Yesterday, the Joint
Committee on Public Retirement and Social Security Programs heard that the
retirement system has identified 260 Double-Dippers who are currently holding elected positions in county governments
across Arkansas. But, the Arkansas Public Employee Retirement System (APERS) believes the
public does not have a right to know the names of those elected officials who
have vacated their office prior to the end of their term. I find that position strange when we are
discussing elected officials. Surely, if done legally, the inability to complete an elected term in office by a Sheriff,
Assessor, County Clerk, or other elected official would be a matter of public
record. I have sent another request for
an opinion to the Attorney General to determine whether or not this information
is subject to the FOIA laws (click here for a copy of the request).
Based upon the statements
yesterday, APERS has initiated an "investigation" into the 260 elected county
officials that are double-dipping. Their
primary method of investigation -- mailing out questionnaires to ask those
officials if they have broken the law by not properly retiring according to
state law.
It was just 4 weeks ago that
the APERS director stated (as reported in the press) that "her agency was not an auditing agency" and denied all
responsibility for the improper retirement benefits being paid to elected
officials who either did not qualify or did not actually vacate their positions
in order to draw a retirement check in addition to their regular compensation. Now, suddenly, they are doing an about face
and will go back and audit all the elected officials who have filed for
retirement? And then, they ask us to
"trust them" to get the money back and make sure those who committed fraud face
the appropriate penalties. And of
course, all of this investigating will be conducted behind a veil of secrecy. So voters may never know if their elected
officials committed fraud in public office.
I do agree with the AG's
office on one point, that it is and was the duty of the APERS board and the
agency to make sure that all applicants for retirement benefits were qualified
and that procedures were followed. After all it is their fiduciary
responsibility to uphold the public trust in these matters.
On August 19th the
APERS board held their monthly meeting and on the agenda was the matter of the recent
attorney general's opinion addressing these retirees. At this meeting a new
proposed regulation addressing "Termination of Covered Employment Required for
Retirement" was presented. (Copy of entire regulation here) It includes a vague
definition of "termination", the requirement of a signed affidavit, and a
warning of punishment if any prearranged agreement to rehire is found to exist.
In short, nothing that was not already in place before. (read a copy of the retirement application form as of July 2009)
While the APERS board is trying to give the appearance that they are correcting the
problems with this system, in reality nothing has changed. Termination of
employment was always required, and the forms the applicant filled out included
an affidavit on the bottom, and yes, it was always unlawful for a
prearrangement deal to be struck for the retiree to be rehired.
Over the last couple of
months I have heard from hundreds of concerned citizens and contributors to APERS not only concerned about the criminal
aspect but in fear that by so many withdrawing from the retirement funds
earlier and longer that their future retirement funds are in danger of being
depleted. Their fears and concerns were
given light Wednesday when the board reported that the system was down by $1.3
BILLION dollars from last year. Even though the majority of this reduction was
due to investment loss, it will be impossible to gain this loss back if the
money is not in the system when the market regains its pre-2008 levels.
In the mean time I am
continuing to work to fix the system that allows these kinds of abuses. Another problem I discovered during this
process is that not all counties have reported their certifications of
elections over the years. The information at the office of secretary of state
is spotty at best, and does not contain a full certified list of all county
elected officials. I am meeting with that office next week to find out why they
are not requiring ALL 75 counties to report their election results.
I continue in my unwavering
belief in two things. 1) I believe that
elected officials should be held to a higher standard of disclosure than state
employees. 2)Government is best
conducted in the open and the public has a right to know information so they
can make informed decisions about hiring (and firing) their elected officials.
