Breaking News
next news
prev news
published Saturday, September 4th, 2010

Convicted sheriff gets improper benefits

Hamilton County government is taking responsibility for an oversight that resulted in illegal pension payments being made to the county’s imprisoned former sheriff.

In the nearly two years since former Sheriff Billy Long was sentenced for multiple crimes, including selling drugs and money laundering, he has received more than $50,000 in monthly retirement benefits. But now he will have to repay nearly $4,000 he received as an overpayment, according to the State Treasury Department, and he will not be entitled to any future benefits.

Those payments stopped Tuesday after the Times Free Press asked the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System about payments made to former elected officials convicted of felonies.

Since 1982, state law has barred state elected officials who are convicted of felonies from collecting pensions. A 2006 amendment says each time someone is elected to public office in Tennessee, he agrees to forfeit retirement benefits if convicted of a felony related to his official duties.

In Long’s case, the state Treasury Department reported that the county never notified the state retirement system about Long’s federal indictment and conviction, and has continued to pay him since he was sentenced in November 2008.

As of Aug. 31, Long had received $50,456. If the department had not noticed the error, Long would have received a monthly benefit for the rest of life.

The Treasury Department notified the newspaper on Friday that the payments had stopped, but county Administrator of Finance Louis Wright said officials had contacted him within the last two days about the matter. He said the payments had “flown under our radar.”

“According to the statute, it’s our responsibility to notify them,” Wright acknowledged.

Long’s attorney, Jerry Summers, said the former sheriff’s family contacted him and told him payments had stopped. He said he was looking into the matter.

“He had 31 years in law enforcement and, obviously, it’s pretty drastic matter since he had earned a decent pension,” Summers said.

Long was elected sheriff in August 2006 and arrested on Feb. 2, 2008. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, Long is in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Ind. The website describes it as a medium-security facility and says Long’s projected release date is April 13, 2020.

Steve Curry, assistant to the treasurer for programs, said Long is only entitled to the money he personally put into his pension plan plus interest and his employer contribution of $82,519.

Long received some of that when he retired from law enforcement, and some more of it when he resigned his post as sheriff, Curry said. If the county had notified the state about the conviction, Long would’ve been entitled to one lump sum payment of what was left in his account, Curry said.

“The financial responsibility for the retirement program rests with Hamilton County,” he said. “They pay an employer contribution that helps pay the retirement benefits of their employees.”

Curry said the state had been depositing the money directly into Long’s bank account.

“We should've not been paying any monthly benefits,” Curry said. “We should've settled up on the day of the conviction.”

Long must repay $3,831, Curry said, but would not incur any interest penalty if he does not repay the money.

The news took some county officials by surprise Friday. County Auditor Bill McGriff had not heard about it, and neither had County Mayor Claude Ramsey.

“If the state administers a program and they paid somebody that they shouldn’t be paying, they ought to try to get it back,” Ramsey said. “I don’t know whether he’s entitled to it or not.”

The law did not disqualify former state senator Ward Crutchfield, who was indicted in the 2005 Tennessee Waltz FBI investigation and pleaded guilty to bribery in 2007. Crutchfield was sentenced in 2008 and has received $108,000 in retirement benefits since July 2008, the treasurer’s office reported.

“Mr. Crutchfield is not subject to the 2006 forfeiture amendment since he was not re-elected after the effective date of the amendment,” the treasurer’s office wrote.

Online: Read previous stories. Follow Dan Whisenhunt on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DWhisenhunt

about Dan Whisenhunt...

Dan Whisenhunt covers Hamilton County government for the Times Free Press. A native of Mobile, Ala., Dan earned a degree in broadcast journalism from the University of Alabama. He won first place for best in-depth news coverage in the 2010 Alabama Press Association contest; the FOI-First Amendment Award in the 2007 Alabama Press Association contest; first place for best public service story in the Alabama AP Managing Editors contest in 2009 for economic coverage; and ...

1
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
harp3339 said...

Let's think about this. The county unknowingly pays thousands in utilities on a vacated building, They are paying utilities and running the heat and air on a vacate building because someone may want to hold a meeting there, they allow a pension to be drawn that shouldn't be. They say sixty percent of county taxes go to the schools. Some school board members steal a check from every tax payers check book and writes a check to their self for health care and a pension. When asked why they took the money from us their response was "I thought we deserved it". Apparently they are forgiven. Not a word has been heard from those with the fiduciary responsibility for our tax dollars. Where are the county mayor and commission? I wonder if they would even call 911 if they saw a robbery in progress.

Where are the checks and balances intended by the constitution and the founders of the republic to prevent such abuse of authority? Does anyone on the county commission have the gonads to take the action necessary to prevent similar acts in the future or do they want to retain the same self serving authority for their future benefit?

Do they deserve it? If they do they it darn sure is not appropriate to be retroactive. If any one of them didn't think the compensation was adequate why did they run for the position again?

September 4, 2010 at 8:03 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, permissions and privacy policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2012, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.