Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Retired state police weigh in on Edmonson Amendment with pair of scathing letters to LSPRS board, Louisiana taxpayers

August 4, 2014 by tomaswell

State Sen. Neil Riser wants it to go away. Boy, does he want it to go away!

Gov. Bobby Jindal and State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson just went away—to Texas, ostensibly to join the Texas National Guard to protect our borders from pre-teen Guatemalan children but perhaps in reality to get away. (But of course with Jindal, it’s difficult to tell; he’s always gone.)

But State Treasurer John Kennedy and blogger C.B. Forgotston won’t let the issue go away and now retired State Police have weighed in on the now infamous Senate Bill 294 amendment, aka the Edmonson Amendment that gave their boss a whopping $55,000 raise in retirement income.

Some observers feel the controversy is dying—as people like Riser and Jindal and Edmonson certainly wish it would—but as long as Forgotston, Kennedy, LouisianaVoice and now the retired state troopers have a voice, there’s no chance the issue will fade away.

It is particularly galling that our governor has left to defend the Texas border from children without ever once opening his mouth to address the bill. It was, after all, Jindal who signed the bill supposedly after his legal counsel Thomas Enright read it, understood the potential long-range impact on the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) and recommended it for signing.

Just as offensive is the continuing silence from members of the LSPRS board, Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego), and House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles). Kleckley, Jindal’s personal puppet in the House, has already declined to investigate the matter on the premise that the amendment was inserted by a senator (Riser). Never mind that three of the six-member Conference Committee that approved the amendment were members of the House. Other than Executive Director Irwin Felps who said the board’s legal counsel is considering its options, not a single member of the board has uttered so much as a single word about the Edmonson Amendment.

Perhaps that’s because the board is dominated by Jindal appointees and Edmonson subordinates. That’s not a conflict of interests, that’s a slam dunk for Edmonson and no one, not one person, has challenged Riser’s integrity on this sleazy attempt at legislative chicanery.

And make no mistake about it; there is no other word for it but chicanery. Otherwise, why was the amendment attached to a bill completely unrelated to retirement (despite those state police talking points LouisianaVoice got through a public records request that claimed the amendment was “germane to the original bill.” We don’t know what parallel universe the author of those talking points resides in, but that claim is pure B.S.

Jindal and Edmonson are preparing to shove eight-year-old Guatemalan children back across the Rio Grande to protect us from the horde of refugees (and there is a distinction between illegal immigrants and refugees; these are refugees from child trafficking and Jindal and his pal Texas Gov. Rick Perry want to send them back to prostitution). Jindal whines the TEA Party mantra that they will overload our public school system.

First of all, when did Jindal suddenly give a damn about our public schools? It was he who told LABI that public school teachers have jobs only by virtue of their being able to breathe. Second, Louisiana currently has a little less than 1,100 of these refugees who have been taken in by Louisiana residents. That’s 17 per parish (approximately 1.5 per grade if they are all old enough to enter first grade). That’s overload? Perhaps only because Jindal has raped the public school systems’ budgets for his precious voucher schools like New Living Word in Ruston. No one complained of overload when the Vietnamese came here to escape war ravaged Vietnam. Nor did anyone protest when Cubans poured onto our shores to get away from Castro half-a-century ago. Indeed, we welcomed them with open arms as we should have.

But we digress.

The retired state troopers have fired off two letters. The first is to the LSPRS board and the second is to you, the citizens of Louisiana who, if you can pull yourselves away from Bachelor in Paradise and LSU preseason reports long enough, can put the kibosh on this irresponsible waste of your taxpayer dollars to benefit Edmonson and, by default, one other trooper. We will take the second letter first:

TO ALL LOUISIANA CITIZENS (Special Attention to Louisiana State Police Retirees)

            SB 294 was originally a bill dealing with Investigation Standards in Law Enforcement, more specifically guidelines for dealing with complaints on officers. It was sent to Conference Committee on the next to last day of the 2014 Legislative Session. The next day, when it came out of Conference Committee, a stealth amendment had been added that provided a large increase (reported from $30,000 to $55,000 additional per year) in the Retirement benefit of State Police Colonel Mike Edmonson. This was accomplished by allowing him to revoke his previously irrevocable decision to enter DROP. This permits him to retire at his current salary of $135,000.00 per year and reportedly collect three years of his current salary upon his retirement.

While the circumstances surrounding the submission and passage of the bill are concerning and somewhat a mystery, what is clear is that the bill is funded from the same funds that provide Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) to State Police Retirees, Surviving Spouses, and Children.

            State Treasurer John Kennedy, a member of the Retirement Board additionally has warned that this Legislation potentially jeopardizes the State’s Bond Rating. The amendment and subsequent law was passed in violation of The State Constitution, Article X, Section 29 which specifies Retirement Legislation has to be advertised before the session, which it wasn’t. The amendment dealing with another matter altogether subjects it to additional Constitutional challenge. Kennedy has called for an investigation and the Retirement Board has hired an outside attorney to review and make recommendations to the Board. The Board is preparing to meet on this, but indications are that they won’t take any action.

            Please let the Board Members know how you feel about this unconstitutional attack on the State Police Retirement System. Also, please call or share with your Legislators, those on your email lists and through Social Media such as Facebook so we may all let the Board Members know we won’t accept this. They need to hear not only from Retirees who will be adversely affected by this, but also by all citizens, who will bear the cost and suffer the negative effects from possible weakening of the Credit Rating of the State. It is important to encourage as many people as possible to contact them to let them know you are watching and expect them to defend the system and members. The State Police Retirees and the People of Louisiana deserve better.

If you’d like to correspond with us, we are at lsp_retirees@cox.net. If you prefer, your communications with us will remain anonymous. LSPRS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Irwin Felps: ifelps@lsprs.org Executive Director Frank Besson: frank.besson@dps.la.gov Chairman Kevin Marcel: kevin.marcel@dps.la.gov Vice Chairman Shirley Bourg: No email available Mike Edmonson: mike.edmonson@dps.la.gov Designee: Charlie Dupuy: charlie.dupuy@dps.la.gov Elbert Guillory: guillorye@legis.la.gov John Kennedy: jkennedy@treasury.state.la.us Designee: Amy Mathews: AMathews@treasury.state.la.us Stephen Lafargue: slafargue1214@gmail.com Kristy Nichols: kristy.nichols@la.gov Designee: Andrea Hubbard: andrea.hubbard@la.gov Thurman Miller: thurman.miller@.la.gov Kevin Pearson: pearsonk@legis.la.gov Bobby Smith: bobby.smith@dps.la.gov

Here is the letter the retired troopers wrote to the LSPRS board:

Open Letter to Louisiana State Police Retirement System Board Members

Re: Emergency Board Meeting to deal with SB 294

Soon, you will be meeting to decide what action is appropriate to deal with the negative impacts to the retirement system and the state bond ratings of SB 294. Although the meeting will be short, the effects of your decisions will be felt for a long time. SB294 was amended in Conference Committee on June 2, 2014, from a bill dealing with investigation standards in law enforcement complaints to a bill making changes to existing retirement law.

The State Constitution, Article X, Section 29 (C) states:

(C) Retirement Systems; Change; Notice. No proposal to effect any change in existing laws or constitutional provisions relating to any retirement system for public employees shall be introduced in the legislature unless notice of intention to introduce the proposal has been published, without cost to the state, in the official state journal on two separate days. The last day of publication shall be at least sixty days before introduction of the bill. The notice shall state the substance of the contemplated law or proposal, and the bill shall contain a recital that the notice has been given.

The final version signed into law had the effect of enabling Colonel Edmonson and one other Trooper to revoke what was heretofore an irrevocable decision for them and many other troopers who retired under those guidelines. Regardless of intent, this law was narrowly written to only apply to two individuals and does not address any others who had already retired within the same original guidelines. Signed by the Governor on June 2, 2014 it became Act 859 of the 2014 regular session.

We call your attention to some things that should guide you in your decision.

For commissioned officers, you took an oath as a Louisiana State Trooper to support the Louisiana Constitution, and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties according to the best of your ability and understanding.

For all trustees, your oath as trustees on the board binds you to fiduciary responsibility and the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics. Here is an excerpt from your handbook:

II. ETHICS

The Louisiana State Police Retirement System trustees shall conform to the standard of ethics as established under the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics (R.S. 42:1101 et seq), and perform all their duties and obligations in accordance with their fiduciary obligations as established under Louisiana law and the standard of conduct for business relations which each trustee shall sign upon taking office.

Be aware, the ethics laws are binding on you personally and your decisions and conduct must conform to these statutes and your fiduciary responsibility. Failure to adhere to these subjects you as an individual to possible civil and/or criminal penalties. We recommend each board member, if you haven’t already; familiarize yourself with these statutes, as they are your protection as long as you abide by them. And lastly, your decision should be based on what is best for the retirement system and those retirees and surviving spouses and children who depend on this board to protect their future. The funding for SB 294/ Act 859 comes from the account used for cost of living adjustments (COLAs) which has a direct negative impact on those retirees, widows/widowers, and children who most need and deserve these increases.

Administrations and people come and go. What we are left with is our Integrity and our Honor. No one can forcibly take those from you; you have to choose to give them up. How you handle this situation will define and follow you. Regardless of all the other issues related to this, your responsibility is to defend the Integrity of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System with fairness and impartiality.

The only course of action that protects the system, its participants, the state, and you as a trustee is to immediately initiate legal action. You must seek to enjoin this unconstitutional and damaging law and further pursue a permanent ruling by the courts to strike this law down on constitutional and dual object grounds.

We request this be provided to each Board Member at the meeting dealing with this issue and that the Board Members affirmatively add this into the regular record and minutes.

Posted in Boards, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, State Police | 7 Comments »

Additional records in Rapides land dispute paint different picture than one depicted in original LouisianaVoice story

August 1, 2014 by tomaswell

There are, unfortunately, times when we believe we have the full story….and don’t. When that occurs, incomplete information often becomes an incomplete—and unfair—story. Such is the case of our July 6 story (since removed) about a land dispute in Rapides Parish. Subsequent to the posting of that story, we have received considerable updated court filings that we were not given for our original story. The most significant of these, in our opinion, is an apparent court agreement between the disputing parties granting the Harrell family complete access to their property with the provision that the Harrells retain a surveyor to provide an accurate legal description of the access road to their property. For reasons known only to the Harrells, the surveyor was never employed.

A second factor concerned the scheduling of the trial “without notification” of the Harrells or their attorney. In fact, we later learned that their Baton Rouge attorney, who has subsequently been suspended by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s disciplinary board for refusing to return another client’s fee, was notified well in advance of the trial date but simply did not show up in court.

We were approached by Mr. Washington and upon his request, we agreed to meet in Opelousas. At that meeting, Mr. Washington provided me with court records he obviously chose to give us, neglecting to provide the full and complete legal records. Those records he provided, which we now know to be the incomplete story, tilted Mr. Washington’s story to his advantage. LouisianaVoice erred in not contacting Mr. Saucier and we erred in casting the judges involved in the court proceedings in a negative light. For this we are deeply sorry. Mr. Saucier, while justifiably upset, has been more than reasonable in his request that we delete the original story and attempt to set the record straight.

The other party to that dispute, Pineville attorney Wilbert Saucier, Jr., wrote the following response which we provide here in full. The references Mr. Saucier makes to the KKK were not ours, but were posted as comments to the original story. As requested by Mr. Saucier, the original story has been removed from our archives. We do not dodge our responsibility to our readers and a large part of that responsibility is a willingness to admit our errors.

Tom Aswell, Editor

Here is Mr. Saucier’s response:

 

“LAND GRAB LIE”

Typically, I would ignore such a preposterous article as is the one you have written about me; however, given Mr. Robert Washington’s statement that he wants to hear my “opinion” on this matter, accompanied by the fact that I have been contacted by dozens of people wondering what in the world I had done, I felt it time to set the record straight. It is amazing to me that you and Mr. Washington would so maliciously misrepresent literally EVERY fact and finding involved in the two cases you referenced.

Dealing with the first case, that in which it was established conclusively that the Harrells were engaged in a pattern of disbursing trash in a manner to pollute my property, I would offer the following: the lawsuit, “Erris-Omega Plantation, Inc. vs. Henry Harrell, et al”, Civil Suit Number 99-404, Pineville City Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana, contains pleadings, evidence and documentation which fully supports my version of events, and destroys the fiction created by Mr. Washington. The truth, something with which you and Mr. Washington are clearly unfamiliar, or just too malicious to acknowledge, is that those Harrells whom were sued were found by overwhelming evidence to have caused damage to my property. The following explains.

In 1994, I acquired the Erris-Omega Plantation, a substantial piece of property which surrounds approximately 61 acres owned by the Harrell Family. Please note: at the time of my acquisition, my property AND the Harrell’s property were already gated and substantially fenced. Various gates were then relocated on my property, with a series of locks installed. Further, my gates were not the only ones through which the Harrells had to pass in order to access their property. The owners of the Harrell property were furnished keys to every gate allowing them complete and unfettered access to their property at no charge, with instructions to simply keep the gates closed and locked upon their ingress and egress. Mr. Washington and you fail to mention those factors.

The 61 acre Harrell property is bordered on Caney Bayou which flows through the Erris-Omega property for several miles. It became noticeable after every rain when the water in Caney Bayou rose, a new deposit of garbage and trash came onto the Erris-Omega property, coming directly from the Harrell property, where a garbage dump was maintained on the bank of Caney Bayou. I retained the services of attorneys Howard Gist, III and George Gaiennie to represent me in this matter. We brought suit against the heirs of Simon and Clara Harrell (19 heirs were named in the suit). This suit was first filed by my attorney in the 9th Judicial District Court, but when it was assigned to Judge Johnson’s division, my attorneys consulted with me about the then existing backlog in his docket and the amount of time it would have taken to adjudicate the issues. Based on their recommendation, the suit was dismissed from district court and re-filed in the Pineville City Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, i.e., a maximum of $15,000, at that time. I knew that I could have received more damages in district court, including from Judge Johnson, but I needed injunctive relief quickly to stop the Harrells from continuing to damage my property. A city court has a much quicker trial docket, and since the property was in Pineville, I was required to use Pineville City Court, in lieu of the Alexandria City Court.

After numerous depositions taken by the attorney for the Harrell family, this matter was scheduled for trial and was tried for 2 days, May 4, 2000, and June 7, 2000. During this trial, my attorney put on testimony from eleven (11) witnesses, seven (7) of which were eyewitnesses to the garbage/trash dump being maintained on the Harrrell property by the Harrell’s. Let me repeat that, seven (7) EYEWITNESSES to the dump! There was eyewitness testimony that Oscar K. Harrell, one of the owners, was conducting a garbage dump on the Harrell property and was seen hauling garbage in on an almost daily basis. There was eyewitness testimony from independent witnesses, a local farmer, and also a timber consultant/contractor who was on the property for a timber survey and harvesting of the Harrells timber. The timber consultant/contractor testified that, from February 1999 to April 1999, there was a significant build-up of garbage on the Harrell property, part of which was SEEN BY THEM and the other eyewitnesses to be transported onto the Erris-Omega property after each and every rain, by way of Caney Bayou. Notably, there was testimony from Mr. Henry Harrell, one of the owners, who ADMITTED to engaging in a clean up operation of the garbage dump on the Harrell property after the lawsuit was filed, with the help and assistance of other family members and friends. Please realize, THIS IS THE GARBAGE DUMP THAT MR. WASHINGTON SAYS NEVER EXISTED.

After the conclusion of the trial and submission of all of the evidence, including photographs, the proof was overwhelming and judgment was rendered in favor of Erris-Omega Plantation for damages in the amount of $15,000, plus costs of court, which included the costs of an expert witness. Importantly, this Judgment also included an injunction against the Harrell heirs: prohibiting them from trespassing on the Erris-Omega property (it had been a problem); enjoining them from depositing trash onto the Erris-Omega property, or onto their 61.67 acres in such a manner that it would migrate onto the Erris-Omega property; and enjoining them from harvesting deer or other wildlife from the Erris-Omega property, including along the levee and roadways located on and owned by Erris-Omega (again, it had been a problem). This Judgment specifically reserved the issue of access to the Harrell property, did not adjudicate same, and reserved all rights of the parties involved as it pertained to access issues. This Judgment can be found in the original suit record, and the detailed testimony of the witnesses is of record.

ANY judge, including Judge Donald Johnson, hearing the evidence of this case would have ruled the same as Judge Phillip Terrell ruled. Notably, any judge who, faced with the overwhelming evidence presented in this case, might have ruled differently, would have been summarily reversed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal! It is important to note that, despite the complaints of Mr. Washington of the injustice and impropriety of the judgment, the Harrells decided to pay the damages rather than appeal the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal. If it was such a travesty, surely they would have had it reversed on appeal, right? Of course not! They were doing wrong, they got caught, they knew it, and they paid the judgment, rather than take what they and their lawyer knew would be a losing appeal. Then, in typical “we’re above the law” fashion that they seem to exhibit, the Harrells attempted to have the ENTIRETY of the Judgment dismissed by paying just the money portion. Remember, the judgment had an injunction against the Harrells to stop the bad acts, so the whole judgment should not have been cancelled. They filed a suit in district court (Civil Suit No. 202628) which was, as Mr. Washington noted, assigned to Judge Johnson. Please feel free to look at the judgment in that suit, because Judge Johnson ruled, as he should have, in MY FAVOR, holding that the cancellation of the judgment was to be a PARTIAL cancellation, only of the money portion, as opposed to the total cancellation which the Harrells sought. That ruling by Judge Johnson was inherently correct, and Mr. Washington’s assertion that Judge Johnson thought there was something untoward about the judgment is, as most of his outrageous assertions, incorrect, preposterous, and malicious. You may be interested to know that the judgment, with its injunctive relief, remains in full force, even today. The cancellation is related only to the money portion. (See: 9th Judicial District Court, Clerk of Court’s Mortgage records, document number 1144725, Mortgage Book 1660, page 0032).

The next case is civil suit number 222,091 filed with the 9th Judicial District Court entitled “Succession of Simon Harrell and Succession of Clara Harrell versus Erris-Omega Plantation, Inc. and Wilbert J. Saucier, Jr. filed in 2005.” IN THIS CASE, THE HARRELL FAMILY FILED SUIT AGAINST ME (just opposite of what you reported). Once again, the records will show that, for years prior to Erris-Omega purchasing the surrounding property, the Harrell’s had to pass through locked gates to get to their property. When I purchased the property in 1994, the locations of the gates were changed and the Harrell’s were given keys to all gates I installed at no charge, they were simply instructed to close and lock my gates on ingress and egress. ALL FENCE AND GATES CONSTRUCTED BY ME WERE BUILT ON THE ERRIS-OMEGA PROPERTY AND NOT ON THE HARRELL PROPERTY. AT NO TIME WERE THE HARRELL’S EVER LOCKED OUT OR FENCED OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY AND AT NO TIME HAD THE HARRELL’S EVER OBTAINED A RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS MY PROPERTY, or any of the other private property they crossed. On September 15, 2005, the Harrell’s chose to file this civil suit against me claiming that they had a right of way and saying that they also wanted injunctions which would make me keep my gates open and essentially asking that the fences on my property which belong to me be taken down. After the suit was answered, the matter proceeded on to trial and in Pre-Trial discussion it was made clear to the Harrell’s and to their attorney, Mr. Gerard Torry, that the Harrell’s had absolutely no right to request that my gates and fence be taken down or left open, leaving essentially the only issue of whether or not the Harrell’s should be granted a right of way across my property. The court record will reflect that I willingly entered into a Stipulation where I agreed to voluntarily grant a right of way to the Harrell’s in the form of a perpetual servitude across my property to theirs, once same was identified by survey as to the exact boundaries that it would cover. The Harrell’s stipulated that they would contract for and pay for the survey. The amount they were to pay for the right of way (which they did not have before and which is done in virtually all servitudes) was to be determined by the court at a later time. (ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LOUISIANA LAW). The Harrell’s through their attorney, Gerard Torry of Baton Rouge, entered into this Stipulation in open court, agreeing to be bound by the agreement. This Stipulation would have ended the matter at that time and would have granted to the Harrell’s perpetual access to their property, with only the court determination of the compensation remaining.

The Harrell’s, when presented with the written documents establishing the right of way agreement, changed their minds and refused to follow through with their agreement which had been stipulated to in open court. At this point, the matter proceeded on to trial. (REMEMBER IT WAS THE HARRELL’S WHO FILED THIS SUIT AND THE HARRELL’S WHO REFUSED TO HONOR THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS STIPULATED TO IN THE RECORD!) A trial date was selected by the court and on the eve of the trial, Mr. Gerard Torry filed an Ex Parte Motion for Continuance. (THERE IS NO PROVISION IN LOUISIANA LAW WHICH ALLOWS AN ATTORNEY TO FILE AND JUST ASSUME THAT HIS EX PARTE CONTINUANCE WILL BE GRANTED. MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCES HAVE TO BE TRIED CONTRADICTORILY WITH BOTH SIDES BEING HEARD, THEN THE COURT DECIDES WHETHER A CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED OR DENIED.) Mr. Torry then failed and refused to appear in court either for the continuance argument or for trial. Not only did Mr. Torry refuse to appear, but the entire Harrell family refused to appear. This matter proceeded to trial as scheduled and the action brought by the Harrell’s was dismissed, with prejudice (for all time). The court records show that not only was Attorney Torry notified of the trial date, but he moved to continue the trial and it was by his own actions of not following up and arguing his position for continuance that caused the dismissal. This matter has been appealed by the Harrell’s to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal and to the Louisiana Supreme Court, both of which ruled in accord with law that the Harrell’s were wrong, and the Judgment is now final. To suggest that I am in cahoots with either the District Court Judge, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court, is utterly ridiculous, but seems to be your thought process and that of Mr. Robert Washington. Your article talks about a “Federal Land and Conveyance Law Reform Act”, which you say went into effect December 1, 2009 and you provide a link to the law which, unlike most of your readers, I accessed. You suggested that this law implicated Judge Randow and me as conspiring on the timing of the judgment. The law you refer to regarding servitudes is a law established in the country of IRELAND! Do you honestly think that Ireland’s law is applicable in Rapides Parish? Further, do you think that I’m in collusion with Judges all the way to the Supreme Court based on Irish law. You sir, apparently have not checked any of the facts. I would at this time request that you disclose the source of your information upon which you relied in printing this libelous blog which you have served to spread all over the state. To write that the Harrell’s enjoyed an unrestricted right of way for some 80 years is preposterous. There were always gates and fences, JUST AS THE HARRELL’S HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY!

Since the rendition of the previous judgment and the denial of supervisory writs by the Louisiana Supreme court which makes the judgment final, Robert Washington, the man you identified as being the spokesman for the Harrell family, personally filed a claim in April of this year saying that by virtue of Article 742 he and his family were entitled to a servitude of right of way. This claim has been summarily dismissed as it has already been fully litigated between the parties. I might add, it was litigated after being raised by the Harrell’s themselves, who refused to accept the stipulated right of way and then refused to appear in court on the trial of their own suit. The Harrell’s have no quarrel here with the legal system. If they feel that they have been misrepresented in any fashion, they need to look elsewhere than the judges and me. The Harrells through their own arrogance have defiantly and proverbially “cut off their noses to spite their faces” and instead of living up to their agreement in the stipulation, they chose to ignore the facts and the law, resulting in a loss of their rights. The Harrell family still owns its 61.67 acres, and neither I nor Erris-Omega Plantation have obtained any rights to this property. TO REFER TO THIS MATTER AS A “LAND GRAB” AS YOU HAVE IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. I have never set foot on the Harrell property. The Harrell’s still have all of the rights that pertain to any landowner as it concerns their 61.67 acres; however, by their own actions, they have precluded themselves from entering onto Erris-Omega property (MY PROPERTY). Further, for Mr. Washington now to make scandalous allegations comparing me and the attorneys who represented me and the Judges involved in both of these cases as “The KKK” is not only slanderous but now libelous and carries with it consequences. By printing Mr. Robert Washington’s assertions that Judge Phillip Terrell or Judge Harry Randow or I did anything wrong or illegal or that any of us are associated with the KKK (I ASSUME HE MEANS THE KU KLUX KLAN) simply illustrates this man’s own bigotry and racism. You, Mr. Robert Washington, and all that have continued to further this ridiculous lying version of these two cases, owe Judge Randow and Judge Phillip Terrell an apology. You, Mr. Aswell, also owe all of us not only an apology, but the obligation of publishing this response and sending it to every link that picked up your “Land Grab” article. Additionally, once we have been given equal internet/air time, you should immediately take the entirety of the matter off of your blog site.

Posted in Politics | 8 Comments »

State Police emails reveal ‘talking points’ for Edmonson Amendment, disdain for LouisianaVoice board coverage

July 31, 2014 by tomaswell

Results from a public records request submitted to the Louisiana State Police by LouisianaVoice for emails related to the now notorious amendment to Senate Bill 294 did not produce any communications between legislators and Superintendent of State Police Mike Edmonson or his staff but a couple of the emails we got did reveal a rather defensive mode on the part of the powers that be at state police headquarters.

Not that we really expected full disclosure in releasing any damning emails in light of the response to a similar public records request by both the House and Senate that public business conducted by the legislature via emails and text messages is none of the public’s business.

Considering the brand of “transparency and openness” exhibited by the Jindal administration and the legislature’s willingness eagerness to roll over and play dead at the governor’s command, we should not have been surprised.

Typical of the attitude of this administration from top to bottom, including the Department of Public Safety and state police, is one particular email from Capt. Jason Starnes of the State Police Operational Development Section to several administrative types, including Edmonson, Ronnie Jones and Edmonson’s Chief of Staff Charles Dupuy on Wednesday, July 16.

The subject line of the email said, “RE: Advocate news story,” but Starnes’s message focused instead to the presence of our reporter Robert Burns at the meeting of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) board which met on Tuesday, July 15, to discuss the ramifications of the SB 294 amendment which was quickly signed into law as Act 859 by Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Burns videotaped that meeting as well as an interview with board member State Treasurer John Kennedy following the meeting and posted both clips online.

“Here is the link to the video footage taken by Mr. Burns (whoever he is, wherever he came from and why he is so concerned about the LSP (Louisiana State Police) retirement system I have no idea),” Starnes wrote (emphasis ours).

So, if we read this correctly, Louisiana taxpayers have no business attending public meetings and have no right to concern themselves with such matters of infinite financial exposure created by subterfuge perpetrated by Edmonson’s staff (so Edmonson claims), a cooperative legislator in the person of Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia), and most likely, a conspiratorial governor whose brilliant idea it was to bump Edmonson’s retirement pay by a cool $55,000 or so a year.

On Tuesday, the day before Starnes expressed his apparent antipathy toward Burns, he authored an earlier email to Dupuy, Jones and State Police Public Affairs Commander Capt. Doug Cain in which he offered suggested talking points regarding the amendment controversy which was beginning to attract widespread media attention.

“Here is a draft of talking points and other legislative precedent,” he said, apparently setting the stage for an intricate misdirection campaign by citing other legislative acts dealing with state police retirement but which were not related to the amendment to SB 294.

“Please let me know if there or (sic) any other points that I failed to include,” he added.

Starnes then proceeded to list his proposed “talking points” which he grouped under specific headings, the first of which was:

What does ACT 859 do?

  • ACT No. 859 provides active members of LSP who entered DROP (before it was repealed in 2009) with an actuarially adjusted longevity retirement benefit when they retire.
  • The member must have been continuously employed since completing the DROP program.
  • The total retirement benefit will be equal to the benefit that such member would have received had he not entered DROP (the key element of the amendment) and cannot exceed 100 percent of the member’s final average annual salary (this corrects an earlier incorrect report that Edmonson would receive 100 percent of his salary plus $30,000 per year).
  • The actuarial cost associated with SB 294 (Act 859; Starnes uses the bill number and act number interchangeably, which could be confusing to some) will be paid from the balance in the Experience Account (Notice there is no mention that the Experience Account is intended to provide cost of living increases for retired troopers and their widows and children.).
  • The legislation does not rescind the DROP decision by the member and does not alter that benefit. This legislation provides for an actuarial adjustment to account for member that has continued to make contributions into the retirement system since completing the DROP program and would otherwise be eligible for full retirement benefit based on their actual years of service (This is where the financial exposure puts the LSPRS—and other state retirement systems—at risk by opening the door for others to sue for the same consideration.).

Legislative precedents

  • 2001—ACT No. 1160 was passed that increased the accrual rate from 2.5 percent to 3.33 percent for all active members of (LSPRS). This legislation was retroactive to date of hire and resulted in numerous members becoming instantly eligible for full retirement benefits. The estimated cost for this benefit was approximately $9.4 million. The ACT (we don’t know why Starnes capitalized “ACT” throughout his email) included those members that (sic) had entered DROP prior to June 30, 2001. This provision provided those members with an adjustment increase to their retirement benefit after entering DROP. (This simply means that instead of computing retirement benefits by multiplying the average salary for a members top three years of earnings by the number of years of service by 2.5 percent—$100,000 X 40 years X 2.5 percent would equal an annual retirement benefit of $100,000 or 100 percent of his/her salary—the years of service would now be multiplied by years of service by 3,33 percent, thus allowing one making $100,000 to retire at 100 percent in 30 years instead of 40—$100,000 X 30 X 3.33 percent. All other state employees’ retirements remain computed at 2.5 percent.).
  • 2003—ACT No. 748 was passed to provide a longevity adjustment to members that had previously entered the DROP program. This adjustment was the greater of a new calculated benefit (per statute) or 20 percent. All members affected by this legislation received a minimum of a 20 percent increase to their retirement benefit. The estimated cost for this benefit was approximately $1.03 million.
  • 2009—ACT No. 480 was passed that eliminated the DROP program and instituted the “Back-DROP” program. This was passed to improve benefits to active members who were required to make retirement decisions prior to necessarily completing their careers with the department. (Note: Edmonson said on the Jim Engster Show that he was forced into DROP. That is incorrect. While members were required to make a decision whether or not to enter DROP, no one was forced to enter the program.). This eliminated members being forced to make retirement decisions that adversely impacted their benefits. Both ACT 1160 and ACT 748 addressed those members in adverse retirement situations.

Notes

  • Act No. 859 simply follows other legislative precedents to address retirement adjustments for members remaining employed with the department following completion of the DROP program. (Well, maybe, but why was it done so surreptitiously? That would seem to be the key question that should be addressed here.).
  • This is an actuarial adjustment that will provide the same benefit as those who received full retirement benefits following the requisite number of years of service (Again, and not to beat a dead horse, Edmonson made a decision that no other employee throughout state government is allowed to revoke, a special benefit extended to him and one other trooper only.).
  • The members affected by the legislation have continued to pay into the retirement system since completed (sic) DROP.
  • Members will not receive more than 100 percent of their final average salary.
  • This legislation will not negatively impact the benefits of any retiree (other than drawing down the Experience Account).
  • There has been clear legislative precedent set to protect and adjust the retirement benefits for those members that (sic) have been negatively impacted by the DROP program (But again, that legislation was done openly, not sneaked in as an amendment to an unrelated bill during the final hectic hours of the legislative session.).
  • Public notice regarding the retirement legislation was published in The Advocate on Jan. 2-3, 2014 (Once again, we have unanswered the question of why then, did it become necessary to do this as a furtive amendment on the last day of the session?).
  • The conference committee report is deemed to be germane to the original bill in that it deals with rights of law enforcement officers which include the rights to retirement benefits per statute (This is the biggest stretch lie of all; the original bill dealt with disciplinary procedures to be used when law enforcement officers are accused of wrongdoing. That’s all. How can a pension amendment affecting only two officers possibly be germane to that?).

There also were copies of a series of email sent back and forth between Edmonson and the governor’s office in an attempt to schedule a last-minute attendance at a Sunday bill signing by Jindal that turned in something of a comedy sketch with Edmonson seeming to lose his patience in the final email.

The five bills all dealt with retirement and were to be signed on Sunday, June 1, that had everyone scrambling to round up warm bodies to attend the signing ceremony.

On Saturday, May 31, at 6:34 p.m., Shannon Bates, deputy communications director for the governor’s office, wrote, “Tomorrow we are having a bill signing ceremony for the retirement reform bill by

(Rep. Joel) Robideaux (R-Lafayette) and the 4 (Sen. Elbert) Guillory (R/D/R-Opelousas) COLA bills,” Bates wrote. “I know that is a Sunday but a lot of stakeholders are able to attend since the lege is in session anyway. Do you know if someone from the State Police system could attend or at least send us a quote for the release? (Nothing like waiting until the last minute to throw things together). We are having problems getting into (sic) touch with them…”

Nine minutes later, Edmonson responded: “Yes we will get somebody there.”

Three minutes following Edmonson’s reply, Shannon wrote, “Thank you – if you could let me know who it is that would be great!”

At 6:52 p.m. Edmonson Chief of Staff Dupuy wrote that he felt TFC Frank Besson, president of the Louisiana State Troopers Association, should accompany Edmonson to the event.

Edmonson, at 7:03 wrote to Dupuy, “He (Besson) needs to call Shannon for a quote.”

“Ok,” replied Dupuy 10 minutes later.

At 7:52, an apparent nervous Edmonson wrote to Besson: “Frank, have you handled?”

“Yes, sir,” answered Besson at 8:14 p.m. “I just spoke with Natalie (no last name available) to get the time, which will be 1:30.”

Edmonson, at 8:20 p.m., wrote to Besson: “Shannon is the contact. Make sure she gets a quote. I will be with you.”

“I’ll send her something tonight,” Besson answered.

At 8:25, Edmonson, apparently by now a little agitated, wrote Besson: “Get with Doug (Cain) and handle now. It should not have taken six emails.”

(Actually, including the emails from Bates, there were 11—eight between Edmonson and his subordinates—but who’s counting?)

Posted in Civil Service, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Media, Public Records, Retirement, State Police | 7 Comments »

Kennedy continues to push for investigation of ‘Edmonson Amendment’ in letter to LSPRS; no pressure to end probe

July 30, 2014 by tomaswell

State Treasurer John Kennedy has sent a second letter to the executive director of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS) to emphasize his wish that a thorough investigation be conducted into the last second amendment to Senate Bill 294 which gave State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson and one other state trooper huge increases in their state police pensions.

Kennedy wrote to Irwin Felps on Tuesday (July 29), saying, “I strongly oppose any delay or discontinuation of the system’s investigation of Act 859.”

SB 294 became Act 859 when Gov. Bobby signed the bill into law soon after it was adopted by the legislature on the last day of the session last month.

At first blush, it would appear that Kennedy might be responding to push back or resistance to a continued investigation but he assured LouisianaVoice that was not the case. “To my knowledge, no one has suggested that we terminate the investigation,” he said. “I just wanted to make certain that the board (the LSPRS board) understands that we still have this law on the books and we need to see what our options are in order to carry out our fiduciary responsibility to protect the system.”

Cynic-in-Chief C.B. Forgotston isn’t convinced. Observing that a majority of the LSPRS board is comprised of those who work directly for or are allied with Edmonson or Jindal, he says that a legal challenge is the only way in which to dispose of the issue once and for all.

Kennedy, in his capacity as state treasurer, is a member of the board and in his letter to Felps, he listed several reasons why he feels the board should continue its investigation to find a solution to the situation that benefits just two state troopers—Superintendent Mike Edmonson and Master Trooper Louis Bourquet of Houma.

Felps, contacted by LouisianaVoice, also said the board plans to move forward with its investigation. “We (the board) will be meeting in a couple of weeks,” he said. “Meanwhile, our legal counsel is considering options open to us in order to determine a course of action.”

Felps also said that attorney Bob Klausner of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, has been retained to serve in an “of counsel” capacity (a term usually applied to an attorney who has been employed to aid in a particular case but who is not the lead attorney).

“He is one of the pre-eminent authorities on pensions and has worked with us in the past,” Felps said.

While the increases to the retirements for the two law enforcement officers are substantial (as much as an additional $55,000 a year in Edmonson’s case before he finally said he would not accept the increased benefits), there may be retired state troopers who, like Edmonson and Bourquet, may have entered the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), thus freezing their retirement benefits only to receive substantial promotions or pay increases which would otherwise have increased their retirements.

Kennedy listed several concerns in his letter:

  • Because the act requires that funding for the benefits would be paid from the LSPRS Experience Account, apparently to avoid increasing our unfunded accrued liability (UAL), it would appear to adversely affect the system’s ability to provide cost of living adjustments for retired members and their families. “This must not be permitted to happen to our current and future retirees and their families,” he said.
  • Should the board delay or terminate the investigation, there is no guarantee that the legislature would adequately repeal the act or even consider it and even if it did, there would be no certainty that the governor would not veto any new legislation enacted to remedy what Kennedy calls a “bad law.”
  • Assuming that Bourquet, like Edmonson, rejects the increase, either or both could change their minds, die or become disabled, either of which would trigger the benefits at such time.
  • It is unclear how a recipient of the increased benefits could effective declare that he will not accept them, which would raise other complicated procedural questions.
  • There are several questions concerning the legality and constitutionality of the amendment to SB 294 which was originally authored by Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans) to deal only with disciplinary procedures when officers are accused of wrongdoing.

The unanimous passage of the amendment has caused a furor over the propriety of such tactics on the last day of the session when both houses are working feverishly to wrap up business before adjournment. As one member who voted for the bill said, “We’re all running around during those final hours trying to get our own bills through conference committee and these things can slip through.”

Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) was a member of the conference committee comprised of three senators and three representatives that recommended passage of the bill. After first denying any knowledge of the amendment, he finally admitted last Friday that he was the one who had the amendment drafted and inserted into the bill.

Because Edmonson appears to be a constant companion of Jindal (he appears in the background in virtually all of the governor’s in-state photo-ops which, granted, are becoming more and more rare because of Jindal’s near constant travels out of state in pursuit of his vanishing presidential aspirations) many legislative observers remain convinced that Riser took the action at the direction of the governor’s office.

That is precisely the kind of back-door deal that Jindal swore he would never tolerate and indeed, would make state government more transparent and accountable. In truth, his every action as governor reveals the lie in that empty promise by Jindal the candidate.

But, after more than six years of his brand of transparency, the real surprise would have been if anyone had been surprised.

And that’s precisely why Forgotston remains unconvinced that anything will get done without a legal challenge to the new law.

“The only issue remaining is who will file the lawsuit,” he said. “The board of LSPRS has the primary fiduciary responsibility to do so. The legislators, especially Senator Neil Riser, have an obligation to the taxpayers to fix the fiscal mess they created.

“The only interest being neglected in this matter is that of us taxpayers.

“It is time for the legislature to join Kennedy and others in calling for LSPRS to litigate SB 294 or to do so themselves.  The taxpayers should not be left holding the bag.”

Even Clancy DuBos, a columnist for New Orleans’ Gambit magazine and WWL-TV has joined the chorus of those demanding a lawsuit to challenge the “Edmonson Amendment.”

http://www.wwltv.com/news/DuBos-Legislature-must-challenge-state-police-chiefs-secret-raise-269100661.html?ref=prev

To read the entire text of Kennedy’s letter, go here:

Treasurer Kennedy Letter to State Police Retirement 07 29 2014

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, State Police | 5 Comments »

Drip….Drip….Drip….DROP

July 29, 2014 by tomaswell

By Stephen Winham

I was among a distinct minority of people in state government who thought adding DROP to our state retirement systems was a bad idea for the state from the outset. It clearly provided a good benefit for employees at a time when state salaries were not nearly so generous as today, but I was concerned about the real costs, not just to retirement systems, but to agencies’ active payrolls. I was also concerned about real and perceived inequities resulting from employees making decisions they would later regret. In my opinion, the existence of DROP in state retirement systems has generally failed to benefit the state financially or otherwise – And I find the whole concept of “Back DROP”, the State Police Retirement System option recently publicized in conjunction with the controversy over SB 294 of 2014, ridiculous on its face.

DROP for our state retirement systems seemed to at least have sensible goals when originally implemented and estimating the fiscal impact seemed relatively easy for an actuary. Simply put, an employee, who would otherwise be entitled to retire, continued working and drawing a pay check. The amount that would have been paid the retired employee in monthly retirement checks was frozen at that level and went into a DROP account each month while the employee continued to draw a salary. The employee did not have to make contributions to his/her retirement system while in DROP, so s/he got an immediate increase in net pay and could continue to get raises, though they would not increase the retirement benefit amount. When the employee actually retired s/he could get the balance in the DROP account and begin to receive monthly retirement checks.

DROP was sold as a way to retain experienced employees for a period of time beyond when they might otherwise actually retire by providing them with an additional incentive. It was also supposed to accomplish the almost contradictory goal of encouraging higher paid employees to actually retire at the end of DROP participation. This would reduce the amount of money necessary for salaries overall and/or create additional promotional opportunities and openings for other employees.

So, DROP was viewed by most as a simple, predictable benefit for both the state and its employees. But, guess what?   It has rarely worked that way and the reality of the way it does work begs the following questions:

  • How many people who participate in DROP would have really retired, when eligible, in its absence? Based on experience, the answer is very few. Therefore, the major ostensible advantage of DROP to the state, retention of experienced employees, would not seem to have actually been a state issue.
  • How many state employees with retirement eligibility are indispensable? Again, my answer would be very few. A significant percentage of indispensable employees would indicate gross understaffing, poor management planning, or both.
  • How many people who enter DROP actually retire at the end of DROP participation? My guess, again based on experience, would be significantly fewer than originally projected.

Because employees can come out of DROP and continue to work without skipping a beat, any expected salaries savings can evaporate quickly. In fact, high salaried people not already eligible for the absolute maximum in retirement benefits often continue to work an additional minimum of 3 years so they can start to accrue additional benefits to be paid as supplements to their “frozen” regular retirement checks. So, ultimate liabilities of the retirement systems are harder to project and salaries on the active payroll are often higher than they would have been otherwise.

The new option Colonel Mike Edmonson apparently wanted to take advantage of via SB 294 only exists in the State Police Retirement System and is called “Back DROP”. I had never heard of this before and still find it hard to believe it exists and was actually recommended by an actuary. It does absolutely nothing DROP was intended to do except encourage some people to simply work longer.

If I understand it correctly, under “Back DROP” the employee starts thinking about retiring and how to game the retirement system to his/her best financial advantage. As retirement eligibility approaches, s/he gets the system to run numbers so s/he can make the best choice when s/he actually retires between the following:

1. Pretending s/he entered DROP up to 3 years ago (going back to the future, in other words); or

2. Getting a lifetime benefit based on the highest average salary

Does that sound anything like DROP to you? Me, neither. It sounds like having your cake and eating it, too. Those eligible can’t possibly make the wrong decision – for them – and no pesky actuarial reductions in benefits like the Initial Benefit Option (IBO) that is available to all retirees.

Go to the following link, scroll down to “BACK DROP Plan – Only for Members Eligible for DROP after 10/01/2009” and see how you interpret the option: http://lsprs.org/retirement/options/

Now, think about it. How is it possible to get in the ballpark of figuring out how to adequately fund a benefit that doesn’t actually defer anything and lets those eligible choose the best option for them at the last possible moment?   How must the thousands of people who retired under regular DROP plans in all state retirement systems feel about the ability of anybody else to have this open-ended option?

Our retirement systems have total unfunded accrued liabilities of some $19 Billion. These liabilities did not crop up overnight but must, under existing law, be liquidated by 2029. How can any legislative action that extends state retirement benefits to those not previously eligible for them possibly do anything to help address this problem?

As Everett Dirksen said, “A million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” In Louisiana, we don’t seem to get the simple truth of that, and not just in our retirement policies.

Posted in Budget, Civil Service, Ethics, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, Revenue | 8 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »