If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s …well, you know.
But not necessarily, says a lobbyist for the Louisiana School Board Association (LSBA).
It was back in July 2014 that LouisianaVoice broke the STORY of the attempt to sneak an illegal retirement pay raise for then-Louisiana State Police (LSP) Superintendent Mike Edmonson into an obscure bill on the very last day of the legislative session.
That story led to vehement objections by retired state troopers which in turn led to more than 190 stories about Edmonson and LSP that culminated with Edmonson’s retirement but only after that ill-advised to San Diego via the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas by several troopers under Edmonson’s command.
That aborted retirement boost, dubbed The Edmonson Bill, was pushed by State Sen. Neil Riser who at first denied any part in the scam. The outcry was such that State Sen. Dan Claitor filed a suit to block the raise. The court ultimately agreed that the attempted raise was unconstitutional. But by then, the pressure was such that Edmonson had reversed himself, saying publicly that he would not accept the furtive bonus.
Well, guess what? It looks like they’re at it again.
While the latest bill doesn’t involve Edmonson, the tactic looks very much the same as that infamous bill of nearly seven years ago, though the LSBA spokesperson insists they’re vastly different.
This time it’s not an amendment to a bill as was the case in 2014. No, this one is a straight-up bill that quietly attempts to make an exception for the benefit of at most, maybe five persons.
State Rep. Jeremy LaCombe (D-Livonia) has pre-filed House Bill 22 which “provides for the transfer of certain employees of the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), from the Parochial Employees’ Retirement System of Louisiana (PERS) to te Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL).”
Current law provides that employees of the LSBA are members of PERS. LaCombe’s bill would provide that certain employees of the association would become members of TRSL but eligibility is restricted to only a few employees:
- New employees (hired after June 30, 2021);
- Any employee with at least five years of service credit in TRSL;
- The director of LSBA.
The bill would affect possibly three employees, five at most, according to an LSBA representative, with the most obvious being that of the LSBA executive director. And it’s those last two provisions of the bill that are key.
Coincidentally, Janet Pope, Ph.D., was named in July 2018 as executive director of LSBA after serving five years as the board’s development/legislative specialist (emphasis added).
LSBA lobbyist Dannie Garrett III said LaCombe’s bill is being filed to correct a flaw in the law that has existed for years. “The bill was pre-filed last year,” he said, “but the pandemic forced legislators to cut back on the number of bills they could file, so we’re trying it again this year.”
He said the bill would actually cost Pope in the short term because her contribution to her retirement would increase because TRSL, like most other state retirement systems, has an unfunded liability it is attempting to overcome with increased percentage contributions. PERS, he said, does not have an unfunded liability.
Louisiana Voice 
Thanks for the alert. I just sent emails to my state rep and senator requesting their views on HB 22 with a link to your post.
HB 22 is what we used to call a “special interest” bill. A bill aimed at a very minute number of people. Tightly drafted.
However, it’s the language at the top of page 3 of the bill that concerns me, not that the rest of it doesn’t. It reads: “(i) In any case of doubt, the board of trustees shall be the sole judge of who is an employee.”
That’s a powerful sentence.
It is powerful language indeed, Clifford. I wonder if it would stand a legal challenge?
As you imply, there used to be a lot more of these bills before people, including the press, were able to better track them and before anybody except actuaries and bond rating agencies actually cared about the UALs of our retirement systems or much of anything else good government should require. I can remember legislators chuckling about them and trading votes for their passage. Without the current level of transparency we wouldn’t even have the “pretty good government” we currently enjoy. At least this bill doesn’t, according to the attorney, cost us anything – at first – an important distinction.
I don’t think it will, if challenged. I think it will be removed from the bill somewhere in the process. You would think that someone will read that and realize the power the language gives the board. Also, why define it if the board can have the last say so. Twenty years ago the staff would have suggested to the author to not include such language in the bill. Advising the member that you are already authoring a special interest bill, why bring more attention and heat. He/she probably would have listened. Today’s staff and members are a different breed. Which now makes me think it may not be removed.