over the other, frankly.

    • You can skip that election, but you need to go vote to keep the felon from being coroner. There is also the council at large race that some feel has meaning.

  2. Well said, if not said too late. If you had a clear choice for Sheriff when there were more than these two clowns, I wish you would have spoken then. However, I understand that maybe there was no good choice.

    • Mike,

      I actually wrote most of this piece before the election, but the topic was bumped for various reasons. Even then, I really think a Foti-Gusman runoff (or an outright Gusman victory) was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Nobody else came close. I really do wish it were otherwise.

  3. Neither are great. Are either even GOOD? But given the choice between the two, I’ll vote for Foti in the runoff. Remember that both can’t lose.

    • I’m really not sure either is better than the other. Foti may well be worse, and in any event, he’s not favored in the runoff. Regardless, that the incumbent and his predecessor are in the runoff reflects very poorly on the New Orleans electorate.

      • Probably reflects even more poorly on the number and quality of people who aspire to the position. 🙁

  4. Not all of the funding the sheriff’s office receives comes directly from city government. I remember voting for at least one tax increase that passed anyway.

  5. As a member of the electorate, I was bothered by the notorious video that surfaced. However, considering the timing of its release, which happened to occur during the consent decree hearing, where one of the most important matters to be determined would be who would pay for the reform and who would have control — I wonder why at that point? Also, regarding the loaded inmate, how could a deputy allow a inmate who “could barely stand up” be transported to court? If he was that far gone, shouldn’t he have been taken to the infirmary to be checked out instead of directly to court? These are all events that make you go hmmm?

  6. They both suck, but Foti is older so he won’t be around as long as Gusman will be if he wins. Vote Foti and we’ll try again in 4 years.

  7. Good point. Although I only reluctantly voted for Rouse (I really think that the coroner should have a surgical background) I did so largely because of McKenna’s questionable background. The at-large race is also important (I personally favor Williams). I didn’t mean to say I would stay home for these other elections.

  8. 24601,

    All of that is what happened, and none of it is suspicious, either. The release of information in discovery is a natural part of any legal proceeding. As for the drug-addled inmate, Gusman is in charge of his own people.

  9. david,

    That’s a pretty weak reason to vote for Foti. He might have to be carried out of that office, while Gusman could retire earlier on his own. You never really know, and I personally don’t want my vote to be based on something like that.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.