We want to establish a standard within the conservative movement in which the various players making up the movement can rally behind good policy solutions, combine to govern well, and embed in the public’s understanding, here in Louisiana for example, that the movement’s brand is recognized for producing good results from honest, smart, prudent administration.

But something happened this week which shows we aren’t where we need to be, and in the case of State Treasurer John Fleming’s opposition to an obviously good bill that would give municipalities and local governments greater tools to govern themselves successfully, it doesn’t make much sense.

On Monday April 8, the House Ways and Means Committee convened to review three bills, all of which seemed to be routine and easy legislative items to advance. During the hearing, House Appropriations Chairman Republican Jack McFarland (Jonesboro) introduced his bill HB 836. That bill clarified state law that service agreements and concession agreements are not debt (and particularly, NOT the debt of the State).

Public comment at these committee hearings can take place through either white cards with the individual’s information (that person will provide information if asked), a green card (by individuals who are in support of the bill) and the infamous “red card” (wherein an elected official or other interested party is against the bill).

Numerous green cards of support for HB 836 were filed by a number of individuals and organizations, including the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), the Police Jury Association and others.

The sole opponent, and submitter of a red card, was State Treasurer John Fleming.

McFarland highlighted the values of his proposal as:

• These contracts are not long-term debt, nor the financial responsibility of the state of Louisiana
• More investment will spur economic growth in the state.
• The fiscal note for the legislation shows a zero dollar estimated financial impact on the state.

After Rep. McFarland introduced the bill, and thoroughly explained the value of his legislation to government entities within the state, Fleming took up the mic and proceeded to testify.

The Treasurer clearly stated he was opposed to the bill, because in his mind, every elected official in the state, other than himself, are not sophisticated enough nor had the scholarly expertise to have themselves, or their various city/parish attorneys evaluate these types of agreements.

This isn’t my interpretation of what he said. It’s what he said.

It’s fair to say this was not his finest moment.

Fleming suggested that the sophistication of the State Treasurer’s office cloaks him with complete oversight over transactions of this nature, particularly where small towns are concerned. That doesn’t really fly; many of the state’s small towns are fairly upscale places, you know. He also requested an amendment to the bill which would give him plenary power over local governments on these types of agreements, and that didn’t go anywhere.

This would seem to be a clear unnecessary expansion of state government. All together not a very conservative Republican thing to do. And it put him at odds with most of the conservative movement players in the state.

The reaction from members of the committee, and particularly Rep. Michael Echols, a conservative from Monroe, wasn’t great. Echols challenged Fleming on the assumption that local officials couldn’t handle basic operations of government, and Fleming struggled to answer those questions. Rep. Joe Orgeron, a Republican from LaRose, picked up that line of questioning as well and it didn’t get any better.

Echols asked if Fleming had an alternate suggestion, Fleming’s response was “Well, I have only been Treasurer for two months, so no.”

That wasn’t met with a lot of enthusiasm.

McFarland was invited back for closing statements, wherein afterwards the Committee Chair, Rep. Julie Emerson (Carencro) acted on a motion from Echols, and the bill passed unopposed.

The whole thing was a bit strange, because typically the way these things are handled among friends – and Republican legislators and a Republican state treasurer are supposed to be friends – is that discussions and negotiations of policy items such as those found in a piece of legislation during a session at the Capitol would be had well before a committee hearing. If Fleming had concerns about McFarland’s bill, those would typically have been hashed out in a meeting long before the session even started.

Instead there was dirty laundry on the floor of that committee room and Fleming’s opposition to the bill didn’t net a single vote for his side. Jack McFarland is the House Appropriations Chair, after all. Openly fighting him on a bill you say you’re sympathetic to the overall policy aims of is just bad politics.

John Fleming spent eight years in Congress. He was also Deputy White House Chief of Staff during the Trump administration. He knows better than this how things work and he has to know not to squander political capital tilting at what comes down to an in-the-weeds windmill. What’s going on here?

Then, to make things even weirder, there was this…

State Treasurer Fleming expressed his concerns about the legislation, specifically the exclusion of the State Bond Commission in approving the issuance of certain debt obligations by local municipalities in HB 836. https://t.co/vIIsSowRAV?

— John Fleming, MD Louisiana State Treasurer (@LATreasury) April 8, 2024

Fleming didn’t post that tweet. Whoever is handling his official social media accounts did. Even so, why advertise that loss?

This isn’t what we need. We need conservative leaders in the state working together to improve how Louisiana is governed. We don’t need undue rancor and bizarre mistakes in front of the public to sap the confidence of the voters. That’s how you get Democrats back in office, and it’s how you lose the opportunity to pay off the big win the voters delivered to the GOP last fall.

Do better, Treasurer. We need to make this work for the people of the state.