DID YOU KNOW?
HB 699 by Rep. Billy Montgomery’s would permit telephone companies to offer cable services. Amendments proposed to the House Commerce Committee stripped out many features that had brought the objections of local governments, as the bill originally would have granted a statewide franchise regulated by a statewide board. The franchise fee would be the same to new entrants to the business under the bill as under existing contracts.
The amendment that sparked the most discussion was one that exempted pre-1974 Constitution home rule charter entities, although they could elect to be governed by the proposed statute. This was necessary because of legal niceties.
Rep. Tank Powell brought up the issue about what companies would be obligated to do regarding right-aways, and was assured they could not do what they please. With that, the amendments were adopted unanimously.
Montgomery explained the changes to the bill would satisfy some questions of local governments, but that nothing could satisfy the cable companies who wished to keep monopolies. He said this bill, which would open up competition, was the bill he had introduced in his entire career that was the most consumer-oriented. He pointed out that cable companies were able to get into other lines of business, but they continued to try to keep others out of the cable business. He also said the bill would force greater transparency in what fees and how much were being paid to whom.
The bill would have other providers able to obtain a statewide franchise that would then allow them to channel franchise fees to local governments. In fact, they could offer channels on demand, but also would carry state and local government-mandated channels.
Rep. Chuck Kleckley asked how complaints could get resolved, without a local franchise to contact through local government. Montgomery pointed out that increased competition should make for more responsive providers that make for better service. Indeed, better oversight would occur because, at this time, satellite providers operated without any oversight through franchise agreements, or payments to government He said after Texas had done this, satellite share of the market had gone down. Kleckley wondered about rural provision; Montgomery said since broadband service is far-reaching, most areas could be served, some where cable does not.
Rep. Bodi White observed it would take awhile for the infrastructure to come about to provide the service. However, it was pointed out, that the infrastructure would come quicker under the incentives provided by the bill. Rep. Gary Smith said the lines would have to exist, but that nothing was going to force their building. Again, with the ability to deliver into areas of potential profit, the rollout of this service should increase as market strength demanded.
Rep. Diane Winston said the bill did not have a “buildout” procedure, meaning providers were forced to provide to areas designated by local governments that did not have it. She also mentioned the lack of basic standards for customer service. Testifiers pointed out that some federal standards would still apply, and that competition would spur good service and “buildup” when profitable. She also said local governments might see a loss of revenue, because often beyond the basic required federal franchise fee some franchisees will pay local governments more – although Montgomery pointed out that amount gets transferred to consumers.
Rep. Roy Burrell wondered whether the investment into the market might discourage new entrants, as in some places it could be considerable. Reps. Don Trahan and Mickey Frith also brought up rural provision; Montgomery said the bill would improve chances of rural provision.
Opponents said required buildout was a desirable feature not guaranteed under this bill. They also said they could compete under the law now, but would have to go through the individual franchise agreements which would have greater local control; this bill would get around that through the statewide franchise. Perhaps, they said, the phone companies interested could commit right now to do this and provided the materials to do so; otherwise, they claimed there would be two sets of rules that might make things unfair or confusing. They said this was asking for special privileges, while other small companies were trying to compete under the current system.
Frith did offer as a substitute the language suggested by opponents, but they committee rejected the idea. Committee members were a bit taken aback at the abruptness of the offer and did not want to commit to it on such short notice.
Powell asked whether exclusive franchises can be granted, and was told they could not be, and the reason why that other firms did not enter markets was because of the startup costs. Kleckley asked the same question a different way about why should this bill be supported, and opponents said it was part of a larger national strategy to consolidate regulation in then field, giving an advantage because the same local standards would not be required of them, in terms of buildout and customer service. They also said that by allowing state franchise, in essence it would put state control over right-aways.
Rep. Mike Walsworth asked whether if a new entrant agreed to everything in a contract, they could come right in. Opponents said it did not have to be similar, but it always negotiated on a provider-by-provider basis. Walsworth did get opponents to admit that a local government could refuse to negotiate with a provider. Strain asked why the process couldn’t be reversed; opponents said the law could not make existing contracts null and void and some are to last decades.
Opponents also found fault with specific provisions about channel provision, and claimed the definition of “gross revenue” could be legally defined as coming from internet service and therefore would not owe fees. They kept harping that this was a bill to aid AT&T only (which is in negotiation to buy the provider of most phone service in the state, BellSouth).
Closing, Montgomery pointed out existing contracts allowed free reign to franchisees to charge what they want, and that greater competition would help to hold those prices down. The bill passed 13-5.
WEDNESDAY: HB 582 is scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee; SB 537 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
They are Hitler when it comes to the cable business.
Montgomery, referring to Cox Cable.
09 May 2006
08 May 2006
Committee action, May 8: SB 474
DID YOU KNOW?
After taking the morning off for Democrats to raise campaign bucks, Senate committees began meeting in the afternoon. SB 474 would bring some sanity to the capital outlay budgeting process. Sen. Robert Adley’s bill would take the five existing priority categories involved currently in ranking projects, which basically are meaningless, and make them into two. This would mirror the reality of the present situation, where placement in either of two categories means immediate of likely future funding, while placement in any of the other three mean these projects unlikely will receive funding any time soon, if at all.
Naturally, the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee began to offer alternatives. One suggestion was to create three categories, to distinguish among money for planning and preliminaries, actual spending, and future spending. Another was that the whole matter ought to be studied some more. Finally, Adley responded by arguing any action was better that keeping the current system.
That seemed to satisfy everybody, who unanimously approved favorable adoption as it is.
TUESDAY: HB 385 is scheduled to be heard by the House Commerce Committee; SB 645 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary A Committee; HB 760 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Sen. Adley, do you see the kinds of bills you need to handle?
Senate President Don Hines, when a bill he was introducing sailed right through the committee without any comment, after Adley’s extended efforts regarding SB 474.
After taking the morning off for Democrats to raise campaign bucks, Senate committees began meeting in the afternoon. SB 474 would bring some sanity to the capital outlay budgeting process. Sen. Robert Adley’s bill would take the five existing priority categories involved currently in ranking projects, which basically are meaningless, and make them into two. This would mirror the reality of the present situation, where placement in either of two categories means immediate of likely future funding, while placement in any of the other three mean these projects unlikely will receive funding any time soon, if at all.
Naturally, the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee began to offer alternatives. One suggestion was to create three categories, to distinguish among money for planning and preliminaries, actual spending, and future spending. Another was that the whole matter ought to be studied some more. Finally, Adley responded by arguing any action was better that keeping the current system.
That seemed to satisfy everybody, who unanimously approved favorable adoption as it is.
TUESDAY: HB 385 is scheduled to be heard by the House Commerce Committee; SB 645 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary A Committee; HB 760 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Sen. Adley, do you see the kinds of bills you need to handle?
Senate President Don Hines, when a bill he was introducing sailed right through the committee without any comment, after Adley’s extended efforts regarding SB 474.
06 May 2006
Legislative regular session through May 5
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 331 was reported favorably by committee; HB 604 passed House; HB 815 with minor amendments passed House; HB 1260 was reported favorably by committee; SB 1 with major amendments passed House committee; SB 526 with minor amendments was reported favorably; SB 669 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 681 was reported favorably by committee.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 126 was reported favorably by committee; HB 853 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 693 passed Senate.
MONDAY: SB 700 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.
SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)
Total House introductions: 1374; total Senate introductions: 745.
Total House good bills: 30; total Senate good bills: 18.
Total House bad bills: 18; total Senate bad bills: 19.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 36; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 15.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 19.
Total House good bills passing committee: 9; total Senate good bills passing committee: 11.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 4; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5
Total House good bills passing House: 7; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5
Total House bad bills passing House: 0; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 1
Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 0
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1
Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 126 was reported favorably by committee; HB 853 with minor amendments was reported favorably by committee; SB 693 passed Senate.
MONDAY: SB 700 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee.
SCORECARD:
(Again, a reminder: some numbers will fluctuate because of similar bills being heard, which may make their numbers higher than the numbers listed as “good” or “bad” introduced. If more than one similar bill makes progress, all will be recorded. However, if any ever become legislation, there should be no duplication; only the fate of one of them would be reflected at the end. Also recall that the number of introduced bills will inch up as substitutes are declared of bills that did get filed before the filing deadline.)
Total House introductions: 1374; total Senate introductions: 745.
Total House good bills: 30; total Senate good bills: 18.
Total House bad bills: 18; total Senate bad bills: 19.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 36; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 15.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 11; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 19.
Total House good bills passing committee: 9; total Senate good bills passing committee: 11.
Total House bad bills passing committee: 4; total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5
Total House good bills passing House: 7; total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5
Total House bad bills passing House: 0; total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 1
Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 0
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills passing House committee: 1
Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 0
03 May 2006
Committee action, May 3: SB 434, SB 438, SB 602, HB 428, HB 461, HB 853, HB 1176, HB 1197, HB 1236
DID YOU KNOW?
In the Senate’s Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee, SB 438 by Sen. Cleo Fields would regulate certain financial charges rendered in home lending, capping fees. Sen. Ann Duplessis pointed out that many fees were part of the normal business of lending, beyond the control of the lender. Fields said these circumstances were rare but that something needed to be done. “There are a lot of folks out there who are predators.” But Duplessis did not think the bill was tailored well enough to accomplish that without undesirable spillover effects.
With that, Fields asked for deferral, as well as for a similar bill SB 434 which would do the same in area of “pay day” loans.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 602 by Sen. Edward Murray would allow Orleans Parish to slap fees onto landline telephones to fund recovery cost to rebuild an emergency operations center for Orleans. Duplessis wanted to know why no insurance had been purchased for the equipment, which would cost $2.5 million. The bill also asked for $3.5 million more for a new building. Duplessis said the bill was more than recovery, its indefinite nature seemed to make it a permanent thing. She also Sen. Mike Smith said the matter was getting too complicated and there should be a deferral. Sen. Francis Heitmeier pointed out without this money that emergency operations would be severely crippled.
Then the discussion had to close, because Chairman Ken Hollis noticed a quorum was absent, so the bill, already once deferred, was not dealt with.
DID YOU KNOW?
In the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, HB 1236 by Rep. Mike Walsworth, presented by Treasurer John Kennedy and staff, would prohibit an elected official or member of his immediate family or entity in which any of them have a substantial economic interest from seeking or entering into any contracts arising from a gubernatorially or presidentially declared disaster. This would include children, spouses of them, siblings, their spouses, and spouses and their parents. Amendments would add appointed officials and their immediate family members and would not apply retroactively and such contracts would be renewable. They were accepted.
Then Rep. Peppi Bruneau asked essentially to gut the renewable feature of the amendment, which was unanimously adopted. So was the bill.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 428 by Rep. Jim Tucker would limit statewide elected officials to three consecutive terms. Bruneau thought term limits in general were a bad idea where power did not accumulate, but Tucker pointed out that in narrow policy areas these offices, such as insurance, this could happen. Tucker also said consistency in all state offices was desirable, to equalize power between executive offices and a term-limited Legislature.
After a motion to defer failed 5-5, the motion to report favorably also failed 5-5. Reps. Jeff Arnold, Juan LaFonta, Billy Montgomery, Loulan Pitre, and Mert Smiley voted to pass it, while Reps. Bruneau, Rick Gallot, Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, Charmaine Marchand, and Charlie Lancaster voted it down.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 1176 by Rep. Tank Powell would make campaign contributions from certain affected parties in the area of insurance to candidates for insurance commissioner. Lancaster pointed out that the bill seemed to apply retroactively when, by all appearances, a current contest was going on. Thus, a motion was made was made to make it go effective with the governor’s signature. That and a motion to report favorably passed unanimously.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 461 by Rep. Troy Hebert would move up the dates that the Legislature convenes. He noted Louisiana’s goes into session later than most states which comes close to the end of the fiscal year. Arnold said Carnival would be impacted, but Hebert said mechanisms existed to give them a few days off around then. LaFonta said the summer was busier for some professions, plus family vacations would be facilitated. Lancaster recommended making the effective date starting for the next Legislature. Bruneau, however, thought the dates in the bill (early January or February) might now be too early. Lancaster argued that if other states do it, then they must be able to overcome this problem. With this change, the bill passed.
DID YOU KNOW?
Hebert also with his HB 1197 wanted to cap the amount of money a candidate could loan himself in a campaign. Montgomery argued that the levels still were too high because wealthier people could still loan themselves a lot and be advantaged.
However, Bruneau said first-time candidates might be disadvantaged, even at higher levels. “This bill will have a chilling effect on challengers,” he argued. But Hebert said it was important to prevent winners from leveraging their offices to pay themselves back, advantaging wealthier candidates. “Consider that chilling effect.” The point was there is a difference between giving your campaign money which you can’t get back, and lending yourself money which you can. LaFonta said this bill might hurt those who do not get the support of wealthier interests. Pitre echoed the comment, saying less-wealthy candidates would be less likely to risk assets if they had to give rather than borrow.
With that, Hebert decided discretion was the better part of valor and decided to voluntarily defer it.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 853 by LaFonta would prohibit the state from harassing or discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation, or disabilities against any individual in any manner pertaining to employment or in the provision of any service or benefit. Of course, the “sexual orientation” clause drew all of the commentary.
LaFonta argued the measure simply was fair, and that codifying made sense since it already was an executive order. But opponents argued this might make more acceptable homosexual activities in the workplace, because codifying it would connote acceptability and make it more difficult to prohibit. Indeed, to codify this provision into law would have a chilling effect of arguments against the behavior, actually empowering those who were supposedly being discriminated against. They also argued this would permit greater legal attacks on nonprofit organizations that, on principle, oppose homosexual behavior. The moral approval that the bill would grant to homosexual acts would have a ripple effect in other areas of society to make such activities, such as with minors, more acceptable, as well as generally degrade the moral fabric of society, they said.
When a motion to report favorably was made, all of the panel’s Democrats supported it, except for the absent Montgomery, plus Pitre, while the other three Republicans did not, letting it advance 6-3.
THURSDAY: HB 1260 is scheduled to be heard by the House Administration of Justice Committee; HB 582 is scheduled to be heard by the House Health and Welfare Committee.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
“I challenge Sen. [Walter] Boasso to a tag-team mud wrestling match.”
Sen. Noble Ellington, and I’m not even going to attempt to put this one in context.
“Everybody in this room holds dear a good night’s sleep.”
Smith, referring to legislation to require all mattresses sold in Louisiana be fire retardant.
“I hate to break up this lovefest, but …”
Gallot, asking his committee to move along after Rep. Peppi Bruneau began reminiscing, in the process calling Reps. Charlie Lancaster and Billy Montgomery “whippersnappers,” and talking about the prior day’s appearance of former senator and judge Adrian Duplantier.
“I had cause to hire Mr. Riddle as an attorney once because my opponent had hired Mitch Landrieu, so I had to get a lawyer equally as bad.”
Montgomery, joking with former colleague and Avoyelles District Attorney Charles Riddle, during debate on an unrelated bill while Riddle waited to testify on another.
“I guess Mary’s on top in this situation.”
Bruneau, when trying to recall who was the senior senator from the state.
“The committee lawyer can’t vote, tie goes to the author, something like that?”
Tucker, futilely wanting the tie vote to go favorably on HB 428.
“A lot of people have that problem here.”
Lancaster, when a witness mentioned his hearing aid was acting up.
In the Senate’s Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee, SB 438 by Sen. Cleo Fields would regulate certain financial charges rendered in home lending, capping fees. Sen. Ann Duplessis pointed out that many fees were part of the normal business of lending, beyond the control of the lender. Fields said these circumstances were rare but that something needed to be done. “There are a lot of folks out there who are predators.” But Duplessis did not think the bill was tailored well enough to accomplish that without undesirable spillover effects.
With that, Fields asked for deferral, as well as for a similar bill SB 434 which would do the same in area of “pay day” loans.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 602 by Sen. Edward Murray would allow Orleans Parish to slap fees onto landline telephones to fund recovery cost to rebuild an emergency operations center for Orleans. Duplessis wanted to know why no insurance had been purchased for the equipment, which would cost $2.5 million. The bill also asked for $3.5 million more for a new building. Duplessis said the bill was more than recovery, its indefinite nature seemed to make it a permanent thing. She also Sen. Mike Smith said the matter was getting too complicated and there should be a deferral. Sen. Francis Heitmeier pointed out without this money that emergency operations would be severely crippled.
Then the discussion had to close, because Chairman Ken Hollis noticed a quorum was absent, so the bill, already once deferred, was not dealt with.
DID YOU KNOW?
In the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, HB 1236 by Rep. Mike Walsworth, presented by Treasurer John Kennedy and staff, would prohibit an elected official or member of his immediate family or entity in which any of them have a substantial economic interest from seeking or entering into any contracts arising from a gubernatorially or presidentially declared disaster. This would include children, spouses of them, siblings, their spouses, and spouses and their parents. Amendments would add appointed officials and their immediate family members and would not apply retroactively and such contracts would be renewable. They were accepted.
Then Rep. Peppi Bruneau asked essentially to gut the renewable feature of the amendment, which was unanimously adopted. So was the bill.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 428 by Rep. Jim Tucker would limit statewide elected officials to three consecutive terms. Bruneau thought term limits in general were a bad idea where power did not accumulate, but Tucker pointed out that in narrow policy areas these offices, such as insurance, this could happen. Tucker also said consistency in all state offices was desirable, to equalize power between executive offices and a term-limited Legislature.
After a motion to defer failed 5-5, the motion to report favorably also failed 5-5. Reps. Jeff Arnold, Juan LaFonta, Billy Montgomery, Loulan Pitre, and Mert Smiley voted to pass it, while Reps. Bruneau, Rick Gallot, Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, Charmaine Marchand, and Charlie Lancaster voted it down.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 1176 by Rep. Tank Powell would make campaign contributions from certain affected parties in the area of insurance to candidates for insurance commissioner. Lancaster pointed out that the bill seemed to apply retroactively when, by all appearances, a current contest was going on. Thus, a motion was made was made to make it go effective with the governor’s signature. That and a motion to report favorably passed unanimously.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 461 by Rep. Troy Hebert would move up the dates that the Legislature convenes. He noted Louisiana’s goes into session later than most states which comes close to the end of the fiscal year. Arnold said Carnival would be impacted, but Hebert said mechanisms existed to give them a few days off around then. LaFonta said the summer was busier for some professions, plus family vacations would be facilitated. Lancaster recommended making the effective date starting for the next Legislature. Bruneau, however, thought the dates in the bill (early January or February) might now be too early. Lancaster argued that if other states do it, then they must be able to overcome this problem. With this change, the bill passed.
DID YOU KNOW?
Hebert also with his HB 1197 wanted to cap the amount of money a candidate could loan himself in a campaign. Montgomery argued that the levels still were too high because wealthier people could still loan themselves a lot and be advantaged.
However, Bruneau said first-time candidates might be disadvantaged, even at higher levels. “This bill will have a chilling effect on challengers,” he argued. But Hebert said it was important to prevent winners from leveraging their offices to pay themselves back, advantaging wealthier candidates. “Consider that chilling effect.” The point was there is a difference between giving your campaign money which you can’t get back, and lending yourself money which you can. LaFonta said this bill might hurt those who do not get the support of wealthier interests. Pitre echoed the comment, saying less-wealthy candidates would be less likely to risk assets if they had to give rather than borrow.
With that, Hebert decided discretion was the better part of valor and decided to voluntarily defer it.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 853 by LaFonta would prohibit the state from harassing or discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation, or disabilities against any individual in any manner pertaining to employment or in the provision of any service or benefit. Of course, the “sexual orientation” clause drew all of the commentary.
LaFonta argued the measure simply was fair, and that codifying made sense since it already was an executive order. But opponents argued this might make more acceptable homosexual activities in the workplace, because codifying it would connote acceptability and make it more difficult to prohibit. Indeed, to codify this provision into law would have a chilling effect of arguments against the behavior, actually empowering those who were supposedly being discriminated against. They also argued this would permit greater legal attacks on nonprofit organizations that, on principle, oppose homosexual behavior. The moral approval that the bill would grant to homosexual acts would have a ripple effect in other areas of society to make such activities, such as with minors, more acceptable, as well as generally degrade the moral fabric of society, they said.
When a motion to report favorably was made, all of the panel’s Democrats supported it, except for the absent Montgomery, plus Pitre, while the other three Republicans did not, letting it advance 6-3.
THURSDAY: HB 1260 is scheduled to be heard by the House Administration of Justice Committee; HB 582 is scheduled to be heard by the House Health and Welfare Committee.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
“I challenge Sen. [Walter] Boasso to a tag-team mud wrestling match.”
Sen. Noble Ellington, and I’m not even going to attempt to put this one in context.
“Everybody in this room holds dear a good night’s sleep.”
Smith, referring to legislation to require all mattresses sold in Louisiana be fire retardant.
“I hate to break up this lovefest, but …”
Gallot, asking his committee to move along after Rep. Peppi Bruneau began reminiscing, in the process calling Reps. Charlie Lancaster and Billy Montgomery “whippersnappers,” and talking about the prior day’s appearance of former senator and judge Adrian Duplantier.
“I had cause to hire Mr. Riddle as an attorney once because my opponent had hired Mitch Landrieu, so I had to get a lawyer equally as bad.”
Montgomery, joking with former colleague and Avoyelles District Attorney Charles Riddle, during debate on an unrelated bill while Riddle waited to testify on another.
“I guess Mary’s on top in this situation.”
Bruneau, when trying to recall who was the senior senator from the state.
“The committee lawyer can’t vote, tie goes to the author, something like that?”
Tucker, futilely wanting the tie vote to go favorably on HB 428.
“A lot of people have that problem here.”
Lancaster, when a witness mentioned his hearing aid was acting up.
01 May 2006
Committee action, May 1: SB 526, SB 59, SB 60, SB 669
DID YOU KNOW?
Sen. Walter Boasso is back with a bill trying to make the Teachers Retirement System and Louisiana State Employees Retirement System solvent more quickly. SB 526 is an attempt to prevent actions made by government that would increase the estimated $12 billion in unfunded accrued liabilities. Amendments actually to pay it down by requiring a greater portion of investment gains to go to paying it down if the Legislature kicks in some money as well were adopted
Boasso pointed out over a billion dollars in the long term would be saved by the amendments, even if he had no official support for the bill from the governor. However, in great contrast to Boasso’s past efforts to make the system fairer to taxpayers, less absurdly generous, and more efficient, these changes heartily were lauded by board members of the retirement systems. Thus, it passed unanimously.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 59, SB 60, and SB 669 by Sen. Art Lentini would prevent elected and other public officials in a state or local retirement system who have been convicted or its equivalent of certain felonies in performing official duties from drawing retirement benefits.
Lentini noted some objections, beginning with the “innocent” spouse or children argument. He said to make these exceptions would moot the effectiveness of the law by encouraging marriages and children of convenience to avoid the consequences, and pointed out this exception doesn’t apply to other punishments for other felonies. He also said he didn’t think convictions might be harder to get because of sympathetic juries might not want to “punish” spouses and minors. Indeed, he thought this would become a tremendous deterrent, knowing that you and your family could lose all retirement benefits.
Opponents did bring up the “innocent” issue, saying there would be fewer pleas and more resources used in prosecution. They also argued that existing penalties were effective as deterrents, and that those going into the systems would not be aware that additional penalties exist through these bills. They also said since some of the contributions came forcibly from employees that it could be construed as an unconstitutional taking of property. And, it could make other legal proceedings such as divorce settlements messier.
Lentini said that corrupt officials should not be entitled to lifetime benefits, and that tough sentencing in other areas wasn’t being questioned. If there was a problem in prosecution, then the prosecutor can plea down. “If this is feel-good legislation, it is for the taxpayer.” He also disputed that legal proceedings in other matters would be made more complicated. He noted that the automatic first-felony pardon procedure currently part of law would not be affected by this bill. Boasso wondered what happened to those pardoned, but Lentini said that would work only if new money were put in the system.
Sen. Jay Dardenne, however, could not see how a community-property arrangement would not be affected by the bill. Lentini pointed out that restitution paid as a punishment for other crimes was not affected by this, so it should be treated the same for this measure.
SB 59 was unanimously reported. SB 669 was likewise. And SB 60 completed the sweep.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Concerning those amendments to combine all the boards … oh, that was last year.”Sen. Gerry Theunissen, joking about Boasso’s past efforts.
Sen. Walter Boasso is back with a bill trying to make the Teachers Retirement System and Louisiana State Employees Retirement System solvent more quickly. SB 526 is an attempt to prevent actions made by government that would increase the estimated $12 billion in unfunded accrued liabilities. Amendments actually to pay it down by requiring a greater portion of investment gains to go to paying it down if the Legislature kicks in some money as well were adopted
Boasso pointed out over a billion dollars in the long term would be saved by the amendments, even if he had no official support for the bill from the governor. However, in great contrast to Boasso’s past efforts to make the system fairer to taxpayers, less absurdly generous, and more efficient, these changes heartily were lauded by board members of the retirement systems. Thus, it passed unanimously.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 59, SB 60, and SB 669 by Sen. Art Lentini would prevent elected and other public officials in a state or local retirement system who have been convicted or its equivalent of certain felonies in performing official duties from drawing retirement benefits.
Lentini noted some objections, beginning with the “innocent” spouse or children argument. He said to make these exceptions would moot the effectiveness of the law by encouraging marriages and children of convenience to avoid the consequences, and pointed out this exception doesn’t apply to other punishments for other felonies. He also said he didn’t think convictions might be harder to get because of sympathetic juries might not want to “punish” spouses and minors. Indeed, he thought this would become a tremendous deterrent, knowing that you and your family could lose all retirement benefits.
Opponents did bring up the “innocent” issue, saying there would be fewer pleas and more resources used in prosecution. They also argued that existing penalties were effective as deterrents, and that those going into the systems would not be aware that additional penalties exist through these bills. They also said since some of the contributions came forcibly from employees that it could be construed as an unconstitutional taking of property. And, it could make other legal proceedings such as divorce settlements messier.
Lentini said that corrupt officials should not be entitled to lifetime benefits, and that tough sentencing in other areas wasn’t being questioned. If there was a problem in prosecution, then the prosecutor can plea down. “If this is feel-good legislation, it is for the taxpayer.” He also disputed that legal proceedings in other matters would be made more complicated. He noted that the automatic first-felony pardon procedure currently part of law would not be affected by this bill. Boasso wondered what happened to those pardoned, but Lentini said that would work only if new money were put in the system.
Sen. Jay Dardenne, however, could not see how a community-property arrangement would not be affected by the bill. Lentini pointed out that restitution paid as a punishment for other crimes was not affected by this, so it should be treated the same for this measure.
SB 59 was unanimously reported. SB 669 was likewise. And SB 60 completed the sweep.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Concerning those amendments to combine all the boards … oh, that was last year.”Sen. Gerry Theunissen, joking about Boasso’s past efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)