Posted in Charters, Education, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Notable Quotables on April 4, 2012| 5 Comments »
“We’re against discrimination, but we don’t believe in special protections or rights.”
–Gov. Bobby Jindal’s press secretary Frank Collins, defending Senate Bill 217 by State Sen. A.G. Crowe (R-Slidell), which would allow charter schools to refuse to admit students on the basis of their ability to speak English, their sexual orientation or other unspecified factors.
Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Charters, Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Louisiana Purchase on April 4, 2012| 11 Comments »
The Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee has approved by a 5-1 vote Senate Bill 217 by State Sen. A.G. Crowe (R-Slidell) which would allow charter schools to refuse to admit students on the basis of their ability to speak English, their sexual orientation or other unspecified factors.
In what must qualify as one of the more asinine comments coming out of the current session, Crowe said the intent of his bill is to prevent bans by executive branch agencies and local governments on discrimination against characteristics not listed in state law as a condition for private companies to do business with their agencies.
Wait. What? Is Sen. A.G. Crowe really advocating a return to Jim Crow?
Apparently so and so are four of the remaining six members. Sen. Dan Martiny (R-Metairie) was not around for the final vote.
Voting in favor, besides committee Chairman Crowe were Sens. Bob Kostelka (R-Monroe), Barrow Peacock (R-Bossier City), Neil Riser (R-Columbia), and Ronnie Johns (R-Lake Charles).
Of the six Republicans on the committee, only Peacock received no significant campaign contributions from either Gov. Bobby Jindal’s campaign or from corporations affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
ALEC is an organization which denies it is a lobbyist, but, headed by Koch Industries, it includes dozens of large national and multi-national corporations who meet with state legislators on a regular basis to draft legislation for state lawmakers to take back home with them for enactment.
Invariably those laws favor corporate tax breaks and cuts to state employee benefits. ALEC also promotes widespread privatization of heretofore public services and advocates school vouchers and private and charter schools over traditional public schools.
It’s really amazing what a little largesse in the right places can do.
Crowe, Kostelka, Riser, Johns and Martiny each received $2,500 from Jindal’s campaign fund in 2011 and the same five received numerous campaign contributions from ALEC-affiliated corporations.
Perhaps Jindal and some of those corporations should demand a pro rata rebate from Martiny for his failure to vote on the bill.
The state Department of Education contracts with those seeking charter schools were the chief examples cited during testimony for Senate Bill 217. Gov. Bobby Jindal did not respond to requests for comment about calls to unilaterally strip the anti-discriminatory language from the department’s contract criteria.
Sen. Ed Murray, the only committee member to vote no on the measure, said the possibility of SB217 becoming law and negating the anti-discriminatory prohibitions in charter school contracts is “really scary.”
Is it really true that Sen. Murray is the only member of the committee to understand that?
“I can’t believe that at the same time we as a Legislature are passing bills that .… allow charter schools to deny admission based solely on a child’s ability to speak English well enough or play basketball well enough,” Murray said.
“The focus is really simple,” Crowe said. “It says stick to the law.”
State law currently forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national ancestry, age, sex or disability but the Department of Education has expanded that to include sex ethnicity, sexual orientation, athletic performance and special need proficiency in the English language or in a foreign language.
Leslie Ellison, of New Orleans, testified she refused to sign a charter school contract with the Department of Education because it required her company to not discriminate against gays, as well as other criteria not listed in state law. She said the department does not have the right to insert its own opinions into a state contract.
Louisiana Family Forum head Gene Mills a message was being sent for Jindal to strip the provision from his Education Department’s contract criteria. Louisiana Family Forum is a coalition of religious groups that lobby the legislature on issues such as teen abstinence and other social issues.
Neither Jindal nor State Superintendent of Education John White responded to requests for comment about the policy but Jindal press secretary Frank Collins said, “We’re against discrimination, but we don’t believe in special protections or rights.”
Education Department spokesperson Rene Greer said the charter authorization provision was under review by the department.
Someone whose name is long since forgotten once said you get what you pay for and apparently ALEC and Jindal are getting their money’s worth from Louisiana legislators they bought…er, supported.
Posted in Auditor, Civil Service, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Louisiana Purchase, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization, Teague on April 3, 2012| 3 Comments »
If you like irony (and who doesn’t?), you should like this little item:
The State Civil Service Commission will meet Wednesday at 9 a.m. to discuss the proposed outsourcing of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) plan.
Don’t see the irony yet? Well, consider this: the meeting will be held in the Claiborne Building’s Louisiana Purchase Room.
What could possible be more appropriate—and ironic—than for the administration’s proposal to be held in the Louisiana Purchase Room? The governor, after all, is attempting to sell out 60,000 state employees in general and about 170 employees of OGB in particular who would lose their jobs.
In other developments in and around the Capitol, the governor’s office has been awfully defensive about a report critical of Jindal’s retirement reform legislative package.
A 38-page report by the Dallas law firm of Strasburger & Price cited legal cases in 18 different states as well as seven Louisiana legal cases in concluding that virtually all of the provisions sought by Gov. Bobby Jindal would not stand up to constitutional challenges.
The analysis and subsequent study was commissioned by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera and was originally posted on the agency’s web page.
In ordering the report, Purpera must know that he placed his career in jeopardy; Jindal does not take criticism or even mild disagreement lightly.
The governor’s office initially pooh-poohed the report, intimating that the law firm with offices in Houston, San Antonio, Austin, New York and Washington, D.C., in addition to its Dallas office, was unqualified to interpret the intent of the House bills 53, 55 and 56 and Senate bills 51, 52, 42, 47.
In a formal statement, Jindal’s office denied that the additional 3 percent in employee contributions called for in HB 56 and SB 52 would go into the state’s general fund and denying that the additional 3 percent would constitute a tax on state employees.
Under provisions of the Louisiana Constitution, the legislature is prohibited from initiating any tax legislation during even-numbered years.
The governor’s denial was the first indication by his office or any other source that the money from the 3 percent would not be diverted into the general fund.
Everything that has been said up to the time of the governor’s response to the report indicated that the 3 percent would go neither to additional retirement benefits nor to reduce the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS), but to the general fund.
It is strange that the governor would remain silent for so long on that particular issue and his sudden defensive posture as a result of an independent study should raise more question than answers.
Is Jindal, like Rep. Stephen Carter (R-Baton Rouge) was with the education bills he authored, completely oblivious to his own proposed legislation? [Or should that be the proposed legislation of the American Legislative Exchange Council? ALEC)]
The observation that Gov. Jindal cannot stand criticism is steeped in the reality of what happens when a subordinate differs with the governor.
Jim Champagne was fired when he disagreed with Jindal’s repeal of the state’s motorcycle helmet law. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Tammie McDaniel was forced off the board when she resisted the governor. Melody Teague testified against Jindal’s plan to streamline government during a hearing to accept public comment. She was fired the next day and it took her six months to get her job back. Her husband, Tommy Teague, was fired as director of the Office of Group Benefits when he was not enthusiastic enough on the administration’s plan to privatize the agency despite the fact that he took OGB from a $30 million deficit to a $500 million surplus in five years. Then, Martha Manuel was “Teagued” from her position as executive director of the Office of Elderly Affairs after she testified that she had not been informed in advance of the governor’s plans to move her agency from the governor’s office to the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH).
There are those who would be quick to point out that the legislative auditor does not work for the governor, but for the legislature, and they would be correct.
But there are also those who have observed how this governor works and they understand that he has complete control of a weak and submissive legislature and it would be a small matter for Jindal to come down hard on Purpera through House Speaker Charles “Chuckie” Kleckley (R-Lake Charles).
But if it’s real irony you want, then there is the faint hope that the Civil Service Board might take the same action it die with the proposal to privatize the Information Technology (IT) section of the DHH, which would have put about 60 IT workers on the street.
In that case, back in February, the Civil Service Board simply said no. Board members said there was not nearly sufficient information provided on which they base an informed decision. One member said he had been in banking for most of his adult life and still could not interpret the figures provided by DHH. In short, they just didn’t buy the numbers.
The Civil Service Board is another of those agencies the governor can’t touch—theoretically, at least. The president’s of the state’s private colleges and universities submit nominees to the board and it is from those nominees that the governor is constitutionally bound to make the appointments. And since the private colleges and universities are unfettered by state appropriations and appointments, the image of independence prevails, or should.
Of course, one member of the board is a state classified employee elected by state employees and there could be reprisals for a wrong vote.
The Civil Service board, back in 2010, approved the governor’s proposal to privatize the Office of Risk Management based on projections that such a move would save the state millions of dollars. The results have been questionable at best.
First, the state paid F.A. Richard and Associates (FARA) of Mandeville $68 millions to take over the administration of the state’s agency that insures against loss. Then, less than eight months into its contract, FARA was back seeking a 10 percent increase in its contract, to almost $75 million.
Three weeks after the amendment was approved, FARA sold its contract to an Ohio firm which in turn sold the contract to a New York firm only a few months later.
The contract with FARA contained a clause that written consent was required from the state before any transfer of the contract could be executed. When LouisianaVoice made a public request for copies of the written consent, the Division of Administration (DOA) admitted there were no such documents in existence, meaning the contract was violated not once, but twice.
Traditionally, ORM released its annual report that showed expenditures and other financial data around September of each year.
In an effort to determine how much has been saved by the privatization, LouisianaVoice requested a copy of the agency’s annual report from ORM and DOA only to be told the annual report has not been released as yet.
It would seem reasonable to assume if there were major savings as projected a few years back, the administration would be eager to roll out such supporting documentation.
On the other hand….?
If the Civil Service Board, employing the adage “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” takes into account the sloppy manner in which the ORM contract has been handled and the conspicuous absence of that agency’s annual report supporting claims of major savings, opts to dig its heels in on the OGM issue? If the board balks at the governor’s attempts to manipulate the system in order to consolidate his power base?
Now that would be ironic.
Posted in Campaign Contributions, Ethics, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, LSU on April 2, 2012| 3 Comments »
The Louisiana Board of Ethics is grappling with the task of establishing parameters that would spell out which types of campaign expenditures are and are not permitted.
But don’t look for the Louisiana legislature to provide any guidance on the issue.
The seemingly reform-minded lawmakers appear eager to reform education, prisons, Medicaid, group benefits and state employee retirement programs but seem to be incapable or unwilling to tackle campaign spending reform.
That’s because no fewer than 51 current and former legislators have spent more than $400,000 in campaign funds for LSU athletic events since 2007.
And that figure does not even include ticket costs to other state college and university athletic events, various membership dues to civic clubs, country clubs and Mardi Gras krewes and even a few isolated cases of ethics fine payments from campaign funds. Some elected officials have even used campaign contributions to hire baby sitters and to purchase vehicles, including in one instance, a Jaguar.
Chief ethics administrator Kathleen Allen said her staff will use federal rules as well as compiling its own list of expenditures considered as non-allowed personal use of campaign funds in an effort to come up with new rules.
Allen said the Ethics Board has suggested that the 2012 Legislature change state law to be more specific about how campaign contributions may be spent. Present law says that contributions “shall not be used, loaned, or pledged by any person for any personal use unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of public office.”
Allen said federal and state laws regarding campaign expenditures are essentially the same but that the federal rules go a bit further by setting parameters for permissible use of campaign money.
She said Ethics Board members would proceed with rule-making even if the Legislature punts on the issue as it has historically done.
The board made recommendations to the legislature in the past have been largely ignored. It again this year sent a list of 20 proposals to both the legislature and to Gov. Bobby Jindal.
But of 1,033 bills filed in the House and another 639 in the Senate, not one addresses limiting the expenditure of campaign funds to purposes related to running for or holding office.
“I just wonder how much they (legislators) look at them, board member Cedric Lowrey of Alexander said of the recommendations.
The board, among other things, is recommending:
Giving the board’s investigatory staff authority to conduct random audits of personal financial disclosure reports;
Changing the time frame required to enforce ethics laws (current law starts the clock from the time a complaint is filed; the board wants to change that to the time it receives notice of an alleged violation);
Eliminating the filing of redundant election day expenditure reports;
Clarify the roles of the Board of Ethics and the Ethics Adjudicatory Board as it relates to policing of campaign disclosure laws.
If campaign expenditure reports are any indication, it would seem the legislature would want to get its own house in order before reforming a multitude of other state programs just because Gov. Bobby Jindal, like Chicken Little, keeps telling us the sky is falling.
Take for example the Louisiana Election Code (Title 18:1505.2-I, paragraph 36 on page 36): “No candidate, political committee, person required to file reports under this chapter, nor any other person shall use a contribution, loan, or transfer of funds to pay a fine, fee or penalty imposed (by the State Ethics Board.)”
Yet The Louisiana Board of Ethics web page list no fewer than 56 separate instances in which ethics fines were paid with campaign funds. Some of these were paid by political action committees (The Alliance for Good Government paid $1,600 from its campaign funds and the Better Government Political Action Committee paid $5,000 from its campaign funds), some by lobbyists and these, by current or former legislators:
• Rep. James Armes, III (D-Leesville)—$2,600 (two fines);
• Former House Speaker Charles DeWitt (D-Alexandria)—$5,000;
• Former Rep. Tom McVea (R-St. Francisville)—$720;
• Former Sen. Walter Boasso (D-Chalmette)—$1,000;
• Former Rep. Irma Muse Dixon (D-New Orleans)—$600;
• Former Rep. Dale Sittig (D-Eunice)—$800;
• Former Sen. Joel Chaisson, II (D-Destrehan)—$5,000 (two fines);
• Sen. Richard Gallot (D-Ruston)—$1,000.
But the real eye-opener is the list of expenditures for LSU athletic season and individual game tickets. Here are a few example of current members of the House and Senate who have dipped into campaign funds to pay for tickets and parking:
• Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego)—$8,022 in 2009 and 2011;
• Rep. John Anders (D-Vidalia)—$9,142 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. James Armes, III (D-Leesville)—$11,688 in 2008, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans)—$3,000 in 2011;
• Rep. John Berthelot (R-Gonzales)—$7,770, all in 2011;
• Rep. Thomas Carmody, Jr. (R-Shreveport)—$11,556 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans)—$3,738 in 2009 and 2010;
• Sen. Norbert Chabert (R-Houma)—$3,015 in 2010;
• Sen. Sherri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville)—$10,798 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. George Cromer (R-Slidell)—$8,638 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Hunter Greene (R-Baton Rouge)—$6,394 in 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe)—$11,106 in 2008, 2010 and 2011;
• House Speaker Charles Kleckley (R-Lake Charles)—$17,492 in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte)—$11,316 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans)—$8,043 in 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. James Morris (R-Oil City)—$2,735 in 2009;
• Sen. Dan Morrish (R-Jennings)—$2,978 in 2009;
• Sen. Jonathan Perry (R-Kaplan)—$16,653 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Stephen Pugh (R-Ponchatoula)—$5,900, all in 2011;
• Rep. Jerome Richard (I-Thibodaux)—$2,678 in 2009;
• Rep. Joel Robideaux (R-Lafayette)—$11,889 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. John Schroder (R-Covington)—$1,708 in 2009;
• Sen. Gary Smith (R-Gonzales)—$14,952 in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge)—$5,238 in 2008 and 2009;
• Rep. Patrick Connick (R-Marrero)—$8,448 in 2008, 2010 and 2011;
• Rep. Mike Danahay (D-Sulphur)—$10,156 in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Sen Daniel Martiny (R-Metairie)—$7,466 in 2007, 2009 and 2011;
• Rep. Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell)—$3.010, all in 2010;
• Sen. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi)—$8,955 in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
But for sheer audacity, none even came close to the $150,000 man, former Rep. Noble Ellington, who spent $32,380 of his campaign funds since 2007, more than $8,000 of which was spent in 2011 when he did not seek re-election.
Ellington, you may remember, is the immediate past national president of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and within weeks of leaving office, was named the second in command at the Louisiana Department of Insurance at $150,000 per year, a position which will greatly enhance his retirement benefits at the same time Gov. Jindal is asking state employees to work longer, pay more in employee contributions and accept fewer benefits-and at the same time more than a dozen classified employees in the Department of Insurance are being laid off.
Other former legislators who found no problem soliciting campaign contributions from supporters only to use the money to purchase LSU athletic tickets included:
• Former Rep. Bobby Badon (D-Carencro)—$8,448 in 2008, 2010 and 2011;
• Former Rep. Damon Baldone (R-Houma)—$8,865 in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011;
• Former Sen. Nick Gautreaux (D-Meaux)—$3,060 in 2010;
• Former Rep. Walker Hines (R-New Orleans)—$5,688 in 2010;
• Former Sen. Mike Michot (R-Lafayette)—$14,797 in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Former Sen. Rob Marionneaux (D-Maringouin)—$6,075 in 2010 and 2011;
• Former Rep. Billy Montgomery (R-Bossier City)—$4,075 in 2011 (Montgomery has not served in the legislature since 2008.);
• Former Rep. Ricky Templet (R-Gretna)—$8,638 in 2009, 2010 and 2011;
• Former Rep. Ernest Wooton (R-Belle Chasse)—$4,755 in 2009 and 2011;
• Former Rep. Troy Hebert (D-Jeanerette)—$4,580 in 2010;
• Rep. Nickie Monica (R-LaPlace)—$9.670 in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011;
Some of the current and former legislators listed their expenditures as “donations,” but the “donations” often were in multiples of $1,010: $1,010, $2,020 and $3,030. Interestingly, other legislators listed identical amounts, but their reports said the expenditures were to purchase tickets which would seem to bring the claim of donations into question.
Another question that the legislators might want to address to constituents: would they have made those same ticket purchases if they had not had the campaign funds at their disposal.
But don’t expect any answers to that question. It’s not likely they will even acknowledge the need to reform campaign expenditure rules.
It will be interesting to see which of these current legislators will cave to the governor’s pressure to support retirement reform and how many will grow a set and stand up to Jindal, aka Nixon Redux.
Posted in Auditor, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, Teague on March 30, 2012| 16 Comments »
A comprehensive legal analysis commissioned by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera concludes there is substantial legal precedent for successful litigation against the state should Gov. Bobby Jindal’s sweeping retirement bills be passed by the legislature and subsequently signed into law.
That, of course, raises yet another issue altogether: will Purpera be “Teagued” for having the audacity to order such a study that takes issue with the governor who has already demonstrated in no uncertain terms that dissent will not be tolerated.
Purpera works for the legislature, which would normally indicate that he is protected from the wrath of the governor but in light of Jindal’s curiously dominating stranglehold on a weak-willed, spineless and compliant legislature, who knows?
The report also said that any litigation “would likely ensue in state as opposed to federal court due to Eleventh Amendment restrictions upon suing states in federal court.” It did, however, note that exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment restrictions could allow plaintiffs to bring suit in federal court “under certain circumstances.”
The analysis was performed by the Strasburger & Price law firm of Dallas and which also has offices in Houston, San Antonio, Austin, New York and Washington, D.C.
It cites case law in no fewer than 18 other states where courts overturned legislative efforts to alter state retirement programs in mid-stream.
It also cited the Louisiana Constitution, which says, “Membership in any retirement system of the state or of a political subdivision thereof shall be a contractual relationship between employee and employers, and the state shall guarantee benefits payable to a member of a state retirement system or retiree or to his lawful beneficiary upon his death.”
It also said that Louisiana courts employ a four-part test in determining whether a contract violates the state and U.S. constitutional prohibitions on impairing the obligations of contracts:
• The reviewing court must determine whether the state law would, in fact, impair a contractual relationship;
• If the court finds impairment, it must determine whether the impairment is of constitutional dimensions;
• If the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the court must determine whether a significant and legitimate public purpose justifies the regulation, and
• If a significant and legitimate public purpose exists, the court then determines whether the adjustment to the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation’s adoption.
Courts, the report said, generally defer to the legislature when dealing with economic regulation between private parties but “such complete deference is not appropriate when the state is a party to a contract because its own self-interest is at stake” as is the case of contracts with state employees.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state “must overcome a significant burden to justify drastic changes in contractual pension benefits. Simple presumptions of reasonableness or necessity, which are at the core of legislative deference, cannot stand.”
It also has held that if contract rights are taken for some public benefit, “there must be just compensation.” That ruling would seem to apply to the bill to increase employee contributions by 3 percent, the proceeds of which would go into the general fund and not to help erase the pension’s unfunded accrued liability or to increase retirement benefits.
That same U.S. Supreme Court ruling said, “A state may not refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to spend the money to promote the public good rather than the private welfare of its creditors.”
The 38-page report, released Wednesday by Purpera’s office, says the proposed legislation “poses issues under both the United States and Louisiana Constitutions” which protects public pension benefits from impairment caused by diminished benefits, from depriving employees of property rights without due process, from the divesting of public employee benefits without just compensation and against public officials for enforcing unconstitutional laws.
It also said the state “must overcome a significant burden to justify drastic changes in contractual pension benefits. Simple presumptions of reasonableness or necessity, which are at the core of legislative deference, cannot stand.
“The pending public pension bills are most vulnerable to both U.S. and Louisiana constitutional Contract Clause scrutiny, though the other potential challengers have significant merit, as well,” the report’s executive summary said.
HB 56 and SB 52, which would increase employee contributions by 3 percent, “face an initial potential state constitutional challenge as tax bills,” the report said, in that the State Constitution prohibits the legislature from enacting tax bills during a regular session convened in even-numbered years. “These bills seeking to increase employee contribution rates may be characterized as ‘tax’ bills—a ‘tax’ being defined as a monetary charge imposed by government on persons and others to yield public revenue.
“If the state deposits funds from increased employee contributions into the state general fund, a stronger argument exists that they yield public revenue and thus that the legislation constitutes a ‘tax’ bill prohibited in the 2012 session (and) may also violate IRS rules for qualified benefit plans,” the report said. “Any legislative attempt to increase employee contribution rates faces almost certain litigation and a reasonable likelihood of being held unconstitutional.”
While the Strasburger paper did not say so, the imposition of the additional 3 percent contribution as a condition of continued employment doesn’t seem too far removed from the nasty words kickback and extortion: “I’ll pay you X dollars, but you gotta give back Y dollars to go into the company bank account, or we’ll just hire someone else.”
“As currently drafted, each bill, except the one merging two pension systems (The Louisiana Teachers Retirement System, LTRS, and the Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System, LSERS), retroactively impairs or diminishes accrued pension benefits contrary to the guarantees” contained in the U.S. Constitution.
The bills addressed by the Strasburger study include those which would:
• Increase the minimum retirement age;
• Increase employee contributions;
• Iincrease the number of years used to calculate final employee average compensation, and,
• Merge the two independent public retirement systems.
The executive summary said challenges would most likely allege violations under Article X, Paragraph 29 of the Louisiana Constitution which protects public pension benefits, the Contract Clause within both the Louisiana and U.S. Constitutions (which prohibits contract impairment due to diminished benefits), the Taking Clause of both the state and U.S. constitutions (prohibiting the reduction of public employee benefits without just compensation), and the Due Process clauses of both documents for depriving employees of property rights without due process.
The report said that while the bills proposing to merge LTRS and LSERS appear benign on the surface in that they seek “only a merger of administrative functions,” they also “contain a directive to study a future merger of plan assets, suggesting the legislature’s intent to merge the funding aspects of the two systems in the not too distant future.
“Any such merger attempt could, in contrast, raise the likelihood of being challenged as unconstitutional,” it said. “This would have a negative effect on the actuarial soundness of the disparately-funded system,” which, it said, is constitutionally “guaranteed.”
Specifically cited in the report were, other than in Louisiana, cases in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia. In each state, courts overturned attempts to alter state employee retirement benefits, deeming them to be contracts that could not legally or constitutionally be impaired.
“Therefore, we conclude that House Bills 53, 55 and 56 and Senate Bills 51, 52, 42 and 47, in their current form, face a likelihood of being challenged in the courts,” the executive summary said.
“If such challenges occur, we think it more likely than not that a court will rule each then-adopted bill as unconstitutional to the degree such bills affect the accrued benefits of current members and retirees.”
$2.50 each or three for $6.00
Louisiana Voice 