Money vs. morals, Virginia retirement system indirectly supports genocide in Darfur

Picture this, your mother or father worked for the general public (i.e. state employee, educator, county/city/town employee) and now he/she has retired. They’re receiving pensions and benefits provided by a state agency whose sole interest is to simply provide the very best in benefits for retired public employees. No dilemma so far, actually sounds pretty reasonable right?

Now, this agency relies on stocks and investments for 75-80% of the return that provides benefits for mom and dad, the other 20-25% is our tax dollars. What if you found out the state agency providing those benefits, invests in the stocks of companies that operate in Sudan, Africa? Not just any part of Sudan, but in a region called Darfur. In 2003, President Bush and congress ruled an apparent genocide is underway in the region. Here in lies the problem.

This is the current situation with the Virginia Retirement System. In fact, a human rights advocacy group blames the state agency for indirectly supporting genocide in Darfur. So, what do you do now? Continue enjoying the benefits of retirement with no thought of the origins of those pensions, or completely divest of the stock, risk losing returns, and possibly upping taxes to compensate for the loss?

Oh, and that’s not all.

Now, state lawmakers get involved. Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) proposed a bill that required, “The Virginia Retirement System, under certain circumstances, to divest itself of investments in companies meeting certain criteria gauged to be related to the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.” The Senate passed the measure hands down, 39-0. In the House, the legislation bounced around in subcommittees like a game of hot potato. The legislation was later tabled.

In the end the state legislature failed to do anything, but then there’s another interesting question—should the state legislature be doing anything at all? The Virginia retirement system is made up of investment experts. The agency was actually created by the General Assembly for the sole purpose of providing the best in benefits to Virginians in retirement. There is no obligation to consider outside interests. So who should decide investment policy within the Virginia Retirement System, investment experts or state lawmakers? And, if state lawmakers require divestment in stock that indirectly support genocide in Darfur, what stops lawmakers from requiring divestment in other areas such as Iran, North Korea, even rap music if so desired? Is there a place where the line is drawn?

Typically when covering stories we find the truth, some ultimate answer, or a solution to a problem or issue. This story was just the contrary. The more I learned, the more questions I had. I certainly don’t have the solution, apparently the same is true for state legislators, but maybe you have an idea. What should happen next in this battle of morals versus money?