Golden parachutes for public corruption?

Next Tuesday, April 30th, two of my bills that I think are critically important to curbing any “shenanigans” from elected officials will finally receive a hearing. I originally filed these bills backn in December 2014 and January 2015 but those bills (and others similar to those) never had a hearing in Judiciary Committee.

H.3107 and H.3018

The origins of both bills stem from when our former House Speaker was indicted and later pled guilty to certain activities while in office. When this happened, I heard from my constituents about how they did not think “the punishment fit the crime”. I was also asked “are taxpayers still on the hook for his retirement?”

Not knowing that answer, I asked House staff. Yes, he would still receive his benefits. Retirement AND health/dental care.

My family is not on the state health plan, but I’ve heard it’s “pretty good” and I’ve learned over the years that the General Assembly state retirement is also considered “pretty good” as well. So….this begged the question, regardless of what the courts may impose as penalties for “acts of public corruption”, shouldn’t the taxpayer’s get relief instead of continuing to fund retirement for those that were found or pled guilty?

If you agree that you/we shouldn’t help foot these individuals lifestyles after their conviction or plead, please let your House member know.

NOTE: Unfortunately, the bill cannot impact any officials prior to ultimate passage and signature by the Governor.

Comments

  1. Nathan, thanks for all you do. I actually read each link in your latest update! I agree, no pensions or benefits for SC State Representatives and/or Senators convicted of crimes committed while in office.