Pension vote

Politics, not numbers, pose the highest hurdle to fixing an unsustainable system.

When cars crash on Houston’s freeways, you can bet that firefighters will speed through traffic, as the seconds mean the difference between life and death. When homes burst into flames, you know that the closest ladder crew is ready to rush into the fuming smoke.

But when it comes to reforming Houston’s unsustainable pensions, those hurried public servants have a way of becoming uncharacteristically frozen in place — like someone pulled the parking brake on a big red firetruck.

Who knew that Mayor Sylvester Turner would be the man to get out and push?

This week, after years of refusing to budge, the Houston Firefighter Relief and Retirement Fund board finally voted to move forward on Turner’s pension deal. They’ve joined two other unions on a plan designed to get our city out of a $8.3 billion hole.

Don’t pop the champagne just yet, but Turner is undeniably closer to the longelusive goal of pension reform than any of his predecessors.

Ever since a benefit increase in 2001 caused pension costs to skyrocket, Houston’s mayors have tried to negotiate deals to bring expenses back in line with the city’s limited budget. Accounting and actuarial tables are a part of that challenge, but it isn’t enough to get the numbers right. You have to get it passed. And so far, Turner has demonstrated the political finesse necessary to bring all three pension boards to the table and agree on moving a reform plan to the state Legislature, which unfortunately holds the reins on our local pensions.

City Council is supposed to vote on this framework today, but outside politicians like state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, are calling for a delay until third-party experts get a look at the hard numbers. So far, the public has only seen a general outline.

Even that outline raises plenty of concerns. The presumed 7 percent rate of return — down from 8.5 percent — is still overly optimistic. And taxpayers deserve a guarantee that the so-called “corridor” and “thermostat” rules will effectively cap the city’s burden if pension obligations grow beyond expectations.

Houston has been hurt before by pension deals that promised one thing and delivered another. The fact that all three public unions backed Turner’s campaign for mayor is enough to garner some justified skepticism. If we’ve learned anything from the 2001 pension disaster, City Council should demand an expert analysis of the specific numbers to ensure that we’re getting real reform. The devil is in the details and Houstonians shouldn’t have to wait until the bill is written in Austin to know what we’re getting.

But hiring accountants to check the numbers is easy. Politics are hard. Unlike in the private sector, Mayor Turner can’t just insist that Houston switch to a 401(k)-style plan.

Any change to the overall frame would lose support from unions. Trying to fight this on the floor of the Legislature could transform a Houston-specific deal into a statewide battle. Any real delay practically guarantees that we’ll have to wait for another Legislative session to get the job done. Meanwhile, Houston taxpayers would get stuck paying into an unsustainable pension system for another two years.

Demanding the perfect is the enemy of the good. So is this a good deal? That’s the real $8.3 billion question that we’re waiting for the experts to answer.