Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lawsuits’ Category

Another embarrassment for Jindal: ex-ATC commissioner Murphy Painter wins defamation suit against his accuser

Posted in ATC, Commissions, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Lawsuits, LSED, ORM, Office of Risk Management, State Police on October 24, 2014| 9 Comments »

As if the administration’s handling of bogus criminal accusations against former Commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy Painter wasn’t already embarrassing enough after Painter’s acquittal ended up costing the state $474,000 in reimbursement of his legal fees and expenses, a recent civil court decision has added insult to injury.

Bobby Jindal (R-Iowa/New Hampshire/Florida/Anywhere but Louisiana) thought he could make an example of Painter over the then-ATC commissioner’s refusal to bend the rules for New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson, whose family and businesses have poured some $40,000 into various Jindal political campaigns.

Painter twice rejected applications by SMG (formerly Spectacor Management Group), the Mercedes-Benz Superdome management firm, for a permit to erect a large tent at Benson’s Champions Square adjacent to Benson Towers across from the Superdome. The tent was to house beer sales by Anheuser-Busch distributor Southern Eagle and approval of the permit was sought by Southern Eagle, SMG, the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (LSED) board and a law firm representing SMG. Altogether, the Benson family, LSED board members, SMG, its law firm and Southern Eagle had combined to pour more than $203,000 into Jindal campaigns between 2003 and 2012.

When Jindal executive counsel Stephen Waguespack insisted that the permit be expedited, Painter asked that he put his concerns in writing but Waguespack refused.

Not only did Jindal fire Painter when his commissioner insisted that the permit application for the Champions Square tent be complete and proper, he even had Painter indicted on criminal charges of stalking a female employee. Present at the firing ceremony were Waguespack, State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, and another member of the governor’s legal staff.

The subsequent criminal prosecution of Painter fell apart and his acquittal carried a stipulation that the state pick up the tab for Painter’s legal fees and affiliated costs.

Now, a civil trial jury has determined unanimously that the female former employee, Kelli Suire, defamed Painter even though the Louisiana Office of Risk Management, most likely at the insistence of Jindal’s Division of Administration, settled Suire’s claims against the state in 2011 without Suire’s ever having been required to sit for a sworn deposition in the apparent hope the settlement would bolster the state’s case against Painter.

Oops.

Painter’s defamation suit against Suire was bifurcated, meaning it was to be tried in two parts. The first part, the part just completed, was to settle the question of actual liability. Had Suire been found not guilty of defamation, the second part to determine actual monetary damages would have been unnecessary.

Unfortunately for Jindal’s chances to avoid further embarrassment over the sloppy manner in which the Painter matter was handled, such was not the case and the damages part will be tried next.

Throughout the entire matter, Painter has made clear that he wanted his day in court.

The liability trial was heard in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana before Judge Shelly Dick and a seven-person jury. Following a three-day trial, the jury took about three hours.

Painter was represented at trial by attorney Al Robert, Jr., and Suire by Jill Craft.

The issues in the case first arose on Aug. 16, 2010, soon after Suire filed a complaint with the Louisiana Office of Inspector General (OID) alleging a myriad of allegations against Painter. The lead OIG investigator at the time, Shane Evans, now employed by the East Baton Rouge Coroner’s Office, testified that he met with Suire and that he personally chose to use the words “stalking” and “harassing” to describe the nature of Suire’s complaints in his application for a search warrant.

Painter also has a civil lawsuit pending against OIG which alleges the agency’s investigation, which began in August of 2010, was improperly conducted.

Robert said the jury’s verdict confirmed the finding of an outside investigator hired by the Louisiana Department of Revenue (DOR) under which ATC operates. The investigator determined that Painter’s actions did not violate DOR anti-harassment policy. Moreover, when questioned by the DOR investigator, Robert said, Suire “admitted that Painter did not make unwelcome sexual advances toward her and that he did not request sexual favors or engage in verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature toward her. Inexplicably, the Office of Inspector General ignored this investigation when it chose to move forward with its investigation of Mr. Painter,” he added.

“This has been a long, four-year ordeal to clear my name of the lies and untruths that Ms. Suire—and those working with her—used to damage my character and reputation,” Painter said.

In her instructions to the jury, Judge Dick said defamation requires proof of a false or defamatory statement made to a third person or persons. “A person who utters a defamatory statement is responsible for all republication that is the natural and probable consequence of the person’s statement,” she said.

Suire, in her defense, did not deny making the statements but said rather that her statements were subject to “privilege,” or inadmissible, Judge Dick said, acknowledging that Suire’s communications did in fact “occasion a conditional or qualified privilege.”

Therefore, in order for Painter to prevail, she said, he “must prove that (the) defendant abused this privilege by acting with actual malice.” Such a finding, the judge said, would require that Suire either knew the matter to be false or acted in reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Suire currently resides in Florida.

Read Full Post »

84-year-old Widow Files Pro Se Lawsuit Against Auctioneer Licensing Board over sale of her residence, rental property

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lawsuits on September 27, 2014| 16 Comments »

By ROBERT BURNS

Everyone by now is aware that Gov. Jindal has been concerned with little else since he became Governor of Louisiana beyond self-promotion and his own political advancement to the White House.  What isn’t so obvious to most Louisiana citizens is that many of his appointees to Louisiana boards and commissions are equally ego-driven with little or no regard for the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.  Prime examples are Gov. Jindal’s appointees to a little-known board overseeing auction regulation in Louisiana, the Louisiana Auctioneer Licensing Board (LALB).

Now, if it were only that such ego-driven appointees have included a past chairman who was “demoted” to mere member while another “consumer” member simultaneously resigned as evidence of travel voucher irregularities on the parts of both members surfaced, that would be one thing.  If just the mere fact that certain LALB members believe that they have a right to freely engage in racist roll calls, that would be one thing.  It would also be one thing that, despite the fact that LouisianaVoice readers may revel in hearing a lambasting of Gov. Jindal, it nevertheless is an act of unprofessionalism in a public meeting (anger over Jindal’s stripping of LALB per diem payments notwithstanding).  The member doing so, LALB Vice Chairman James Sims, is the same one who made the first “I’s here,” roll call response at the first link above.  Sims went further on the preceding audio clip to relay on November 5, 2012 (the day before the Presidential election) that “it ain’t gone happen” regarding Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (had he prevailed) appointing Gov. Jindal to a cabinet position.

It would be yet one more thing that these members felt they had the right to permit its sole employee to vacation all over the country and routinely conduct personal business while declaring herself to be “on the clock,” thus prompting Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera to release this damning report.  That report, in turn, was subsequently followed by this report by the Louisiana Inspector General’s Office (OIG) in which the sole employee lied to investigators about taking vacations while being “on the clock.”  The OIG likely figured there was no chance LALB members would accede to their recommendation of “appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination,” and, in fact, OIG officials would have been right as LALB members unanimously approved a third pay raise for its executive director four months after the release of the report.  Also, two of those three pay raises transpired, as noted in Mr. Purpera’s report, during a period of salary freezes for rank-and-file Louisiana state workers.   Further proof that Jindal facilitates his LALB appointees who, in turn, facilitate irresponsible payroll practices is evidenced by board members and legal counsel relaying Jindal has said “all is fine and you cannot recover any funds.”

No, all of the preceding egregious acts entail general ego-centered individuals who feel as though they have “power from on high” vested in them through their appointments by Gov. Jindal.  Essentially, they merely entail their beliefs that they have little or no fiduciary duty regarding auctioneer licensee funds with which they have been entrusted.  While being oblivious to their fiduciary duties certainly affects auctioneers, the public, because of a lack of coverage by the media, is understandably unconcerned by the practices.  The general public’s concern is (or at least should be) heightened, however, when Gov. Jindal’s LALB appointees are so brazen and arrogant and dismissive of their core duties and function that they literally force an 84-year-old widow to file a pro se lawsuit to compensate her for the LALB’s overly-protective stances regarding auctioneers.  Such stances have routinely transpired in the six (6) years I’ve observed the LALB, very much to the detriment of the general public whom they ostensibly serve to protect.  Thus far, auction victims have just “licked their wounds” and left disappointed at what they often correctly perceived as a very corrupt industry.

That was all, however, before a lady named Ms. Betty Story entered the LALB’s den of foxes.  In a mere five-page pro se lawsuit filed in 19th JDC in Baton Rouge on August 27, 2014, Ms. Story alleges that she encountered a “nightmare” regarding her November 17, 2012 auction.  She relays that her auctioneer, Marlo Schmidt, at a time when she was 82 years old, failed to explain to her that she could place reserves on certain of her items being auctioned.  She outlined the items which she specifically wanted to set reserves upon:  a mirror ($300), an Ethan Allen wetbar ($4,000), a set of sterling silverware ($5,000), and an antique saddle ($5,000).  She further averred that Schmidt didn’t inform her that she would owe 40% of the final bid prices as commissions, in addition to a 10% buyer’s premium assessed against buyers (which itself lowers bid amounts).  Additionally, Ms. Story avers that Schmidt pleaded with her to cancel two real estate listings with ReMax (including her personal residence) so that they could be included in her auction.  In fact, Ms. Story avers that, as an incentive for her to do so, Schmidt “promised” her $42,500 for a rental home she owned and $120,000 for her personal residence.  Based on his “promises,” Ms. Story relayed she appealed to ReMax to cancel her listings, and ReMax reluctantly agreed as a favor to her for her past business. Accordingly, the two real estate properties were included in the auction with Ms. Story anticipating $162,500 minimum for the two houses based on Mr. Schmidt’s “promises.”  The only way any auctioneer can “promise” a result is if he or she is willing to buy the properties personally if the bids fail to reach that pre-set amounts at auction.

Ms. Story further averred in her lawsuit against the LALB that Schmidt went so far as to buy her rental property prior to her auction, and he advanced her $25,000 ($17,500 short of the “promised” amount) so that she could move into an assisted living facility ahead of the auction and thereby be exempt from having to pay a deposit on her room.  The subsequent auction was an unmitigated disaster, with Schmidt’s nephew ending up high bidder on the rental home.  His nephew then adamantly refused to honor his bid (likely because his nephew was a shill bidder, which is illegal in Louisiana but many auctioneers, as well as the LALB, ignore that illegality and actively encourage the practice).  In fact, LALB Vice Chairman James Sims, during the LALB hearing on the matter, said of that situation, “This board could easily think something else,” (of the fact Schmidt’s nephew dishonored his bid — clearly referencing shill bidding without saying the dirty words).  Although Ms. Story had to threaten to sue Mr. Schmidt for the balance of the $42,500 purchase price on the rental home, he did finally remit the balance for the home that he already had title to even prior to auction!  However, her personal residence auction was a flop, resulting in a “no sale” rather than the $120,000 he’d “promised” her.  Furthermore, because of the fact no reserves were set on her high-end items and Schmidt instead had Ms. Story bid (and pay commissions) on those items in order to retain possession of them, Schmidt submitted a final bill to Ms. Story for $201.11 as her “net proceeds” from the sale of her personal items!  In other words, Ms. Story’s commissions for retaining her treasured items exceeded the proceeds of the items Schmidt sold, which constituted the vast majority of her personal belongings!  So, Schmidt claimed Ms. Story owed him $201.11 for the “privilege” of having most of her personal belongings vacated from her home at what Ms. Story contended were below bargain basement prices.

As if all of the preceding events aren’t bad enough, Ms. Story had to leave the assisted living facility after only three nights because of the disastrous auction results, and she was charged $1,500 for her three-night stay.  Ms. Story filed a complaint with the LALB, and her LALB hearing transpired on September 10, 2013.  Like many other auction victims, Ms. Story naively believed the LALB would be sympathetic to her plight and work to remedy the wrong she’d endured.  Even though the LALB’s own attorney, Anna Dow, relayed there was “clear deception” and that “the auction should have been conducted in a very different manner,” and one of the board members, Darlene Jacobs-Levy, an attorney with 44 years of practicing law said, “Mr. Schmidt, you clearly owe Ms. Story more than the $1,300 you’ve offered her to settle this matter,” the LALB once again officially found auctioneer Schmidt not guilty of any auction violations.  After the hearing’s conclusion (as reflected on the video), Ms. Jacobs-Levy instructed Schmidt to “go out in the hallway and work this out with Ms. Story.” She also informed Schmidt that she felt the 40% commission he charged Ms. Story was “usurious.” Instead of “working it out with Ms. Story in the hallway,” Schmidt, with the hammer gone from over his head, proceeded straight to his vehicle and back to DeRidder and refused to have subsequent negotiations with Ms. Story.  Consequently, Ms. Story had to sue Mr. Schmidt in small claims court in DeRidder to try and recover at least some of her damages.  More importantly, however, is the fact that, by officially finding him “not guilty,” the LALB effectively blocked Ms. Story from being able to pursue Schmidt’s $10,000 bond which is a requirement for auction licensure in Louisiana.  No bonding company is going to pay a claim when the regulatory body of a state has failed to find an auctioneer guilty of an auction violation.  Hence, Ms. Story’s lawsuit seeks to recover the $10,000 from the LALB that she would have otherwise been able to recover from Mr. Schmidt’s bond had the LALB found him guilty.  Of course, to find him guilty, LALB members would need to have shelved their self-centered, steadfast resolves to stay popular among auctioneers irrespective of the consequences to victims like 84-year-old widow Betty Story.  In failing to do so, they exhibited many of the same traits of the gentleman who appointed them:  Gov. Bobby Jindal!

Read Full Post »

State’s three major enforcement agencies exhibiting common swaggering attitude of smugness; accountability non-existent

Posted in ATC, Lawsuits, State Fire Marshal, State Police on September 24, 2014| 12 Comments »

  • The Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC).
  • The Louisiana Department of Public Safety (DPS).
  • The Louisiana Fire Marshal’s Office.

From liquor permit rejections, wholesale firings of agents that may have been racially motivated and amateurish investigative tactics at ATC to a multitude of questionable activities at the State Fire Marshal’s Office to attempts to sneak a hefty retirement benefit through the legislature for the state’s top cop, Louisiana’s three major enforcement agencies appear to be riddled with procedural matters bordering on federal EEO violations, investigative cover-ups and back door politics which sometimes blur ethical and legal lines and which reach all the way into the governor’s office.

The latest incident involves an ATC agent who apparently sent a teenage undercover operative into Hook’d Up Bar and Grill in Hammond in an attempt to purchase alcohol. The girl, age 17, was accompanied by a 21-year-old female. The older woman purchased a drink but waitress Ashleigh Burdett refused to comply with the 17-year-old’s repeated requests for another cup so the drink could be divided.

Burdette said she refused the requests, telling the girl, “I can’t do that because you’re a minor.”

Fortunately for Burdette and the establishment’s owners, a video camera captured the entire sequence of events, including the older customer leaving the table to go the restroom just after 10 p.m., whereupon the 17-year-old picked up the older woman’s drink and walked outside with it.

ATC agent Jeff Barthelemy then entered the establishment and wrote a warning to the business and a $500 citation to Burdette, both for serving a minor.

“The fact of watching my staff carding her, telling her no, going as far as to give two checks to each individual showing that the underage person was not served, it’s kind of disheartening,” said Jennifer Mier who co-owns the business with husband Mark Mier.

Mark Mier, interviewed by LouisianaVoice, said he was scheduled to meet with ATC Commissioner Troy Hebert on Wednesday in an attempt to get the matter ironed out but Mier was still upset at the idea of sending a 17-year-old undercover operative in an attempt to purchase alcohol.

“The legal age for purchasing alcohol is 21 so why couldn’t they have sent a 19- or 20-year-old in instead of a 17-year-old. That was a very ill-advised thing to do with someone that young. I would never have done that.”

Hebert, who has been the subject of several stories by LouisianaVoice for the manner in which he arbitrarily fires employees, particularly African-American agents and for his insistence that all employees rise from their desk and offer a cheer “Good morning” when he enters a room, defended the practice of using operatives that young. “We use 16- and 17-year-old operatives to make sure that we’re only catching the worst violators out there.”

Huh? Did he really say that?

“I appreciate people that are there to keep us safe,” Jennifer Mier said, “but when the line gets crossed, when someone with authority chooses to use it just because they decide they’re going to, that’s not acceptable.

As strange as Hebert’s comment about “catching the worst offenders” was, the most curious comment by him was when he said, “ATC goes above and beyond to make sure we don’t use trickery. At ATC, we’d actually like to not write any violations across the state.”

That is odd indeed, given the fact that Hebert keeps a log of how many citations and how much in fines each agent issues and writes up agents who do not produce the number and amounts expected.

By established procedure, two agents are supposed to be involved in each case when underage operatives are used to attempt to purchase alcohol and at least one agent has to witness the sale.

But Hebert has fired so many agents that there are not enough to go around for each bust so ATC contracts with civilians such as the 21-year-old woman who accompanied the teenager into Hook’d Up. The contractors are paid an hourly rate but they are expected to produce an illegal sale or ATC will cease using them for undercover operations. Accordingly, the contractor is under pressure and has the incentive to ensure that an illegal sale will be made in order to continue collecting the hourly fee.

But what Hebert did to the owners and waitress at Hook’d Up pales in comparison to what he has done to a decorated retired Army Reserve major who has been attempting to open a restaurant and bar in the New Orleans French Quarter.

Tracy Riley, you see, is black and as LouisianaVoice has previously reported, Hebert has lost racial discrimination lawsuits and currently has others pending after vowing and then making good on that promise to rid his department of blacks.

So intent on carrying out his denial of her license was he that he even went so far as to file an official complaint with her commander when prior to her retirement that she had the audacity to show up at ATC headquarters to check on her permit—in uniform. In a Sept. 30, 2013, letter to Maj. Gen. Peter Lennon in Belle Chasse, Hebert cited what he called “unbecoming conduct” demonstrated by Riley for appearing at Hebert’s offices in full military uniform.

In a meeting at ATC headquarters, Barthelemy told Riley that being granted a permit was a privilege, not a right. He then admonished Riley and her son, saying that when they were in the ATC building, they were to conduct themselves “respectfully.”

As Riley and her son were leaving, Barthelemy asked Riley if she was on active duty and the name of her commanding officer.

This from an enforcement agent whose agency which works closely with State Fire Marshal Butch Browning who drew criticism and even resigned temporarily only to be cleared of wrongdoing over reports that he was wearing military ribbons and medals from World War II and the Korean Conflict on his dress uniform—and Browning never even served in the military.

Something’s a little out of kilter here, folks, and LouisianaVoice will be delving into the Browning Ribbongate issue in the coming days.

“I trust that the unbecoming conduct demonstrated by this military member will be handled accordingly and respectfully request to be notified of any corrective action taken,” Hebert wrote.

Riley was subsequently reprimanded for wearing her uniform while on personal business but the violation certainly didn’t equate to the war crimes offense Hebert made it out to be—especially given the timing of his Sept. 30 letter to Gen. Lennon.

Less than three weeks earlier, on Sept. 12, 2013, the French Quarter Business Association (FQBA) sent its own letter to Hebert complaining about Riley’s establishment, the Rouge House Supper Club, located at 300 Decatur Street.

Jeremy DeBlieux, president of FQBA, said in his letter to Hebert that he understood that a special event permit was granted to Riley to operate during the annual Essence Festival in July of 2013 but that the Rouge House “did not adhere” to provisos set forth in the temporary permit.

“We believe the owner’s blatant disregard to the city’s special event provisos and the unpermitted operations to date has indicated their intent,” DeBlieux said. “The business has clearly operated as a nightclub, rather than a supper club. Nightclub is not a permitted use at this specified location. We believe, with good reason, as a business association in the French Quarter, we should formally oppose the granting of alcoholic beverage permit to The Rouge House.”

So there you have it. Alcohol is strictly taboo in the New Orleans French Quarter.

On Dec. 5, Hebert denied Riley’s permit in a letter that gave as the reasons for denial as:

  • Operating without a valid state alcoholic beverage permit;
  • Misstatement or suppression of fact in application by failing to report managers and provide verification of suitability, failure to report owner Dale Riley (Riley’s husband) and provide affidavit showing that he meets the qualifications and conditions as set out in statute and failure to provide information on landlord as required.
  • Failure to submit fingerprints of members (of) the company.

“If the aforementioned reasons(s) for denial is corrected within 60 days, you may request rescission of this decision,” Hebert wrote.

Riley said she has repeatedly requested meetings with Hebert to discuss her plight and to request a probationary permit but he has refused to meet with her. Moreover, she says she overheard an employee tell an agent that Hebert did not want to talk to her.

She did meet with Barthelemy who told her his only reason for meeting with her was to inform her that when she was in the ATC building she was to be respectful, Riley said. “He would not even discuss my application.”

ATC did conduct surprise inspections of The Rouge House but found the establishment either closed with no activity. In one undated report, agents noted they had conducted “surveillance” for 36 minutes and found the business closed. It is somehow difficult to imagine it taking 36 minutes to determine an establishment is closed. The report said the ATC agent “spoke with owner of Star Steak and Lobster in reference to the target location. Pictures attached.” A sticky note was attached to the report which said, “Pictures show no activity.” The sticky note contained the initials “TAR.”

On another occasion, a “full walk-through” was conducted by the agent from 12:45 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Again, the report, like all the others, was not dated. “Upon arriving at the location I found it open for business,” the agent’s report said. “I completed a full walk-thru of the location and found no alcohol on the premises. There were no customers in the location either. The kitchen was open and food was available to be purchased.”

Despite receiving only two complaints (actually four separate statements from individuals relative to the two complaints) that The Rouge House was operating, ATC spent considerable man-hours and expense in conducting at least 21 separate surveillance and investigative assignments only to find the business closed on each occasion.

One of the complaints was from an individual claiming to be a graduate of Xavier University who also appeared to be not only an authority on permits and licenses but clairvoyant as well in saying the club “will be serving alcohol on Friday, Aug. 16 (2013) with NO alcohol permit or license.”

Riley, unaware of the close association between Gov. Jindal and Hebert (Hebert’s wife is the Jindal children’s pediatrician) and of the fact that Jindal appointed Hebert after his ill-fated attempt to frame former Commissioner Murphy Painter, attempted to obtain help from the governor’s office but we all know how that went.

Now she is seeking justice through the courts. She filed a formal appeal in June in Civil District Court in New Orleans.

And if history is any indication, the administration is well on the way toward yet another in a long line of legal defeats.

LouisianaVoice, in the coming days and weeks, will be taking closer looks at the state’s three major enforcement agencies.

Read Full Post »

Baton Rouge newapaper’s praise of Edmonson’s ‘refusal’ of retirement raise is disingenuous and an insult to its readers

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Judges, Lawsuits, Legislators, Legislature, Media, Retirement, Revenue, State Police on September 20, 2014| 19 Comments »

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.

Read Full Post »

Judge declares Edmonson Amendment unconstitutional; state police commander distributes ‘Hurt Feelings’ forms

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Exemptions, Incentives, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Lawsuits, Legislators, Legislature, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, State Police on September 16, 2014| 16 Comments »

A Baton Rouge district court judge has struck down the so-called Edmonson Amendment, declaring the special retirement benefits enhancement amendment for State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson and one other state trooper unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, LouisianaVoice has learned that a state police commander passed out a controversial “Hurt Feelings Report” to state troopers several months ago. https://www.google.com/search?q=hurt+feelings+report&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ydYYVJ_gGYSuogSpwoK4Aw&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QsAQ

(For an example of “Hurt Feelings Report” forms, click on any image, then move cursor to right and then click on “View Image.”)

Edmonson may now wish to fill out one of those reports.

Judge Janice Clark of 19th Judicial District Court issued the ruling Tuesday morning in a special hearing, bringing to an official end the question of legality and propriety of Amendment 2 of Senate Bill 294, passed on the last day of the recent legislative session.

The ruling leaves egg on the collective faces of Edmonson, his Chief of Staff Charles Dupuy, who conceived of the underhanded (as in sneaky) legislation; State Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia), who slipped the last minute amendment past his unsuspecting colleagues in the Senate and House; Gov. Bobby Jindal’s executive counsel Thomas Enright Jr., who supposedly read and blessed the bill, and Jindal, who signed it as Act 859.

The effect of the bill, which was introduced by State Sen. Jean-Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans) as a bill to address disciplinary action to be taken in cases where law enforcement officers are under investigation, was to bump Edmonson’s annual retirement up by $55,000, from its current level of $79,000 to his current salary of $134,000.

Edmonson had entered into the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) several years ago at his captain’s pay grade in exchange for more take home pay at the time he signed onto DROP. Because of that decision, which is irrevocable, Edmonson was set to receive 100 percent of his captain’s salary after 30 years of service.

Riser’s amendment would have allowed Edmonson to retire instead at 100 percent of his current salary. The bill also benefitted Master Trooper Louis Boquet of Houma even though he was oblivious to events taking place in Baton Rouge.

LouisianaVoice was the first to report the real impact of SB 294 after a sharp-eyed staff member in the Division of Administration (DOA) tipped us off.

Edmonson at first defended the bill on a Baton Rouge radio talk show, saying he was entitled to the increase. He said then that at age 50 he was “forced” to sign up for DROP. That was not accurate; state employees at the time were required to decide whether or not to participate in DROP, but no one was forced into the program.

Continuing the pattern of misrepresentations, Riser said he had no knowledge of who inserted the amendment into the bill during a conference committee meeting. He later acknowledged it was he who made the insertion. Riser was one of three senators and three House members who were on the conference committee.

Jindal, of course, remained strangely quiet about the entire mess, emerging from Iowa or New Hampshire or the Fox News studios only long enough to say that the legislature should correct the matter when it convenes next spring. After making that brief policy statement, he immediately returned to his presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, retired state troopers as well as other retired state employees who had opted into DROP and later received promotions and accompanying pay raises only to have their retirements frozen at the level they were being paid at the time of their entering DROP, went on a rampage with several retired troopers offering to file suit if the State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) Board did not.

At a special meeting of the LSPRS Board earlier this month, it was learned that Dupuy had initiated contact with the board’s actuary several weeks before the session ended to discuss the amendment which he obviously intended to have inserted into the bill in the closing hours of the session. That pretty much shot down any deniability on Riser’s part. And Riser would certainly never have made such an attempt without Jindal’s blessings.

The board, meanwhile, was advised by an attorney with experience in pension plans that it had no standing as a board to file such a suit but board member and State Treasurer John Kennedy immediately announced his intentions to do so as a private citizen.

Meanwhile, State Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) saw a way to give his campaign for 6th District congressman to succeed U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy a boost and quickly filed his own suit.

It was Claitor’s suit on which the hearing on a motion for declaratory judgment served as the basis for Judge Clark’s ruling on Tuesday.

Neither Edmonson nor Boquet nor the LSPRS Board opposed the motion.

Following the hearing, Kennedy said the bill was unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels—on several different legal points. “Not only was it unconstitutional,” he said, “it was wrong.” https://www.dropbox.com/sh/erw91d3j3ivkis9/AABhtU96O_u88tVSYLfIQqPra?dl=0#lh:null-IMG_8155.MOV

“This law was patently unconstitutional,” Kennedy said. “Now it’s null and void. This is a win for retirees as well as taxpayers across Louisiana.”

In a statement released after the ruling, Kennedy said one of his objections was that the law would have drawn the enhanced benefits from an experience account that funds cost-of-living increases for retired state troopers and their families.

He testified in the hearing that Louisiana’s four retirement systems already have an unfunded accrued liability (UAL—the gap between the systems’ assets and liabilities) of $19 billion, the sixth worst UAL in the nation.

“This is not about personalities,” he said. “This was about fairness. Regardless of whether you’re a prince or a pauper, you should not receive special treatment.”

The “Hurt Feelings Report” forms, intended to intimidate or demean harassment victims or others who feel they have been slighted or who feel they have been made victims of racial, sexual, or other forms of discrimination, are parodies that attack otherwise genuine concerns of bullying in the workplace.

The commander who passed the forms out to his troopers obviously thought it was a hilarious joke and a great way to deal with potential complaints but officials in Buffalo, Wyoming didn’t think they were so funny.

A 13-year veteran Buffalo High School football coach who passed out the “survey” to his players was forced to resign after his actions became public. The survey listed several options as reasons for hurt feelings, including “I am a queer,” “I am a little bitch,” and “I have woman like hormones.” It asked for the identity of the “little sissy filing report” and for his “girly-man signature,” plus the “real-man signature” of the person accused of causing hurt feelings.

Coach Pat Lynch, as is always the case when those in positions of authority are caught doing something incredibly stupid, offered a letter of resignation in which he said, “I would like to apologize for my lack of judgment and the poor choice….” (You know the words to this worn out song by now. We’ve heard them from politicians like David Vitter, athletes like Ray Rice, even ministers like Jimmy Swaggart.)

So now we have a state police commander who has attempted by distribution of this document to ridicule—in advance—anyone under his command who feels he or she has been the victim of discrimination or harassment and to discourage them from filing formal complaints.

There appears to be no level of stupidity to which some people will not stoop.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »