PENSION PANEL CAUSE FOR HOPE, CONCERNS.

Byline: JON COUPAL Local View

LAST week, this column talked about the explosive issue of public-employee pension benefits, and how, beginning soon, new rules would require government to account accurately for their future costs.

Coincidently, later last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the formation of a new commission to study public-employee benefits and their present and long-term impacts on California. The Public Employment Post-Retirement Benefits Commission will have two major tasks: accurately accounting for the unfunded liability of pension and health care benefits, and providing recommendations to state elected leaders on how to meet these obligations.

What should ordinary taxpayers think of this commission?

Let's look at the positive.

First, any action that draws more public attention to this important issue is good.

Second, there is undoubtedly a correlation between the governor's regained popularity and the chances of arriving at solutions that have real meaning. Schwarzenegger's first effort in 2005 to tackle the problem of unfunded liabilities in our retirement systems was withdrawn because of a drafting ambiguity that allowed the unions to run a very effective campaign against it.

Third, the meetings of the commission will be held in public. Undoubtedly, this will put even more sunshine on both the process and the substance of the commission's work. Not only will California taxpayers get an eye- and earful of information on the scope of the problem, but the motivations of the various stakeholders will become glaringly transparent.

Already, ordinary taxpayers have a general sense that public-employee retirement benefits are far better than their own. Now, they are going to see some real specifics.

Now for the concerns:

First, we should be skeptical of commissions in general. More often than not, the creation of a commission is simply a means to defer resolution of a politically sensitive issue.

Moreover, commissions are, in a way, an acknowledgment that our elected leaders have neither the skills nor political fortitude to confront an issue through the regular legislative process. Have not legislators proposed bills to deal with pensions and health benefits in the past?

So let's assume, for now, that the very failure to address this issue in the Legislature has spurred Schwarzenegger to try another way -- a way that might be perceived as less partisan. Taxpayers should reserve judgment for now.

But there is another concern. Who will serve on this commission?

The governor has structured it so that he would select six members and the two legislative leaders would each choose three. Forgive my cynicism, but it's hard to believe that Fabian Nunez and Don Perata are going to appoint individuals who have the best interests of taxpayers in mind. Both receive major backing from the very public employee-unions whose benefits will be scrutinized.

That means that Schwarzenegger must select his appointees very carefully. Six individuals with strong taxpayer, business and accounting backgrounds are a must.

Lastly, it appears that the recommendations of the commission will be nonbinding. This raises the question of whether the product of this one-year effort will simply be another report that gathers dust on the shelf.

Let's hope not. Let's hope that all those involved realize that meaningful solutions to this massive problem are in everyone's best interests.