Louisiana House Bill HB72

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Prohibits a public servant convicted of an office-related felony from receiving retirement benefits (OR SEE ACTUARIAL NOTE APV)

Impact

The legislation significantly impacts existing retirement benefit systems for public employees, enforcing stricter accountability measures. It ensures that accumulated employee contributions will be refunded only upon conviction, and any benefits previously received must be repaid. Moreover, the bill allows for employee contributions to be utilized to satisfy court-ordered restitution and fines, underscoring the seriousness with which the law treats corruption. The proposal aims to enhance public trust in governmental operations by directly linking serious criminal behavior to the financial wellbeing of public officers.

Summary

House Bill 72 aims to address public corruption by prohibiting public servants convicted of certain felony offenses from receiving retirement benefits. Specifically, the bill mandates the forfeiture of retirement benefits for those convicted of crimes related to their office after the bill's effective date. This includes a detailed list of crimes classified as 'public corruption crimes', ensuring that any public official found guilty of these offenses will lose their rights to retirement benefits, thus aiming to deter corrupt practices among public officials.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 72 appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for government accountability and anti-corruption measures. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step to uphold the integrity of public service and reclaim public resources misappropriated through corruption. However, there are concerns regarding the potential implications for public servants who may face accusations but not convictions, as the bill lacks provisions for false allegations or wrongful convictions, which could undermine the job security of public servants.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the scope of crimes defined as 'public corruption' and the process for determining forfeiture of benefits. Critics argue that the definitions used in the bill could be overly broad, potentially leading to unjust forfeitures. Additionally, the provision that allows for employee contributions to be used for court-ordered obligations has raised concerns among public employees regarding their financial security and the fairness of such measures. The balance between harsh penalties for corruption and the rights of public servants remains a debated topic among legislators and stakeholders.