Why the pension law secrecy?
IT'S understandable if reporting about a generous hiring decision within the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety leaves taxpayers sore. The Oklahoman's Randy Ellis wrote Sunday about Gerald Davidson's appointment in 2017 as DPS chief of staff. Davidson was named to the newly created “civilian” post soon after he had retired from his job as assistant commissioner. The former job paid $124,064 per year; the new job pays $115,750. Michael Thompson, who was DPS commissioner at the time, says he made the hire for the good of the department — Davidson's 40 years of service provide a wealth of expertise for the state — and after checking to be sure it was legal. Thompson also says the state saved money with this move, because he didn't fill the assistant commissioner job and Davidson's new salary was about $10,000 less per year than his former job. “There's nothing shady about it,” Thompson said. He explained that Davidson couldn't have continued as assistant commissioner because he had signed up for the law enforcement system's deferred option retirement plan. It allows veteran employees to declare their intention to retire within five years; when that time arrives, they must quit. That plan allows those employees to draw their salary while pension payments are placed in their name into a retirement account. Once they retire, the employees can receive those accrued pension benefits in lump sum or annuity payments. Davidson's hiring as chief of staff made him eligible to begin receiving two types of retirement benefits along with his salary. It's a good deal, and one that taxpayers have no idea what it's costing them. That's because, as Ellis noted, state law requires that the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System keep the information “confidential” — a departure from information about most other state employees. It's estimated that Davidson is getting about $60,000 per year in traditional pension payments. He also will get up to five years' worth of additional pension payments resulting from the deferred option plan. We don't begrudge Davidson (or any state employee) making the money to which he's entitled under the rules in place. But what is the justification for making law enforcement pension information confidential? Gov. Kevin Stitt has talked about making government more transparent. Removing this curtain from law enforcement pension information would be one place to start.