State Treasurer John Kennedy has forwarded a two-page letter to the executive director of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) that itemizes 13 questions Kennedy said need to be addressed concerning the $55,000 per year pension increase awarded State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson in the closing minutes of the recent legislative session.
An amendment to Senate Bill 294, quickly signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal as Act 859, allowed Edmonson and one other state trooper to revoke their decision made at lower ranks to enter the state’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). In Edmonson’s case, he entered DROP as a captain, which effectively froze his retirement calculated on his salary at that time.
He was subsequently promoted to Superintendent of State Police which carried with it a substantial pay increase that made the DROP decision a bad one—like many other state employees who made similar moves and were later promoted.
The amendment was inserted into an unrelated bill dealing with disciplinary actions to be taken with law enforcement officers under investigation by a six-member conference committee, none of whom will claim credit—or blame—for the action.
Even worse than the furtive action, most probably taken at the direction of Gov. Bobby Jindal, five of the six conference committee members appear to be unwilling to man up and discuss their actions.
Kennedy, who by virtue of his office is a member of LSPRS, wrote to Executive Director Irwin Felps:
“In furtherance of our board meeting, other discussions regarding this matter and our fiduciary obligations to all of the people the system serves, I wanted to set forth in writing, as a board member and the State Treasurer, the issues that I think must be fully investigated and answered by you, our counsel and other staff, for the board so that it can make the necessary decisions and take appropriate actions, if any, to meet its fiduciary duties. This list is not meant to be exclusive, and there may be others to be included from other members, you, counsel and others, which should be answered too and which I welcome.”
Kennedy then listed the following 13 questions which he said needed answers:
- How many people does the act benefit?
- Who are the people it benefits, so that they can be invited to address these issues and their involvement with our board?
- What are all of the costs of the act to the system and its members?
- Is it true the actuarial note setting forth the cost of the act was added three days after the bill passed and, if so, why?
- What would be the costs to give the same retirement benefit increase resulting from the act to all troopers and their dependents that are similarly situated?
- What is the opinion of the act of the Governor’s Executive Counsel who reviewed the bill before the Governor’s signature approving it?
- Who sponsored the benefits-boosting conference committee amendment, so that they can be invited to address why it was offered with our board?
- Does the amendment in question satisfy the legal requirement of proper notice for a retirement benefits bill?
- Does the amendment in question meet the legal requirement of “germaneness” (relevance) to the amended bill?
- Does the amendment in question violate the state constitutional prohibition against the Legislature passing a law that impairs the obligations of contracts?
- Does the amendment in question satisfy the state constitutional requirement of equal protection of the law?
- Does the process by which the amendment in question was adopted violate the Legislature’s internal rules or procedures?
- What are the board’s legal options?
Copies of Kennedy’s letter were sent to State Treasury Executive Counsel Jim Napper and board members of LSPRS, Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS), Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), and the Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System (LSERS).
Records denied LouisianaVoice by House, Senate
The six conference committee members who met to iron out differences in the House and Senate versions of SB 294, to which the controversial amendment was added, include Sens. Jean-Paul Morrell (who authored the original bill), 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).
We attempted to obtain records of emails between conference committee members, Edmonson, the governor’s office and the Division of Administration but the wagons were quickly circled and we got the standard runaround from both the House and Senate.
It seems by some convoluted logic that communications of legislators about legislative business that affects taxpayers is not public record.
This is the response we received from both the House and Senate:
“You request: ‘all emails, text messages and/or any other communications between Col. Mike Edmonson and members of his staff, State Sen. Neil Riser and/or any of his staff members, any other legislator and/or members of their staff, specifically Reps. Jeff Arnold, Walt Leger and Bryan Adams (and Morrell, Riser and Walsworth) and between either of these (six) members and Gov. Bobby Jindal and/or any of his staff members, including but not limited to Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols and/or any members of her staff, concerning, pertaining to or relevant to any discussion of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), retirement benefits for Col. Mike Edmonson and discussion of any retirement legislation that might affect Col. Mike Edmonson and/or any other member of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System.’
“Any communication by or with or on behalf of a Legislator ‘concerning, pertaining to or relevant to any discussion of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), retirement benefits for Col. Mike Edmonson and discussion of any retirement legislation that might affect Col. Mike Edmonson and/or any other member of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System’ falls under the ‘speech’ protected by LA con. art. III, § 8, clause 2: ‘No member shall be questioned elsewhere for any speech in either house.’ Our appellate courts have held that ‘the speech privilege extends to freedom of speech in the legislative forum; when members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere,’ the privilege is an absolute bar to interference. The courts have further held that conduct which falls within this ‘sphere’ of privilege is ‘anything generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.’ Copsey v. Baer, No. CA 91 0912, 593 So.2d 685, 688 (1st Cir. Dec. 27, 1991), Writ Denied 594 So.2d 876, (La., Feb. 14, 1992).
“Your request to review records concerning retirement legislation falls directly within the ‘sphere’ protected against disclosure by the Louisiana constitution. All of the records you request to review are privileged from your examination.”
So there you go, folks. You have no right to pry into the business of the State of Louisiana if it’s discussed by a legislator. How’s that for the gold standard of ethics and for accountable and transparent government?
Only Walsworth responds to LouisianaVoice email
LouisianaVoice also sent each of the six an identical email on Wednesday that said:
“Because there has been nothing but deafening silence from the six members of the conference committee that approved the egregious retirement increase for Superintendent of State Police Mike Edmonson, I thought I would contact each of you individually to give you the opportunity to explain your thought process in enacting this legislation to benefit only two people to the exclusion of all the others who opted for DROP but would now like to revoke that decision.
“To that end, I have several questions that I respectfully ask you as honorable men with nothing to hide to answer. Your continued silence will leave me no alternative but to believe you are not honorable men and that this action was taken in the session’s dying hours in a deliberate attempt to do an end around the public’s right to know what transpires in Baton Rouge.”
Here are the questions I posed to each man:
- Did you introduce, or do you know who introduced, the amendment to SB 294? (If each of you denies any knowledge of this, the implication is simple: you take issue with State Treasurer John Kennedy’s contention that the amendment did not “fall from the heavens.”)
- Did you have any contact with Mike Edmonson or any member of his staff prior to the amendment’s being added to SB 294?
- At what point during the session just ended did the matter of Col. Edmonson’s retirements first arise?
- Why was the full House and Senate not made aware of the wording of the amendment to SB 294?
- Was it your intent that no one should know the real intent of amendment to SB 294?
- Edmonson, on Jim Engster’s radio show, indicated it came up several weeks before the end of the session. If that is true, why was there a delay until the last day of the session to tack the amendment onto SB 294?
- Did you have any contact relative to the amendment from Gov. Jindal’s office or the office of Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols?
- If you did have contact with Mike Edmonson and/or any of his staff members, the governor’s office or Kristy Nichol’s office, would you willingly release the contents of those communications?
- Finally, do you think it fair to do this for only two people while excluding hundreds, perhaps thousands of retirees who made similar decisions to enter DROP only to regret their decisions?
With the exception of Walsworth who responded on Thursday, the response has been a continued embarrassing silence.
Here is Walsworth’s response:
“I did not introduce the amendment. I can only answer for myself, not others.
“I had no contact with Mike Edmonson or any member of his staff concerning this amendment.
“I believe I heard about the problems with the amendment like everyone else, through the media a couple of weeks ago.
“The last day of the session is usually very hectic. My recollection of the events of that day was that the report came to my desk by a staffer. I saw the amendment and asked if it effected (sic) more than one more person.
“The staffer said yes. I knew that in the past we had given this provision to several retirement systems. So I signed the report. Sen. Jody Amedee’s child was in the hospital and as Vice Chair of Senate Gov. Affairs Committee, I was in charge of the Senate going into Executive Session to handle appointments. To be honest, I do not recall what the author said when he presented SB 294 on the floor.
“I had no contact from anyone in Gov. Jindal’s office or Kristy Nichols’ office.
“It has been many years since I was on the retirement committee. I have always been an advocate that retirees should have more choices. They should have more control of their retirement. I am sorry that this effected (sic) just these 2 individuals. I thought it would effect (sic) more.”
But the sorriest, most pathetic, most despicable thing about this entire sordid mess is that members of that conference committee are perfectly willing to throw a female staff attorney under the bus to protect their own pitiful hides.
Laura Gail Sullivan is the legal counsel for the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee her name is at the top of the page of the conference committee report.
Given the fact that Sen. Neil Riser was on that conference committee and, as Chairman of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, it doesn’t take a genius to come up with a pretty good guess as to who instructed Sullivan to insert the amendment.
But the fact is that with the exception of Walsworth—if he is to be believed—not one of the committee members came to Sullivan’s defense. They choose instead to let a subordinate who was following orders take the heat.
Their action, or more accurately, inaction, is the very definition of hiding behind a skirt.
These are men who will run for cover and let a staff member take the heat for their actions. And the fact that not one of them has the backbone to come forward, makes them, in our opinion, the lowest form of humanity to dare call themselves public servants.
It is our fervent hope that in 2015 they will draw formidable opponents who will be more than happy to let voters know the gutless wonders these cowards turned out to be and who will rat them out for the rodents they are.
Tom I’ve said it before there will be legislation to insure that this problem will never be repeated because if allowed to occur again others will take full advantage of the DROP issue. Now we wait and see if the wrecking ball comes back to destroy this amendment or will it just glide happily along spreading the wealth through the illegal tangled mess of politics. Follow the money it looks like it’s right over jindal’s shoulder or in his back pocket.
I found this interesting. Riser was given an award by the Louisiana State Troopers Association as their Legislator of the Year. I understand why now.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/306270019/Riser-named-Legislator-Year-by-State-Troopers-Association
In reading the minutes of the November 2008 LSPRB meeting, I have no doubt Col Edmondson realized right then the huge mistake (in hindsight, which we ALL wish we had at one time or another) enrolling in DROP was. One Board Member asked Charles Hall, actuary, whether he should advise troopers to enroll in DROP or not. Hall responded (and Edmondson was present to hear), “not if they expect significant salary increases.” Edmondson got a 70% salary increase (but he’d already enrolled in DROP when he heard Hall’s statement)!!!! Who wouldn’t possess common sense enough to recognize the mistake at that point?? Apparently, for six years, the goal has been to try and find a way to fix the underestimate of his future earnings on his own part, culminating in this most recent episode. I would also point out that the minutes provide insight into the deteriorated financial health of the fund since that meeting (at which time the stock market was taking vs. now hitting all-time highs!!!!). UAL jumps from $199M to $323M (62% increase) from 6/30/08 to 6/30/14. Based on the number of active state troopers, the current UAL equates to $350,000 PER TROOPER!! To amortize that over 15 years, the combined trooper and state annual contribution would need to approximate $38,000!! Here’s a copy of those minutes with much relevant text highlighted and hand-written notes in the margins (by me): http://www.auctioneer-la.org/LSP1108.pdf.
It appears from the administration’s response to your FOIA, that they believe the appellate courts will uphold their “…freedom speech…” argument because they were conducting this in a “… legitimate legislative sphere…”
They seem to ignore the ILLEGAL nature of the “legitiimate legislative sphere.” This was not a retirement legislative action but a LSP change in procedure legislation…
Would an appellate court uphold illegal actions? I’m no attorney but I doubt that seriously. And there appears to be a whole host of allegedly illegal actions according to the treasurer’s letter that you quote.
In fact, their response is an admission of sorts, don’t you think?
Privileges are narrowly construed. Pretty sure that legislative privilege applies only to what Legislators say on the floor of the House or Senate. It certainly would not apply to emails from Jindal or Edmondson TO any of those Legislators. Since emails are not “speech in either house”, it does not apply to the legislators’ emails either. Keep pushing them. I’m betting they’ll have a server crash and everything will get lost.
http://www.fox8live.com/story/26106058/2014/07/24/lee-zurik-investigation
Zurik says Riser is the key.
It is unfortunate his report grossly understates the fiscal impact, but that was not the focus of his investigation.
You should note that ” privilege” as used in the free speech reference is not related to nor synonymous with confidential as in Dr./patient relationships. Rather it is synonymous with “right,” as in obviously the right to free speech. This is laughable that elected officials’ communications regarding a controversial bill is deemed “privileged” speech as used in the response.
And remember that, beginning with this administration, the executive branch has used the concept of “deliberative process” to withhold information many would consider public. Are we, as citizens, becoming like the frog in water slowly brought to a boil? Are becoming inured to the inability to know what our government is doing to the point that one day it will be too late? Let’s hope not. It will be an unfortunate expense to litigate this matter, but it seems the only option.
News Flash:
http://theadvocate.com/home/9818398-125/edmonson-wont-take-retirement-boost
Yeah, nothing like a late-Friday announcement in attempting to try and get this to quietly go away. If there is no criminal investigation, then the message that reverberates is that this can just keep being “free shots.” If it gets detected, you’re no worse off than if you hadn’t tried to pull it off. FBI, get busy launching a criminal probe of this matter!!
There appears to be an inaccuracy of effect of this bill. Edmonson never needed a bill to increase his pension provided he worked a set number of years after completing DROP. The rule that applies is that the pension is calculated upon an average of his best paid consecutive X years (number of years may vary) times number of years service(excluding the years spent in drop)times a percentage co-efficient, which I believe for State Police is 3 %(there have been changes since I retired). To reset his retirement calculation, he merely has to work past DROP for three years-done deal. The DROP calculation would be based on his salary calculations at the time of his entry to DROP, in this case, at his captain’s salary. The is the locked figure. Even had he been promoted 1 day after his entry to DROP, the account would be locked no matter what his raise. His retirement would be “locked” also, UNLESS, he completed DROP and worked enough years afterward to reset the retirement. The DROP calculation never is supposed to change.
Kenneth, the way it works for LASERS employees is that if you work at least 3 years after leaving DROP, you can get a supplemental benefit based on participation/contributions to the retirement system, but this supplement is based on the formula for those years only. If State Police is like that, you could work 5 years after DROP and the calculation of your supplementary benefit would be 3.3% X 5 X Mean of highest 3 years of the 5 you worked after DROP. So this would not reset your whole benefit equation, but would simply add a supplement for the years you again participated as if you were starting over. This may be what you are saying, but it’s hard to tell given the first sentence of your post.
It was what I was saying. I was of that impression since many people I know stayed to reset, plus it was explained that way to me in benefit meetings. However, what you say may be so. I could not make myself stay an additional 3 years under the dismantling of a well-oiled, responsive and responsible system we had worked to achieve.
Tom, what else is new? I have no doubt that this whole shady deal was concocted by Piyush and company as usual. The hard working people of this State have been used, abused and the list just keeps on going and it is apparent that there is no way to stop the runaway freight train that has run through this State during the reign of Piyush (aka)Bobby Gindal. I have no clue how we will ever get to the real truth. Sad Sad. If the people who are responsible were upstanding and honorable then none of them would have any objections to giving us true answers. Very sad state of affairs and we the people are on the outside looking in. If there is anything that you feel I can do please contact me. Thank you for telling us the real facts about all the underhanded things that some of our Legislators are involved in.