Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2011

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—With the outcome of this year’s gubernatorial election all but final heading into the last days of the 2011 campaign, it might be good to look ahead at what’s in store as Gov. Bobby Jindal prepares for his second term.

He has already partially unveiled his agenda for the next four years to trusted top staff. And not all staffers—including some cabinet members—are within his circle of trust.

If you think he was a bit ambitious with his agenda to reduce the role of government during his first term, you might want to find something to hold onto during the next four years. It’s going to be quite a ride. That’s provided, of course, he sticks around that long. There’s no guarantee of that because he does harbor national ambitions despite his comforting assurances to the contrary.

Details of Jindal’s plans for the coming four years remain sketchy but there are a few moves that can be predicted with relative ease. Others might be considered improbable if one chooses not to observe what conservative Republican administrations have managed to do in other states.

There is the privatization of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB), of course. That’s a no-brainer. It’s an emotional issue and those emotions are not likely to subside as the administration steps up its efforts to sell off what is arguably the most efficient agency in state government. But Jindal and his Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater have already sent signals that privatization of the agency is high on their bucket list.

Opponents point out that OGB currently has an administrative overhead of about three percent. That is because it is not required that the agency turn a profit nor does OGB pay taxes on premiums. A private concern would require an administrative cost of about 15 percent to allow for profits and tax liabilities. That would translate to a substantial premium increase for state employees and retirees.

OGB currently has a surplus of about $500 million but those funds are for the payment of benefits only and are off-limits to the administration. If OGB is sold for somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 million to $200 million, however, that money would go straight into the state’s general fund and that’s money Jindal wants desperately.

A recent development is more than a little telling on this issue. OGB has proposed a rate increase of about three percent but the administration has insisted on at least a five percent bump. A bigger premium increase would allow the $500 million surplus to remain intact, thus making the agency far more attractive to potential buyers.

Another nagging issue that Jindal is likely to address is the cost of the various state retirement plans, which currently are saddling the state with an unfunded liability of about $18 billion.

State employees presently have a defined benefit plan as opposed to a defined contribution plan. Look for the administration to take a long, hard look at changing that.

Defined benefits mean that employees pay premiums with the knowledge that their benefits are locked in. That benefit is computed by multiplying the average of an employee’s three highest years of earnings by 2.5 percent by the number of years of service. An employee who earned an average of $60,000 in his three best years over a 30-year career would multiply $60,000 by 2.5 percent, which is comes to $1500. That $1500 is then multiplied by the number of years of service (30) which computes to an annual pension of $45,000.

Under a defined contribution plan, contributions would be set and the money would be invested in much the same way as a 401(K) plan works. There would be no guarantee of benefits because that would depend on market fluctuations. That’s not a change desired by state employees after the recent Wall Street crisis.

State employee sentiments aside, one state legislator, Sen. D.A. “Butch” Gautreaux (D-Morgan City), outgoing chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee, pointed out that should the state convert to a defined contribution system, the state would then be required to begin paying Social Security premiums on state employees. State employees do not presently participate in Social Security.

“Going to a defined contribution system would not save the state any money,” Gautreaux said.

Jindal is almost certain to renew his efforts to privatize several state prisons. He tried earlier this year but backed off those efforts in the face of vocal opposition from prison employees, legislators, and local citizens. With no concerns about being elected to a third term, he is likely to make a harder push next year in an effort to pull in a few million more into the general fund.

Remember Rep. John Schroder (R-Abita Springs)? He’s the legislator who, in 2010, introduced four bills designed to abolish Civil Service and the Civil Service Commission and to give the legislator authority to decide which state employees would receive merit raises.

Those efforts failed and he did not renew his efforts this year, probably because it’s an election year. Those efforts are quite likely to resurface in next year’s legislative session as are attempts by Rep. John LaBruzzo (R-Metairie) to force welfare recipients to undergo drug testing. Previous attempts have never made it out of committee.

Though both measures by Schroder and LaBruzzo have gotten nowhere, consider Gov. Scott Walker who has effectively defanged the state employee union in Wisconsin. And in Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has signed into a law that requires adult welfare recipients to undergo drug screening.

Since day one, Jindal has worked nearly as hard on education reform as he has on political fundraising.

His penchant for replacing public schools with charter schools has incurred the wrath of public school teachers who are forced to accept all comers, to take the bad students with the good. Jindal’s charter schools, they say, have operated under the guise of open admissions when in reality, practicing selective admissions.

The recent school grades released by the State Department of Education would seem to bear that out. All but one of the top performing schools (24 of 25) were schools with selective admissions while 19 of the lowest 25 were alternative schools—those schools into which the poorest performing students are shunted.

Jindal’s efforts to privatize the state’s Medicaid program are likely to continue unabated. The Department of Health and Hospitals already has approved a $300 million contract to CNSI to implement the state’s Medicaid Management Information System. The contract raised eyebrows in the legislature because DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein once worked for CNSI and Greenstein attempted to conceal from a legislative committee the identity of the contract winner.

With only token opposition in Saturday’s election, the only obstacle for Jindal’s agenda is the legislature itself. But with a solid Republican majority in both the House and Senate, any opposition there is likely to no less token.

Read Full Post »

As promised, we have information on the rehire of two other retired employees of Treasury Secretary John Kennedy but no sooner than we made that promise than we received information on two additional such employees who work for Kennedy.

We have made public record requests on the latest two and will post those upon receipt of the needed information.

As something of an aside, perhaps we should mention that while those at Treasury have been extremely cooperative in fulfilling our requests for information, the same cannot be said for the Division of Administration (DOA).

We have information on good authority that two retired DOA employees have been rehired but when we requested information on those individuals we got the old bureaucratic shuffle at which DOA has become so adept.

DOA has been less than cooperative, in fact downright hostile.

David Boggs of the DOA Office of General Counsel responded to our request with a snippy email in which he said, “The Public Records Law does not place an affirmative duty upon the custodian to provide answers to written questions. The Public Records Law requires us to produce records already in existence, not answer questions or generate new records in response to a request.”

The only problem with that response is we never requested that DOA “generate new records.” Accordingly, we re-phrased our request in statement form as opposed to asking questions (Apparently Mr. Boggs is not a fan of Jeopardy!).

Editor’s update: Subsequent to posting the above paragraphs relative to Mr. David Boggs, we received another email from him relative to one of our requests. You will recall he responded to our last request in a somewhat condescending manner so we rephrased our request.

So how did he respond this time? Here is his response:

“We have received your email requesting records related to the employment records of Ray Stockstill. The proper custodian of records for the Division of Administration is the Commissioner of Administration, Paul W. Rainwater. Please address all future requests to him by any of the following methods:

By email: doacommissioner@la.gov
By fax: (225) 342-1057
By US Mail: P.O. Box 94095, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9095″

He did say, however, that DOA would respond to our request. We’ll see.

In the meantime, if any of our readers have any requests for public records, you have Commissioner Rainwater’s contact information.

Always preface all request with this wording:

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana, R.S. 44:1 et seq., I respectfully request the following information:

Here is the part of the law that readers probably should know by heart before seeking information.

A custodian who determines a record is not public, must provide written reasons, including the legal basis, within three working days. If a requester is denied a public record by a custodian or if five business days have passed since the initial request and the custodian has not responded, the requester may file a civil suit to enforce his right to access. the custodian bears the burden of proving that the record is not subject to disclosure because of either privacy rights or a specific exemption. The law requires the courts to act expeditiously in such suits and to render a decision “as soon as practicable.”

If the requester prevails in the suit, the court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. If the requester partially prevails, the court may, at its discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees or an appropriate portion thereof. (The custodian and the public body may each be held liable for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation; however, the custodian cannot be held personally liable for these fees and costs if he acted on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.)

The court may also award the requester civil penalties of up to $100 for each day the custodian arbitrarily failed to give a written explanation of the reasons for denying the request. In addition, if the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld a public record, it may award actual damages proven by the requester to have resulted from the custodian’s action. (The custodian may be held personally liable for the actual damages unless his denial of the request was based on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.)

In addition to civil remedies, the law also provides criminal penalties. Anyone with custody or control of a public record who violates the law or hinders the inspection of a public record will be fined $100 to $1,000, or imprisoned for one to six months upon first conviction. For a subsequent conviction, the penalty is a fine of $250 to $2,000 or imprisonment from two to six months, or both.

We will advise as to whether or not DOA continues to withhold public information in violation of state law. In the meantime, let’s examine the information we do have as a result of previous requests—the rehire of retired Treasury employees Jama L. Scivicque and Gary K. Hall to unclassified (non-civil service) positions.

Hall retired as a $114,275.20 per year State Treasurer Fiscal Officer on July 22, 2011 with an annual pension of $64,768.92.

Five days after his retirement, on July 27, he was rehired as a “special projects officer” at $54.94 per hour, the same rate as his hourly pay at the time of his retirement.

Because he was re-hired as a part-time employee, however, he was scheduled to work a maximum of 32 hours per week which gave him an annualized salary of $91,420.16.

Scivicque was a State Treasury Fiscal Manager earning $107,078.40 per year when she also retired on July 22 with a yearly pension of $62,161.08. She was re-hired four days later, on July 26, at an hourly rate of $51.48 on the same part-time, 32-hours-per-week basis as Hall, giving her an annualized salary of $85,662.72.

Stephen Stark, deputy general counsel for the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS), noted that R.S. 11:416 provides that if a state employee chooses to continue receiving retirement benefits while re-employed, “the employee is limited by annual earnings, regardless of whether those earnings come from full-time or part-time employment. If their earnings exceed 50 percent of their benefit for that year, the law calls for a reduction of their benefits henceforth to recover the excess earnings,” he said.

Under that law Scivicque could apparently earn up to $31,000 per year without impacting her retirement. Likewise, Hall could earn slightly more than $32,000 without losing retirement benefits.

In the cases of Hall and Scivicque, First Assistant State Treasurer Ron Henson, Kennedy’s second in command, signed off on their offers of employment on Aug. 8, in effect approving their employment retroactively.

“The State Treasury Fiscal Officer and State Treasury Fiscal Manager, who have a combined service of 65 years with Treasury, are retiring effective July 24, 2011,” Henson said in his Request for Unclassified Authority. His July 24 date did not square with Employee Notification Forms which showed that both employees actually retired two days earlier. “Their comprehensive knowledge of statewide fiscal control functions is invaluable to the State operations, particularly as it relates to the 45-day close, the fiscal year close and revenue sharing allocation processes, all of which occur once each fiscal year,” he said. “Because of the complexity and uniqueness associated with the three processes, it could place the state at great risk not to provide for knowledge transfer during the preparation phase and as each process actually occurs.”

In describing their duties, Henson said the positions were needed “to provide assistance to new management in the Office of State Depository Control and to allow a transition period for achieving successful results during the 45-day close in mid-August, the final 2010-11 fiscal year close in late September, and the state’s revenue sharing allocation for FY 2011-12. It would also ensure the accomplishment of essential knowledge transfer of critical state control functions without any disruption in the state’s fiscal services.”

Besides a penchant for run-on sentences, it seems that Henson also has a flair for bureaucratic gooney-babble. The justification for re-hiring these two retirees is just about as vague, meaningless and bureaucratese-filled as it is outrageous to expect a state agency to be so unprepared for the retirement of first one, then three, and now, we learn, five of its employees.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

“Eliminate 5,000 positions each year for three years by not filling one-third of the state’s job vacancies each year.”

“We still have too many state employees.”

Secretary of Treasury John Kennedy on his solution to reducing the state deficit.

Read Full Post »

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—There’s one thing that Gov. Bobby Jindal and Treasury Secretary John Kennedy agree on: the need to reduce the number of state employees and for those remaining to “do more with less.”

Accordingly, state employees are being subjected to salary freezes and cutbacks while teachers all across the state are being laid off in the ongoing macabre program of official parsimony.

Yet, LouisianaVoice has learned that Alexis Thompson, wife of Office of Risk Management Director Julian “Bud” Thompson, was allowed to retire from her $118,892.80 per year job on July 31, 2010, and return to work for the same agency last March 31. While her hourly pay remained the same, her hours were reduced by 20 percent, to 32 hours per week, in order that she might be classified as a part time employee.

Her new annualized “part time” salary? $95,114.24 (80 percent of her old salary). But wait! That’s in addition to her retirement income which, according to state law is reduced while she is working for the state as a rehire. Even with the reduced pension, it’s great for those fortunate enough to land such a gig but it’s a cruel joke to state employees who struggle to pay for luxuries like food, shelter, gasoline, tuition, clothing, etc.

All this occurred, mind you, during a time when civil service employees have been denied pay raises for two straight years because the state is strapped for money.

Her agency? The State Bond Commission, which is part of Kennedy’s Treasury Department.

She retired from her $57.16 per hour position as Assistant Director of the Debt Management Program, better known as the State Bond Commission, on July 31, 2010. She was re-hired as a part-time “special projects officer,” according to agency’s Employee Notification Form. It was not immediately clear what a special projects officer does but the Department of Treasury’s Conditional Offer of Employment listed her position as that of “consultant.”

Ron Henson, first assistant state treasurer, signed off on her appointment to her post-retirement employment on March 16. He would be John Kennedy’s second in command. That’s the same John Kennedy who so desperately wants to save state revenue by reducing the number of state employees by 5,000 per year for three years.

Mrs. Thompson’s husband, Julian “Bud” Thompson, is director of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management. Bud Thompson, who makes approximately $110,000 per year, presided over the demise of his office through a phased-in privatization program that has forced dozens of state employees to lose their state benefits and to seek employment with the private company that is taking over ORM–a company that was sold less than a year after the takeover but not before successfully negotiating a $7 million amendment to its contract only a week before the sale.

Bud Thompson is the first cousin of State Sen. Francis Thompson of Delhi, often cited as the single state legislator with the highest number of family members on the state payroll.

In all, Louisiana has more than 6,000 retired-rehired employees, many of those in parish school systems and universities across the state. The Jefferson Parish School system, with 570 retired-rehired, leads the list, followed by Calcasieu with 442 and East Baton Rouge with 399.

Terrebonne Parish has 179 retired-rehired employees at the same time that it was forced to lay off more than 150 full-time and 160 part-time workers because of budgetary cuts. Lafourche Parish was forced to cut 100 full-time positions while nearby Nicholls State University was rehiring 18 retirees.

Louisiana Tech likewise was forced to lay off more than 100 employees over the past three years but re-hired 25 retirees during that period.

Other local school systems and universities and the number of re-hired retirees include:

• Acadia Parish—137;
• Tangipahoa—124;
• Grambling State University—12;
• Southeastern Louisiana University—16;
• University of Louisiana at Monroe—18;
• Northwestern State University—13

Did we mention that state classified employees have been denied merit raises and cost of living increases while all this is going on?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts