Is he in the House or isn't he in the House? That 'tis the question for State Representative Robert Johnson. Y'all Politics published a nice little scoop this morning about Mr. Johnson's sudden retirement and equally-sudden unretirement from the legislature:
In a letter dated December 3, State Representative Robert Johnson authored a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Philip Gunn, notifying him of his intent to retire from the Legislature in his current term as of November 30. This occurred just weeks after the 2019 General Election for his seat in District 94, where he ran unopposed. However, he has since said he “cancelled” his retirement letter this week. There is currently no paper trail of that cancellation.
This raises fresh questions about Rep. Johnson’s status as a member of the House of Representatives, with the letter in hand but no paper trail to confirm cancellation, and reignites a controversy about “double dipping” where legislators can concurrently draw state retirement and legislator salary and benefits. Rest of article.
Kingfish note: Read the rest of the post. What is probably going on here is Mr. Johnson is probably trying to be cute and game the PERS system after Jim Hood ruled PERS retirees could serve in the legislature.
Is there an expiration date on retirement letters? If not, then the incoming Governor will have an interesting puzzle to solve. Does he call a special election for Mr. Johnson's seat or will Gunn the Guileless let him off the hook?
16 comments:
“Current term” would seem to indicate he fully intended to return to office in January. If he did not go through with the retirement process, so what? The only questions are 1) is he or is he not a member of the Legislature during the month of December. 2). If he in fact is drawing retirement benefits, is he eligible to continue to do so once he resumes office in January?
There is also a PERS provision for an elected official of a required minimum age, to not have to have the 90 day waiting period nor a separation from service.
If regular State employees can't draw retirement and receive a (second) paycheck after retiring the first time the Legislature sure as shit shouldn't either.
It's for the children.
1:47, catch up here please.
General Hood, in a blatant attempt to capture more state employee votes (particularly teachers) made a ruling last year overrulling the earlier AG opinion that state employees could receive retirement if elected to the legislature.
This completely voids the previous opinions about the status of legislative positions that allowed them to create their SLURP benefits; it overruled decades of other opinions about whether the legislature is a full time or a part time job as relates to PERS.
But it was a wonderful election year opinion from the General - so that now a retired employee can in fact join in the legislative fracas to make sure the current failing PERS benefits continue to bankrupt the state.
He would be required to leave office to qualify for retirement benefits. You must terminate employment. So he would need to resign from office and then be re-elected in a special election, etc.
2:46 - Not so fast. AG opinions are a dime a dozen and are just that, opinions. He does not make law or preside over a court of law.
Legislators are part-time employees with a retirement package? What gaggle of morons came up with that idea and voted it into existence?
AG opinions are a dime a dozen...
Hood's were less than that.
What ever became of the feud between Hood and Robert Shuler Smith? That one just seemed to fade away.
Enough of these thieves of public trust and treasure. Let the double talking, double dipping scum bag go and lets have a special election and get someone that will serve the people instead of him/her self.......
When Hood released this opinion, he winked.
This is the origin of the expression "hood-winked."
Now you know the rest of the story (with thanks to Mr. Paul Harvey).
7:59 Hood went deer hunting and building his own roads on his farm. Time to let that 13th check start blossoming.
Regarding your claim that an "elected official of a required minimum age, to not have to have the 90 day waiting period nor a separation from service." Please cite your backup for that claim.
I know the legislature has time and again voted itself and some others special privilege.
An attorney general's opinion carries the force of law.
It must be overridden by a court.
11:08 - Were brand of bourbon were you swilling at midnight last night. Both of your claims are entirely false. Why in hell do you think it's called an O P I N I O N ?
Check out his multi million dollar house in Jackson Residency should be quite interesting!!
Post a Comment