A pointless appeal: PERS fights on for secrecy

Unlike Francesco Schettino, the Italian captain who headed for the lifeboats after piloting the Costa Concordia cruise liner into a Mediterranean reef, those who oversee the state's retirement system appear eager to go down with the ship.

On Wednesday, the seven members of the panel governing the Public Employees' Retirement System -- all current or former government workers -- voted unanimously to give the one-finger salute to Nevada taxpayers and the state's public records law. Instead of complying with a judge's clear and concise December ruling that the names and pension amounts of 47,000 retired government workers are a matter of public record, PERS has opted to defend the indefensible and appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

The case stems from a request by the Reno Gazette-Journal for the information. The system responded with the approach most instinctual to many government agencies: It denied the request, interpreting a '70s-era statute to render the data confidential. The Reno newspaper sued.

Last month, District Judge James Russell ruled for the Gazette-Journal. He cited the clear language of the state public records law -- intended to "ensure the accountability of the government to members of the public," the judge noted -- and observed that lawmakers had never specifically declared the information at issue to be exempt.

Unfortunately, this failed to discourage the PERS board and their counsel. "Judge Russell is a well-respected judge," said Chris Wicker, a private Reno attorney who represents the board in litigation. "But he's not the Supreme Court."

Give Mr. Wicker credit. The Wyoming law graduate is earning his money on this one. He even kept a straight face when he said Wednesday that board members decided to appeal the ruling because they were worried making the information available might lead to identity theft. Good one.

Meanwhile, board chairman Mark Vincent seemed taken aback by the whole notion that details on government employee benefits and such might actually be in the public domain. "You would think the law would be on our side," he said. Well, no, you wouldn't.

Taxpayers -- and invested taxpayer funds -- pay for these pensions. Taxpayers have a right to know who they are supporting and how much each retiree is receiving. Just as Las Vegas taxpayers have a right to know that they supported Mr. Vincent in 2010 to the tune of $259,790.14 in base pay and benefits for his work as the city's chief financial officer.

Mr. Vincent and his fellow board members should ask themselves: Does their argument for secrecy have enough merit that they would risk their own money to pay for the appeal? Instead, free of the financial reality that might discourage most litigants, they'll simply run up more legal fees billed to anonymous state taxpayers -- all to keep those very same taxpayers ignorant about the generous pensions they provide for government workers.

And that should be a scandal.