(Editor’s note: this is our 1,000th post since we started LouisianaVoice a little more than three years ago. We have also surpassed the one million-word milestone. That’s roughly the equivalent of 10 full-length novels.)
Were two separate announcements made late Friday by State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson and State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) designed to neutralize State Treasurer John Kennedy’s calls for an investigation into the amendment to Senate Bill 294 that increased Edmonson’s retirement by $55,000 a year?
If so, Kennedy said, the tactic won’t work.
Without going through all the details of the amendment, there is one additional development that has gone unreported to this point (until it was pointed out to us first by reader Stephen Winham and then Kennedy):
Funding to pay Edmonson’s extra retirement income, which could cost the state more than $1 million over Edmonson’s lifetime, would come from the state’s Employee Experience Account (R.S. 11:1332) http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2013/code-revisedstatutes/title-11/rs-11-1332 which set aside funds to provide cost of living raises for retired state troopers and survivors of slain troopers.
In other words, he would be taking from retirees, widows and orphans in order to increase his retirement from the $79,000 per year, or 100 percent of his salary, at the time he entered the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), to 100 percent of his current $134,000 a year salary.
In those two announcements, issued separately, Edmonson reversed his field and said he will not accept the increased pension benefits because “It’s been too much of a distraction.”
Riser, one of six members of the Legislative Conference Committee that brought the amended bill back to the House floor on the last day of the session, meanwhile, did an even bigger flip flop in admitting that he did indeed instruct a Senate staffer to add the key amendment to the bill authored by Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans).
On July 17, Riser emailed blogger C.B. Forgotston who had sent Riser an email asking what he knew about the origin of the amendment. Incredibly, Riser said in that email, “I first saw the amendment when I read the conference committee report drafted by staff. As the language was explained to me, I believed it fixed a retirement problem for the law enforcement community.”
Basically, it was a denial without his actually denying he knew about the amendment.
But on Friday, Riser fessed up that he did indeed instruct staff (in this case, Laura Gail Sullivan, legal counsel for the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee which Riser chairs) to add the amendment. He still, however, stuck to his story that he saw the amendment on the “last hectic day of the session” and did not know the amendment would benefit just two people—Edmonson and a Houma trooper.
No wonder he was recently named Legislator of the Year by the Louisiana State Troopers’ Association—for the third consecutive year.
Supt. of State Police Mike Edmonson, left, and State Sen. Neil Riser (BFF)
Taken together, the Friday statements by Edmonson and Riser appear suspiciously coordinated to neutralize Kennedy’s letter of one day earlier to the executive director of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) in which he posed 13 questions he said needed answers.
Riser’s belated admission of his part in the amendment addressed only one of those questions and Kennedy said Friday that the investigation “must go forward” because “we still have a bad law on the books that we have to deal with.”
That’s because Gov. Bobby Jindal put his frequent flyer miles in abeyance long enough to sign the bill into law as ACT 859, prompting some to speculate that Riser’s actions may have been dictated by the governor’s office.
Kennedy said the LSPRS board has already retained outside legal counsel to determine what legal action is available to the board which is required by law to protect the fiduciary interests of the system.
“The board will meet in August to discuss our options,” he said. “We will invite Col. Edmonson to attend to present his side of the issue. We will also invite Sen. Riser and Thomas Enright, the governor’s executive counsel.”
He said that Enright, as the governor’s legal counsel, reads every bill and makes recommendations to Jindal as to whether the bills meet legal standards and if they should be signed or vetoed.
Without waiting for that August meeting, LouisianaVoice has a few questions of our own:
- Why did Riser first deny his culpability and appear willing to throw his legal counsel under the bus?
- What happened to compel him to cleanse his conscience?
- Does he feel his constituents should trust him when he comes up for re-election after this despicable lapse of moral principles?
- Who made the decision to fund this questionable (and most likely unconstitutional) appropriation from money intended to pay for retirees’ and survivors’ cost of living adjustments…and why?
- Did Jindal direct that this amendment be inserted on the last day of the session?
- If not, why did Enright not catch one of several possible constitutional violations contained in the amendment?
We’re glad that Riser, even belatedly, admitted his part in this farce of legislative procedure and we feel that Edmonson did the right thing in deciding to refuse the additional retirement money.
Suspicious by nature, however, we can’t help wondering about their motivations.
Louisiana Voice 
To answer the question… Yes! The announcements and timing were designed to defuse and buy time hoping that they can still ride this out. So, let’s just forget this ever happened? It was never just about the money. It is about how it happened. It is about who was involved. It is about when it was known. t is about Truth and Honor and Character and Integrity. Will they now release all the relevant documents for true transparency? And while it sounds good to say, “I won’t take it,” the reality is (and I would think he knows) if he retires at any time before the law is changed he doesn’t get an option. Retirement Systems don’t provide for, “I’ll have the buffet.” As far as having the Legislature revisit… what if next year they can’t agree on repealing it, or the Governor doesn’t agree, or somebody loads the bill down with an amendment that effectively kills it? Well, this law stays the same. And who knows, they may come up with worse legislation. It isn’t like it’s never happened. The only way to ensure this is resolved is for the law passed this year to be declared unconstitutional. (I’m not an Attorney, haven’t played one on TV, and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I feel really comfortable in saying… “It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”) Then if they choose, the Legislature starts from scratch. I call on Edmonson and Riser to lead that effort. They should strongly encourage the State Police Retirement Board to begin to clean up this mess, by filing for an injunction and seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of this ill conceived law. My best estimate is that under the Retirement guidelines he agreed to, he would get a lump sum of at least $250k and a yearly benefit for life of at least $100k. I guess this is why I just don’t get it. Just not having a house, utilities, or car note is pretty nice… but I guess sometimes, no matter how much one has, he always wants more. And that is always when the problems start.
And Tom, as always, excellent investigative journalism. Without your efforts we still would be in the dark on this. Keep at ’em. You can bet there is more that they are trying to prevent being discovered. I guess there is no need now to prevent discovery of the communications at LSP, the Legislature, AND the Governor’s office.
White hats win this round! No doubt more such shenanigans are around the bend but this one is sweet.
Outstanding article and great posts by Jerry! I stand by what I said earlier and that being that I am in no way content with a mere revocation of the benefit. This is how I feel: If a CRIMINAL investigation can ensue on Murphy Painter for using the STATE POLICE database system to obtain addresses to mail sympathy cards for an associate’s mother who passed away (see other b/s in that trial here: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/witnesses.html), which entailed NO FUNDS (and an act which street-beat cops do all the time to check on daughters’ new boyfriends), then SURELY a CRIMINAL investigation can ensue on an attempted raid on STATE POLICE retirement funds!! More likely, a KEY difference exists since, in one, the Painter fiasco, Jindal was the persecutor, and in the other, Edmondson, Jindal would almost certainly be a target of a criminal probe.
Also, the back DROP was supposed to come with an accompanying funding source. If it did, one has to wonder at what point the State will adequately fund the whole system since the UAL has gone from $199 million in 2008 (when the stock market was tanking) to $323 million in 2014 when the stock market is hitting all-time highs!! Even with this big increase in the UAL, as Tom pointed out, here we have an effort to add even more to the UAL and apparently on the backs of no COLAs for widows and orphans. Of course, maybe that was Jindal’s logic all along. Jindal: “Mike, there’s no way you’re going to ever get a COLA after you retire (nor will anyone else), so we’re going to provide you with an up-front, one-time 70% COLA. Sound good?” Mike: “Sure. I appreciate it very much, Governor.” Jindal: “No problem. I couldn’t have asked for a more loyal State Police Colonel than you!”
Bottom Line: If there is no criminal investigation, here’s the message it sends: Just keep doing this type of thing. If you pull it off, great!! If not, you’re no worse off than if you’d never given it a shot!! It’s a FREE SHOT!! CONSEQUENCES must exist for this type of behavior (be that behavior Riser’s, Jindal’s or whomever initiated and/or crammed this one through). Otherwise, there is NOTHING to deter a recurrence in the future.
I keep seeing that Edmonson’s Retirement yearly benefit was frozen when he entered the DROP and that is reported as all he will get when he retires. He has even fed into that noting that he retired as a Captain and since, has been paying into Retirement but will get nothing for it.
As I understand it when he eventually retires they will take the percentage of his pre-DROP and multiply that times his salary then. They will additionally take the percentage of his post DROP and add them together. That is his benefit. Assume making $80k per year and entering DROP with 25 years, then after 3 years of DROP, working an additional 6 years making $130k. That means 3.33 % times 25 ….83.25%. Multiply that by $80k equals $66, 600. Now we take 3.33% times 6…19.98%. Multiply that by $130k equals $25, 974. In this case the person would have a lump sum of 3 years of their salary plus interest, and a lifetime benefit per month of… $92, 574.00.
This is the way it would have worked had they not changed the law.
Jerry, as I pointed out on Tom’s post immediately prior to this one in response to Kenneth, that is the way it works for LASERS. I based all my calculations on what Colonel Edmonson said on the Engster show so I did not add the supplement you are talking about because I took him at his word that his continued participation in the system was getting him nothing. He did not correct him when Engster said the difference in his old and new benefit was $134K – $79K. I assumed there was a difference in the State Police system and used the lump sum plus $134K – $79K in my calculations of the difference.
Wouldn’t it be REALLY nice, as I’ve already said numerous times since this whole thing began, if somebody who actually knows the numbers would have put them out there for us all to see long before now? If you are correct, it would actually make the situation look BETTER for the state and retirement system since his new benefit would come full circle to the about the $30,000 difference originally assumed to be the difference based on totally different assumptions.
So, the failure of anybody to come forth with the real information during the time this whole thing has raged has probably worked even more to the disadvantage of those who wanted this amendment in the first place. Maybe somebody will realize simply telling the truth up front is a good policy.
As Yakov Smirnoff and Buddy Roermer would say, “What a country.”
You and Robert have provided valuable insider insight to Tom’s coverage and, as a citizen I thank you.
Thank you, Stephen, for your knowledge to help work through the number crunching to try and figure out just what the impact was (I guess still could be). I felt bad when I’d so overstated the impact, but at least I could correct the webpage thanks to your knowledge (obviously couldn’t go back and edit the numbers in my prior comments). Maybe it’s like we all got to work as a team (obviously with Tom as the coach who provided the material for a win) in demonstrating that old-fashioned investigative reporting (Tom) combined with advanced technology with citizen interaction can be a powerful tool to hold elected officials accountable. Thanks again, Stephen, Jerry, Tom, C. B. Forgotston and EVERYONE who reads Tom’s blog entries faithfully. Together, we had a big impact on this whole situation.
This is in addition to the three years of salary when entering DROP plus interest he gets as a lump sum.
Congratulations on reaching those milestones, Tom!! Keep it up!!!
Thanks, Tom.
A.Reader J
L’il booby wanted to give Edmondson a big thank you as he is going out the door. That’s admirable until u realize the tens of thousands of state employees he screwed over with their final retirements amounts.
How about the other beneficiary of this bill; the sergeant in Houma? Has he refused this gift as well? What did he do to enjoy the largesse of Jindal? Something should be done quick, like suspending all retirements under this amendment, before this guy retires because once granted I feel another lawsuit would be filed and ironically defended by Jindal’s super-lawyer Jimmy Faircloth.
The Sergeant in Houma had no idea this was going on until Edmondson told him that he had taken care of him in regards to DROP, his exact words were ” May, I was surprised because I didn’t even know the Colonel knew my name” this was in late June. That Sergeant is totally innocent of this and he was just used as a pawn. Trust me if the LSP had this Houma Sergeant as Colonel, it would be better off, he is a kind hearted, good, decent, respectful man. Everyone that knows him would agree.
Could it be that Jindal’s got to clear the deck of scandals like this one so that he can focus all attention on trying to contain and/or redirect the eruption of scandals (more than a few of them constitutional) that an extensive war with John White and BESE will bring to the surface?
Well, it’s my hope nothing’s been cleared. I believe an FBI investigation (complete with polygraphs) getting to the core issue of which elected officials (beyond the late-to-confess Riser) pushed this (hint: Jindal). Thereafter, I believe a grand jury indictment for malfeasance in office is realistically achievable irrespective of whether a loss of state funds ultimately ensues or not. LA R. S. 14:134(A)(2), http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78317, poses tow hurdles.. #1) was this reckless act intentional (yes), and #2) was it done in an unlawful manner (yes). If nothing more than a revocation of the benefit transpires, then it was a “nothing ventured, nothing gained” situation (i.e. a free shot). If all that happens is folk wind up back where they would have been if this criminal act (because I contend that’s what it is) had never been perpetrated, then what’s to stop future such actions?
Having said that, I’m sure the Jindal/White fight has the potential to be quite ugly with who knows how much corruption being exposed, so your theory may well be accurate, but it’s my sincere hope nothing has been “cleared” on this particular incident.
I’m with you all the way on that sentiment, Robert. From the CNSI contract, the “Teague-ing” of countless public workers, this matter, to everything in between, Jindal et al shouldn’t be let off the hook for any of it. Time’s ticking, though, and Kennedy’s one of the very few public officials keeping a flashlight lit. Maybe the Jindal/White war will change that, attract more attention to all the other sordid schemes this administration’s been hatching.
Does the local FBI office and local U.S. Attorney approve any investigation into graft, corruption, and fraud in Louisiana? I don’t think so.
It seems this whole fiasco, especially in light of yesterday’s announcements, leaves Jindal out there hanging. He signed the damn thing. He can’t claim the same excuses, that it was hectic activities of the last day of the session, etc. My guess is that the whole thing was his idea anyway. It will be interesting to see how he dances around this one, since coming up with a legitimate defense will not involve pandering, his strong suit. I think he has been caught red-handed on this one and it will be interesting to see it play out.
Key question unasked here is what has Edmonson done for Jindal that merits this sort of payback?
I can answer on at least two fronts. One is the Murphy Painter trial. The U. S.’s ENTIRE CASE hinged on violations of a so-called “letter agreement” with State Police regarding use of its criminal database. It should be noted that, letter agreement notwithstanding, Mike Fawer (SUPURB defense attorney, as was Al Robert, Jr.), placed a transparency up on the ELMO (court projector) which showed a statute saying ATC would use the database for background investigations and other investigative matters. While Edmondson didn’t testify, two of his key personnel did. One of them was a Ms. Scott (who I think was the ABSOLUTE BEST witness for the defense even though she was there to serve as a witness for the prosecution). She heads the computer intelligence system. Upon Mr. Fawer demonstrating that Mr. Painter never went to “level 2” on the folk he looked up (for such things as obtaining addresses for sending sympathy cards — that was TWO COUNTS!!!), Ms. Scott said, “What I want every person in this room to understand is that it’s not relevant that he could have readily obtained the addresses from other sources. It was a violation of the letter agreement ATC executed with State Police.” What a way to talk down to EVERYONE in the courtroom (I’m sure Fawer was salivating inside and wished she’d just kept going and going). Even Judge Brady (with the jury not present) asked of Ms. Jones (lead prosecuting attorney), “looking up those addresses to mail sympathy cards rises to the level of a Federal crime?” Obviously, Jones was in a tough spot, but she just said, “We believe it does, your honor.” They even charged him with identity theft even though Judge Brady had to admonish the U. S prosecution team that identity theft charges could only hold up in the case of financial gain or terrorism (neither of which were present). Brady: “He stole nothing, and these charges never should have even been included in the indictment.” What I’m relaying, Nancy, is that the LSP was perfectly willing to embarrasses itself supremely (though there was PLENTY of other embarrassment to go around for the U. S. Attorney Office and Office of Inspector General) just because they’d gotten in too deep in the witch hunt orchestrated by Gov. Jindal to oust Painter for refusing to approve the Champions Square liquor license (which was illegal to grant due to a $300,000 exclusivity payment from Budweiser associated with it).
The second incident involves me personally. I happened to be planning our 30-year class reunion (along with good friend and fellow classmate, Rev. Freddie Phillips), and so I was routinely obtaining permission (from Karen Kennedy, of the Arthritis Association of Louisiana) to go to the CONFERENCE ROOM (common to the ENTIRE building) to videotape not only the logistics of the reunion but also taping explanations of how real estate auctions work to provide to our fellow classmates. Well, I was simultaneously gathering information through FOIAs on the Louisiana Auctioneer’s Licensing Board’s (LALB) payroll because of the fact payroll fraud appeared to be transpiring routinely. Apparently, Ms. Sandy Edmonds, who was committing the alleged payroll fraud (and had been for years), got nervous that I would break into her office and steal records I guess (or else covertly plant a camera to prove she was never there, but everybody already knew she was never there and she would readily admit as much) In fact, Paul Gates (Channel 9), in his last assignment (which he unfortunately wasn’t able to complete), even came out to a meeting to begin obtaining comments on the situation from board members (here’s a 47-second video clip of him showing up unannounced: http://youtu.be/FQjxZeNnnPE). That was on March 21, 2011. Incredibly, only 21 days later, the EBRP Sheriff knocks on my door saying “complaints” about my videotaping had been filed. The EBRP Deputy was EXTREMELY nice, never even entered my home, and spent all of 90 seconds just saying, “Don’t go back over there unless it’s for an official meeting.” I guess Jindal, the Executive Director of the LALB (and its attorney) or SOMEBODY wasn’t (weren’t) satisfied with that level of intimidation, so the next day, Tuesday, April 12, 2011, the Louisiana State Police Terrorism Unit knocks on my door (scaring my then-80-year-old mother half to death). Once I convinced them of my purpose (to promote the reunion — heck, we’re even having a gathering later today, here’s the website, http://www.gohs1981.com), they were gone, but not before spending 30 minutes watching the main video and asking a TON of questions (though they were STUNNED to find out I’d called ahead, gotten permission, and that Ms. Kennedy had even opened the door to let me in!!). Here’s a direct link for the LSP “terrorism” report issued after they visited my home: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/LSP_report.pdf. Now, I’m not prepared to say that Col Edmondson even knew about the episode at my home (in fact, if I had to bet, I’d say he didn’t), but the action is symptomatic of an agency that is not being well-run in my opinion. As to whether Jindal or a staffer asked for the Terrorism Unit to be sent to my home, I doubt that either (but I sure can’t rule it out), but one undeniable fact is that the Chairman of the LALB, whom Jindal appointed, DID IN FACT authorize and instruct the attorney for the LALB to call the Terrorism Unit out to my home, so Jindal’s choices in people to serve as Chairmen for various Louisiana boards and commissions leaves PLENTY to be desired.
Steve, I wouldn’t bet my Retirement on it 🙂 but feel pretty sure that’s how his was to be calculated under his previous plan. My numbers could be off a little but only because I assumed $80k when entering DROP and used $134k coming out (it may be $135k). It won’t make a signigicant change. His old 3 year DROP lump sum should be about $220k counting interest which he gets at Retirement along with the approximate $92k per year for his life and if his spouse outlives him for the rest of her life. Under the new plan he would get $135k per year for life and the same for his spouse for her life if she outlives him but now his DROP amount gets calculated for 3 years at $135k per year equaling a lump sum of $405k in addition to his yearly benefit. Quite a difference. This goes with the standard qualifier that I’m not a CPA, didn’t play one on TV, and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I did well in 5th grade math at Southside Elementary in Bastrop, La and I have a great calculator. .. with the % key.
In looking back I had used an approximate salary of $130k instead of the $134k I stated so I thought in the interest of accuracy I would make that addition and provide the new numbers as I appreciate them. While I stated earlier the amounts didnt change it much, I should have been more thoughtful to those paying for this and the Retirees, Widows, and Orphans impacted by this. To them I apologize for being cavalier with the numbers. Stephen, your point is well made that we wouldn’t have to guess at salaries and benefits if they had provided them ss part of that Transparency in Government that appears pretty Opaque.
Anyway here are the new “assumptions” that should be very close.
Assuming a salary of $80k entering DROP…3.33 % times 25 years ….83.25%. Multiply that by $80k equals $66, 600. Now we take 3.33% times 6 years after DROP…19.98%. Multiply that by $135k equals $26, 973. In this case the person would have a lump sum of 3 years of their salary plus interest, and a lifetime benefit per month of… $93, 573.00. And he has a DROP benefit of around $225k. Not a bad pension at all. Especially when you realize that for the last 6 years he’s had housing (including all utilities) provided at Taxpayer expense. From what I understand it allowed him to rent, then sell his house, a deal most people would find beneficial. I guess seeing all this makes me wonder…. why would someone have to have more added behind the scenes in a shady deal. If he is so “deserving” wouldn’t all the Legislators agree? Or is it that he thinks it is “owed” to him? I think politicians sometimes start out sincere but at some point begin to increase their self worth and feel entitled.
Thanks, Jerry. The mainstream media either lacks the resources, the will, or both to ferret out the truth, so it is left to people like us to try to do so. Let’s keep on keeping on and hope the truth will ultimately come out and prevail.
One correction… I identify the $93,573.00 as a per month benefit. Obviously I misspoke. It is a PER YEAR benefit.
Jerry, you and Stephen have done a great job, and I love your CPA disclaimer. I will add though that I AM a CPA (inactive), and the complexities of these computations, I believe, would challenge almost any CPA. Thus, all the more appropriate for transparency via full disclosure to take so much guesswork and estimates out of the picture. Heck, maybe they’ve refrained from such transparency because even they are not sure how to make the computations!!
Thanks for the kind words, Robert, and that has definitely occurred to me. Think of the implications for the unfunded liabilities of the retirement systems. If nobody knows the real effect of these things (including “back DROP” which is utterly ridiculous). How can they, or we, have a clue as to the solvency of the systems? Truly frightening. Remember the X-Files tagline, “The Truth is Out There”? I’m beginning to think it isn’t.