Louisiana House Bill HB43

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Provides relative to the forfeiture of pension benefits by public officials upon felony conviction for certain offenses

Impact

The introduction of HB43 could significantly alter how public retirement benefits are handled in Louisiana. If passed into law, any public employee or official convicted of public corruption crimes—such as misappropriation of funds, bribery, or fraud—would forfeit any vested rights to their retirement benefits upon conviction. This could incentivize ethical conduct among public servants and provide a mechanism for recourse in cases of public corruption, thereby enhancing accountability within government roles.

Summary

House Bill 43 (HB43) seeks to enforce the forfeiture of retirement benefits for public servants, including elected or appointed officials, who are convicted of certain felonies related to their official duties, defined as 'public corruption crimes.' By amending various sections within the Louisiana Revised Statutes, this bill establishes a clear process for how and when benefits will be forfeited, incorporating both state and federal offenses. Convictions necessitating forfeiture must be final, with all appeals exhausted, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses in question.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around HB43 appears to be supportive among those advocating for accountability and integrity in public service. However, there may be concerns regarding the fairness of abruptly stripping individuals of their benefits, especially if there are charges that lead to convictions that could be contested in court. The bill is intended to protect the integrity of public funds, but may face criticism regarding its impact on individuals who may have made mistakes without corrupt intent.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB43 include discussions on its implications for due process and how it might disproportionately impact certain officials or employees. The bill also raises questions about the appropriate balance between punitive measures for corruption and the rights of individuals who may have served faithfully prior to any alleged misconduct. The provisions surrounding benefit repayment in cases where excess funds have been received prior to forfeiture add another layer of complexity to the discussions, as it mandates repayment under specific circumstances.