CEI Today: National ID, Michael Mann lawsuit, and Obama Energy Dept resignation

IMMIGRATION & NAT'L ID - DAVID BIER

Openmarket.org: The New National Identification System Is Coming

For more than three decades, attempts to imple

ment the proposal have all met with failure, but now national ID is back, and it’s worse than ever.

The Senate immigration bill will mandate all employers use E-Verify to check the immigration status of their employees. Right now, employers can voluntarily submit the employee’s name and number to check if they match the name and number in the system. If the names or numbers don’t match, you must take further steps to prove your identity at SSA offices.  > Read the full comment on Openmarket.org

 

> Interview David Bier

GLOBAL WARMING'S LAWSUIT - SAM KAZMAN CEI.org: CEI Slapps Back In Closing Brief To Michael Mann Libel Lawsuit Friday marked the latest filing in a defamation lawsuit brought by climate science alarmist Michael Mann against CEI, National Review, and scholar Rand Simberg.  CEI has fought back against Mann’s lawsuit by moving to dismiss the case under the District of Columbia’s 2011 Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or “Anti-SLAPP,” Act, which protects the public’s right to engage in advocacy on issues of public interest.  CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman commented on today’s response to the Mann lawsuit: As our reply demonstrates, while Mann paints himself as a reluctant warrior in the global warming debate, he’s quick to fling epithets at his critics.  Mann characterizes his opponents and their positions, variously, as “pure scientific fraud,”  “bogus,” “hired assassin,” “shills,” “crimes against humanity,” and the ever-useful smear of “denier.” > Read about the lawsuit on CEI.org > Interview Sam Kazman

OBAMA ENERGY DEPT - MYRON EBELL CEI.org: Resignation of Energy Secretary Steven Chu Is "Most Welcome" Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu announced Friday he will resign his post, effective at the end of this month. Myron Ebell, Director of the Center for Energy and the Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, had the following to say about Chu’s time in office and resignation: Dr. Steven Chu’s resignation as Secretary of Energy is most welcome. He won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1997 for developing methods to cool and trap atoms using laser light. But his involvement in energy issues was not that of a professional in the field but rather was based on an amateur’s enthusiasm for new renewable energy technologies. > Read the full commenary on CEI.org > Interview Myron Ebell

More in the news... CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week In Regulation The Growing Irrelevance of U.S. Climate Policy

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

CEI Weekly: EPA Response to CEI Suit "Deeply Troubling"

January 18, 2013

Feature: Chris Horner is interviewed by Megyn Kelly on the EPA email scandal.

FEATURE: EPA Response to CEI Suit "Deeply Troubling" On Monday, the EPA released 2,100 emails in response to CEI's lawsuit over a May 8 FOIA for Lisa Jackson's "secondary" email account. Chris Horner explained to Megyn Kelly on Fox News why the EPA's response was "troubling" and why it compounded the unlawful activity CEI has exposed. Watch the interiew here. Also, see CEI's press release on the EPA emails here. SHAPING THE DEBATE A Balanced Approach to Copyright Ryan Radia's article in Cato Unbound Partisanship Perverts the NLRB Trey Kovacs' op-ed in The Hill Obama Blinks: No Emperor's New Coin Bill Frezza's op-ed in RealClearPolitics Circumventing the WTO is Dangerous Fran Smith's letter to the editor in the Financial Times Why All the Green Pork in a Deal Meant to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff? Robert J. Bradley's column in Forbes Lisa Jackson's Gadfly Chris Horner featured in National Review Beer Distributors Say Yes to Middlemen CEI's citation in The Wall Street Journal Issa Demands EPA Reveal All Secret Email Accounts Chris Horner cited in The Washington Examiner

CEI PODCAST January 17, 2013: Ending Class Action Abuse Lawyers are clever creatures, but they rarely use their powers for good. CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman is an exception to the rule. He is involved in a lawsuit, Kazman v. Frontier Oil, that could set a needed precedent for reining in outrageous attorney fees in groundless class action suits. BEST OF THE BLOGS Problematic Green Advice on Reusable Bottles By Angela Logomasini Obama Promotes Constitutional Fallacies in Gun Control Push By Hans Bader Virginia's Uranium Mining Moratorium Should Be Buried, But What About Property Rights By Marc Scribner Federal Regulation Update: 224 Economically-Significant Rules in the Pipeline By Wayne Crews

Coalition of NH Municipalities File Motion to Intervene on LGC Supreme Court Appeal

Towns of Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem NH

Coalition of Municipalities File Motion to Intervene with NH Supreme Court on Appeal of the Local Government Center, Inc. (LGC) CASE No. 2012-0729

Allege LGC Discriminatory Business Practices in Return of Ordered Surplus Funds

1/17/13

The Towns of Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem, NH, on behalf of a coalition of fourteen municipalities (Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Durham, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Meredith, Northfield, Peterborough, Plainfield, Raymond, Salem and Temple), today have filed a motion to intervene in the Appeal of the Local Government Center, Inc. v. NH Bureau of Securities Regulation case presently before the NH Supreme Court. 

The action marks an unfortunate turn of events in which municipal taxpayer funds are now being diverted to litigate the very organization charged with representing the interests of towns and cities across NH, as well as the public agency charged with regulating it.

The Bureau of Securities Regulation (BSR) found wrongdoing in the management of the Local Government Center’s risk pools. It ordered millions of dollars held by the Local Government Center (LGC) to be returned to current members of the pools.

Durham Administrator Todd Selig states, “The BSR, however, did not distinguish among members. Some joined the risk pools early or late, some left early or late, and some joined, left, and later rejoined. By ordering the money returned to current members, it created windfalls for some, but inadequate recompense for others. That is, some members will receive an arbitrarily larger share than their contribution, and some an arbitrarily smaller share.”

To fix this, the four towns have petitioned the NH Supreme Court to allow them to intervene, and to address the hearings officer’s failure to fashion a remedy that will allow refunds in proportion to members’ contributions. Due to the dates they joined and left, these four – Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem – believe they represent all members whose share of the refund will be inadequate compared to the share of the money they contributed.

LGC Case Background & Details on Coalition of Communities' Petition to NH Supreme Court

In the Order dated August 16, 2012, State of NH hearings officer Donald Mitchell found that the Local Government Center (LGC) had engaged in actions or inactions that resulted in multiple violations of RSA 5-B. 

These statutory violations, which commenced in 2003 and continued through 2010, were attributable to, amongst other things, a failure by LGC to distribute to Trust members on an annual basis excess earnings and surplus, improper transfers of monies from the Health Care Trust and Property Liability Trust to the Workers Compensation Trust, and a transfer of the Health Care Trust’s and Property Liability Trust’s respective interests in real estate to the Local Government Center Real Estate Inc. without consideration.

Salem Town Manager Keith Hickey states, “In sum, the Order found that but for these illegal actions, there would have been additional excess earning and surplus that would be available to return to LCG members on an annual basis – members such as Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem.”

The Order: What The LGC Has To Pay Back

$33.2 million from HealthTrust

$17.1 million the Property-Liability pool siphoned from HealthTrust

$3.1 million from Property-Liability for communities that joined after June 14, 2010

Total: $53.4 million

As no agreement was presented to the hearings officer within 30 days of the Order as required, the LGC proposes to issue refunds to those who were members of its Health and Property Liability Trusts as of 8/16/12, the date of the Order. 

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem contend that such a refund would not meet the standard articulated in the Order that refunds shall be “in proportion to each member’s contributions to that standing amount of earnings and surplus.” 

Durham Administrator Todd Selig states, “The return of tens of millions of dollars by the LGC to its members of the Health Trust and Property-Liability Trust programs is mandated by the hearing officer’s order to be in proportion to each member’s contributions.  Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, Salem and other political subdivisions contributed to the surplus with taxpayer funds.  Those funds should therefore be returned.  It is an issue of basic fairness and equity -- no more, no less.”

Durham, Peterborough, Salem and many other political subdivisions would have been able to recoup a refund had its operative date been June 14, 2010 – the date set by the Order if the BSR and LGC reached an agreement.

Northfield and many other political subdivisions who left the LGC prior to June 14, 2010 would have been able to recoup a refund had the remedy required a re-calculation of surplus on an annual basis, with the surplus distributed annually, based on annual membership rolls and the premiums paid by members and former members each year.

The NH Supreme Court has equity jurisdiction to fashion a refund remedy that is in proportion to each member’s contributions to that standing amount of earnings and surplus.

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem and scores of other political subdivisions across NH contributed to the creation of the illegal LGC surplus, but per the terms of the Order and the position taken by the LGC, they are not eligible to participate in the distribution of surplus because they terminated their Trust membership prior to 8/16/12. 

Northfield Town Administrator Glenn Smith states, “The municipalities have requested the NH Supreme Court to determine an equitable approach to distributing the surplus generally requiring the LGC to calculate the amount of surplus that accrued each year from the year that the LGC first unlawfully retained excess surplus, and to allocate the surplus proportionally amongst the members of the Trusts by year.” 

“Such an annual, proportional remedy calculation could be applied and would be equitable,” states Town Manager Hickey.

Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner states, “The information provided by the LGC in response to Durham, Peterborough, and Salem’s RSA 91-A request reveals that in any given year, the membership of the Trusts changed.  Awarding the refund based on the August 16, 2012 Order date does not capture accurately the amounts that Trust members contributed to the Trusts over the time that the surplus accrued.”

Selig states, “Public employees paid a significant portion of the health care premiums, and presumptively they will receive from their employers a corresponding portion of any health care surplus refund payment.  The existence of such public employee health care premium contributions underscores the importance of achieving an accurate and equitable distribution of any Trust surplus.  Only the NH Supreme Court can remedy the inherently inequitable situation at this juncture.”

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem, as Intervenors, have requested of the NH Supreme Court that their Motion be granted, and that they be allowed to brief before the NH Supreme Court two issues:

1.  Whether the hearings officer erred in failing to fashion a remedy that will allow that refunds shall be in proportion to each member’s and former member’s contributions to that standing surplus amount and earnings?

2.  Whether the NH Supreme Court should exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy that the calculation and refund of any surplus shall be in proportion to each member’s or former member’s annual contribution to said illegal surplus, or such other equitable remedy as the Court shall see fit?

In December 2012, the towns of Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Durham, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Meredith, Northfield, Peterborough, Plainfield, Raymond, Salem and Temple filed a formal complaint regarding LGC discriminatory business practices with the NH Bureau of Securities Regulation.

Subsequent to the filing with the BSR, the Bureau of Securities Regulation’s outside counsel, Andru Volinsky told Annmarie Timmins of the Concord Monitor, “The bureau will need to look at this…There is nothing in the law that says you have to be a member to get your surplus back.”

Town Administrator Pam Brenner states, “To date, the Towns have received no formal response from the BSR.”

The motion to intervene filed by Concord Appeals Attorney Joshua L. Gordon may be found on line at http://appealslawyer.net/do/briefs/Petition_to_Intervene_w_appx.pdf. 

CEI Today: Hidden EPA rules and emails, fighting back against trial lawyers, and more

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION? - WAYNE CREWS

Openmarket.org: Where Did All The Environmental Protection Agency Rules Go?

The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations has always been squishy and has never bound agencies to issue solely the rules contained within; but the decline in EPA rules in the Unified Agenda between 2011 and 2012 indicates a scrub of some sort before the tardy document was finally released.

Overall, the Agenda contains 4,062 across all the depts and agencies at the active, completed, and long-term stage. This is slightly down from the year before, but it doesn’t seem genuine; the Agenda should be bigger given the far higher number of EPA rules in the past decade.

Where did all the rules go? Liberalization and deciding not to regulate has not been an Obama administration priority. EPA rules have never been lower than 2011′s 318 in the past decade. It seems we’re getting only part of the story and Congress should take a look.  > View the full commentary at Openmarket.org

> Inteview Wayne Crews

 

EPA EMAIL SCANDAL, CEI FOIA REQUEST - CHRISTOPHER HORNER At about 4:55 p.m. on Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency finally complied with a court order to deliver the first of four sets of emails in response to a lawsuit filed by Christopher Horner, a senior fellow in the Center for Energy and the Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. EPA owed CEI a cache of identified emails to or from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (by pure coincidence, that’s now "outgoing Administrator Jackson”...), using one or more of four keywords: coal, climate, endanger/endangerment and/or MACT ("war on coal" emails). Horner shared his initial analysis of the data dump here. > Interview Christopher Horner > View A Timeline of the EPA's "Richard Windsor" Email Scandal > See also: New mysteries in EPA's Windsorgate scandal EPA releases first tranche of Lisa Jackson’s alias e-mail correspondence

CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY FEES - SAM KAZMAN CEI Lawyer Fights Sky-High Class Action Attorney Fee in Groundless Merger Challenge Oral arguments are scheduled in Houston today in a lawsuit over a class action settlement that netted attorneys several hundred thousand dollars in fees in return for trivial proxy statement changes. The case arose from the 2011 Frontier Oil-Holly merger. The shareholders were overwhelmingly satisfied with the proposed merger.  However, as is the case with over 95% of mergers, several trial lawyers saw this as a money-making opportunity and filed class action challenges to the merger, alleging deficiencies in the proxy statements. > Read more about the case   > Interview Sam Kazman

More in the news... Washington’s Liquor Privatization Did Increase Prices, But Also Selection And Availability The Thievery Of Saints: Liberals Justify Wealth Confiscation In Cloak Of Moral Superiority Europe’s Green Building Boondoggle: Benefits By 2064 Dodd-Frank Rules Are IT-Cost Prohibitive for Some Banks

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

Towns File Right to Know Request with Local Government Center (LGC)

Meredith Joins Thirteen Municipalities In Filing Formal Complaint with NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Re: LGC Discriminatory Business Practices

12/13/12

On Thursday, December 13, 2012, on behalf of the towns of Peterborough, Durham, Salem, and eleven other municipalities, Attorney John Ratigan of DTC Lawyers in Exeter filed a Right to Know law request under RSA 91-A with the LGC to obtain financial and other information as follows:

(1)       The annual audit of financial transactions, as provided for under RSA 5-B:5 I(d) for the years 2003 through 2012.

(2)       The annual actuarial evaluation of the pooled risk managements program(s) as provided for under RSA 5-B:5 I(f) for the years 2003 through 2012.

(3)       The written bylaws as provided for under RSA 5-B:5 I(e) in effect for each of the years of 2003 through 2012.

(4)       Documents indicating the name of each LGC member community, municipality and other entities, by year, for all years between 2003 and 2012.

(5)       Documents indicating the name of each LGC member community, municipality and other entity that left the LGC, by year, for all years between 2003 and 2012 to include the dates of departure.

The towns of Peterborough, Durham, and Salem, acting through their Town Managers Pam Brenner, Todd Selig, and Keith Hickey, have raised concerns with about a dozen other municipalities who, like Peterborough, Durham, and Salem were members of the LGC during the time that surplus funds were accumulated in the LGC health insurance and property liability trusts and which are now subject to Donald E. Mitchell’s August 16, 2012 Order directing that more than $52 million in certain surplus funds from these trusts be returned to the then Trust members.  Peterborough, Durham, and Salem were members of the LGC trusts for many years, leaving the LCG trusts in 2012.

The concerns raised by Peterborough, Durham, and Salem, are also shared by the towns of Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Meredith, Northfield, Plainfield, Raymond and Temple. 

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012, the town of Meredith asked to join the request.

Ms. Brenner, Mr. Selig, and Mr. Hickey state: “If a refund of surplus is going to be distributed, as employers who were part of the LGC trusts when much of the surplus was accumulated, Peterborough, Durham, and Salem, in our opinion, are deserving of a portion of the return of surplus for the years Peterborough, Durham, and Salem were in the pool, nothing more, nothing less.  It is a matter of fairness for our taxpayers and employees who contributed to the surplus.  Our communities left for economic reasons.  If the return of surplus had been applied on an annual basis as the Hearing Officer has suggested, our taxpayers and public employees would have benefitted annually over the course of our membership in the form of lower, more competitive insurance rates.” 

LGC has taken the position that in order for a municipality to be eligible for the return of its share of the Surplus, the municipality must have been enrolled in the specific coverage during the billing cycle when the surplus is proposed to be returned—August 2013.  Under this analysis, neither Peterborough, Durham, nor Salem would be entitled to participate in the proposed return of Surplus. 

While this proposal may address a non-cash credit of funds or a cash payment to municipalities that are current property liability and health insurance trust members, provided the entities are also members in August 2013 when a “payment holiday” is applied, this proposal does nothing for those members who have left the LGC program, but whose contributions helped build the surplus over the time span that it was allowed to unlawfully accumulate.

NH RSA 5-B:5 requires that pooled risk management programs, such as the LGC, meet particular standards.  Included within these requirements is the obligation on the part of the program to return all earnings and surplus in excess of any amounts required for administrative claims, reserves, and purchase of excess insurance to the participating municipalities.  The standards further require that the program conduct an annual audit of financial transactions and an annual actuarial evaluation of the program.

The surplus in any particular year is due in part to the payments made by the participating municipalities in that particular year.  As detailed in the Mitchell report (see page 27 of the report) the determination of earnings and surplus of each trust was to be determined annually.  The present position of the LGC that it is only obligated to return Surplus to those municipalities who are presently within the applicable trust program unlawfully discriminates against former municipal members whose contributions help create the surplus. 

The proposed distribution of surplus may also create a windfall to the LGC.

The communities have taken the position that LGC’s refusal to return to Peterborough, Durham, Salem, and the other towns that have joined in this action their prorata share of the Surplus is improper and contrary to law. 

When the 12 (now 14) towns lodged their complaint with the BSR, the Bureau of Securities Regulation’s outside counsel, Andru Volinsky told Annmarie Timmins of the Concord Monitor, “The bureau will need to look at this…There is nothing in the law that says you have to be a member to get your surplus back.”

A copy of the request is attached to this communication.