I know we've beaten this dead horse before, but even if PERS' position
on the bill has some validity (i.e. why should they be held accountable
for the errors of employers), if I were on the PERB I would be urging
that PERS work with employers to find ways to improve the data in the
best interests of our clients (namely PERS members). I know that sounds
hopelessly naive in this situation, but if I managed the mental health
systems that I managed around this state like the PERB seems to manage
the PERS system, my main mission would have been to look out for the
best interests of my organization and _not_ for the best interests of
the people I thought we were in business to serve. Anything less than
focusing on the best interests of those most affected by PERS (and to me
that is clearly PERS members, not employers or tax payers because their
standard of living isn't impacted by PERS all that much) is
unprofessional and unethical in my book. Somewhere in here lies
fiduciary responsibility and I'm not talking about the kind the good
judge seemed to have gotten confused about recently.

I've been involved in a side bar e-mail conversation with the husband of
a soon to retire PERS member. I made the following suggestion to him
yesterday:

*I've assumed that PERS does indeed do some sort of verification of PERS
benefits. They must have a data system that collect input from one's
various PERS employers over the years. I don't remember what info. I
had to provide to PERS at retirement time, but I doubt it would benefit
anyone to falsify info. since it wouldn't be backed up data that PERS
has in its system and would immediately raise red flags. I don't see
why any additional work would be entailed on the part of PERS. _Perhaps
some sort of "risk sharing" arrangement (lets's say a 50/50 split of any
erroneous estimates given to a retiree) between PERS and the PERS
employers would be the best solution. Under that scenario, if it proved
out that a retiring employee was getting too much retirement income,
then _both_ PERS and the employer(s) would be mutually responsible for
underwriting the mistake, not the retiree. If PERS' position is that
they rely on info. from the employers, this arrangement would help
increase accountability and therefore accuracy of that data. If PERS
screws up, then employers would be upset and put proper pressure on PERS
to clean up it's act. The problem I have with the current situation is
that the entire weight of any overpayment errors lies on the retiree
which I don't think is fair. _ I suppose you could take my suggestion a
step further and split the liability three ways between the employer,
PERS, and the retiree, although I prefer my first suggestion.

*I'm sure the governor and PERB, not to mention employers, would have a
complete fit over this proposal. Maybe something that makes everyone
mad actually has some merit because, after all, we are all in this
together whether we like it or not. Obviously, my main proposal comes
from the slant that PERS benefit projections need to be honored, no
matter what and places the onus on those who should be mutually
responsible for collecting the data and paying out the benefits. PERS
members have absolutely no control over these processes and therefore
should be shielded from negative consequences of mistakes made by others.

Gary
*
*