Pick your cliché:
Collective amnesia.
Circling the wagons.
Covering your backside.
Plausible deniability.
We’re all in this together.
Lying through your teeth.
The six members of the Legislative Conference Committee to a man have disavowed any knowledge as to which of them it was who introduced the amendment to Senate Bill 294 that gave State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson that $30,000 per year retirement increase that experts say may have been unconstitutional on six separate fronts.
Short version? Someone’s lying.
Remember the Seven Dwarfs of Big Tobacco? They’re the executives of the seven different tobacco companies who figurative locked arms as they formed a united front behind Philip Morris USA President and CEO William Campbell when he told a congressional committee back in 1994, “I believe nicotine is not addictive.”
Now you have the Six Mental Midgets (and yes, we are fully aware that is not politically correct) of the Louisiana House and Senate who individually, have each denied to C.B. Forgotston any culpability in adding the amendment to Sen. Jean-Paul Morrell’s bill that was intended to address disciplinary procedures against police officers under investigation and, Morrell says, was in no way intended to address pensions.
Forgotston refers to the amendment as the “bastard amendment” because “nobody claims to be the father. Some have suggested that the amendment came about through artificial insemination (while) others said Immaculate Conception,” he said. (We choose not to print Forgotston’s notion, though we have to admit he may well be closer to the truth than any of the other theory.)
State Treasurer John Kennedy, following a meeting of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) on Wednesday, said simply, “This amendment didn’t just fall from heaven.”
But if you accept the word of Sens. Morrell, Neil Riser (R-Columbia) and Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe), and Reps. Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans), Walt Leger, III (D-New Orleans) and Bryan Adams (R-Gretna) at face value, you are left with few alternative explanations other than Forgotston’s R-rated suggestion.
The amendment, which Gov. Jindal quickly signed into law as Act 859, allows Edmonson to revoke his “irrevocable” decision made when he was a captain to enter the state’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) which allowed him to take more in salary but froze his retirement at the captain’s pay scale rate. By revoking that decision, he would allow his retirement benefits to be calculated at the higher rank of his current colonel’s pay, plus he would be allowed to add years of service and longevity pay. With 34 years of service, he would be qualified to retired at 100 percent of his $134,000 salary, an increase of $30,000 per year.
While each of the six Conference Committee members denies having offered up the amendment, Arnold would appear to be a prime suspect. It was he who spent all of 15 seconds explaining the amendment to the full House before its final passage. To hear his award-winning performance, click here: www.auctioneer-la.org/edmondson.mp3
But let’s not rule out the possibility that this amendment came straight from the Fourth Floor of the State Capitol. If Jindal wanted this (and it’s looking more and more as if that might be the case), it would be a simple matter of having one of his subordinates to insert the necessary language into the amendment for the governor, who can nevertheless maintain that “plausible deniability” as he scoots back to Iowa or D.C. (Think of the old TV thriller Mission Impossible and agent Phelps receiving his assignment on the self-destructing tape with his assignment ending with the disclaimer that the I.M. team will “disavow any knowledge” of his existence if he is captured.)
And let’s not forget Edmonson’s creative explanation. First, he says the amendment simply allows him to receive benefits to which he is fully entitled and then he denies asking for the special treatment. Ol’ Earl Long had a term for that kind doublespeak: “Catfish Mouth,” for the ability to “speak outta both sides of his mouth and whistle in the middle.”
First of all, we fail to comprehend how he feels he is “entitled” to the benefits considering the indisputable fact that he made the decision as a captain to enter DROP. There are scores of retired state troopers and thousands of retired state employees who would line up at the Capitol steps for the opportunity to change their minds on their DROP decisions of years ago. In fact, there have been several in recent years to attempt just that. Each one was rejected by the House and Senate retirement committees but that does make them one scintilla less deserving than Jindal’s shadow and former bodyguard for the LSU football coach.
And none of them—nay, not one—resides in a luxurious home with cooks, butlers and housekeepers—all provided at taxpayer expense.
“As someone who once worked for the legislature,” says Forgotston, “I find this entire episode very sad. It’s especially pathetic since the current legislators consider themselves as ‘reformers.’ If they want to see why Louisiana has a reputation for corruption, they should look into the mirror.”
He said all six members of the Conference Committee “claimed to be waiting on someone else to do something about the rip-off. The fact that none of the conferees claim the amendment serves to further destroy the integrity of the legislative process. If the legislators want to attempt to mitigate the damage to the legislative process, there needs to be an internal investigation to determine how an amendment can get into legislation without any legislator offering it.”
He said that Arnold wrote him in an email that both he and Morrell had requested an attorney general’s opinion on the constitutionality of the amendment.
“I told Arnold the AG cannot render an opinion on the constitutionality of any legislation. The reason (is because) the AG is required by the Constitution to defend all acts of the legislature, regardless of constitutionality or how dumb the legislation is,” Forgotston said. “Therefore, it is a conflict of interest for (the attorney general) to rule on a matter in which he may be called on to defend in court.”
He said the retirement system’s board has a fiduciary obligation to protect its assets. “It’s time for them to do so,” he said.
“The only way to make sure this rip-off doesn’t go forward is for the (LSPRS) board to litigate the constitutionality of Act 859 of the 2014 Regular Session,” Forgotston said. “A first-year law student could win the case. Maybe the AG will hire Jimmy Faircloth to defend the state. That would make it the closest thing to sure winner as it gets in the courts.
“If you know any State Troopers please forward this information to them; they are obviously better at getting people to confess than I am. That said, I have to admit getting that the truth from legislators is no job for rookies.”
No wonder James Gill calls Forgotston the “King of the Subversive Bloggers.”
Louisiana Voice 
Another great post, Tom. It’s hard to believe that, only five (5) days ago, this story hadn’t even broken (kudos on being the first to break it!!!) and now all the major television stations and newspapers across the State of Louisiana are all over it. I will add that Louisiana State troopers are very fortunate to have a man of the caliber of Irwin Felps, Jr. as the Executive Director of the retirement system. I have known him for almost 30 years, and his reputation for honesty, integrity, and full and open disclosure is unparalleled. Everyone can rest assured that he won’t try and hide or conceal ANYTHING no matter who may “gently suggest” it be done (including Gov. Jindal). The LSP Retirement System Board appeared to me to be filled by very professional and intelligent members as well. For that, troopers can be thankful in this utterly deplorable circumstance!!
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/9738327-123/our-views-sharp-deal-for
Who done it, could it have been done by a lowly staffer who outsmarted the system? Or could it have been someone above the system? When and if the truth comes out will it have been a mistake or would it have been done on purpose? All the legislators who approved this better get ready to answer some questions for they allowed it to happen on their watch. Now to get the truth let’s see if Kristy Nichols (since DOA tracks all legislation) can get herself out of this one or will Jindal override it all and chalk it up to a mistake. But it has been approved by legislation and signed by the Governor, surely it can’t be repealed. Let’s just make sure it never, never happens again. RIGHT? Troopers are already upset by being locked out of their pay increases like all state employees so I don’t imagine any to be very happy with this. But what can they do but sit back and hope the right thing will happen? Time will tell and get ready to fork out the big bucks cause there will be much litigation on this matter, not only from troopers but all state employees.
One absolute thing: It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to have been done by mistake.
I know you’re right Stephen but as I sarcastically put it the administration will fix it so that it never happens again no matter who or how many sue the state for the same reason.
Was Col. Edmondson’s “living on the largess” of Louisiana tax payers in the house on the SP hq. campus (and sometimes emergency headquarters of the governor in time of emergency) included as a gross up of compensation for IRS tax purposes? I remember back in the late ’70s such an issue was raised for the Director of Charity Hospital in NO who lived in “hospital mansion” on Walnut St. facing Audubon Park and did not pay taxes on living expenses as taxable compensation.
And is the Col. a classified employee? Having been one now retired, I recall we could only get what the pay scales said…anything beyond that was illegal…even candy at Christmas from vendors! A house, butler, cook, housekeeper, heck I’d never would’ve retired!
He’s an unclassified employee.
Unless it slipped through, the fair market value of the housing would definitely be subject to federal taxation. About 25 years ago, the IRS, based on a report I presented to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget regarding housing and other benefits provided to various state employees and officials, determined these emoluments should always have been subject to taxation and, as a matter of fact, demanded a back payment from the state since taxes had not been withheld and/or paid on them.
If the amendment “slipped through” maybe the living expenses emoluments did as well! How and who can check? Or maybe the “living expenses spiff” could be used to justify the up tick in retirement compensation to match what the Col. made while he is in active state service. Darn, hope I’m not giving ideas for justification.
After I posted this I remembered there are IRS rules that permit exclusion of housing from employee income if: 1. The housing is on the premises of the business 2. It is furnished for the convenience of the business 3. The employee must accept it as a condition of employment. It is possible the residence in question meets all three of these requirements. It is on the State Police compound. The state would argue the superintendent lives there for its, not his, convenience because he must be available 24/7. Edmonson sold his private residence and lives there full-time and we can assume the state made it a condition of his employment that he do so.
I apologize for this memory lapse. Notwithstanding the exemption from taxation, there is a definite value/savings to him from living there.
Can or do unclassified employees go through DROP? Never thought of it one way or another.
Not sure. He was classified when he entered DROP.
With Guillory on the Board of the LSP Retirement System I suspect nothing will come of this unfortunate deal.
The integrity of all state retirement programs is at stake.
Years ago, while working with a federal agency in D.C., I caught an amendment to an act that had been added at the last minute by a Senator’s staff member. I knew the Senator well enough to know that he would not support the amendment, informed him of the amendment and it was removed as was the staff member. Perhaps one of the “Six Mental Midgets” can claim this or it is more likely Jindal had a mole do it. One way or the other, it is clear that many of our legislators probably do not really read bills and amendments unless they are keenly interested in them. Hence, they quite often don’t really know what they are voting on.
According to C. B. Forgotston they are all now blaming a legislative staff member for slipping the amendment in. If true, s/he should be terminated immediately and prosecuted to the extent s/he can be. But, then, the question would be who asked him/her to do it and why?
And, then one has to ask how so many of them voted for it without reading (noticing) it.
Someone please remind me why we even have legislators.
Mike Edmonson is scheduled to be on The Jim Engster Show on WRKF 89.3FM Monday at 9:00 a.m. Let’s all try to remember to listen.
State employees should be permitted to revoke their decision to enter the DROP before the actual fact of their retirement. As you probably know, the DROP is more complicated than the Infield Fly Rule or the old BCS ranking system, and few people fully understand its total financial implications. This is especially true for employees with many years of service and relatively high compensation. Perhaps Edmonson sought and received advice from a qualified financial planner and changed his mind. No one appears to have ever asked that question.
None of this, of course, excuses the legislators who participated in this scheme and then lied about it or tried to cover it up.