Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to change venue for MPERS lawsuits draws sharp debate from towns and the retirement system
Summary
Rep. DeWitt's HB1082 would require the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System to file suits where the municipal defendant is located rather than in East Baton Rouge. Small-town officials said the measure reduces travel and litigation costs; MPERS warned it would fragment venue, increase collection costs and produce inconsistent rulings.
Representative DeWitt introduced HB1082 to require MPERS (referred to in testimony as "Emperors") to bring suits against municipalities in the defendant's home parish rather than in East Baton Rouge Parish. DeWitt said the change is intended to allow small, rural towns (many with part-time officials and limited budgets) to defend themselves locally rather than incurring travel and litigation costs.
Jason DeMarco, deputy chief of police and chair of the MPERS legislative committee, urged the committee to oppose HB1082. He said moving venue would "fragment venue, increase litigation costs, and shift those costs onto compliant municipalities," and argued that Article 84 places statewide retirement-system actions in East Baton Rouge to provide consistent interpretation of complex retirement rules and cost efficiencies. James Bradford, MPERS legal counsel, emphasized the value of a single forum (the Nineteenth JDC and First Circuit) experienced with retirement-system cases and said Article 84 exists to avoid inconsistent rulings and additional expenses.
Representative DeWitt and municipal advocates said many small towns lack full-time counsel and that repeated travel to Baton Rouge for claims pushes constrained budgets. MPERS representatives countered that allowing suits in multiple parishes would increase administrative costs and potentially shift liabilities onto municipalities that are complying with the system.
Committee action: following extensive questioning and testimony from both sides, the committee reported HB1082 favorably as recorded in the committee minutes.
Next steps: the measure will proceed to the House calendar; sponsors and system counsel signaled continued discussions about potential compromise language (forum non conveniens options and administrative solutions).
