It’s seldom that I disagree publicly with members of the fourth estate. Besides preferring to focus my energy on reporting on the myriad ways state government falls short of its number one priority of protecting the interests of the state and its citizens, I generally have a deep professional respect for our peers in the media.
I worked for 30-plus years in various capacities—sports reporter, news reporter, copy editor, investigative reporter and managing editor—for several newspapers all over the state, including Monroe, Shreveport, Donaldsonville, Baton Rouge and four separate stints at the Ruston Daily Leader where I began almost 50 years ago. I kept returning at a higher position mostly because of my loyalty to my mentor, Publisher Tom Kelly. I even managed to pick up a few reporting awards along the way, including three for investigative reporting.
A news reporter will never get rich working for a newspaper; the pay just isn’t that good. Those who spend their time sitting through endless hours of city council, police jury, school board and even legislative committee meetings, mind-numbing courtroom testimony and who climb out of bed in the middle of the night to cover a shooting or a fire do so for the love of the profession.
So yes, I do maintain an abiding respect for these dedicated individuals.
But when I see facts deliberately being glossed over and key points ignored in order to protect or project a favorable image of a public official who has deliberately and blatantly attempted to use his position or to manipulate the political system to his financial advantage, I cannot in good conscience keep quiet.
The Baton Rouge Advocate editorial of Friday, Sept. 19, stands out as one of the most unabashedly transparent attempts to pin a bouquet on a state official who recently condoned one of the most underhanded attempts at abusing the legislative process in recent memory.
That attempt, of course, was the amendment by State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) to Senate Bill 294 in the closing hours of the recent legislative session. The bill, authored by State Sen. Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans) originally addressed procedures to follow in disciplinary cases for law enforcement officers but was amended to give State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson special treatment in awarding him an unconstitutional increase in retirement income of somewhere between $30,000 and $55,000 per year.
Riser added the amendment during a conference committee meeting on the bill. Riser was one of three senators and three House members on the conference committee and on the final vote for passage, House members were told, incorrectly, the bill’s passage would create no fiscal impact.
Bobby Jindal’s executive counsel Thomas Enright, Jr., whose job it is to review bills for propriety and constitutionality, gave the bill his blessings and Jindal promptly signed it into law as Act 859.
LouisianaVoice broke the initial story about how the bill allowed Edmonson to revoke his decision years ago to enter into the state’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) which froze his retirement benefits at his then-pay level of $79,000 at his rank of captain. By allowing him to renege on his decision which was supposed to be irrevocable, it allowed him to retire at a rate based on his current colonel’s salary of $134,000. Because he has 30 years of service, he receives 100 percent of his salary as his retirement. Thus, the amendment gave him an instant yearly increase in retirement of something between $30,000 and $55,000.
The amendment inadvertently just happened to include one other person, Master Trooper Louis Boquet of Houma, though he was unaware of the amendment and its implications until the public outcry erupted.
A state district judge, ruling on a lawsuit brought by State Sen. Dan Claitor, said the amendment was unconstitutional on several grounds, thereby killing Edmonson’s retirement windfall.
The four-paragraph Advocate editorial on Friday noted that the matter had been “laid to rest” and noted that such furtive bills are common in the Louisiana Legislature. http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/10299405-123/our-views-a-lesson-for
But it was a single sentence in that editorial that set me off:
“It is to the credit of Col. Mike Edmondson (sic) and Master Sgt. Louis Boquet, of Houma, that they declined to accept the raise because of irregularities in its passage.”
What?!! Besides the misspelling of Edmonson’s name, the editorial completely (and apparently purposefully) omitted key elements of this sordid story.
- Edmonson defended the amendment and his additional retirement on Public Radio’s Jim Engster Show;
- He admitted on that same show that “a staff member” had approached him about the possibility of increasing his retirement benefits via the amendment and he personally okayed that staff member to proceed with the legislative maneuver;
- Neil Riser first denied any knowledge of how the amendment originated but later confessed that it was he who inserted the language into the bill;
- The legislative fiscal notes (which detail the potential financial impact of pending bills) were not submitted until three days after the session adjourned, evidence that the entire episode took place on the down low, hidden from public view;
- During a hearing on the amendment by the State Police Retirement System Board, it was revealed that the board’s actuary was initially approached about the amendment “a few weeks” before the close of the session, further evidence that the move was in the works long before that fateful final day of the session;
- At that same hearing, it was also revealed that the “staff member” who initiated efforts to pass the amendment was State Police Lt. Col. Charles Dupuy, Edmonson’s chief of staff;
- Edmonson did not reject the raise until the heat from the public and from retired state police officers became so intense that it was politically impossible for him to go through with the charade. The added threat of a lawsuit by retired state troopers and the attacks on the amendment by State Treasurer John Kennedy only served to ensure the foolhardiness of any continued attempts to claim the money;
- The way the entire affair played out implicated everyone concerned—Jindal, Enright, Riser, Dupuy and Edmonson—in a pathetic attempt to conceal the deed from public view.
In short, Edmonson’s decision was anything but magnanimous. Quite simply, it was forced upon him by the glaring light of public scrutiny—the one thing he feared most.
This silly effort by the Advocate to make Edmonson’s decision seem noble and to make it appear to be anything other than the hands in the cookie jar scenario that it was is a disservice to its readers and an insult to their intelligence.
Perhaps the Advocate should stick to its previous hard-hitting editorials about how nice sunshine is and how lovely the Spanish moss-laden oak trees on the Capitol grounds are.
When John Georges purchased the Advocate from the Manship family, he went before the Baton Rouge Press Club where he made the utterly bizarre statement that he was focused on “not making people angry.”
I’m sorry Mr. Georges, but when you establish a policy of attempting to publish as little offending reporting as possible, that’s a cowardly decision and you’re simply not doing your job.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “If I had to choose between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.”
Georges has obviously chosen the former.
And that decision has made the Advocate less of a newspaper, good only for crawfish boils and housebreaking a puppy.
Louisiana Voice 
Excellent writing Tom!
All I can say is, “amen!” When I first read the editorial, I just moved right on, but I did notice that, contrary to other articles on the matter, there were no public comments for an extended period of time. I think that’s as a result of the normal comment writers saying, “Whatever” in response to the sentence Tom references (that was my reaction).
I think the bottom line is that the new Advocate ownership is determined to stifle both its reporters’ and its readers’ ability to even voice opinions which may elicit anger, particularly when such articles or editorials entail people holding high-ranking Louisiana State government positions (e.g. Gov. Jindal). Case in point: I submitted this letter soon after the Murphy Painter trial (I attended the entire trial): http://www.auctioneer-la.org/P_USA_2.pdf. Days later, I got a call confirming I authored the comments, so I began waiting for it to be published (note: under the Manship ownership, I’ve had numerous letters published, and whenever such calls were made to me, publication was ALWAYS forthcoming). Well, once a week went by, I called to see what may be the case. What I got from that point forward was nothing but runaround, and here’s a documented email chain of that run-around: http://www.gohs1981.com/Painter_editorial_runaround.pdf. In the end, they didn’t even have enough common professional courtesy to tell me that, despite obtaining both oral and written assurance that the letter WOULD be published, Peter Kovacs (whose initial focus as stated by him was to visit all the major Advocate advertisers) obviously overruled (or else he himself was overruled) any prior decision to publish what I assume was a very controversial letter. It’s not like it was a news article, for God’s sake!! It’s a letter expressing my opinion on the matter!
Let me close with this. I also asked several reporters whether any story may be forthcoming regarding the mess former State Sen. Troy Hebert has gotten the State of Louisiana in with the racial discrimination suit that has been filed against the agency since he took over (http://www.auctioneer-la.org/Hebert_lawsuit.pdf). I’m not about to name the reporters because I fear they may suffer reprimands or more serious disciplinary action from their employers, but I was assured that an article would be published on the matter the following week (this was mid-July). When I encountered the same reporters weeks later, I was told that “management” had declined to publish anything on the matter!! There again, thank God for Tom Aswell!! I know his blog has experienced a significant rise in membership over the last few months so if anyone missed Tom’s post on the Hebert matter (which is how I learned of it), here’s the link: https://louisianavoice.com/2014/07/14/forcing-grown-men-to-write-lines-overnight-transfers-other-bizarre-actions-by-troy-hebert-culminate-in-federal-lawsuit/.
Thank you, Tom, for all the hard work that you do (uncompensated I may add) and for having the guts and fortitude to, though I’m sure you would have preferred not to have to do so, chastise your colleagues and thereby simply lay the truth bare for all to see and read.
P.S. I do have some work to do, though. I now have to run the “find and replace” on all the webpages of the LSP Rip Off website and replace “Edmondson” with “Edmonson.” Thanks for that catch, too, Tom, even if it bit me too!!
I ended my subscription as well for the same reasons as state53 and wholeheartedly agree with you Mr. Burns. And let’s be very clear about one thing – no matter what Mr. Edmonson said or would have done he cannot or could not have NOT taken the raise. That is not how it works. The benefits would have been calculated and the check written and sent. Do you think he would not have cashed it or cashed it and sent the difference back? I think not! Also, the only state employees I know of who can retire at 30 years with 100% of their salary are police officers. “Regular” state employees who earned 2.5% per year toward retiuement have to work 40 years to be at 100% as far as I know.
The editorial made me feel a little ill as I read it over breakfast.
Lets take them to lunch
This is not nearly as important as Tom’s on-the-mark comment on the editorial, but is an interesting side bar on the new management of the Advocate. I have subscribed to the newspaper for my entire adult life since I turned 21. That is the last 40 years. Since I retired a year and a half ago, I find myself reading the news online more. Let’s face it – all the important stuff is in LouisianaVoice. So I made the momentous decision not to renew my subscription. I have always paid a year at a time, so was not sure what the date of expiration was. Around June, I started receiving calls wanting me to renew my subscription. One person even told me the date my subscription had expired, some six weeks before. These people seemed to have personal information about me, and as I discovered, were outright lying about the expiration of my subscription. I told the callers I had not even received a bill, and they could send me something in the mail and I would decide. I was told the paper was under new management and they were doing things differently. In the meantime, I tried to stop the paper while I was out of town, but found all five papers when I got home. I kept thinking they would eventually stop since my subscription had “expired.” Finally, I called the subscription office, and asked what I had to do to get them to quit delivering the paper. That is when I was informed that my subscription had not, in fact, expired. I was told if I wanted the paper stopped, they could cancel it and send me a refund for the unused portion of the subscription. She said it would take a few days, which was fine. For the next three weeks my paper faithfully appeared on my driveway. I called Cathy in circulation, and she remembered my call and told me she had sent everything in. She said she would send the report to her supervisor. This past week I received my $80 refund check. And the paper continues to be delivered.
By the way, I also noticed how quickly that editorial disappeared online once Tom’s comment appeared. I checked back to see if there were further comments and couldn’t find it anywhere.
To whom do you think this statement of editorial policy by Mr. Georges applies?:
“not making people angry.”
Readers/subscribers account for a very small percentage of the newspaper’s revenue, so much so you would really have to make a lot of them mad for the effect of their direct payments for the newspaper to have a significant effect on its bottom line.
And, really, how many readers will stop buying and reading the paper because it makes them angry. Better yet, isn’t this very editorial policy making a substantial number of us angry? Absolutely, but apparently not enough of us have dropped our subscriptions to make a difference..
So, where does the paper make its money? Advertisers account for the vast bulk of newspaper revenues. Could it be that Mr. Georges’ statement is not so much craven as purely profit-oriented? It makes much more sense that this new policy’s goal is to not make people who are advertisers angry,
Think about it. Have we completely forgotten the dictate to “follow the money”?
If fear of offending advertisers dictates what gets published, hasn’t the fourth estate sold out to them? Unless we want our news filtered through this “not making people [advertisers] angry” policy, we have few choices other than the blogs of ethical people like Tom Aswell, C. B. Forgotston, and Lamar White who aren’t sold to the highest bidder. Thank goodness we have them.
Good job Tom. They don’t understand they can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again…..
Exactly.
Edmonson and Dupuy mistakenly think the LSP motto is “To Protrude and To Service” the state’s citizens. Thank you for stopping them from this misguided action.
I don’t see a byline on the Advocate Op/Ed but maybe we should have had a strapline instead because this could have easily been written by LSP Public Affairs. I think it’s time we are factual. Based on Edmonson’s own words and Retirement System numbers verified by them and State Law. Fact… Edmonson originally supported the measure, then when the story broke, denied supporting it. Fact…Edmonson maintains he “always” said he wouldn’t take the money, but in early interviews he said “It’s fair and equitable”. Fact… Edmonson originally said he didn’t know about it or who initiated it, then later changed the story to.. he knew, but was misinformed. Fact… Edmonson continues to say he has been paying into the retirement system getting nothing back and is being forced to retire at Captain’s pay of $79k, when the facts are he will be getting over $100k per year for retirement benefit.
I apologize for the length. It takes a second to tell a lie, but much longer to prove it wrong.
The story broke on July 11 here on Louisiana Voice. Thanks to Tom Aswell for his hard work on breaking this story. On July 16 Edmonson first told The Advocate he didn’t ask for the change to state law and did not know who initiated it. Later on the same day he told a different Advocate reporter his staff told him there was legislation available “that would ‘fix not only you but other members” He added “It’s fair and equitable”. On July 21 on the Jim Engster Radio show he again “revised” his story to say, “What was done by my staff and I fully supported and authorized him to go forward on it.” “The ability was there… I said Look, if you can fix that, if you can help the other Trooper cause I’m the longest serving Trooper in the system, and one other who’s been there over 32 years has also been paying in the program he is not benefiting from it.” The Retirement Board Actuarial verified on September 4 that they had been contacted by Edmonson Chief of Staff Charlie Dupuy to prepare an Actuarial statement for the Amendment. They noted that it was for EDMONSON ONLY. According to the retirement system, he name of the second Trooper wasn’t provided to the department until they asked after the story broke on July 11. The statements from Edmonson about also helping this other trooper was added afterwards to help the narrative.
As far as saying he wouldn’t accept the money… On July 16, the Retirement board initiated an investigation into how the bill came to be. On July 21 in a radio interview with Jim Engster he made a qualified statement that “if” the bill was found to be improper or unconstitutional he wouldn’t take it. (If it is found unconstitutional he wouldn’t have a choice since the law would be invalidated) Then after at least two under relentless pressure, Legislators calling for addition investigations, Lee Zurik Investigative Reporter for WVUE Channel 8 beginning an investigation, numerous public records requests by the media and calls by retirees for litigation if necessary to stop the law, on July 25 Edmonson announced he won’t take retirement boost. But he says, “We will bring it next year,” “I want the Legislature to say yeah or nay.” “Edmonson said he wants the Legislature to revisit the issue in its 2015 session as separate legislation.”
And regarding the statement where Edmonson has been paying into the system and getting NO benefit, along with his retiring at the “frozen” benefit of $79,000, is just a lie. The law provides that he receives 3.33% of his salary each year added to the original amount before he voluntarily entered the DROP program. He earns an additional $4,495 per year added to his original amount of $79,000. If he retires as he expects next year he will have a yearly lifetime benefit of at least $101,000. Plus he will receive a lump cash amount from his DROP participation of between $230,000 to $305,000. He is getting the same deal every member who opted to enter the DROP program got. It was a voluntary decision made by each individual. It is true the had to make a decision after either 25 years of service or age 50, but those individuals including many already retired and not helped by his efforts, chose to participate because they calculated at that time it was the best financial decision for them. It worked out for some, but not for everyone. He made a judgement decision and when he realized it was wrong tried to change the rules.
Here is how it works…
Employee enters DROP at 25 years of service (2006) with average last three years of salary at $79,000.00. Employee completes three years of DROP then works for 6 more years with the last three year average $135,000.00. Employee is paid for 300 hours of accumulated leave at current salary rate in lump sum or around $19,471.00 Additional hours usually around 2 years worth (sometimes more) is added so the 6 years becomes 8.
Before DROP, Employee’s last three average salary (times) years of service (times) 3.33%. Therefore $79,000.00 X 25 X .0333 = $65,767.50.
Employee enters DROP for three years and does not pay into retirement system, but the System pays the employee
3 years X $65,767.50 plus interest or approximately $230,000.00 to $305,000.00 as a lump sum once they eventually retire. (Amount depends on when he exited drop and what his actual benefit was going in)
After completing DROP working (counting accumulated leave) 8 more years it would be the last three years average salary (times) number of years since exiting DROP (times) 3.33%. Therefore $135,000.00 X 8 X .0333 = $35,964.00.
The employees total Retirement Benefit would then be the sum of the pre DROP and the post DROP or $65,767.50+ $35,964.00 = $101,731.50 per year.
So basically, Employee would retire at the end of 2015 with a yearly benefit of around $101,731.50 and a one time lump sum payment of about $230,000.00 to $305,000.00.
These are facts, supported by his own statements in interviews, news coverage, and the laws that govern retirements in the State Police system which differs from others, verified with the Retirement system. I encourage everyone to do their own fact check.
Still odd to me how the Governor is silent on this. Does anyone believe a rogue Chief of Staff and appointed Cabinet member could conspire with a legislator to enhance the appointed members retirement by $30k to $55k per year without the Governor’s knowledge and approval? And if he didn’t know and Edmonson and Dupuy actually fooled him and his counsel and sneaked it by him (since he signed it), don’t you think Jindal would be just a little miffed and unwilling to take the political heat this is generating at a time he needs to put on a positive front? Don’t you think if he didn’t approve of the effort ahead of time, they would both be calculating their retirements early?
Bottom line, they saw what they thought was an opportunity to significantly enhance Edmonson’s retirement, they thought they could sneak it by the Legislature and the media, it was discovered, and they want to now take the high ground. The Retirement system records as well as members recall Edmonson attempting to get support for this change from the Retirement Board since 2008. This wasn’t a surprise, it was a plan. They just got caught. To say Edmonson gets “credit” in this matter for anything is like a suspect giving up after expending all his ammo… What other choice does he have?
The joker is wild and will probably play his card again but hopefully Legislatures will pay more attention to what is signed and approved. Remember this I quote “Fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice shame on me.” They better heed this because people are watching and waiting and if they approve it for those 2 then, they need it to do for all. That would cost a pretty penny so we are all “following the money!!!” Like I previously wrote “I’m sure Jindal and Edmonson’s parents must be so proud of them.”
Thanks, Tom, for exposing another (attempted) abuse of power and for playing a further role in thwarting it.
We need the media to do these things. Do you hear that Advocate?
What you did, Tom, is very, very important and essential to the public good.
What the Advocate is doing (or failing to do) is embarrassing and an aid to those who would abuse their positions of power. Those are probably the greatest failings the “real” press could imagine.
How sad for the formerly “proud” Advocate!
You, Advocate, are no longer the “real” press; just another cheap economic effort by a very rich individual.
Another toy for the rich boy.
That has become your epitaph, as you slowly fade from value and importance.
The best place for the advocate is to take the place of the old Sears catalog in the outhouse. When they refuse to tell it like it is they can’t be trusted just like the governor, superintendent of state police and the super of education. There are just too many to name but one thing doesn’t change is their leader: hindal. Thanks Tom for keeping us informed.
When journalists are absent from a news medium, there is obviously no journalism left. Sadly John Georges has buried The Advocate and we are left with an ever-smaller advertising piece with a few lackluster stories. The best talent has left the newsroom. I trained under some of the best – true journalists -during The Advocate’s heyday. Jim Hughes, Ed and Anne Price, Redman and the rest of that ilk are now footnotes in advocate history. I cancelled my subscription almost a year ago. ,
Okay, Tom, you are one of the few hardhitters left in area journalism – time for a new, true daily news medium.
Once again, congratulations on the outcome of the Edmonson Pension Affair. A perfect example of the vital role of the Fourth Estate in a free society. Since no one else seems to be bothered by the wanton, blatant corruption, we implore you: on to the Jill Boudreaux faux retirement caper.
Did Edmonson actually work as a trooper, or has he been an insider, doing special security detail, for his entire career? I was watching a rerun of an LSU game, and I could have sworn that it was him standing behind then coach Nick Saban, during a post game interview.
As a matter of fact, he spent much of his career providing security to LSU head coaches that 100 beefy LSU football players and about a dozen assistant coaches apparently are unable to provide.
Keep up the good work. Wish the Shreveport Times would report on these subjects. I quess we are lost to what is happening in BR. The Times and the local TV new act like we in the Northern part of the state do not need to know. I have been trying to submit articles to the Times with no luck. Submitted one exploring how the Republican Party has morphed since I was a child in the fifties. The religious conservatives that I have contact with here are more prone to believe lies than the truth.