An appeals court ruled Wednesday that Sacramento County's retirement system must turn over pension data requested by The Bee.
Amid public outcry about government pensions, The Bee and the First Amendment Coalition went to court to force the Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System, or SCERS, to reveal the pension benefits of retirees.
When Superior Court Judge Allen H. Sumner ruled against SCERS' bid to keep the information private, the pension system petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal to overturn the lower court's decision.
But a three-justice panel of the appellate court said Wednesday in a 49-page opinion that SCERS "must disclose names and corresponding pension benefit amounts of its members. This does not include the members' home or email addresses, telephone numbers or Social Security numbers."
Peter Scheer, executive director at the First Amendment Coalition, called the ruling "a very strong decision."
"The court took seriously the county's argument," he said. "But also after an exhaustive analysis, rejected it in an unconditional, unqualified and very clear way."
The length of the court's decision suggests justices were anticipating a review by the California Supreme Court, he said.
In 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure of public employee salaries, suggesting the higher court would also rule similarly on pensions, Scheer said.
It's not clear whether the county system will appeal Wednesday's ruling.
Richard Stensrud, chief executive officer of the retirement association, said Wednesday afternoon that he had not had a chance to study the opinion or discuss it with counsel. He said he could not respond to questions until the association's board discusses the matter next week.
Karl Olson, an attorney representing The Bee, said this is the first appeals court decision on the issue.
Previously, trial courts in Sacramento and six other counties have ruled in favor of releasing information about public retirement plans. San Diego and Sonoma counties also are appealing two of those decisions.
The dispute was over the release of the names of county pensioners. The retirement system argued that releasing the names violated the 1937 law that created pension systems in Sacramento and other counties.
The Bee and the First Amendment Coalition contended it's difficult if not impossible without having names to determine cases of pension spiking or favorable treatment such as nepotism that helped boost retiree payouts.
"It's part of our mission to ensure there's public scrutiny of government spending," said Joyce Terhaar, executive editor of The Bee. "We've been reporting for several years that local governments are facing higher pension costs even as they're cutting public services. In all that reporting, the Sacramento County retirement system was the only system to refuse us key information. We believe this clearly should be available to the public and are glad the court agreed."
The opinion says The Bee submitted declarations from journalists describing increased public interest in pensions including such issues as cashed-out vacation time, overtime pay in the final year of employment, either of which could result in pension spiking.
In addition, issues of double and triple dipping were raised. The lower court had overruled SCERS' objections to these declarations.
The appellate court pointed out that the California Supreme Court has held that "the public has a general right to know the names and salaries of public officials and employees under the Public Record Act."
Sacramento County supervisors in July had urged SCERS to not appeal its case to the appellate court, voting unanimously for the retirement system to make the pension information public.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Call The Bee's Brad Branan, (916) 321-1065. Follow him on Twitter at BradB_at_SacBee.
Read more articles by Brad Branan


About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "Report Abuse" link below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.