Editor’s note: Occasionally in our outrage over the apparent double standard practiced by this administration, we will write a scathing article intended to point the spotlight on something we feel is wrong and in the process, cast undue attention on other participants. Mrs. Thompson’s own comments may be read in the comments section of last week’s post.
And on occasion, we regrettably get a few facts mixed up. We are human, after all. But when we do that, we try to rectify matters as best we can. With that in mind, we will attempt to clarify a couple of points in our last post about the state practice of retire/rehire.
We waited to post this on Sunday night because readership is much reduced during the weekend and we wanted to expose our clarification to as many of our readers as possible.
While it is true that Alexis Thompson was rehired after retiring from her position at the State Bond Commission, the date of her retirement was incorrect. We said she retired on March 21 of this year and was rehired the following day when in fact her retirement date was July 31, 2010. She remained retired nearly eight months before returning to work for work for the State Treasury Department charged with the duty of effecting an evaluation of job levels at the State Bond Commission in an effort to reduce the number of positions.
Moreover, after our story was posted, we were informed by LASERS that Mrs. Thompson’s retirement income (as well as the retirement income of any other retire/rehire) would be reduced if the rehire earned more than 50 percent of his/her previous full-time salary. Inasmuch as her annualized salary was 80 percent of her full-time salary, it should be assumed that her retirement income during the period of her re-employment would be reduced accordingly.
We are not suggesting that LASERS was remiss in not informing us up front because when we made the public records request for Mrs. Thompson’s retirement income (which is public record), the folks at LASERS had no way of knowing that we were inquiring into the retirement income of a rehire. They simply gave us the information requested by us—the figure at which she retired.
All this contrition on our part in no way diminishes the problems we have with retire/rehire practices. The quality of work performed by rehires is immaterial to us. People are out of work and state employees are among those likely to be laid off. They are not alone; people in all walks of life are losing their jobs, their insurance, their homes and their dignity.
A state employee who has retired should not be eligible for rehire. If the employee intends to continue working, postpone retirement. To do otherwise is a drain on the state budget and on the administration’s credibility.
Mrs. Thompson said her expertise was necessary to complete the job efficiently and effectively. No agency should be so compartmentalized as to impede the uninterrupted flow of work upon the loss of one person. What if Mrs. Thompson had become physically incapacitated or was otherwise unavailable for the chore during those eight months of her retirement? Surely Treasury had some form of backup plan in place.
We can’t help but believe if an agency like John Kennedy’s Treasury Department is doing its job properly, there should be an alternative to having to bring back no fewer than three of its former employees.
That’s right. At least three rehires in Treasury. Our first story only mentioned Mrs. Thompson because hers was the only name we had at the time. Subsequent to that story’s posting, we received information on two more retire/rehires in Treasury. That story will be posted on Monday evening. We will write about others as we find them.
As a final note, it should be clear that the real target of our indignation in the original post was John Kennedy and the Treasury Department. That’s because Mr. Kennedy has made so much of his plan to reduce state employment by 15,000 by simply not replacing those 5,000 or so who retire or quit state government each year.
Such a plan is disingenuous at best. Consider this: The highest turnovers in state government, in order, are in the Department of Corrections, state hospitals, and the Department of Transportation and Development.
Under Mr. Kennedy’s plan, we would have fewer people guarding dangerous prisoners, fewer people tending to the health needs of the sick and dying, and fewer people trying to keep up with the deteriorating condition of our state highways.
And even as he travels the state speaking to civic clubs about the need to reduce state employment, Mr. Kennedy quietly brings retired workers back into the fold of his agency. This is duplicity, pure and simple.
If this is indicative of the brand of candor we can expect of our public officials—and we fear it is—then this state is in more trouble than we are willing to admit.
Louisiana Voice 
Your willingness to research, clarify, and verify information is appreciated, as is your willingness to acknowledge and to clarify information.
Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate such honesty in the media. We don’t see it often enough. One more point to clarify. The plan Sec kennedy discussed last spring did include exceptions for critical services like DOC and state hospital retirements, where adequate staffing was in the best interest of the general public.
I believe he was targeting the departments where a supervisor manages just a few employees, while not actually performing any other functions of that division. I’m Not saying his plan was perfect, but it was sure better than Jindal’s “fire sale” plan for multiple state agencies (except the executive branch where he hired more unclassified employees than multiple governors before him combined).
I agree with Ms. Dubroc’s comments above. In addition, I believe a statement in Ms. Thompson’s response to the earlier post says exactly what needs to be said about the whole retire/rehire thing. To quote Ms. Thompson, “My philosophy has always been I would have accomplished nothing if the work could not continue once I was gone.” To that I say, “Amen!”