Minnesota And Kentucky Open Government Experts Applaud Ohio Magistrate's State Teacher Pension Records Decision
Open Records Experts Say Ohio Magistrate's decision provides inspiration and impetus to advocates for public pension transparency across the country, including Kentucky and Minnesota.
Open Records experts are applauding the recent decision of an Ohio Magistrate requiring the $90 billion-plus State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio to publicly release records regarding its highly-secretive private equity and other “alternative” investments. Across the nation Wall Street private equity firms have successfully evaded public scrutiny for nearly two decades, even as they garner lavish fees from managing the retirement savings of state workers. The Ohio Magistrate’s decision is the first to challenge private equity secrecy schemes and restore transparency at public pensions. STRS Ohio has been fighting the public record request for the past three years.
The Ohio Magistrate’s decision is the first to challenge private equity secrecy schemes and restore transparency at public pensions.
Amye Bensenhaver is co-founder and co-director of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition and a 25 year veteran of the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General. As an assistant attorney general, Bensenhaver focused exclusively on administrative adjudication of open records and open meetings disputes.
She was enthusiastic about the Magistrate’s July 26th decision regarding the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio duty to provide the public with documents requested regarding its highest-cost, highest-risk alternative investments.
“Proponents of open government are encouraged by Magistrate Joseph Wenger's decision in State ex rel Edward Siedle v. State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio—a well reasoned analysis, and ultimate repudiation, of STRS legal maneuvers aimed at delay and evasion in a case that originated in Siedle's requests for STRS records under Ohio's Public Records Act.
The decision is a well reasoned analysis, and ultimate repudiation, of STRS legal maneuvers aimed at delay and evasion.
In his recommendation to the Court of Appeals, Magistrate Wenger parses each of Siedle's requests, and the corresponding STRS responses. He rejects STRS arguments that Siedle's requests were vague, overbroad, and burdensome -- hackneyed, overused, and abused arguments to which public agencies default as a last resort or when they are disinclined to discharge their legal obligations under public records law.
The magistrate rejects STRS arguments requests were vague, overbroad, and burdensome— hackneyed, overused, and abused arguments to which public agencies default as a last resort or when they are disinclined to discharge their legal obligations under public records law.
He concludes that over the course of their protracted public records exchange, Siedle "established a clear legal right to the production of public records sought." Further, he recognizes that "STRS was under a clear legal duty to comply with these public records requests" and recommends that the appellate court order STRS to "comply with Siedle's first investment managers request," subject to redaction consistent with the exceptions to the Ohio Public Records Act.
The decision is a critical step in the path to final victory and STRS accountability. It provides inspiration and impetus to advocates for public pension transparency across the country, including Ohio's neighbor to the south, Kentucky.”
Don Gemberling, spokesman for the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information also found the decision encouraging:
“Any case that enhances the ability of the public to get access information about what the government is doing with public money is a great victory. Public records victories are increasing hard to come by these days, especially with respect to trillions set aside to provide retirement security for millions of state workers. In Minnesota, the public sadly just lost a major case in the Minnesota Supreme Court involving access to a variety of controversial data from our Attorney General Keith Ellison.”
So, is STRS Ohio ready to comply with the Magistrate’s order and disclose the heretofore “top secret” private equity investment documents to the public? When asked by a participant, here’s the reply she received from a fund official:
“Our legal counsel will review and determine next steps?”
Given that the reform-minded board of this massive state retirement system has embraced the goal of full transparency (as recommended by the State Auditor of Ohio), this response from an STRS Ohio staffer begs the question: Who’s running the pension?
Yesterday, outside counsel for STRS Ohio filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate’s decision. Did the reform board know about and authorize this filing?
Seems the fight for full transparency at this state pension is far from over.
What are they hiding?