PD Editorial: Pension watchdog needs time

When the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved a series of steps and goals to reduce mounting pension costs in November 2011, one of its plans was to create a citizens advisory committee to give the county feedback on how it was doing.

It was a needed measure of accountability. Taxpayers deserved a voice in a process that was dominated by officials - from public employee unions, the Sonoma County Employee Retirement Association and the Board of Supervisors itself - who stood to receive retirement benefits from the county.

A watchdog committee would offer a chance for private citizens, who will end up paying most of the cost of pension increases approved more than 10 years ago, to be represented.

Last week, supervisors finally authorized such a committee, and the county is now searching for people to serve. But the committee is so limited in scope that it threatens its long-term effectiveness.

In discussing an independent citizens committee, the county’s 2011 pension report noted, “If such a committee is created, it should exist to bolster increased community engagement, add insight and value to a challenging and complex process, and build an improved understanding for all parties.”

Unfortunately, the board has decided to make this a temporary committee, one that will have a mere six to nine months to do all of that.

We have no argument with the specific tasks that the committee will be given.

The panel will be asked to develop recommendations for the board on how to reduce pension costs, ideas that could include negotiating a lower benefit formula for new employees as well as requiring longtime employees to boost the amount they contribute toward their retirement.

We also concur with the board’s decision to make sure the committee, which will include five to seven members, is made up primarily of people who don’t currently benefit from the county’s retirement system, although we don’t see a reason why it must be entirely so, particularly if there’s a qualified applicant experienced in the field who happens to have a vested interest.

This is particularly true if it involves a former county employee who retired prior to the era of enhanced benefits. These retirees have as much at stake as anyone in ensuring the county’s retirement costs get down to sustainable levels.

The county, with the help of pension reforms mandated by the state, has taken some important steps toward doing just that.

It also has set some noble objectives, including a goal of cutting pension-related costs to 10 percent of total payroll for salaries and benefits by 2024. At the moment, it is closer to 20 percent.

But the county still has a long way to go. Total retirement costs have grown by more than 500 percent since 2000 and threaten to grow higher, even with a surging stock market. Meanwhile, the county is some $449 million behind in setting aside enough money to meet its long-term financial obligations to retirees. The county also is on the hook for some $459?million in pension obligation bonds.

County officials have repeatedly noted that this pension problem will take years to resolve. We don’t dispute that. But if that’s the case, why is it that the county is only willing to give this citizens watchdog group six to nine months to do its job?

To be effective, this committee needs to be independent. It needs to have the ability to share its findings and recommendations freely. And, until the county clearly has retirement costs under control, it needs to operate without an expiration date hanging over its head.