Pension not newsworthy
I was disappointed with Debra Erdley's news story “Ex-PSU counsel's pension criticized” (March 7 and TribLIVE.com). Like every other retired commonwealth employee, Cynthia Baldwin's pension was calculated under Pennsylvania law. Ms. Baldwin was not given any special treatment, and her pension is no more newsworthy than that of any other retired commonwealth employee.
Furthermore, Ms. Erdley omitted some critical information. For instance, by choosing to end her retirement to work as Penn State's general counsel, Baldwin forfeited two-and-a-half years of retirement benefits. Additionally, Pennsylvania law required Baldwin to contribute double what other state employees are required to contribute to the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System for her first 10 years as a judge and one-and-a-half times what other state employees are required to contribute thereafter.
Baldwin's pension is in full compliance with Pennsylvania law. Baldwin served the people of the commonwealth for over 30 years as a public school teacher, a deputy attorney general, an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas judge and a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice, among other positions. Erdley's news story was certainly no way to repay Baldwin for her many years of service.
The writer, a partner in the Downtown law firm Fox Rothschild LLP, is counsel for Cynthia Baldwin.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II