Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

July 16, 2014 by tomaswell

“What about all the other troopers who retired under the old system?  If Edmonson and the Houma guy are the only ones left on the payroll, what about the ones who already retired?  Shouldn’t they now sue for equal treatment?  I wonder what that would cost?  A lot more than the minimum of $300,000 this bill will cost.”

—State retiree who possesses considerable knowledge of state fiscal matters, commenting on the amendment to Senate Bill 294 that gives State Police Commander Mike Edmonson an extra $30,000 in addition to his earned $134,000 retirement.

Posted in Auditor, Exemptions, Incentives, House, Senate, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, Notable Quotables, State Police | 4 Comments »

Amendment giving State Police Commander Edmonson extra $30,000 retirement could spark lawsuit by retired trooper(s)

July 16, 2014 by tomaswell

State Police Commander Col. Mike Edmonson has been rumored to be priming himself for a run at public office and his latest “Who, me?” pronouncements would seem to indicate that he’s finally ready for the big jump.

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Retired Troopers Association is not happy and appears ready to leap into the controversy surrounding a special amendment giving Edmonson and one other state trooper hefty retirement benefit increases.

Edmonson says he is not getting special treatment, that he did not seek nor was he aware of the $30,000 a year retirement bump he got from an amendment sneaked into an otherwise nondescript bill on the final day of the session.

So, here’s the deal: everyone in the room who believes Edmonson please line up against the opposite wall. Now. Go ahead. Don’t be shy. We’re waiting. C’mon, people…

All right, let’s try a different tactic: everyone who does not believe his tooth fairy story, please leave the roo….Hey! Whoa! Not so fast! Someone’s gonna get hurt!

Edmonson also says that he and a Houma-based state trooper are the last holdovers from a defunct retirement plan and that the amendment allows them to retire in the current State Police Retirement System.

Are we to believe, then, you would have had no pension whatsoever had this amendment not been slipped in? Seriously?

Forgive our skepticism, Colonel, but that seems something of a stretch. First you deny knowledge of the amendment and then you go to great lengths to defend it.

Such self-serving denials/non-answers (bureaucratic two-steps) round out the qualifications for political office for Edmonson who, before moving upstairs to shadow Gov. Bobby Jindal for all those photo-ops, spent much of his career on the sidelines of LSU football games protecting the Tiger head coaches from…what, Hostile fans? Groupies? Reporters?

So now, as the State Police Retirement System staff prepares to take up this issue today at 1:30 p.m., the Retired Louisiana State Police Communication Network is abuzz about the sneaky way in which the amendment was tacked on by the Legislative Conference Committee on the last day of the session.

Word is there are retired state troopers scattered across the state who are not at all happy with the news that Edmonson, in addition to 100 percent retirement (his salary is $134,000 per year), based on more than 30 years of service, he also now becomes eligible for longevity benefits and the three Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) years, boosting his retirement income another $30,000 per year over and above the amount at which he qualified at the rank of captain when he entered DROP.

And if anyone was of a mind to file a lawsuit to halt the special treatment of Edmonson, any retired state trooper would have sufficient legal standing to do so.

The actuarial notes prepared by the Actuarial Services Department of the Legislative Auditor’s office, calculate a fiscal impact on the retirement system of $300,000 but that’s only over a five-year stretch because that’s as far out as the notes may project. That calculates to $30,000 per year for each of the two troopers.

We can only speculate, of course, but it seems reasonable to assume the two will live more than five years beyond their retirement, which of course, will only add to the cost.

(The actuarial notes, by the way, were prepared on June 5, three days after the legislature adjourned, which gives us some idea of the surprise element involved with this amendment.)

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=913382

But back to those disgruntled retired state troopers: What might it cost the state if a retired trooper—or several retirees—got their backs up sufficiently to file suit?

While it might be a windfall to Jimmy Faircloth, it also might cost the state a lot more to defend the action than the $300,000, especially if the state should lose as it very well could. Such a lawsuit, after all, would be about fair and equal treatment.

One observer in a position to know said fiscal notes are required for bills affecting a pension plan’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL). “I don’t imagine one was prepared for this bill, but somebody knows what it will cost and the law requires any acts with the effect of increasing the UAL to have to be funded so that they don’t (affect the UAL).”

State Sen. Jean Paul Morrell (D-New Orleans), who submitted the bill, said it was intended to address routine changes in the law governing police officers under investigation and had nothing to do with retirement benefits. He said he was unaware of the impact of the amendment, a claim that most of the legislators who voted for the bill can probably make with a high degree of honesty considering the last minute crush of business in the session final days.

“Assuming Morrell is not lying,” our observer said, “I read into this…that Edmonson himself got him (Morrell) to do this amendment (after) having been tipped to its enrichment potential for him.”

Thus far not mentioned in all of this, but something that should certainly be considered:

How can Edmonson, after this furtive move and his lame denials, realistically expect the men and women under his command to continue to respect him as a leader?

Posted in Auditor, Ethics, Exemptions, Incentives, House, Senate, Lawsuits, Legislature, Legislators, State Police | 15 Comments »

Alternative fuel tax credit just won’t go away; Tax Appeals Board has 700 appeals pending; potential $2.1 million cost

July 15, 2014 by tomaswell

Remember the Ted Mack Amateur Hour on the old DuMont television network?

If not, don’t worry. Now that the administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal is more than six years into its very own amateur show, it’s doubtful that even the most nostalgic among us would prefer watch those old grainy black and white, out of focus shows.

Not when you have this bunch bumbling and stumbling through botched polices in health care, education, environmental matters (remember those $250 million sand berms Jindal insisted on during the BP spill, the ones that washed away before they could even be completed?). And then there have been questionable contracts and one fiscal disaster after another as Jindal attempts each year to patch together the state’s operating budget with Bond-O and duct tape.

Ah, yes, those fiscal snafus.

And now there may be another looming on the horizon though granted, it probably won’t be on the magnitude of a quarter-billion dollar disappearing berm in the Gulf of Mexico or the massive budget cuts inflicted on higher education.

But it could turn into another of those pesky problems that Jindal just does not seem to be capable of handling. He reminds us of actor Chevy Chase, master of the pratfall where he just keeps falling and falling, wrecking everything in his path.

Remember when the alternative fuel tax rebate enacted by the legislature and signed by Jindal in 2009 went into effect two years ago this month?

When the bill was passed and signed as Act 469 of 2009, it was to give tax credits to purchasers of vehicles which used alternative fuels such as propane, butane and electricity and was projected to cost the state $900,000 over five years.

But then the flex fuel vehicles began hitting the market, catching everyone unprepared for the onslaught of buyers seeking the tax credits and the cost suddenly mushroomed to $100 million. When the true impact of the new law became apparent, Jindal immediately rescinded the act but not before 5,456 returns had been received by the Department of Revenue claiming total tax credits of a tad north of $18 million. Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego), who owns a tax preparation service, filed stacks of applications on behalf of his clients—without, of course, informing the administration of the financial consequences.

Another senator alerted Alario to the potential problem—after purchasing a vehicle and claiming his own tax credit—but neither informed Jindal. And neither did Rep. Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee—not even after he had filed for the $3,000 tax credit on each of the two vehicles he purchased.

The administration, in finally awakening from its apparent slumber and during one of the few days Jindal was vacationing in Louisiana, voided the law and announced that any new car buyer who had already submitted his or her application to the state would receive the maximum allowable tax credit up to $3,000 but subsequent purchasers would not be eligible.

And therein lies the problem.

The Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals, an independent quasi-judicial entity comprised of three attorneys who are tax law experts who must decide on the merits of appeals, currently has 700 appeals from car buyers who were denied the tax credit.

If all 700 applicants were to be approved for the $3,000 tax credit, the state would be on the hook for $2.1 million.

The next scheduled meeting of the board is in August, though the date was not available because the board’s web page has not been updated since 2013.

Posted in Boards, Budget, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Taxes | 4 Comments »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

July 15, 2014 by tomaswell

“The legislative process is often compared to watching sausage being made. That is meant to convey the idea that the process is ugly, but the end product is worth it. In this case, even the end product is horrible.”

—King of the Subversive Bloggers C.B. Forgotston, commenting on an amendment to a Senate bill on the final day of the recent legislative session that sneaked in a provision awarding State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson with an additional $30,000 per year on top of his already 100 percent retirement. 

Posted in Civil Service, Ethics, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Notable Quotables, Retirement | Leave a Comment »

State Police Retirement System to discuss ‘Edmonson Retirement Bill’ during its Wednesday staff meeting

July 15, 2014 by tomaswell

Apparently our story about the furtive amendment that boosted State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson’s retirement by a whopping $30,000 a year (note: that’s a $30,000 increase; most state retirees don’t even make $30,000) got the attention of the Louisiana State Police Retirement System (LSPRS).

Our friend over in Hammond, C.B. Forgotston, the “King of the Subversive Bloggers,” according to Baton Rouge Advocate columnist James Gill (a pretty fair political observer and writer in his own right), sent us a memorandum that went out to LSPRS staff members by Assistant Director Kimberly Gann.

Forgotston also forwarded information listing additional perks enjoyed by Edmonson as well as calculations of what his retirement income will be, thanks to the amendment tacked onto SB 294 on the last day of the recent legislative session.

Forgotston (don’t let the name fool you; he rarely forgets anything), an attorney who previously worked for the Legislature, also said the amendment by the Legislative Conference Committee to the bill that became Act 859 when it was signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal “violates at least five provisions of the State Constitution.”

“We were notified yesterday than an article was written about a piece of retirement legislation that passed the legislature,” Gann said in her e-mail. “Irwin (LSPRS Executive Director Irwin L. Felps, Jr.) wanted you to know about the article and have an opportunity read it. Please let us know if you have any questions. We will discuss this at the meeting on Wednesday (July 16).”

While the copy of Gann’s e-mail provided by Forgotston did not contain the names of the addressees, the message is presumed to have been sent to retirement system staff members. They include Retirement Benefits Analyst Tausha E. Facundus, Administrative Assistant Shelley S. CPA Stephen M. Griffin, accountant Kristin Leto.

Edmonson, upon his appointment, sold his home and he and his family moved into the “Colonel’s Home” on the Department of Public Safety campus which is also equipped to be the governor’s “Safe House” and command center for disaster relief.

That means he is residing in a four-bedroom, four-bath home completely furnished by the state. And because he has worked more than 30 years at retirement calculated at 3.3 percent per year based on his highest three years of earnings, he would already be eligible for retirement income of 100 percent of his salary. By adding the additional years above 30 (he has worked 34 years) and the three Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) years, he will not only receive the full $134,000 (100 per cent of his salary), but an additional $30,000 per year when he retires.

The amendment allowed Edmonson to revoke an otherwise irrevocable decision to enter DROP, which allows his retirement to be calculated on his higher salary and to add years of service and longevity pay.

Forgotston, in listing the constitutional violations of the bill amendment giving Edmonson the $30,000 retirement increase, cited each section of the State Constitution he said the amendment violated. They are:

  • It was not introduced 45 days prior to the opening day of the 2014 Regular Session. (La. Const. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph (2)(c));
  • It was not advertised prior to being introduced. (La. Const. Article X, Section 29C);
  • It does not contain a recitation that it was advertised. (La. Const. Article X, Section 29C);
  • As amended contains two objects. (La. Const. Article III, Section 15, Paragraph A);
  • Language to provide the extra benefits is not germane to bill as introduced. (La. Const. Article III, Section 15, Paragraph C).

“The legislative process is often compared to watching sausage being made,” Forgotston said. “That is meant to convey the idea that the process is ugly, but the end product is worth it. In this case, even the end product is horrible. This is the type of legislation that is referred to by insiders as ‘snakes’ that crawl out in the last days of a session. For most, snake is much less appetizing than sausage.”

Forgotston said there “are only two ways to prevent these unconstitutional benefits from being paid and (to restore) integrity to the legislative process:

“The head of the State Police (Edmonson) can refuse the benefits or by someone filing a lawsuit,” he said, adding that the six members of the Conference Committee should initiate such litigation.

Forgotston can be quite cantankerous—and clever—when he wants to be, which is most of the time, and this action is no different.

He suggests that if readers who know an active or retired member of the Louisiana State Police, “Please pass this (information) onto them.”

He also listed the names and e-mail addresses of the six members of the Legislative Conference Committee who approved the action which has been denied to many others making similar requests in recent years:

Rep. Bryan Adams: badams@legis.la.gov

Rep. Jeff Arnold: larep102@legis.la.gov

Rep. Walt Leger: wleger@legis.la.gov

Sen. J.P. Morrell: jpmorrell@legis.la.gov

Sen. Neil Riser: nriser@legis.la.gov

Sen. Mike Walsworth: mwalsworth@legis.la.gov

 

Posted in Ethics, Exemptions, Incentives, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement, State Police, Transparency | 7 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »