Two weeks ago we quoted Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd's holding in a 2020 opinion—The State Journal v Rick Rogers, Franklin County Jailer—in our analysis of the Kentucky Public Pension Authority's denial of our request for the investigative report involving investment activities by the Kentucky Retirement Systems—prepared by a New York law firm at Kentucky taxpayer expense—the Calcaterra report.

https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/900790603800996/?d=n

Ruling that the open revords law required release of the investigative report involving the Franklin County Jail—and prepared by a Lexington law firm at Kentucky taxpayer expense—Shepherd wrote: "The taxpayers paid for this report. They have a right to review it in full."

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/state-journal.com/content/…

We argued that if Shepherd's reasoning in The State Journal case is controlling, the public is entitled to the full Calcaterra report—not a redacted copy of the report and certainly not a sanitized "executive summary."

Two weeks ago we did not know what we know today: that the procurement process employed in the selection of Calcaterra Pollack may have been seriously compromised; that Calcaterra's qualifications may have been "exaggerated;" and that Calcaterra's professional track record may have disqualified her from consideration much less selection.

Indeed, based on the allegations in the motion to preserve documents "regarding the Calcaterra Pollack 'investigation'" filed yesterday in Mayberry v KKR, it may well be said that Calcaterra Pollack was uniquely unsuited to investigate "specific investment activities conducted by the Kentucky Retirement Systems to determine if there are any improper or illegal activities on the part of the parties involved.'"

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f187e4c277de50d98ca1308/t/6090c…

If these allegations—drawn from multiple media sources—are verified, the arguments supporting disclosure of the report—and associated documents—is even stronger now than it was two weeks ago.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that existing open records authority does not already mandate disclosure of the full Calcaterra report, yesterday's motion raises the stakes. It calls into question the bid process that led to Calcaterra's selection, the wisdom of that selection, how Calcaterra conducted the investigation, how she delivered her report to KPPA—and under what terms, and how—and by whom—the report was "finalized."

In other words, it ratchets up the public interest. We are entitled to know how KPPA (formerly KRS) discharged its duties in soliciting and executing the $1.2 million contract with Calcaterra, how Calcaterra discharged her duties under the $1.2 million contract, and what we, as taxpayers, got for our $1.2 million.

Reporting on the motion filed yesterday, Naked Capitalism provided the following background information (and commentary) on the solicitation for bids that resulted in the contract award to Calcaterra Pollack:

"On August 24, the Commonwealth of Kentucky solicited bids on a contract to ascertain 'if there are any improper or illegal activities on the part of the parties involved,' meaning KRS and the Kentucky Public Pensions Authority, with a due date of September 14. Such a tight time frame that included the Labor Day weekend smacks of an intention to discourage submissions.

"How could a bona fide investigation question if there was any improper/illegal behavior when an independent litigation committee, much closer to the date of the alleged frauds, had concluded there was enough to take the virtually unprecedented step of endorsing litigation? One has to wonder it the plan was to have the report minimize misconduct so as to pave the way for a lowball settlement."

. . . .

"Calcaterra established her new firm on April 24, 2020. It has three employees. Calcaterra and her partners had no experience in investigation, except interfering with them, and no experience in public pensions. Yet according to the filing:

"'Prior experience with public pension plans and prior 'significant investigation' experience were the two most important factors to be 'scored' to 'evaluate'' any proposed law firm.

"The contract was approved by KRS/KPPA on November 23, 2020 but did not become effective until it was approved by the state Finance Director in December."

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/plaintiffs-in-kentucky-retireme…

Naked Capitalism also recounts a separate Calcaterra bid submission for work with Nassau County, NY, in which Calcaterra was asked to provide references for similar services "who are qualified to evaluate [Calcaterra's ] capability to perform this work." Calcaterra named KRS counsel, "two days after the KRS/KPPA deadline and more than two months before the contract was awarded."

The inference drawn from this and other related actions? "Calcaterra knew she would be awarded the contract even though no decision had been made."

The Naked Capitalism report goes on to recount "Calcaterra's Shocking History of Sleaze" as, among other things, a fixer for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and as the target of multiple campaign finance violations by the New York Board of Elections—all allegations contained in yesterday's' motion to preserve documents.

If the contract between Calcaterra Pollack and KRS—now KPPA—was entered into with "unclean hands," there is an even more compelling interest in full public accountability through public records access than we recognized two weeks ago.

It remains to be seen whether KPPA will make these records available to the public under the open records law upon request. Of course, we are hopeful KPPA IS willing to disclose the report and related records in the interest transparency, accountability, and restoration of public confidence.

But the retirement system's long history, coupled with the terms of the contract itself—stipulating the preparation of an "executive summary" for release to the public—suggest that it has no such intention.

https://secure.kentucky.gov//TransparencyWebApi/v1/Contract/ContractPDF…

As Naked Capitalism points out:

"It isn't unusual in Kentucky to find corruption. What is unusual is the extent of the paper trial that shows the insider dealing in hiring tainted New York attorney Regina Calcaterra to conduct an at best redundant Kentucky Retirement Systems investigation."

One thing remains clear in these increasingly murky waters: "The taxpayers paid for [the Calcaterra] report. They have a right to review it in full." Any competing interests supporting nondisclosure, if they exist, are rapidly being submerged.