How much do we pay people to not work?

The surest sign that government puts its interests ahead of yours: when it spends your money to deny you access to public business.

On Wednesday, the board that governs Nevada's public employee pension fund will decide whether to give up or cling to its decades-long, groundless practice of keeping secret the names of retired government workers and how much they're paid each year.

The Public Employees' Retirement System was ordered by a District Court judge Dec. 22 to release the information -- and pay attorney fees to the Reno Gazette-Journal. But the PERS board might decide the prospect of paying even more on an appeal to the Supreme Court is worth the slim chance of preserving the status quo.

The stakes in this case go well beyond a records request and long lists of names and figures. The prospects of badly needed pension and collective bargaining reforms -- measures that could save governments billions of dollars over the long-term -- hinge largely on struggling Nevada taxpayers learning just how much they're paying people to not work.

Nevadans enjoy the benefit of an exceptionally strong public records law. Most every government document is available for public inspection. Anyone can find out what any active public employee is paid -- including pension contributions -- down to the penny.

But once that employee retires, PERS shuts the public out. It's as though Nevada's public servants vanish from the books.

The problem with that policy, of course, is that the public's obligation to retired government workers doesn't go away. PERS currently has unfunded liabilities of at least $10 billion, a figure that's much higher if realistic accounting practices are used. We're on the hook for future pension benefits that have been promised but can't be paid.

And pension payments, along with debt service, are the state's highest-priority expenditures. They are paid first, so the more those costs grow, the more core services such as schools and public safety are squeezed.

So why do Nevadans continue to provide the public sector with iron-clad, risk-free retirements they can only dream of having for themselves? Why isn't there a groundswell of bipartisan support for aggressively addressing unfunded liabilities before they choke essential government functions?

Because we don't know the numbers. We know how pension benefits are calculated, but we can't confirm the figures. Public employee unions have carried the day with the claim that a typical government retiree in Nevada receives pension benefits that guarantee nothing more than a middle-class lifestyle -- and there's no way for the public to verify as much.

PERS has long held that retirees' pension benefits are specifically declared confidential by a state law that prohibits the public inspection of "the files of individual members or retired employees." Carson City District Judge James Russell eviscerated that argument in his six-page ruling, pointing out that the language is vague; that the state's public records law requires limits on public disclosure to be "construed narrowly"; and that a California court ruled nearly identical language -- "individual records of members" -- didn't apply to retirees' identities, work histories and pension benefits.

Nowhere in state law "is it stated that confidentiality applies to the names of retired employees collecting PERS benefits, or to the names of the employers of those retired employees, the hire and retirement dates of those retired employees, or the amounts of the pension benefits being paid to those retired employees," he wrote.

"Had the Nevada Legislature intended differently -- that is, had the Legislature intended that the information requested by the RGJ (Reno Gazette-Journal) in this matter be confidential -- it would have so stated. But it did not. ... The names and compensation amounts of state employees are public information. It thus follows that the names of retired public employees and the amounts of pension benefits flowing to them as a result of the compensation amounts paid to them while they were active public employees are likewise public information."

Reno attorney Scott Glogovac, who represents the Gazette-Journal in the case, said Russell's ruling "is very well-grounded in the law. It answers all points of opposition raised by PERS. ... Any appeal would be on shaky ground."

Legally and financially speaking, of course. Politically speaking, the decision to appeal is another matter entirely.

The members of the PERS board are not common taxpayers or business owners. They are not outside overseers. State law mandates that all seven board members have at least 10 years of experience as a public employee in Nevada, and that at least six of them be active members of PERS. Will the board members be able to vote on the case as objective fiduciaries when they know the potential policy ramifications of their decision in an election year, with control of the state Senate up for grabs?

The seven PERS board members:

-- Chris Collins, longtime Las Vegas policeman and current executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the union that represents Las Vegas police, marshals and corrections officers. A strident opponent of pension and collective bargaining reforms.

-- Rusty McAllister, Las Vegas Fire Department captain, treasurer of Las Vegas Firefighters Local 1285 and lobbyist for the Professional Firefighters of Nevada. Another strident opponent of pension and collective bargaining reforms.

-- James Green, a captain with the Henderson Police Department.

-- Bart Mangino, principal of Bonanza High School.

-- David Olsen, chief accountant for the Nevada Department of Transportation.

-- Mark Vincent, finance chief for the city of Las Vegas.

-- Katherine Ong, a financial consultant and former budget manager for Clark County.

"In terms of its governance structure," attorney Glogovac said, "PERS is more than borderline autonomous. It largely gets to operate as it sees fit. ... Before this challenge, it got to decide what was public record and what wasn't."

PERS Executive Officer Dana Bilyeu says the pension fund has checks and balances through the governor's power to appoint and remove board members and oversight from interim legislative committees.

But that doesn't guarantee openness. Transparency leads to accountability. Secrecy, on the other hand, breeds corruption and greed.

Pension reforms have traction in Democratic Party strongholds such as California, Illinois and New York, and already have passed in Massachusetts, because the press has been able to report the eye-popping payouts bureaucrats are collecting, to say nothing of system abuses, such "spiking" and double-dipping through work-rule, schedule and job-changing manipulations.

Retirement ages are being raised. Employee contributions are being increased. Loopholes are being closed.

In Nevada? Nothing. Because we don't have enough information -- yet -- to be angry enough to demand it.

But you just might end up paying for an appeal to keep you in the dark.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.