Opinion: Pension fund's Enron purchases merit no criticism

In your Feb. 3, article, Enron: The Florida Connection, you attempt to imply that somehow the state pension fund was influenced to buy Enron stock by the governor or other recipients of Enron campaign donations. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the five-plus years that I have been executive director of the fund, not a single one of the board's trustees has ever even hinted that we buy or sell a specific stock or bond or hire or fire a money manager.

In fact, Gov. Jeb Bush and his fellow trustees for the pension fund, Comptroller Bob Milligan and Treasurer Tom Gallagher, have faithfully and diligently fulfilled their role as fiduciaries for the pension fund and deserve praise for their efforts, not unfair criticism.

Furthermore, your article states that the pension fund has "loose guidelines for investing." I would like very much to know what guidelines you are referring to and what is loose about them. To my way of thinking, our selection, monitoring and termination guidelines for outside money managers are state-of-the-art and congruent with those in place throughout the industry. We spend an incredible amount of time and energy trying to select the most skillful investment managers we can find. We then give these experts full discretion to invest our assets pursuant to specific contract terms.

Are you suggesting that a state "bureaucrat" is more qualified to second-guess the market or to countermand the expert advice we have so carefully sought out? This entire episode has been tragic, and no one feels worse about the dollars lost than we do. If our outside investment manager was negligent or in some other fashion culpable, we will certainly pursue them in a vigorous manner.

In the meantime, the Florida Retirement Systemis still strong and sound and in a surplus condition. Benefits have been enhanced in the past few years, and contribution rates lowered drastically. In summary, the FRS will continue to guarantee the pensions to our retirees, and will still be standing strong for many years to come.
-- Tom Herndon, executive director, state Board of Administration, Tallahassee

Keep pension loss in perspective

Re: Enron: The Florida Connection, Feb. 3.

There are two rather simple observations that should be made concerning the effect on the state pension fund. First, we are told that the pension fund was a big loser in the Enron debacle: The fund lost some $334-million. But, when one compares this to the total value of the state's pension fund, given as $93-billion, we see that the loss to the fund was about one-third of 1 percent. By comparison, the overall stock market as measured by the Dow Jones index, lost 2.2 percent just on Monday. Though we doubt that the pension fund's value goes up and down quite like the Dow Jones, we should note for comparison that this one-day loss is six times the pension fund's loss due to Enron.

We also should ask how much the pension fund has lost, or is expected to lose, due to investments it had in Global Crossing and K-Mart.

Second, the story tells us that "Florida" -- whatever entity that is -- wants to lead the lawsuits to recover as much of the losses as possible. This sounds like a noble effort on the part of the pension managers. However, the accompanying story quotes Tampa lawyer Jonathan Alpert, a veteran of many such class-action lawsuits, that Florida would be "lucky to get back 10 cents on the dollar." What he didn't add is that most of what little the state may get back would probably end up paying legal fees.

Finally, it appears that what is really happening in this debacle is that the pension fund officials, and their highly paid money manager, Alliance Capital, both "have egg on their faces." And to avoid admitting to the public that they were duped -- as were many others -- they are now simply grand-standing by crying, "We'll sue them." They are applying the principle that the best defense is a good offense. But the public shouldn't let them get by with this.
-- Jack E. Willer, Safety Harbor

Don't be so quick to judge

Re: Enron penalties should make an impression, letter, Jan. 29.

I am an Arthur Andersen partner. I made the decision to join Arthur Andersen 24 years ago because I was impressed with the integrity and commitment to clients exhibited by the people at Arthur Andersen. I am no less impressed today even though the Enron incident has caused me great pain.

At this point, not enough is known about what happened to assess blame. However, due to sensationalism by much of the media, many, such as the Jan. 29 letter writer, feel they can portray all of us at Arthur Andersen as unethical and dishonest. This is terribly unfair.

I am proud to have been associated with Arthur Andersen for 24 years, 15 of those as a partner. I have always conducted myself in a professional and ethical manner. I have earned the respect of my clients and have generously contributed my time and money to a number of causes such as All Children's Hospital, the National Conference, the St. Petersburg Family YMCA and my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, to name a few. The same can be said of my partners and associates. In fact, all partners at Arthur Andersen are required to contribute 4-6 percent of our income annually to charity (exclusive of church or synagogues).

Arthur Andersen employs 85,000 people worldwide. We have 27,000 employees in the United States. A rush to judgment based on the alleged actions of a few will hurt many hard-working, dedicated professionals.
-- Mary Anne Reilly, St. Petersburg

Use the right words to discuss abortion

Re: "Unborn child" label stirs abortion debate, Feb. 1.

How dare the Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson call what a pregnant woman is carrying an "unborn child"? How politically incorrect can he be!

Needless to say, the National Organization for Women was upset and is quoted as saying, "At the point you establish a fetus is a person under the law, then even first-trimester abortion becomes murder." Wow! Dehumanize the baby by calling it a fetus and it is much easier to murder it. NOW president Kim Gandy used the correct word: murder.

The president of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, said, "... their (the Bush administration) goal isn't expanding access to health care, it's about redefining 'child' to limit the rights of women to make their own childbearing (emphasis mine) choices." She used the correct word: childbearing.

Pregnant women do not speak about the "fetus" they are carrying. They call it what it is: a baby or a child. The unborn child is a helpless human being who deserves good prenatal health care as proposed by the Bush administration.

I challenge everyone who reads this to substitute the words "kill the baby" for the word "abortion," and you will be using the correct words.
-- Sharon Dykstra, Holiday

An accurate label

Re: "Unborn child" label stirs abortion debate.

Your article states that "The Bush administration inflamed the abortion debate... by classifying a developing fetus as an 'unborn child' . . ."

What, may I ask, is it if not an unborn child? It is not just a lump of tissue. Anyone who has ever seen a little heart beating in a sonogram of an expectant mother in the first trimester of her pregnancy will understand. When a sperm and egg unite, forming cells that quickly divide, these cells contain all the information to develop into a human child.

As a mother of a 2-pound preemie and the grandmother of a 11/2-pound preemie, these tiny babies attest to the fact that to have aborted them at this stage would truly have been murder.

If a law were established declaring fetal personhood, and low-income pregnant women, who would never kill their babies, got taxpayer-funded health care, this would be a blessing.
-- Patricia Gloeckner, Seminole

Air travel has become unbearable

Re: Flying in the face of indignities, Jan. 26.

The Op-Ed piece by John Balzar tells the true story of today's airlines and the self-destructive policies they employ. As a former senior executive of a Fortune 500 corporation, I was required by my position to fly across the country at least once a week for more than 20 years. During this extended period of travel, I observed our airlines decline in service until they became merely big Greyhound buses in the sky. But then I am perhaps being too harsh in comparing the buses to the airlines, particularly today.

As a retiree I now have not only the time and the money to fly anywhere, but choose not to do so as I refuse to submit to the rude and inconsiderate treatment of the flying public by the airlines. The current security in place only inconveniences the traveler while having little or no impact on reducing terrorism or those who would blow up planes. For example, the current screening and matching of bags does not apply to connecting flights. Hello? How many of us can get a direct flight anywhere these days with all of the airline hubs through which we must pass to increase the profitability of the airlines?

Further, with all of the political correctness in place today, airport security can't profile Middle Eastern passengers as it might offend some ethnic group, while we grandparents with white hair and nice clothes are frequently subjected to body searches and other indignities while the suspicious characters walk through the security gates with impunity.

Finally, the two-hour advance arrival at the airport prior to a flight is both an insult and a joke, as Balzar points out, since it took him 3 1/2 hours just to get to the gate flying out of Las Vegas to Los Angeles. While my wife and I enjoy frequent cruises, we will not subject ourselves to this indignity and for the foreseeable future will only travel from those ports to which we can drive in a reasonable amount of time.

Until the federally supported and subsidized airports and airlines get their act together, they will be forced to return again and again to the federal feeding trough for funds to stay in business, and those poor people who have to fly, or those stupid enough to do so for pleasure, will be subjected to more and more rudeness and lack of consideration.
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater

Metal detectors are ineffective

I've been reading with interest the many letters and articles on airport security, particularly on the question of how a man could get through the security with a gun in his briefcase. Simple. The metal detectors at Tampa International Airport are almost worthless. I had a bilateral total knee replacement many years ago. I now have steel and plastic knees.

On the many times I have departed TIA, my knees have never set off the metal detectors. Twice I brought it to the attention of security, and the first time I was told that the machine did not pick up titanium. When I told her that my knees were steel, she just shrugged. The second time, in August just before the World Trade Center attack, I reported it and was told that the metal detectors did not go off because the steel was under the skin. That is ridiculous. Every other airport except San Antonio, Texas, plus the Pasco County courthouse, picked up the metal.

On top of this, I sailed right through TIA with a key ring with a knife on it and a bottle of Canadian Mist. If I can get through with all of that, think of what a terrorist could do.
-- Kathryn L. Robinson, Holiday

Popularity is little acknowledged

Public opinion polls give President Bush a favorable rating by more than 80 percent. You would not know it by reading the articles, editorials and cartoons in the St. Petersburg Times.
-- Jack Vanderbleek, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page