State Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite) Saturday told LouisianaVoice he will ask House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles) on Monday for a full investigation of the 11th hour amendment to an obscure Senate bill that resulted in an additional $30,000 per year income for State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson upon his retirement.
The amendment, which was quickly signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal, allows Edmonson to revoke his decision made years ago to enter into the state’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) when he was a captain. That decision, which is considered irrevocable, locked in his retirement at a rate based on his captain’s pay while netting him a higher salary but now he will be allowed to compute his retirement based upon his rank as colonel.
At the same time, blogger C.B. Forgotston revealed that the probable source of the amendment may not have been one of the six members of the Legislative Conference Committee, but a Senate staff attorney.
“I am embarrassed by this entire thing,” Edwards said in an interview with LouisianaVoice. “I voted for the bill without reading it with the amendment attached.
So did 89 other House members and 37 senators.
“I know this is not an excuse, and I would never rationalize my vote this way but the truth is in the final hours most members, including myself, probably were not even at their desks. We were all running around trying to take care of conference committee action on our own bills.”
Edwards, who is an announced candidate for governor in 2015, said he will ask Kleckley to initiate an investigation to determine the origin of the amendment. “Somebody asked for this amendment,” he said. “It didn’t just happen.”
His observation echoed State Treasurer John Kennedy who on Wednesday said at a board meeting of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System, “This amendment didn’t just fall from heaven.”
Edwards said the real irony of the overwhelming vote in favor of the amendment is that similar requests have all been rejected in the past. “I know that in my seven years in the legislature, I’ve had at least 20 constituents ask me to help them revoke their DROP decisions and I had to tell every single one of them that there was nothing we could do for them. And now I end up voting for just such a provision because it was hidden away in an obscure bill that we were told had nothing to do with retirement. I’m embarrassed.”
The bill, Senate Bill 294 by Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans), dealt specifically with disciplinary procedures for law enforcement officers who are under investigation and had nothing to do with retirement in its original form. And conference committee member Rep. Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans) did little to shed any light on the true intent of the amendment.
Jindal must share blame
And while much has been said about legislators’ failure to closely examine the last-minute glut of amendments and Conference Committee reports, little has been said about Jindal’s willingness to sign such a fiscally irresponsible bill.
Though legislators may have been pressed for time in the closing hours of the session, Jindal most certainly was not. He and his staff had ample time to examine all bills passed by the legislature and to consider their fiscal impact.
Bottom line is the governor simply does not get a pass on this. He is the same governor who attempted unsuccessfully to gut the retirements of tens of thousands of state rank and file civil service employees two years ago and now he signs a bill sneaked in on the last day of the session to give a raise that exceeds the total annual retirement income for thousands of individual state employees.
Moreover, it was a bill his staff should have informed him, as Pearson, Forgotston and a state attorney told us, is unconstitutional on several levels.
The reality is that Jindal checked out as governor long ago in favor of chasing the presidential brass ring that will never be his—and that makes his signing this bill even more unforgiveable.
It also raises the question of what his role in this debacle may have been.
Senate legal counsel culpable?
Reports surfaced on Saturday that Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee legal counsel Laura Gail Sullivan was the person who tacked on the amendment without bothering to inform either of the six members of the Legislative Conference Committee—if they are to be believed.
The Conference Committee report that includes the amendment, dated June 2, the final day of the 2014 legislative session, contains the name “Sullivan” in the upper left corner of the report’s first page. http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=911551&n
The Conference Committee is made up of three members of the Senate and three from the House. For a bill to be reported out of Conference Committee, two senators and two representatives must vote in favor.
Conference Committee members included Sens. Morrell (the bill’s author), Neil Riser (R-Columbia) and Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe), and Rep. Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans), Walt Leger, III (D-New Orleans) and Bryan Adams (R-Gretna).
Riser is Sullivan’s Senate committee boss
Riser, besides serving on the Conference Committee to consider the bill, also is chairman of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee for whom Sullivan works as legal counsel. As such, she takes her marching orders from him. That being the case, what are the odds that Riser was carrying the water for Jindal? If so, did Edmonson request the favor from the governor? As both Edwards and Kennedy pointed out, the amendment didn’t drop from the sky.
A lot of questions that someone should answer—and soon.
Perhaps we will get some clarification from Edmonson (wink, wink) when he appears on Louisiana Public Radio’s Jim Engster show Monday at 9 a.m. http://wrkf.org/
LouisianaVoice sent separate emails to Riser, Rep. Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell), chairman of the House Retirement Committee; Sen. Elbert Guillory (R/D/R-Opelousas), chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee, and Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego). Our email posed three questions:
- Do you plan to conduct/request an investigation into how the amendment giving the $30,000 a year raise to Col. Edmonson got added to SB 294—particularly now that our sources are saying it was done by a Senate counsel for the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee?
- Do you believe, if true, she was acting on instructions from someone further up the food chain and if so, who?
- Were you aware the amendment was being added?
Pearson was the only one who responded
“I’m planning to look into this next week, as I have already done somewhat,” he said. “As you know the Senate staff is a different body than the House staff, different bosses that I am not as familiar with. But yes, I plan to find what actually happened.”
To the second question on whether or not he thought the Senate counsel was acting on instructions from higher up, he said he was unable to answer. “I really do not know,” he said. “I guess it is possible. I’ve never seen them go directly to my (retirement) staff without my being aware.”
As to whether or not he was aware of the contents of the amendment, Pearson said, “I had no clue the amendment was being added. I’m also fairly confident my (House) retirement attorney was unaware, especially since it was not a retirement bill. I did not vote (on) the Conference Committee report (he was one of 14 who did not vote) and I didn’t even know this happened until your article came out. I wasn’t avoiding the vote since I was unaware of these actions. I can’t even say where I was, possibly working on another Conference Committee report. I just don’t recall.
“I do appreciate you bringing this to our attention,” he said. “Hopefully the board can—or someone will—challenge the constitutionality of the rogue amendment.”
Louisiana Voice 
TA, “THEY” (and we know who “they” are) must be wishing you ill right about now. Commend your investigative skills, don’t ever stop…
Awesome job again Tom! You are the “Rocky Marciano” of investigative reporters!!!
Right on, Tom! Hit ’em hard.
I agree with all the above comments. This is one of your best posts ever. Clear and concise.
In defense of the legislators who voted on the conference committee report (except the members of the conference committee), it really is a Chinese fire drill at the end of the session. And, if you read the digest of the conference committee report (which is usually the most that is read on the floor when the reports are offered up for a vote) this non-germane amendment sounds pretty innocuous and technical. So you can see how it could blow by so many legislators, including the very conscientious John Bel Edwards [I am not being sarcastic here].
Maybe a positive benefit of this whole debacle will be an examination and refinement of the conference committee process, per se, with a full realization of how much power is vested in the members of these committees.
Finally, isn’t it a shame that the only way to change a bad/ostensibly unconstitutional law (since legally, it is not possible for a legislative body to enact an illegal law) is via the court system or the enactment of another law repealing it? This law is going to cost us money and wasted time even in the best case scenario in addition to undermining the integrity of the whole process.
I wonder if other amendments were inserted that have not been noticed yet. Good thing we have TA. The leges apparently need their own watchdog. Amazing to see all the security initiatives at the capitol and yet the actual lawmaking process is the very thing lacking security.
I don’t know what happened here, but it’s got Neil Riser’s and Bobby Jindal’s fingerprints all over it.
Somewhere in the corpus of the English language are the right words that would make a simple and enforceable law, a law that would make it a crime to do this sort of very wrong thing – the kind of thing we all recognize as wrong when we see it, but usually have to find a technicality for derailing it. If I could find the right words for that, as well as its ugly sister, which is elected officials intentionally misinforming and misleading their constituents about laws and proposed laws, I would go to my urn on the bookshelf trying to make it happen.
As far as I’m concerned, this is malfeasance in office for the attorney staffer (who surely knew this violates the LA Constitution), whichever elected official put this amendment in (Riser sure looks to be the culprit and this type of garbage regarding his Jindal allegiance is what cost him the 5th CD race), and Gov. Jindal himself once established that he knew of and/or initiated it, and Col Edmondson since he continues to assert that he’s “entitled” to this benefit when others aren’t. Quite frankly, I’m not going to be satisfied with a mere revocation of the benefit. Criminal charges for malfeasance in office need to be filed against the parties I’ve outlined above. That may help to dissuade this type of garbage going forward. I think Edmondson’s political future is now dead (he can forget that Lt. Governor office he’d been supposedly groomed for) as is that of Riser and Jindal. Great job, Tom!!
If anybody believes what happened with Edmondson is isolated, I want to draw attention to what was characterized as “blatant payroll fraud” by Mr. Patrick Lowery, who was the then-head of Civil Service accountability regarding the Executive Director of the Louisiana Auctioneer Licensing Board and the Louisiana Interior Design Board. The young lady, Ms. Sandy Edmonds, would routinely vacation in Disneyworld, go shopping, etc., all while on the payroll of both agencies making nearly $60,000 a year (combined). When the Legislative Auditor issued a report critical of the practice (the IG’s Office subsequently issued a report saying Edmonds’ actions constituted a “waste of public funds” and that Ms. Edmonds also lied to investigators while she was unaware the IG’s office was tracking her cell phone pinging and could PROVE she was lying), I want to direct everyone’s attention to the following audio clip (MOST ESPECIALLY to the segment beginning with the 0:35 mark!!!!!!!): http://youtu.be/1EMGAsivVr4. Wow!!!!! That’s the attorney for BOTH Boards speaking, Anna Dow, and she says there’s no need to worry because “the Governor’s Office has now gotten involved.” Ms. Edmonds herself concludes the discussion by saying, “Welcome to politics!” As Mr. Forgotston’s slogan says, “You can’t make this stuff up, folks.”
Just thought of something!! EDMONDS = green light for payroll fraud. EDMONDSON = green light to boost retirement $30K/year. We ALL need to have a last name that begins with “EDMONDS..” It’s all a function of the first seven letters of one’s last name!!
Tom, as a Retired State Trooper I appreciate you continuing to bring exposure to this incredible story. I, along with many other active and retired Troopers are embarrassed that one of our troopers was so selfish that he would tarnish the badge that I and so many others worked and sacrificed to honor. I am encouraged to see this Legislator and Treasury Secretary Kennedy stand tall in this matter. It is appropriate that the legislators are the ones who should be the most concerned about this. I and many other Retired Troopers will continue to demand fairness and accountability in this matter, from the legislators, state police, and from the governor. I cannot believe that Colonel Edmonson and his chief of staff (who has worked directly with the Legislature concerning all department and retirement matters on behalf of the colonel for most of the last 6 years), were unaware of this prior to its passage. By Edmonson’s own statements he at first indicated he knew nothing about this, but later said his “staff” had informed him but had provided incorrect information regarding how many members it would benefit. In that, he doesn’t deny knowing it would benefit him and how much— just how many others. I wonder if the investigation by the Retirement Board will show that the other trooper affected wasn’t identified until after the bill had passed. I also have to wonder if the specifics of the fiscal note even indicate there is anyone else affected or was that determined after the fact? It is also interesting to me that the fiscal report was prepared prior to SB 294 even being sent to Conference Committee. That suggests to me that there was probably a plan to attach it to something such as another retirement bill that was properly advertised but none were far enough along and SB 294 just became convenient. It is no stretch to believe that the governor’s office was directly involved in requesting this for a member of the governor’s cabinet. I look forward to this continuing story.
Actually, the fiscal notes were not written until three days after the legislature adjourned, which means no one had prior notice of the intent of the amendment before its introduction and subsequent passage.
J. P., thanks for the post and also your kind worlds on The Advocate link for the video coverage of the LSP Retirement System Board meeting Wednesday. I would strongly recommend that you consider contacting Graham Ulkins (WAFB Channel 9 reporter here in Baton Rouge) because he was very disappointed not to have a State Police trooper or retiree at Wednesday’s meeting whom he could interview. He ended up asking me for an interview, which I granted (just as a concerned citizen), but he said the station asked that he broadcast a live feed from LSP Headquarters for the 6 p.m. newscast, and that request severely cut into his time for interviews (mine wasn’t broadcast and only about a 20 second clip for Treasurer Kennedy could be squeezed in). Graham asked me to please refer any State trooper or retiree who may be willing to do an on-camera interview to him, so I’d recommend contacting him if you would be so inclined. Like I said, he was really disappointed not to have a State trooper or retiree there to interview. Thanks also for your reposts of Tom’s blog link to Fox 8 news and others. You helped spread the word, and I can now report that, as of the time I’m typing this, the videos of the LSP meeting have been viewed 317 times just since Wednesday. Thanks again!
Tom, You are correct…the Actuarial Note prepared by The Legislative Auditor was dated June 5. But what I was referring to was the initial request for Fiscal Impact. I believe it began on May 28 with an inquiry. The response to that is what the Legislature then puts together as the Actuarial Note. My understanding is the return to the Legislature was prior to June 1.
Tom, also I notice that my name redacts to my initials. If that is to protect me on this sensitive issue, it is appreciated, but in my case not necessary. I am a Retiree with no ties to the Department or Government, nor am I ever planning to run for political office, so my honest opinions can’t cause me problems. Many that communicate with me are equally embarrassed and outraged regarding this issue but are not so fortunate as to be able to openly express it without retribution. I commend your efforts to be our and the citizens’ voice and thanks again for your work on this. Coming from State Government I know it is hard to work through the noise to get to the message.
For those who may have missed the Public Radio Interview this morning…
It was at best a Softball interview. Nevertheless Edmonson managed to break that old rule, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Interesting to me was the confirmation that at least two weeks prior he was notified that “they” were looking at ways to do this. Additionally, while previously claiming his staff had mis-informed him that the add on would benefit several troopers, now we see at best he was told it helped only one other Trooper. I found it Sophomoric to blame the “media” for reporting this, he even called out C. B. Forgotston. Not a good move. Also, Edmonson defended the method used to add this matter on. Even several Legislators have acknowledged the sneaky, disingenuous, and possibly unconstitutional tactics employed. No one is suggesting it was done right except Edmonson and probably whoever added it. To try to defend it by noting a lot of times this method is used is an insult to the Integrity of the Legislators who try to do things right. One issue that never comes up is the DROP lump sum money that is his when he retires. This should be upwards of $250k. That is why many chose this plan. Although he makes it sound like he was “forced” into this program, it was voluntary and many made the decision so they could have a large lump sum rather than hope to make it up yearly on their retirement. State Trooper pay was frozen from yearly merit increases at 25 years of service so for most this worked out well. The ones who didn’t fair as well were the ones who were promoted. He made a judgement call after counseling by Retirement and I would think careful consideration. Most accept it, good or bad. But to now try to change the rules mid-game to make up for his poor judgement is wrong.
Here is the link:
http://m.wrkf.org/?utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FXnOCRUmSnP#mobile/29680
Thank you Mr. Patrick! Appreciate your service!
You hit the nail on the head, Jerry. Col Edmondson, using your words, “made a judgment call.” Except for the fact Stanford victims were wiped out of their life savings, I view the jammed-through measure (SB-294) to be akin to a “bailout” of Col Edmondson’s decision except that, rather than recovering his life savings, he’s merely seeking to have an even larger windfall come his way, and the reality is that he never would be making $134,000 a year had he not met the screening criterion of Gov. Jindal that he be his lapdog. If graded based on that criterion alone, Col Edmondson is worthy of a windfall the size of the largest lottery winner in history!! I sure hope nobody forgets the CRUCIAL role LSP played in persecuting (and that’s what I intended to type, not “prosecuting”) Murphy Painter. It was Ms. Scott who, on the witness stand, said, “What I want every person in this room to understand is that it is a violation of the terms of use of our system to look up a person’s address. I don’t care that he (Painter) could have obtained the same information through other readily-available means.” (Note: I’m sure Mike Fawer, defense attorney, secretly said to himself, “keep going, baby. Talk down to the whole courtroom, even the Judge. I’m not going to stop you. You’re making a GREAT witness for my client.) Mr. Painter’s sin? Looking up two addresses (that’s TWO COUNTS!!!!!!) to send sympathy cards to an attorney friend in New Orleans with whom he would interact in his dealings at the legislature and that friend’s brother upon the passing of their mother!!!! No, I’m NOT kidding!!! That fiasco cost Louisiana taxpayers $300,000 for Painter’s defense team (plus God only knows how much in the defamation suit pending in 19th JDC) plus the ungodly man-hours that the IG’s Office spent persecuting Painter (not to mention about $800,000 – $1,000,000 in flushed Federal tax dollars). At what point does the incompetency (who in the hell felt a conviction was possible for things like sending sympathy cards??????????) which is so costly to the taxpayers of this State end?
When I read this outstanding post, my first thought was how much those in state government must curse the internet and those investigative reporters with blogs who know how to doggedly pursue an issue. Good on you, Tom.
Excellent comments, all.
The most important thing to come from the Engster interview is the fact Colonel Edmonson’s annual retirement benefit will increase by $55,000 per year, not the $30,000 actuarial cost estimate for the first 5 years that has been bandied about. His old benefit would have been $79,000 per year. His new benefit will be $134,000 per year, based on his statements on the show.
I estimate his DROP account at $241,700. IF it reverts to the retirement system it will at least ameliorate the cost of a payout of an additional $1,650,000
over 30 years (not unreasonable to assume in today’s world and considering Col. Edmonson’s obvious good health). Even if he “loses” this lump sum up front he will recoup it in a little over 4 years with his increased benefits. .
[…] how the retirement boost came to be inserted in an unrelated bill, according to the local blog, Louisiana Voice […]
The State Police Retirement is the most abused of all the state retirement systems. It has the highest employer match cost of any system.
See http://www.doa.la.gov/osup/RetirementRates/FY1718a_Ret_Rates.pdf. Rates in recent years have exceeded 70%. This means for every thousand paid to a Trooper, the state has to match in retirement system that %….currently over 40% so that $1000 costs over $1450 (counting medicare match).
Which raises another issue – which is why are state police details considered overtime when they are actually on the local D.A.’s payroll ? This costs the state extra, for ex. medicare match and they should receive STRAIGHT pay, not o/t !