What’s really holding up the PERA merger?
Thursday, November 20th, 2008Written by: Anonymous
Who’s got skin in the game?
Why haven’t DPSRS and PERA merged yet? The deadline they set was January 1 and I know it’s not January 1, but it’s game time. The merger seems like it would be good for everyone. It was supported by DPS, PERA, the teachers’ union, and others. Only DPSRS was lukewarm.
A merger would be a boon to Colorado teachers in and out of PERA, DPS and to the kids who need it most. It wouldn’t hurt any districts. DPS now pays a staggering $1300 per student into the pension; PERA districts pay $500. DPS charter schools pay through the nose. I’m not sure I even support pensions, but so long as we have them, a merger makes sense for everyone.
So will someone please tell me who’s holding up this parade?
Alan Greenspan recently told Congress that “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief, ” reminding us that we can’t assume that leaders of an organization will act in the best interest of its owners or their insurers.
Had the public known that it was the insurer for banks and insurance companies, would it have wanted more oversight? Colorado taxpayers are the insurers of the DPS pension and yet we have abdicated responsibility for the plan to the trustees with the assumption that leaders of DPSRS and PERA will act in the best interests of the plans’ members. But are we, the insurers of the plans, paying enough attention to the incentive structures we’ve created for the plans’ management?
In other words, how do we know that the leaders of these organizations are pushing for what’s best for teachers and kids? Are these multi-billion organizations being properly held accountable to taxpayers?
It is peaches and cream to assume the best of everyone, but we just saw Joseph Cassano - a man who racked up $11 billion of debt at AIG - walk away from the insurance company with $280 million as taxpayers bailed out the company. Apparently what was good for Joseph Cassano wasn’t good for AIG. So why are we assuming now that what’s good for those making the hard decisions about whether and how to merge are doing what’s best for their constituents? Are our assumptions flawed?
If making the right decisions meant losing your job or your power, would you do it? What if the economy were in the toilet? What if no one were looking?
I’m not part of the PERA/DPSRS merger negotiations. The nosedive of the market can’t be making those negotiations any easier. (Check this out for heartburn) The negotiations are taking place behind closed doors. Please tell me I’m wrong about all of this.
