Posted in House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Notable Quotables, Retirement on May 22, 2012| 1 Comment »
“We cannot protect people from making bad decisions in their lives.”
–Sen. Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas), commenting on the possibility that retirees may spend all of their lump-sum pension benefits being proposed as part of Gov. Piyush Jindal’s retirement reform package. He went on to say that retirees may have to apply for food stamps, welfare and other government programs. Still, he somehow managed to insist that the retirement reforms would save the state money.
Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Education, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement on May 22, 2012| 2 Comments »
For sheer audacity, it’s hard to top the performance of State Sen. Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas) last week.
Guillory, the poster boy for ALEC and Piyush Jindal lapdogs, was the lead author of the gaggle of state retirement bills, including Senate Bill 740 which assures state retirees they will not be getting a cost of living adjustment for 10-15 years.
Despite Guillory’s efforts to put the best spin on the retirements which wound up being a general hodgepodge, he was trumped by Jindal Deputy Chief of Staff Kristy Nichols who insisted the administration “got what we wanted.” It was a classic example of mutual one-upsmanship in an effort by both to save face.
The only part of the retirement package to be approved in its original form was a provision to base retirement incomes on employees’ best five years income instead of three years as is presently done.
Jindal’s effort—through Guillory—to force state civil service employees to work to age 67 before qualifying for retirement—was amended drastically. Only employees with zero to five years experience would be required to work to 67 while those with six to ten years will be required to work to age 62. All others will remain the same.
Guillory in a particularly self-serving email to Capitol News Service, said, “Now that you have had an opportunity to review the Senate Retirement Committee’s work, I’m sure you appreciate the hard work and responsible outcomes produced by those seven men. No “fix,” no “buyout” by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). No underhanded tactics. Just hard work addressing a serious fiscal problem in careful responsible manner.”
Perhaps. But it would have been nice if the legislator had been working that hard the past 25 years to live up to its self-imposed requirement to pay down the unfunded accrued liability (UAL) of the state’s four retirement systems. Because of typically bad political policy, the legislature, in its infinite stupidity, decided to use those funds for other things, in the process allowing the UAL to grow unabated.
Now, though, state employees are being called on to make good on the legislature’s promise a quarter-century later. What’s more, the onus of the entire amount has been placed on the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS) and higher education members of TRSL even though the LASERS share of the UAL is only about $6.3 billion. The balance of the UAL belongs to the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System (LSERS) and the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS).
Guillory was asked why the pension reform changes are only being applied to LASERS and higher education employees in TRSL, he said state police and hazardous duty workers, who are exempted (fo far), “put their lives on the line. They face bullets every day. They have special disability issues. They have special survivorship issues, so they are in a special category. Their situation is more special. The same is true with K through 12 teachers. I’m not sure I want to see a teacher at age 67 still trying to handle the young students of today. There are just some special circumstances for teachers.
Two things are somewhat revealing in those comments. First of all, what he said about “young students of today” would seem to refute Jindal’s blanket condemnation of teachers while ignoring discipline problems and uninvolved parents as the root of most of public education’s current problems.
Second, as a reader recently wrote, if we are to believe Sen. Guillory, rank and file employees are not “special” or any particular value or importance. “We are also to believe that rank and file jobs do not involve any hazardous duties.
“Try telling that to employees of state psychiatric hospitals who are injured in the line of duty on a regular basis. Or tell that to Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) employees who are struck by vehicles while repairing our highways. Or worse yet, try telling that to the families of the two Department of Insurance employees who were murdered recently while doing nothing more than gather routine regulatory information from an insurance broker.
“The simple lesson here is that Gov. Jindal has employed a very old and frequently successful ploy of divide and conquer with his so-called pension reform,” the reader said.
But Guillory’s most unabashed display of arrogance came during Senate debate over House Bill 61, which would create a new “cash balance” retirement plan for new hires, beginning July 1, 2013. Guillory said the plan would reduce state costs while containing the growth in long-term liabilities of the pension systems involved.
Sen. Sherri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville) said she was concerned over the provision for retirees to take a lump-sum pension benefit. She asked what would happen if a retiree spends the pension income to which Guillory incredulously replied, “We cannot protect people from making bad decisions in their lives.”
Guillory went on to say that a retiree might then have to apply for food stamps, welfare and other government programs.
Right. That’s going to save the state a boatload of money, right Senator?
That prompted one person to refer to Guillory’s plan as the “Cat Food Retirement Plan.”
National pension law expert Robert Klausner, representing LASERS and TRSL attempted to warn legislators against the bill’s passage, saying the proposed bill breaks employee contracts. “There’s no reason to pass an unconstitutional law,” he said. “All it does is create a field day for lawyers.”
Several weeks ago, with the Legislative Auditor hired a Dallas law firm to analyze the proposed retirement bills, the law firm came up with much the same response as Klausner.
To counter the auditor’s expert, the Division of Administration hired Buck Consultants of Boston at a cost of $400,000.
A LouisianaVoice public records request for a copy of the Buck report resulted in the release of a six-page document—about $66,667 per page. That report had just a three-paragraph narrative at the end. The rest consisted only of actuarial notes which projected a reduction of annual state contributions (the portion the state contributes to employee retirement funds) to LASERS and TRSL if enacted.
Jindal’s proposal—through Guillory’s bills—to move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution pension plan was a virtual clone of the “Defined-Contribution Retirement Act” model bill as drafted by ALEC at its New Orleans national convention last August, Guillory’s claims in his email to LouisianaVoice notwithstanding.
But that was just one of the bills proposed by ALEC.
A copy of ALEC’s complete proposed retirement reform legislation was obtained by Common Cause of Washington, D.C., which filed Freedom of Information Act requests for ALEC records.
The ALEC proposals and those of Guillory in the Senate and Rep. Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell) in the House are nearly identical in most aspects.
So, all things considered, it’s a little difficult to buy into Guillory’s braggadocio about his committee’s “hard work, no buyout by ALEC.” Nor do we agree that a “serious fiscal problem” was addressed in a “careful, responsible manner.”
Posted in Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement on May 10, 2012| 5 Comments »
It seems that Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) is not above a little chicanery and outright misrepresentation when it comes to salvaging a losing vote on behalf of Piyush Jindal.
When the Senate voted Wednesday on SB 47, which would change the computation of pension system benefits from an average of three years of compensation to a five-year average, the tally was 19-16, or one vote shy of the 20 votes needed.
Walsworth whined that he had been “pounding” on his computer during the vote and would like to have a re-vote. The Baton Rouge Advocate said he claimed that his voting machine malfunctioned. Either way, the Senate agreed, and approved the amended bill by a 23-13 vote.
But spectators in the Senate gallery clearly heard Walsworth tell Kristy Nichols, Gov. Piyush Jindal’s Deputy Chief of Staff, not to worry, that he would recall the bill.
Bottom line: there was no “pounding on the computer” and no “machine malfunction.”
But there was deception and outright lying on the part of Walsworth.
That’s the Piyush Jindal version of accountability, ethics and good government.
Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Attorney General, Education, Governor's Office, Health Care, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, tagged AFSCME, American Federation of State, Attorney General, County and Municipal Employees, Louisiana State Troopers Association, Michael Walker-Jones, Professional Fire Fighters Association, Rep. Alan Seabaugh, Rep. Bob Hensgens, Steve Monaghan on May 5, 2012| 9 Comments »
Freedom of expression for state employees, even when they pay for it, is squarely in the crosshairs of the Jindal administration.
State lawmakers in Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho, Washington, Michigan, Wyoming, North Carolina and Florida have all passed or attempted to pass anti-public employee union legislation sponsored by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
More recently, the ALEC-sponsored movement has moved to Louisiana in the form of two House bills, one of which (HB 1023) is authored by ALEC member Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport). The second, HB 88, is the handiwork of Rep. Bob Hensgens (R-Abbeville).
Seabaugh’s bill would prohibit mandatory payroll deductions from the paychecks of public employees for membership dues for “any entity which engages in political activity” while HB 88 by Hensgens is more narrowly worded in that it would apply only to public school officials who belong to organizations that are politically active.
Jindal would probably claim that he had nothing to do with the bills, that they were the product of free and independent-minded Seabaugh and Hensgens. But let us not overlook the fact that Jindal contributed $2,500 to each of their legislative campaigns last August.
That is enough for Louisiana’s teachers’ unions to feel that the bills are nothing more than reprisals for their opposition to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s sweeping education reform bills.
The bills could also apply to payroll deductions for membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). For doctors and nurses who work in state facilities, it also could conceivably apply to membership dues for the American Medical Association and the Louisiana State Nurses’ Association.
What about all the attorneys for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office and executive legal counsels for all the state agencies, including the governor’s office? Most of those are members of the State Bar Association and most of those pay dues through payroll deductions.
The Louisiana Retired Teachers’ Association, Louisiana State Troopers Association, Professional Fire Fighters Association and even the alumni foundations of state colleges and universities are political active to some extent.
Each of those either employs full time lobbyists to represent their interests before the legislature or do so themselves. That’s pretty far-reaching, but within the definition of either of the two bills.
The Louisiana Department of Education has an undetermined number of Teach for America members and they, too, may pay dues through payroll deduction. Teach for America is about as politically active as any other organization already mentioned.
There are others. Acadian Ambulance has an entire team of lobbyists who stand ready to twist legislative arms on behalf of their client. So what about state employees who have purchased membership with Acadian and set up payroll deductions?
Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., the parent company of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana, made $17,500 in political contributions in 2003, including $10,000 to Jindal. That would constitute political activity by any definition.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield provides health insurance for tens of thousands of Louisiana active and retired employees—through payroll deductions.
The same would apply to UnitedHealthcare which also provides health care coverage and which employs lobbyists and actively provides financial support to various political campaigns.
The same goes for scores of life insurance companies which provide coverage to state employees—again, through payroll deductions. Ditto for such organizations as Humana, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Girls Scouts of Louisiana-Pines to the Gulf, Louisiana Citizens for the Arts, Louisiana Children’s Museum, LaCAP Federal Credit Union, the four state retirement programs (LASERS, LSERS, LSPRS AND LTRS).
One would assume that the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, the Coastal Conservation Association and the NRA are politically active and would thus, be forbidden to extract dues via payroll deductions.
Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, said he is convinced that Seabaugh’s bill was filed as a form of reprisals against teachers for their part in trying to sink Jindal’s education reforms.
“This is an effort to silence the voice of opposition,” Monaghan said. “Because we defend public education and stand up to the politicians who seek to bully, some want to strike us down.”
Dr. Michael Walker-Jones said the bills were “an attempt to shut down the voice of public employees totally.”
Bridget Nieland, vice president of Communications and director of Education and Workforce for the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), however, said the idea that non-profit groups would be affected by the legislation were nothing more than a “scare tactic” being used by union leaders in an effort to garner opposition.
One opponent of the proposed legislation said the bills were based on two false assumptions—that taxpayer dollars are being used for political purposes and that payroll deductions of union dues is tantamount to compulsory unionism.
“Union members’ dues are not taxpayer dollars,” said Les Landon, writing on Facebook. “They (dues) come from the salaries earned by employees who have a right to spend those dollars as they wish, including for political purposes.”
Seabaugh, a member of ALEC, was reimbursed $2,060.52 in taxpayer dollars for his attendance of the ALEC National Conference last August—in New Orleans.
Seabaugh apparently saw no problem in spending public dollars to attend the conference by an organization which drafts hundreds of laws favorable to business and industry and adverse to the interests of public employees.
Those drafts are provided—some say spoon-fed—to state lawmakers — to take back to their home states for passage. Among bills written by ALEC and promoted in Republican-controlled state legislatures are privatization of state agencies, the sale of state prisons, school vouchers and charter schools, and major public employee retirement reform.
Nick Dranias, director of Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, speaking on behalf of a similar bill to abolish payroll deduction in Arizona, said, “No special interest is supposed to have a law that forces government to negotiate in a secret backroom for advantages that benefit only their private interests.”
All sample legislation adopted by ALEC, including last August’s national conference in New Orleans, is done so behind closed doors. The media and general public were barred from the New Orleans conference as they are at all such conferences.
It would be interesting to hear Dranias offer his take on that “special interest” negotiating “in a secret backroom” on behalf of its “private interests.”
Posted in Governor's Office, Retirement on May 1, 2012| 7 Comments »
Occasionally, we like to run essays or commentaries by guest columnists. The following parody was written by a state employee who, for reasons easy to comprehend given the current outbreak of Sudden Teaugeing Syndrome (STS) in state government, has chosen the alias of Louis Jordan, a ’30s and ’40s jazz artist of whom our guest writer is a fan.
(Ring, Ring, Ring!)
Employee Smith: Hello.
Agent Nichols: Hello, Mr. Smith. This is Agent Nichols calling on behalf of Bayou State Bank. Do you have a few minutes to discuss your home mortgage with me?
Employee Smith: Actually Ms. Nichols, I’m kind of busy right now. In fact, I’m an employee of Bayou State Bank, and as I’m sure you know we in the tax division have been asked to do more with less. And since this is tax season, I’m kind of swamped. Can you make this quick?
Agent Nichols: I can certainly make this quick Mr. Smith. But first, I just wanted to let you know that we at B.S. Bank we really appreciate all your hard work and dedication. In fact, May 9 is Employee Appreciation Day and you’re allowed to wear jeans to work.
Employee Smith: Thanks Ms. Nichols. What’s up?
Agent Nichols: I was calling to let you know that you qualify for our mortgage modification program!
Employee Smith: Really? Thank goodness! My wife and I have always paid our mortgage payments timely, so I never looked into anything like this. But this is great news, because we’ve been struggling lately. Gas prices have gone up. Our health insurance premiums keep getting higher. And as you know, B.S. Bank hasn’t given us raises in a few years. This really couldn’t come at a better time.
Agent Nichols: Actually Mr. Smith, we over here in the administration division just got a raise.
Employee Smith: Umm…Ok. Thanks for rubbing it in.
Agent Nichols: Anyways, it will just take a few minutes to go over the details of how we will be modifying your mortgage. First thing we will be doing is raising your interest rate from 8% to 11%.
Employee Smith: Wait…What? You’re raising my interest rate? Did I misunderstand you?
Agent Nichols: No Mr. Smith, I didn’t stutter. In addition to raising your interest rate by 3%, we will also be requiring you to make payments on your loan for an additional 10 years.
Employee Smith: Is this some kind of joke? Is this a prank call? Is this Kellie Rasberry from Kidd Kraddick in the Morning?
Agent Nichols: No Mr. Smith, I assure you this is the real Ms. Nichols and I’m serious. We feel that these modifications will help B.S. Bank maintain long-term financial stability. As you are aware, we have gotten ourselves into a precarious position. Prior to CEO Bobby’s tenure, the B.S. Bank decided to expand its operations to other areas of the state. This created a need for additional capital. In addition, we have made some bad investment decisions, the market has not been doing so well, and years ago we decided not to make necessary payments to fund future obligations. And to top it all off, CEO Bobby decided it would make good business sense to loan all new corporations however much money they needed to finance their operations at a super low interest rate of 2%. All of these factors have put us in jeopardy of defaulting on our own loans. For these reasons we feel it is necessary to raise revenue and reduce our long-term obligations.
Employee Smith: I’m so confused. What does any of this have to do with me?
Agent Nichols: What is there to be confused about Mr. Smith? The reality is that we feel the employees of our bank should finance our debt by having the terms of their personal mortgages involuntarily adjusted.
Employee Smith: So is this something that you are doing for all employees of B.S. Bank? Because there is no way that the employees of the identity protection division will go along with this. Not to mention the outrage it will cause with employees of the customer education division.
Agent Nichols: Honestly, CEO Bobby is not really concerned about what his employees think. He just fired the head of the reverse mortgage division for disagreeing with him. But since you asked, he feels that the employees of identity protection division are entitled to full ownership of their homes before you because of the unique nature of their job. And he just got finished outsourcing a large part of the customer education department to India, so he doesn’t want to piss them off anymore than he already has.
Employee Smith: This is ridiculous. Are you sure this is the real Ms. Nichols, because none of this makes sense? I signed a contract with B.S. Bank years ago, stating that if I paid my mortgage for 30 years, at an interest rate of 8%, I would own the title to my home. How can you change the terms of our agreement halfway through the terms of our contract? Is this legal?
Agent Nichols: Again, I assure you this is the real Ms. Nichols. And we feel there is firm legal precedence to unilaterally impose this mortgage modification program on our employees. We have based our legal analysis on regulations enacted by the First Bank of the United States.
Employee Smith: Ms. Nichols, the First Bank of the United States ceased to exist in 1811.
(silence)
Employee Smith: Hello, are you still there?
Agent Nichols: Yes, I’m still here. I guess we didn’t think of that.
Employee Smith: It sounds like you didn’t think of a lot of things. Didn’t the Bank of Uncle Sam recently reduce mortgage rates by 2% for all of its customers to help them out? Didn’t CEO Bobby support that? And I thought CEO Bobby was a proponent of low interest rates?
Agent Nichols: Yes, Yes, and Yes. But that isn’t relevant to this discussion. Honestly, CEO Bobby really wants to be the CEO of the Bank of Uncle Sam, and he thinks enacting this loan modification program will help him achieve that goal.
Employee Smith: I could care less about CEO Bobby’s future plans. I am just trying to live my life as simply as possible. All I want to do is raise my kids, love my wife, walk my dog, be involved in my community, and one day own my home. Is that too much to ask? There is no way that the Board of Directors will go along with this. Has CEO Bobby contacted Chairman Chuck for his opinion?
Agent Nichols: Chairman Chuck is a member of the American Bankers Exchange Council (ABEC), and ABEC is a proponent of the mortgage modification programs. In truth, ABEC is the organization that is spear heading these programs nationwide. We feel that we have the support of the entire Board of Directors of Bayou State Bank. Actually, the Committee on Mortgage Modification just recently approved our plan.
Employee Smith: I can’t believe the entire Board will go along with something so blatantly inequitable, unfair, illegal, and discriminatory. I have faith that they will reign in CEO Bobby’s arrogant behavior. But I have to be honest Ms. Smith; I’m really questioning my loyalty to B.S. Bank. If I would have known how you treated your employees and customers, I would have never applied for a mortgage with B.S. Bank, much less sought employment here.
Agent Nichols: I’m sorry you feel that way Mr. Smith. Just please remember that we really do appreciate all of your hard work and dedication. However, you can always sell your house and move.
Employee Smith: Is that what this is really about? Are you trying to force me out of my home? Please remember that it is not just a building that provides shelter to me and my family. It is my home, and it is the only home I know. We are members of the local church, our kids go to school in the area, we love our neighbors, and we are completely vested in the community. There has to be another way.
Agent Nichols: I’m sorry Mr. Smith, but CEO Bobby has decided that this is the way it is going to be. You really don’t have many options. You can either accept our terms or you can sell your house and move. Have a good day. And remember, we are watching you.
(click)
Employee Smith: Wait…What the heck just happened?
$2.50 each or three for $6.00
Louisiana Voice 