|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for taking time to view this newsletter. I hope you find it informative. If you know others who might enjoy reading this newsletter, please forward by clicking the link at the top of this section. You can unsubscribe at any time by following the directions at the bottom of the page.
|
|
 |
|
|
Allen Kerr talks about Healthcare Legislation on the Fox News Channel
|
If you would like to see my interview on the Greta Van Susteren show about the health care debate, please click here to follow this link to my website. I am the second interview in the clip -- after Congressman Vic Snyder.
|
Additional reduction in the state budget
|
|
*Governor announced an additional $1.6 million in budget cuts for state government
*Budget legislative session starts on February 8
As we received the news on Monday of the Governor's
decision to
reduce the state budget by another $1.6 million or a total of 2.4% once
again we
are reminded that taxes flowing into the state government are in direct relation to the state of our economy.
It is unfortunate that our legislature passed and the governor signed bills last session that continued to expand government and government spending. My experience in the private sector is that businesses often gain by decreasing waste and by doing more with less.
In the newspaper today, it appears that the projected budget cuts are not going to have a significant impact on staffing for the state. A simple question any small business owner would ask is this, "if state government has enough fat to absorb another $106 million in budget cuts, could we cut an additional $50 or $100 million out of the budget? Can we make this new leaner form of government permanent? How much fat really exists within the budgets that are presented to the state legislature?"
In my work as an elected official in Pulaski County, it continues to be clear that too often, agencies practice offensive budgeting by padding their budgets and that government wastes money through lack of controls and poor decision making. Our public budget process needs to be a declaration of our public spending priorities -- not an exercise in which departments can reserve the most money in the process.
In my next newsletter, I will provide an update on the upcoming budget session.
|
Another legal issue with Double Dipping by elected officials
|
|
*Elected officials took themselves off of payroll to qualify for the "double-dip"
*AG opinion on March 6th 2009 suggests it is illegal for elected officials to "refuse" salary while still holding the position to which they were elected
There is
more trouble for those elected officials who have taken themselves "off
payroll" and continued to hold their office. As it turns out there was
another Attorney General's opinion ( Opinion No. 2009-009 March 6th 2009) requested by the Honorable Jim Wood, Auditor of State. This opinion
was requested as a result of many of the legislators asking to decline the increase
in salary that was passed in the first few days of the 2009 legislative
session.
The
following is the AG's answer:
In my
opinion, the answer to this question is "no," based upon Arkansas's
apparent adherence to the majority rule that when the salary of a public
officer is fixed by law, the officer cannot waive such compensation because
such waiver is contrary to public policy.
'It has
been repeatedly held by the courts that 'an officer's right to his compensation
does not grow out of a contract between him and the State or the municipality
by which it is payable. The compensation belongs to the office, and is an
incident of his office, and he is entitled to it, not by force of any contract,
but because the law attaches it to the office.' [Citation omitted.]
Thus, the salary of a public official becomes a matter of public interest and a
matter of public policy. Since the salary is not based on contract, the public
official is not at liberty to modify or to waive the salary. 'An agreement by a
public officer to accept less than the fees or salary allowed him by law is
contrary to public policy and void, and the same is true of a promise to give a
public officer more than the amount which the law fixes as compensation for his
services.' [Citations omitted.]
What does
this mean to all those elected officials that have simply stopped their payroll
checks for 90 days so that they can appear to be retired? It could mean that
bad advice or not, they still broke the law by refusing their compensation while
still retaining their elected positions. This opinion means they did not have
the right nor the authority to remove themselves from the compensation of the
office without a formal resignation from their elected positions. As this
opinion states the salary belongs to the office not the person. If an
elected official wishes to donate a portion (or all) of the salary from
an office to a charity or return it to the public treasury, they are at
liberty to do so -- as long as they receive the income first and then
donate it.
This is another argument against the position that somehow an elected official should be treated in the same manner as an employee of the state, county, or municipal government.
I will continue to
work hard on this any many other issues in order to achieve transparency in our
state government.
|
|
Ethics -v- law for elected officials |
|
*January 8th Joint Audit Committee Meeting reviewing double dipping
*"Ignorance" of the law as an excuse
As of the
conclusion of the Joint Auditing Committee meeting on Friday the 8th,
not much was resolved. Much of the meeting was spent finger pointing between
the Arkansas Association of Counties (AAC), representing the elected county
officials in question, and the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
In short, the AAC contends that the elected officials are guilty
of nothing as they were given bad advice and should not be held accountable. Nor, should they be required to repay any money that they received as a result of lying
about actually leaving their offices when they claimed to retire.
The
Retirement system officials contend that the advice given was "adequate",
however, interpreted incorrectly by the retiree's in order to justify their
actions and receive their retirement funds prematurely.
Both sides were
so convinced of their innocence that everyone arrived with full and complete
legal representation.
How many
times growing up have we heard the old saying that "ignorance of the law is no
excuse"? Let's say you go to an accountant to have your income taxes prepared
and he "advises" you to claim some tax deductions on your tax return that
result in a large refund. Only when you are audited the next year, you find out
that those deductions were not legal after all and now you not only owe the tax
refund you now owe substantial penalties and interest. The federal government
does not care if you were given bad advice. You are still guilty
of fraud and tax evasion. You were free to take the advice and free to ignore
it, you made the choice.
Just like in this example of the tax return those who allegedly followed advice and chose to "go
off payroll" to make it appear they had retired does not make them any
less guilty of wrong doing. At the end of the day, both sides are at
fault and both should take their fair share of the responsibility, find ways to
make restitution and to make the system better so that better advice can be
obtained in the future.
|
State Representative Allen Kerr on Facebook
|
Just go to: www.facebook.com/voteallenkerr
|
House of Representatives Meetings and Events Calendar
|
|
|
|
|
As always, please contact me if I can be of additional service to you. If you have specific questions about state government, please send me an e-mail to let me know.
State Representative Allen Kerr
|
|
|
