Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Teague’ Category

The Piyush Purge begins: school superintendents’ emails to school employees sought by Gov. ‘Dear Leader’ Bobby Jindal

Posted in Education, Governor's Office, Teague on April 17, 2012| 15 Comments »

Gov. Piyush Jindal, aka Bobbin Hood (robs from the poor, gives to the rich), certainly loses no time.

No sooner does he ram through his education “reforms,” which, among other things, removes from local school boards all authority over parish superintendents, than he institutes his reign of terror.

It seems that the administration, even before passage of his education reforms, had already initiated a policy of monitoring email communications between some, if not all, parish school superintendents and school employees.

That’s the word out of northeast Louisiana and at least one of the Florida parishes.

Livingston Parish Superintendent Bill Spear, speaking last week at a parish chamber of commerce luncheon, revealed that Jindal’s administration has wasted no time in making a public records request for emails concerning proposed changes to education sent to Livingston parish school employees.

The emails, without question, are public record, available for the asking to anyone interested enough to ask for them.

It’s just that it seems rather peculiar that someone as busy as the governor of a state and who plainly has ambitions for bigger and better things would have time to review the emails of a parish school superintendent.

Unless…

Unless there are underlying motives of reprisals against those who do not fall into line quickly enough.

This governor has already exhibited a sufficient propensity to take swift and severe actions against subordinates who dare express an independent opinion that is at odds with his.

Inspired by the phrase coined by an acquaintance who shall remain nameless because he is a state employee, we have applied the term Teagued to those who have felt the wrath of Piyush:

• Department of Social Services grant reviewer Melody Teague in October 2009 testified against Jindal’s proposed streamlining of state government. She was fired the very next day. It took six months but she got her job back;

• Office of Group Benefits (OGB) Director Tommy Teague, husband of Melody, wasn’t quick enough to bow and scrap when Jindal proposed the privatization of OGB. Fired.

• Jim Champagne, executive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, disagreed with Jindal’ plan to repeal the state’s motorcycle helmet law. Out the door;

• Ethics Administrator Richard Sherburne hit the bricks when Jindal gutted the Ethics Board’s adjudicatory authority, giving that authority to administrative law judges. Jindal neutered the board after he was hit was an ethics fine shortly after taking office. Coincidence? Not likely.

• Tammie McDaniel, a member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), questioned budget decisions by the administration and was immediately asked to resign by Jindal. She did after first resisting his heavy-handed methods;

• Martha Manuel, executive director of the Office of Elderly Affairs, was critical of an administration decision to move her agency from the governor’s office to the Department of Health and Hospitals. Axed by phone;

• State Rep. Harold Richie (D-Bogalusa), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and vice chairman of the House Committee on Insurance, was stripped of his vice-chairmanship of the latter after voting no on a tax rebate for those who donate money for scholarships to private and parochial schools while sitting on the former.

With passage of Jindal’s sweeping education reform package, the state, through the Department of Education, now assumes authority over local school superintendents.

The local school boards will continue to hire the superintendents but they will answer to State Superintendent John White and not the local boards that appoint them.

That would be moral equivalent of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s suddenly deciding to micromanage the affairs of a local traffic court or the Louisiana State Police commander’s monitoring the time clock of the Shongaloo town marshal.

Simply put, such action trivializes the office of the governor.

Could Jindal’s demanding copies of superintendents’ emails to local school employees be the first step down a slippery slope toward disciplinary action for imagined sins of the local superintendents?

If so, it would seem reasonable that the next logical step for this governor would be to seek out and destroy the school employees themselves, especially teachers who dare question the reforms, for punishment.

That’s the way Piyush Jindal operates.

It’s also the way it’s done in Third World dictatorships around the globe.

One would think it’s not the way it’s done in a free society.

One would be wrong.

It’s a bone-chilling message that the citizens of this state, whether state employees or not, should not ignore.

Read Full Post »

Irony: Holding Civil Service hearings on the privatization of the Office of Group Benefits in the Louisiana Purchase Room

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.

Read Full Post »

Legislative Auditor commissions study of proposed retirement bills and the news is not good for Jindal

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.”

Read Full Post »

Members take the money and run on two education bills; LouisianaVoice compares campaign contributions, votes

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Campaign Contributions, Education, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Teague on March 24, 2012| 2 Comments »

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—The influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions was never more in evidence than in last week’s House votes on two separate education bills being pushed hard by the Jindal administration.

Of the 62 House members who are current or former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) or attended ALEC conferences, accepted campaign contributions from corporate members of ALEC, from education reform lobbyists or from Gov. Bobby Jindal himself, 46 voted in favor of HB 974 and 43 voted for HB 976.

In all, more than $523,000 was doled out in campaign contributions to 50 House members—an average of more than $10,000 each—by lobbyists or corporate entities affiliated with ALEC who supported the bills or from Jindal’s own campaign funds.

Even more telling, of those 50 campaign contribution recipients, only five voted against both bills and two others split their votes. Reps. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles), Jim Morris (R-Oil City), Andy Anders (D-Vidalia), Joe Harrison (R-Gray) and Dorothy Hill (D-Dry Creek) each voted no on both bills.

Rep. Gregory Miller (R-Norco) voted in favor of HB 974 but against HB 976 while Rep. Patrick Williams (D-Shreveport) voted for HB 976 but was opposed to HB 974. Rep. Hunter Greene (R-Baton Rouge) did not vote on HB 974 but voted for HB 976.

Both bills have been criticized by newspapers throughout the state, as well as teachers as being too hurried and not well conceived by the administration.

One of the criticisms by proponents and opponents alike is the problem of classroom space for students wishing to transfer from so-called failing schools to charter schools, with tuition being paid by state-funded vouchers.

Another question, raised in the House Education Committee by Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite) was the state’s power to redirect local tax money for purposes other than the uses approved by local voters.

HB 974, by Rep. Stephen Carter (R-Baton Rouge), addressed teacher tenure, pay-for-performance and teacher evaluations. It passed by a vote of 64-40 with Greene not voting.

HB 976, also by Carter, provides vouchers, or to use Gov. Jindal’s terminology, scholarships, for education excellence, allows parents to transfer their children to charter schools and provides for charter school authorizers and course providers. It passed by a 62-43 vote.

Another mostly unspoken criticism of the bills, besides Jindal’s move to fast track them through the legislative process, is that of financial influence, or pressure, from special interests, particularly that of the American Federation of Children (AFC) and its Louisiana affiliate, the Louisiana Federation of Children (LFT).

The LFC recently did an extensive mail-out in House District 72, represented by Edwards in which it accused Edwards of attempting to stymie the education of children in grades K-12.

Additionally, Baton Rouge attorney Bryan Jeansonne, a law partner of Jason Dore, executive director of the Louisiana Republican Party, has submitted a public records request for all email correspondence between Edwards and the Louisiana Federation of Teachers (LFT) or any of its employees, a move that could be construed as intimidation, given Jindal’s propensity to fire or otherwise punish those who disagree with him.

Jeansonne also made a request to the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for a list of all the system’s teachers and home addresses. Edwards said his wife is a teacher and a member of the LFT.

AFC was formerly an organization called All Children Matter and both organizations were and are run by Dick and Betsy DeVos of Michigan. Dick DeVos owns Amway and Betsy DeVos is the former chairperson of the Michigan Republican Party. Her brother, Erik D. Prince, is the founder of Blackwater USA, the private security firm that made international headlines in 2007 when its guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians and then attempted to bribe Iraqi officials to quell criticism of their actions.

In 2006, All Children Matter was fined $5.2 million for funneling campaign money into Ohio through the organization’s various state networks. All Children Matter also was fined for illegal political activity in Wisconsin. A “527” organization, its legal problems prompted a change in name to the American Federation for Children.

Betsy DeVos, writing in an op-ed piece for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, said, “I know a little something about soft money as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return.”

All Children Matter contributed $71,000 to 32 House members between 2007 and 2011, records from the Louisiana Board of Ethics show.

House members who voted for both bills and the amount of contributions received from all sources includes:

• John Berthelot (R-Gonzales), $8,000;

• Christopher Broadwater (R-Hammond), $47,000;

• Timothy Burns (R-Mandeville, $29,500;

• Stephen Carter (Chairman of the House Education Committee and author of House Bills 974 and 976), $24,675;

• Simone Champagne (R-Erath), $45,000;

• Patrick Connick (R-Marrero), $7,500;

• Gregory Cromer (R-Slidell), $13,250;

• Raymond Garofalo (R-Chalmette), $15,000;

• Kenneth Havard (R-Jackson), $35,000;

• Lowell Hazel (R-Pineville, $11,000;

• Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe), $40,500;

• Paul Hollis (R-Covington), $10,000;

• Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles, Speaker of the House), $15,000;

• Nancy Landry (R-Lafayette), $7,000;

• Christopher Leopold (R-Belle Chasse), $7,500;

• Gregory Miller, $17,500;

• Erich Ponti (R-Baton Rouge), $7,000;

• Stephen Pugh (R-Ponchatoula), $6,000;

• Clifton Richardson (R-Baton Rouge), $17,000;

• Joel Robideaux (R-Lafayette), $13,600;

• Clay Schexnayder (R-Sorrento), $27,500;

• Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport), $25,750;

• Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport), $1,500;

• Cameron Henry (R-Metairie), $2,500;

• John Schroder (R-Covington), $4,500;

• Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell), $2,500;

• Nick Lorusso (R-New Orleans), $6,500;

• Anthony Ligi (R-Metairie), $26,700;

• Jack Montoucet (D-Crowley), $6,000;

• Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge), $6,000;

• Austin Badon (D-New Orleans), $4,000;

• Neil Abramson (D-New Orleans), $3,500;

• Steve Pylant (R-Winnsboro), $2,500;

• Walt Leger (D-New Orleans), $3,500;

• Karen St. Germain (D-Plaquemine), $2,500;

• Dorothy Hill (D-Dry Creek), $2,500;

• Andy Anders, $2,000;

• Charles Chaney (R-Rayville), $1,000;

• Ledricka Thierry (D-Opelousas), $500;

• Robert Billiot (D-Westwego), $1,000;

• Frank Howard (R-Many), $1,000;

• Anthony Ligi (R-Metairie), $1,000;

• Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge), $1,000;

• Patrick Jefferson (D-Homer), $1,000.

Greene, who did not vote on HB 974, received $13,000 in contributions from supporters of both bills.

Thibaut, who voted for HB 974 and against 976, received $4,500;

Those receiving contributions from supporters of the bills but who voted no on each included Joseph Harrison (R-Gray), $1,000; Geymann, $6,000, and Morris, $13,750.

Read Full Post »

More of the same: Jindal, ALEC contributions invested in selected House, Senate Retirement Committee members

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Campaign Contributions, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Retirement, Teague on March 20, 2012| 23 Comments »

State employees hoping to avoid Gov. Bobby Jindal’s state retirement reform, aka reverse gang rape, would be wise to contact the Louisiana State Employee Retirement System (LASERS) Member Services Office as quickly as possible.

Jindal, working in lock step with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), is attempting to ram through the ALEC-sponsored retirement reform that could potentially leave many state employees in dire financial straits.

ALEC is a national organization underwritten by dozens of major U.S. corporations, including Koch Industries, which drafts legislation favoring business and industry and passes the proposed legislation along to state lawmakers to take back to their respective legislatures and state assemblies for passage.

One 38-year-old state employee earning $100,000 per year has worked for the state for 15 years and planned on working 15 more years before retiring at approximately $75,000 per year.

Under Jindal’s plan, that employee would only qualify for an annual pension of $17,000 after 30 years, a loss of $58,000 per year, or 77 percent.

Another state employee, 41 years of age with 20 years is presently making $52,000 per year. That employee planned on working another 10 years and retiring at 75 percent of that salary, or $39,000.

That worker is now facing an annual pension of $6,000 after 30 years under Jindal’s plan, a loss of $33,000 per year, or almost 85 percent.

Jindal is seeking an additional 3 percent contribution from state employees but the money would not be used to close the gap on LASER’S unfunded accrued liability (UAL). Nor would it go to increased retirement benefits. Instead, the 3 percent will go directly into the state general fund to help fill holes in Jindal’s budget.

Jindal’s plan also would require state employees to work until age 67 to qualify for full benefits.

Finally, he is seeking to convert from a defined benefits retirement plan to one of defined contributions.

Any one of the three that is subsequently approved by the legislature and signed into law is all but certain to face litigation on the theory—by LASERS officials and courts in Arizona and New Hampshire—that the U.S. Constitution forbids lawmakers from diminishing or impairing a contract.

LASERS contends, and the courts in those two states have agreed, that promises made to employees upon their hire constitute binding contracts and cannot be broken arbitrarily.

State employee morale is at an all-time low, largely due to the policies implemented by Jindal’s minions.

Over at the Department of Health and Hospitals, Carol Steckel, former Commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency, was hired by Jindal to head up health care reform efforts in Louisiana. Her efforts to fire 69 information technology workers and contract their jobs out to the University of New Orleans was thwarted by the Civil Service Commission because commission members did not buy into the rosy numbers she gave them.

Only last week, UNO President Peter Fos said in a letter to DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein that he was disinclined to sign the proposed contract until his concerns “are addressed and resolved to my satisfaction.”

Fos, who is new to the job, obviously does not know how things work in the Jindal administration. Underlings do not question the master; it’s surprising that he has not been Teagued already.

Steckel, who while in Alabama, left out of her budget appropriations for the purchase of artificial limbs for low-income Alabama amputees, saying the funds were optional, not mandatory. She has lost no time in pursuing reprisals against her employees who had the temerity to resist being fired.

The first thing she did was to discontinue flex time, whereby employees had the option of working four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days.

On the heels of that move, she began refusing to grant annual leave to employees.

It is the option of supervisors to grant or refuse annual leave even though it is earned by employees. Generally, the reason for not granting annual leave is that it is essential that the employee be at work on that day.

These, however, are employees she has been trying to fire—the same employees who were blocked out of their computers minutes after being informed in December that they would not have jobs in January and now she says they are needed at their desks. One of the IT workers at DHH has had enough and announced plans to retire.

In other agencies and other offices, state employees who are retirement-eligible are calling LASERS to schedule appointments with LASERS Member Services to plan their exodus from state government.

State Civil Service employees are eligible for retirement after 30 years of service at any age, after 25 years of service at age 55, and after 10 years of service at age 60.

LASERS data show that there are 3,000 rank-and-file employees under the age of 55 but with 25 or more years of service and another 1,100 who are 55 or older with 25 years or more of service.

Moreover, of the 47,000 rank-and-file Civil Service workers, about 9,900, or 21 percent, are eligible for immediate retirement—and they aren’t waiting around for the proverbial shoe to fall.

While it normally requires only a three- to five-week waiting time for an appointment with Member Services, the wait is now about three months—or until late June at the earliest. And as the retirement nightmare approaches reality with the advancement of Jindal’s bills, that line is inevitably going to grow longer and more crowded.

And lest one believes passage of the retirement bills out of the House and Senate retirement committees is not likely, let’s harken back to Rule One:

Follow the money.

Just as in the case of the House and Senate education committees, Jindal has complete control and he is going to go full throttle with his bills through those committees. And the fuel, once again, is money.

Between Jindal and ALEC, a grand total of $182,450 has been invested in 13 members of the two committees.

It turns out Jindal was not running around all over the country raising unnecessary money for a re-election campaign that he already had in the bag; he was fundraising to grease the skids in the Legislature with his own campaign donations.

Illegal? No. Unethical? Probably not. At odds with his squeaky clean public image he so cherishes and burnishes outside the borders of Louisiana? Absolutely.

With that said, let’s take a look at those contributions to select committee members with names of the legislators listed first, followed by the total campaign contributions and the source—Jindal or ALEC corporate members, or both.

House Retirement Committee members:

• Kevin Pearson, Chairman (R-Slidell)—$2500 from Jindal;

• Nick Lorusso, Vice Chairman (R-New Orleans)—$6500 from ALEC corporate members;

• Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe)—$2500 from Jindal, $12,800 from ALEC corporations;

• Anthony Ligi (R-Metairie)—$5000 from Jindal, $20,700 from ALEC corporate members;

• Jack Montoucet (D-Crowley)—$6000 from ALEC corporate members;

• Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport)—$2500 from Jindal, $11,750 from ALEC corporate members;

• Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge)—$5000 from Jindal.

The total for the seven House Education Committee members: $17,500 from Jindal, $57,750 from ALEC corporate members.

Senate Retirement Committee members:

• Elbert Guillory, Chairman (D-Opelousas)—$7500 from Jindal, $45,200 from ALEC corporate members;

• Page Cortez, Vice-Chairman (R-Lafayette)—$2500 from Jindal;

• Conrad Appel (R-Metairie)—$2500 from Jindal;

• A.G. Crowe (R-Pearl River)—$2500 from Jindal, $4500 from ALEC corporate members;

• Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches)—$2500 from Jindal, $35,000 from ALEC corporate members;

• Jonathan Perry (R-Kaplan)—$5000 from Jindal.

The total for the Senate Education Committee members: $22,500 from Jindal, $84,700 from corporate members of ALEC.

Larusso, Hoffmann, Ligi, Montoucet, Seabaugh, Talbot, Crowe and Long are all members of ALEC and the organization paid for travel, registration fees, hotel accommodations and meals for members Hoffman, Seabaugh, Crowe and Long to attend ALEC conferences.

Rule Two: See Rule One.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »