Fort Worth doesn't impose a residency requirement on its employees, nor should it. In a free country, folks should be able to decide for themselves where they want to live regardless of where they work.
If they can clock in on time, their commute is their business -- unless they have city take-home vehicles with fuel provided by the taxpayers, but that's a discussion for another day.Pension benefits aren't tied to residency either. If retirees want to live in Cowtown or Cleburne or Cancun, they are still entitled to the benefits they earned during their working years.That said, claiming that "most city employees continue to live in Tarrant County" is an odd way to counter legitimate questions of whether Fort Worth can afford to offer employee pensions at their current levels.Ruth Ryerson, executive director of the Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund, made two statements that rankled in her Thursday guest column, "City pension fund benefits the local economy." (The emphases in the following sentences are mine.)"Most city employees continue to live in Tarrant County after retirement and spend their pension dollars here, which definitely helps support our tax base and local businesses," Ryerson wrote.Unfortunately, fact-checking this assertion isn't possible. Thanks to a bill filed by state Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, and passed by the Legislature, municipal retirement systems don't have to disclose how they spend public moneyRyerson ended her column by stating: "We believe these employees ( who are also taxpayers) have the right to work hard every day without worrying about whether or not they can afford to eventually retire, and without being treated in the media like they are parasites to the community they serve."Few would question how hard city employees work, especially after recent layoffs and furloughs. And they definitely pay taxes somewhere. But almost half those taxes are paid to an entity other than Fort Worth, the "community they serve."According to Fort Worth's human resources department, there were 6,821 active city employees as of Oct. 1. Of those, about half live outside of the city limits (3,666 in Fort Worth; 3,155 not).Further scrutiny of that report shows only 38.2 percent of civilian employees live outside Fort Worth. The numbers for civil service police and fire, however, are more than 58 percent and 67 percent, respectively. It's possible that employees move back into the city after retirement, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.Of the 13 members on the retirement fund's board, seven are elected by active and retired city employees. Five seats are filled through City Council appointments. Right now, one of those seats is open, and the other is held by a former city research and budget director and assistant city manager.The 13th board member is the city's chief financial officer.If most retirement fund board members are beneficiaries of the fund and the fund's executive director is writing guest columns defending their lucrative packages, who the heck is watching out for the taxpayers?Full disclosure: Ryerson and I are members of the same Rotary Club, along with about 500 other people. I don't know her beyond saying hello and responding to e-mails when she submits a guest column.Ryerson's latest offering was written in response to a Dec. 11 guest column by attorney and CPA Bill Leonard and former City Council member Carter Burdette about the growing pension costs to Fort Worth taxpayers. Leonard and Burdette were responding to an Oct. 24 piece by Ryerson and board Chairman Billy Samuel.If this is the "war of words" Ryerson decried last week, she's firing her fair share of the shots.Jill "J.R." Labbe is editorial director of the Star-Telegram.817-390-7599Twitter: @jrlabbe55Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
