LETTERS: PERS viability not issue; compensation is
To the editor:
There are two components to the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System equation: viability of the program and compensation. They should be examined separately.
First, let’s consider the supposed unfunded liability of PERS. This liability would not become a reality unless one of two events occurred: either all the current workers vested in PERS immediately retired, or the funding of PERS was stopped by the Legislature.
The first scenario, realistically, would never occur. However, the second scenario — ceasing to fund PERS in its present form — is what the Review-Journal and others are proposing, and it would likely trigger the unfunded liability.
Review-Journal readers should be informed that when PERS started in 1948, it was 100 percent unfunded. As contributions were made by members (some members share the cost of financing their retirement) and investments were made by PERS staff, the fund became more than 80 percent funded and is projected to be fully funded within 23 years, with no unfunded liability whatsoever.
The assertions of the Nevada Policy Research Institute — and Review-Journal editorial writers who often quote NPRI — simply are not true. PERS is viable on both a short- and long-term basis, as long as the Legislature does not cease its funding.
Compensation is another matter altogether. PERS’ original intent was to provide compensation that would allow members to maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement as they had while working. At that time, wages were relatively modest and retirement pay was reasonable. Through the years, public service pay increased — quite dramatically for some groups — which is not the fault of PERS. Some employee groups are able to include overtime, callback and extra-duty pay in their PERS-eligible remuneration. This results in retirement pay at or above base income.
For some groups, teachers as an example, this is not the case. (For the record, I am a retired Clark County teacher and coach of 33 years.) Teachers cannot include any extra duty pay in their retirement. This is reasonable and should be applied unilaterally to all employee groups. The compensation issue is what the Legislature should be addressing, not the funding change of PERS as it now stands.
THOMAS A. FARNSWORTH
LAS VEGAS
More points on PERS
To the editor:
Regarding the Nevada Public Employees Retirement System, there are several points to consider. First, the Review-Journal editorial overreacts to the term “retirement” (“PERS payoffs,” Feb. 18 Review-Journal). Think of it as a contract. You work for me for 25 to 30 years, and I will extend certain benefits. Whether one continues to work in another venture after the contract comes to term is irrelevant to that contract. Overly generous terms in that contract are a separate discussion.
Second, the editorial’s proposed solutions are severe. A recommendation that the state adopt the federal civil service guidelines would be better.
Third, with respect to the letters on PERS from Bernadette Anderson, Gregory Stanphill and Greg Anderson, I am reminded of a quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw: “Any government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the active support of Paul.”
PAT SHARP
LAS VEGAS
Brian Williams syndrome
To the editor:
I see that Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald lied — or, to be politically correct, misspoke — about serving in the Army Special Forces. How can the veterans of this country now believe what he says? Brian Williams syndrome seems to be running rampant in this country.
WALT DYBECK
LAS VEGAS
Pay vs. performance
To the editor:
According to Walter Goldstein’s letter (“Stretched school system,” Feb. 21 Review-Journal), all we have to do is pay teachers more and we instantly get good teachers.
It sounds like a great plan, but can anyone explain how more money will make a weak teacher strong?
JACK OLIVER
LAS VEGAS
