FROM THE ADVOCATE:
“Gov. Bobby Jindal wants state employees to contribute more toward their future pension benefits. But legislation Jindal is proposing exempts the governor and other elected officials who are members of the Louisiana State Employee Retirement System, called LASERS, from the 3 percent increase in the contribution rate sought in the legislation.”
“As his staff prepared legislation to drastically alter pension programs for state workers, Jindal changed his own retirement schedule. According to documents released by the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS), Jindal added 2.2 years worth of service to his retirement plan on Jan. 4. Five days later he began his second term. All the while, he was developing proposals that raise state employees’ retirement contributions by 3 percent — ostensibly to address the state’s current (and growing) $18.5 billion retirement debt — and raise the retirement age (after accelerating his own retirement date).”
AGAIN, FROM THE ADVOCATE:
“Jindal has also asked the teachers retirement system for information on how much it would cost to purchase time back from his nearly two years as a member of it including as president of the University of Louisiana System. When he left the teachers system, Jindal got a $28,894 refund. To buy the time back, TRSL said it would cost more than $54,000.”
One might defend Jindal’s actions by stating he is not doing anything illegal, is trying to reign in government with his legislation and that all government employees have the same right to protect their respective interests.
There are also other sides to discussion. Here are some comments following the above articles and columns:
9) Comment by Maui09 - 04/04/2012 THE ADVOCATE
So, if the Gov buys the years when he was president of the Ul System he will be only a couple fo years from vesting (which means becoming entitled to a lifetime benefit based upon a six figure salary) in the very retirement system that he tells the "other" state employees is broke and a fiscal drain on the State. WHY?
11) Comment by I Wish I Knew - 04/04/2012
As much as I hate to defend the governor and others, I think it's unconstitutional to change an elected official's pay until after their current term. I believe the intent was to prevent legislators and boards from voting themselves instant raises, but I'm guessing it applies in both directions. By having this language, the whole law can't be thrown out based on a challenge to that point.
12) Comment by lovemykids - 04/04/2012
What's good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.
13) Comment by bettergovt - 04/04/2012
This should not be a surprise to anyone. True colors are shown during the second term and hypocrisy is certainly one of them. The governor can retire after only 12 years service with the state. Guess how many years this gives him. Yep 12, he doesn't have to even finish his second full term which would have given him 12 without paying the 42,000. I wonder what he is planning?
Governor Jindal might have a perfectly good reason for taking the personal steps to protect his family while at the same time making government leaner and more efficient. However, in my view, he should explain his actions so he can justify his claim that this state has hit the “Gold” in government ethics and before the public takes a gander at the fairness of state employees getting goosed.
by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com