[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.91″ background_layout=”light”]
The Public Employees? Retirement System should stop wasting taxpayer money and release the records of Nevada public employee retiree payments as the courts previously ordered them to do.
The Reno Gazette-Journal sued for these records in 2013 and won in the state Supreme Court, which found the records are clearly covered under the state public records law. The records were released, but the very next year PERS changed how their files are maintained in an obvious ruse to dodge the clear meaning of the court ruling. PERS now says their files do not contain names of retirees, but only Social Security numbers, which are confidential. They also say the law does not require them to create a new document from existing computer files, even though a past state Supreme Court in another case required just such a document creation.
Nevada Policy Research Institute sued PERS? and the Supreme Court heard the case this past week.
?This past summer District Court Judge James Wilson spelled out clearly his rationale for requiring the records to be released:? ?Considering the purpose of the NPRA (Nevada Public Records Act), to foster democratic principles by providing member of the public with access to public books and records; the legislative mandate that courts construe the NPRA liberally to carry out this important purpose; the legislative mandate that any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access to public books and records by members of the public must be construed narrowly; the lack of evidence that producing the requested information, retiree name, years of service credit, gross pension benefit amount, year of retirement, and last employer would require unreasonable demands or costs on PERS; the fact that PERS altered its procedure in providing information to its actuary to eliminate the names of retirees in part because of the Reno Newspapers decision, the court concludes that PERS does have a duty to create a document that contains the requested information.??
?During this past week?s hearing Chief Justice Michael Douglas suggested that PERS had ?gone out of its way to violate the spirit of the law.? Indeed it has.
All NPRI is seeking is ? retiree name, payroll amount, date of retirement, years of service, last employer, retirement type, original retirement amount, and cost of living increases.
PERS argues there is some vague possibility of identity theft or fraud if this information is released, though the courts have ruled such supposition cannot outweigh the public?s right to know how their tax dollars are spent.
In fact, the Supreme Court has all ready addressed and adjudicated this in the Reno newspaper suit in 2013, saying, ?Because PERS failed to present evidence to support its position that disclosure of the requested information would actually cause harm to retired employees or even increase the risk of harm, the record indicates that their concerns were merely hypothetical and speculative. Therefore, because the government?s interests in nondisclosure in this instance do not clearly outweigh the public?s presumed right to access, we conclude that the district court did not err in balancing the interests involved in favor of disclosure.?
NPRI?s attorney Joseph Becker argued in a brief filed with the court that the law ?states that the purpose of PERS is to, ?provide a reasonable base income to those whose earning capacity has been removed or substantially reduced,? previously released records indicate that there are retirees in their 40?s collecting six figure disbursements from PERS while still earning income from other sources. … Only through the publication of name, pension payout and related data can the public better understand how the system works and the legislative purpose be effectuated. … Additionally, because lawmakers can directly profit from decisions they make pertaining to PERS, there is an overwhelming need for the public to have comprehensive access to this information.? Seems persuasive to us.
PERS should stop stalling and release the records. — TM
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”off”][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.91″ background_layout=”light” border_width_top=”6″ border_color_top=”#0c71c3″ text_orientation=”center”] [widgets_on_pages id=”directory”] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.91″ show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” always_center_on_mobile=”on” force_fullwidth=”off” show_bottom_space=”on” src=”https://lccentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/subscribe-now-lcr-crops.jpg” url=”https://lccentral.com/subscribe-lincoln-county-record/” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.91″ show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” always_center_on_mobile=”on” force_fullwidth=”off” show_bottom_space=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]