Letters to the Editor

The Pensions & Investments article of Sept. 20 covering the City of Los Angeles Deferred Compensation Plan ("L.A. City Council asking why trustees for DC plan hired Nationwide," page 36) contained significant errors and omissions, grossly mischaracterized Nationwide Retirement Solutions, and completely ignored the fact that Nationwide committed to a service, education and advice model that is far greater to Great-West's proposal.

Therefore, let me correct the record:

• The article makes no mention of the fact that Great-West chose not to pursue an appeal, despite availability of a direct administrative appeal process in the RFP.

• Great-West is based in Denver, not Los Angeles. The article portrays Great-West as a local company in comparison to "Columbus, Ohio-based" Nationwide.

• Your article implies that Nationwide alone used third-arty representatives and failed to mention that Great-West hired more than twice as many representatives to pursue its cause.

• The article implies that it is impractical for Nationwide to hold five meetings per working day. In fact, it is not only practical, but it is necessary to reach city employees, who work out of 921 different locations throughout the city. Nationwide has implemented a similar service model with great success in other large plans such as Arizona, Chicago and the State of New York. At issue should have been the Great-West service model that leaves 66% of the plan's participants with no fact-to-face representation over the five-year contract period.

Most importantly, the story failed to mention the reasons why the majority of the deferred compensation board members voted in favor of Nationwide, including:

• Superior financial and educational outreach for 100% of the current and retired plan participants;

• More than two times the number of local staff (11 in total) to service the plan and its participants, including the addition of two certified financial planners dedicated to serving retirees; and

• A comprehensive financial advice offering for the plan sponsor and participants

As the details of this case continue to emerge, Nationwide is confident that the truth will prevail, the majority vote will stand and the participants of the City of Los Angeles Deferred Compensation Plan will enjoy the delivery of superior education, service and advice.

Matthew A. Riebel

president

Nationwide Retirement Solutions

Columbus, Ohio

Mr. Burr and his pension fund handlers are employing every predictable tactic to defeat the public's right to know where exactly public monies are invested ("Tactics Decried: Misleading methods: Researcher did not tell public pension fund officials of his connection with national security think tank," Pensions & Investments, Sept. 6, page 2).

Mr. Burr's reckless reporting has accused me of employing "nefarious means to collect data" and "misleading methods" of research. Mr. Burr's reporting, however, was just as misleading as he claims my research was.

Between February and July, I requested domestic and international public equity portfolios from roughly 100 public pension systems. I further requested these portfolios include the name of the company in which the pension fund was invested and the degree to which it invested — in both number of shares and market value. Most states required I send a written request detailing exactly what specific data I was seeking, which I did. And most funds were pleasantly forthcoming with this information.

Of 100 individual requests I made, only 13 systems either refused to answer or rejected my repeated written requests for information. Tennessee, Georgia, Utah and some funds in Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, and Maryland refused to provide data.

Mr. Burr and his pension fund handlers are now taking issue with the auspices under which I collected the pension system's equity holdings — investment figures that were eventually used for a Center for Security Policy report. Mr. Burr and his public pension sources would have you believe that the way in which public information was collected is important. Contrary to what Mr. Burr would have you believe, the financial data I requested from leading public pension systems is publicly available in almost every state regardless of how the requestor intends to use this information.

Laws governing public records requests in many states prohibit public records custodians from inquiring as to how a requestor intends to use the information. Requiring the solicitor of public records to first identify his intended use for such information would immediately skew how promptly or comprehensively government officials respond to such requests. Regardless of whether I stated I was a graduate student (which I am) or a Center of Security Policy employee — which I was not at the time of data collection — is irrelevant. What is important is that every citizen can freely request information about responsible investing.

I understand why the 87 pension systems profiled in the report are angry; information they would have rather not disclosed has been released. Instead of explaining these investments, they are directing their collective embarrassment at those who disclosed this information.

It's too bad that Mr. Burr failed to focus on the findings of the report, or the consequences of an emerging risk category whose seriousness U.S. senators and the SEC chairman have noted, or even the astonishment of Americans who learned from the report that their money is indirectly propping up terrorist sponsoring states. The omission of such facts speaks to the integrity of Mr. Burr's reporting and Pensions & Investments.

Gary Findlay, executive director of Missouri State Employees' Retirement System, said, "A lot of what we do hinges on trust." For one who so genuinely believes in trust, I find it ironic that the fund first rejected my records request in May and only released the requested information after their general counsel was twice contacted. Countless citizens have since contacted me noting how difficult it is to request information on how their money is being invested.

You're right, Mr. Findlay, a lot of what we do in a democracy does rely on trust. Perhaps you and your fellow fiduciaries that invest public monies could start exemplifying this principle by trusting that citizens are responsible enough to know exactly how and where their retirement money is invested.

Bryan Auchterlonie

graduate student, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Washington

Editor's note: The "nefarious means" quote was from Mr. Findlay. Frank Gaffney, CSP president, was quoted as saying about the way the information was gathered for the study, "perhaps one could characterize it as misleading."