This is a message from Westwego Police Chief Dwayne "Poncho" Munch and has been approved by MPERS's chairman for distribution. It is the opinion of Chief Munch.
The problem with HB 42 is simply the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act (the “Act”). It will make the process longer, harder, and more expensive (if not altogether impossible) for MPERS to get money owed by the municipalities. It will even limit the money that MPERS can collect.
Currently, MPERS has a simple, relatively quick process for getting delinquent contributions. Of course, the municipalities who have failed to enroll their police officers and pay contributions want the easy process eliminated, regardless of who ends up hurt (police officers and municipalities who follow the law).
If MPERS is required to follow the Act it will, in the end, hurt the retirement system, its members and retirees (since less contributions equals less funds for COLAs) and will cost municipalities that are compliant with the state retirement law more money. It would also make our retirement system the only system in the state that would be required to follow the Act. As government leaders, we should hold municipalities responsible for not being compliant with the law, not reward their behavior with a way out.
Although an agreement was reached with all parties that included Senate Retirement Committee Chairman Price, who has been a supporter of law enforcement during this process, the Act was not discussed in the meeting with the LMA at all. Why? Because it had been discussed previously and was supposed to be removed. In fact, as fiduciaries, neither MPERS’ director nor its trustees could have legally agreed to make MPERS subject to a legal provision that will essentially make contributions by municipalities optional.
I also have consulted with several attorneys, not affiliated with MPERS, who all agree with MPERS that this part of the bill violates Article 6, Section 14(A)(2)(E) of the Louisiana Constitution. Yes, they are trying to take away police officers' constitutional rights to protect mayors who won't provide their own police officers the retirement benefits they are entitled to under Louisiana law, which in turn will hurt law-abiding mayors and police officers. In what world does their position make sense?
I would like everyone to consider this: The Louisiana Governmental Claims Act has always been the part of the bill that is the most concerning and damaging to the system, so why would MPERS ever agree to a deal that would leave that in the bill? MPERS would be the only one of the 13 state and statewide retirement systems required to do this. Why? If it's good for our system, why not all systems? I'm sure it wouldn't matter to the Municipal Employees' Retirement System, since the mayors that are failing to make the contributions for police officers' retirements are surely not neglecting to make the payments for their own retirements. Again, we should hold these mayors accountable and not reward incompetence. Most of our mayors are doing the right thing but will likely be punished with higher contribution rates if this bill becomes law.
In closing, HB 42 is a bad bill for police officers. It will hurt the very officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect the communities we call home.
All the hurt feelings, egos, and politics needs to be put aside for the sake of the police officers, survivor families, and retirees. The Louisiana Governmental Claims Act needs to be removed from HB 42.