City gave pension data to the state last year

Pa. official says more up-to-date information needed

A day after Pittsburgh City Council sent Mayor Luke Ravenstahl a subpoena demanding he turn over pension data to the state, Mr. Ravenstahl's office circulated e-mails Thursday saying it provided the data a year ago.

However, James Allen, secretary of Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System, said the data provided him last year is too old to use for a current actuarial evaluation.

The back-and-forth is part of the debate over Mr. Ravenstahl's proposal to lease city parking and garages for 50 years. He wants to use at least $200 million of the lease proceeds to shore up the pension fund, averting a state takeover of the fund that he said would result in skyrocketing pension payments, higher taxes and service cuts.

Council, wary of the lease proposal, wants to know whether a takeover would be as dire as the mayor has suggested. In the subpoena, six council members demanded that information about employees, retirees and their pension benefits be turned over to Mr. Allen by noon today so he can calculate the implications of a takeover.

In issuing the subpoena Wednesday, council said Mr. Allen asked for the data last year but never received it. The mayor's office said it was blindsided by the subpoena because it had no outstanding information requests from Mr. Allen.

On Thursday, the mayor's office returned fire, providing council with e-mails that Mr. Allen and Cathy Qureshi, the city's deputy finance director, exchanged in September 2009.

In one e-mail, Ms. Qureshi referred to data provided to Mr. Allen over a two-day period and said, "We are eager to see your analysis as soon as possible." In an e-mail to council members Thursday, Ms. Qureshi said the data provided to Mr. Allen last year "was current and comprehensive."

Mr. Allen said Thursday that the data provided him last year was current as of Jan. 1, 2007, and may have been the most up-to-date information available at the time.

However, he said he dropped plans for an actuarial evaluation last fall because the Legislature passed a law giving the city until Jan. 1, 2011, to address its pension problems or face a fund takeover. Mr. Allen said an evaluation based on 2007 numbers would have been no help to officials facing a 2011 deadline.

In subsequent months, lawmakers, council members and administration officials again raised the possibility of an evaluation to analyze the potential impact of a 2011 takeover, Mr. Allen said. He said administration officials knew that he needed fresh information -- data current as of Jan. 1, 2009, to perform the evaluation -- but never provided it.

"At this point, I don't really care to get into some long discussion as to who sent what when," Councilman Doug Shields said in an e-mail. "What this administration needs to understand that there is now a requirement ... to take immediate action to provide specific information pursuant to the subpoena issued by the governing body. This is not classified information; it is not related to any police investigation of a crime. There is no reason whatsoever to impede the delivery of that [data] which is now demanded by the council. Period."

However, the mayor's office has questioned the legality of the subpoena. In her e-mail to council Thursday, Ms. Qureshi said her comments were "not an acknowledgment of the validity and/or enforceability of the subpoena."

First published on October 8, 2010 at 12:00 am