Pension Question

I read with considerable dismay and consternation the April 16 editorial entitled, "Hayden Takes Care of Business."

My concern focuses on The Sun's opposition to affording Baltimore County fire fighters and paramedics improved retirement benefits.

The editorial implies that the proposal is questionable from an economic standpoint and smacks of political gamesmanship. Both assertions are categorically false.

It is certainly true that many public pension systems lack financial stability and boast significant unfunded liabilities.

Thankfully, in Baltimore County that is not the case. In fact, the Employees Retirement System is among the nation's top-ranked in terms of both system management and funded status.

The system's longtime actuary, Buck Consultants, which has served the county for the last 48 years, affixes the cost of the proposed benefit enhancement at 2.95 percent of payroll.

Under the provisions of the contractual agreement, this cost will be borne exclusively by the county's fire fighters and paramedics.

We will be purchasing the improved benefit formula directly out of our 4 percent cost of living adjustment.

Neither the retirement system nor county government will be footing any percentage of the cost. The integrity of the retirement system will be preserved.

The proposed 25-year retirement benefit is a necessary and long overdue improvement. Compared to our counterparts in all other major jurisdictions, the retirement benefits granted to county fire fighters are the lowest in the region.

Equally as important, our employees already pay more in terms of a percentage of payroll than our colleagues elsewhere.

Very simply, this change provides equity. Internally, within county government, county police officers currently enjoy a 20-year retirement system, regardless of age.

From an economic perspective, since fire fighters are not included in Social Security, the county spends less on retirement benefits for fire fighters then it does for any other class of employees -- uniform or civilian.

In conclusion, the proposed changes are fair and equitable. Moreover, the method of funding these improvements assures the continued stability and fiduciary soundness of the retirement system.

To imply otherwise is simply untrue.

Kevin B. O'Connor

Cockeysville

The writer is the president of the Baltimore County Fire Fighters Association.

Controversial Issue

I read with dismay Robert Erlandson's April 12 coverage of the first public forum held on the proposal to close one of the state's regional psychiatric hospitals.

Mr. Erlandson leads the reader to believe that all participants -- except for the Mental Health Association of Maryland -- opposed hospital closure.

This was simply not the case. In fact, numerous speakers, including community mental health service providers and ex-patients, spoke on behalf of hospital closure.

This is a complex and controversial issue. State employees certainly have a vested interest in the outcome of this decision.

It is important to note, however, that while other states have faced the difficulties of closing state hospitals in order to provide less restrictive settings for their mentally ill citizens, Maryland continues to rely heavily on inpatient services, at a very high cost to the taxpayer.

Closing one out of thirteen state-run hospitals is a moderate and sensible approach given the scarcity of funds for mental health services.

It is time to plan for the closure of one of our state psychiatric hospitals. Economic imperatives demand it, as do human rights considerations.

Lori Doyle

Catonsville

The writer is president elect, Maryland Association of Psychiatric Support Services.

El Salvador

To the excellent March 27 article by Kenneth Sharpe and the equally excellent letter by Sister Patricia A. Rogucki on April 13, I should like to add some further points on the U.S. war against the people of El Salvador.

The U.N.'s Truth Commission, along with many international sources, have reported that the U.S.-backed Salvadoran regime murdered nearly 70,000 civilians since 1980.

Here is some background:

* In March 1980, Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated on orders of Roberto D'Aubuisson, a U.S.-trained military officer who founded the fascist ARENA party that still rules the country.

* In December 1980, four American church women working with the poor in El Salvador were abducted, raped and murdered by U.S.-trained Salvadoran National Guardsman.

United States officials like Alexander Haig, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams and Vernon Walters lied through their teeth in covering up these atrocities.

* Throughout the Reagan-Bush years, the Salvadoran government murdered clergy, peasants and union organizers. Most military commanders who committed these acts were trained by our government.

* In November 1989, six priests and their two housekeepers were butchered on the grounds of the Jesuit Battalion on orders of Salvadoran military leaders.

* In June 1989, while dozens of U.S. reporters trekked through San Salvador alongside visiting Vice President Dan Quayle, Salvadoran labor leader Jose Mazariego was abducted and tortured in another part of the city by military police. The incident was reported only by Newsday, ignored by the New York Times and The Baltimore Sun.

These war crimes are committed by a regime sustained in the name of the American people with our hard-earned taxes.

Indeed, had our corporate-owned media done its job and reported the truth instead of succumbing to Washington fiction, most of these atrocities could have been averted.

Gerald Ben Shargel

Reisterstown

Pray at Home

Recent stories reporting renewed efforts to make prayer a required part of daily public school life raise the question of whether the schools are being asked to perform a role for which they not only are ill-suited, but which properly belongs to parents.

The goal of school prayer supporters is to use daily prayer to help young people develop spiritual values so they will become well-rounded, well-adjusted, productive citizens. While the goal is sound, the means selected are not.

Spiritual values certainly are an important part of the human experience. Spiritual values, like other values, shape personality and guide behavior.

Daily prayer, reflection or meditation certainly help to develop and reinforce spiritual values, whether those values arise from the teachings of organized religion or other sources.

Putting aside for the moment the constitutionality of public school prayer, the threshold issue is: Who should be teaching spiritual values to young people and where should they be taught?

Parents, other family members, close friends and clergyman are logical teachers. Churches, synagogues and mosques are logical locations.

However, since most young people do not attend daily a house of worship, where and with whom, if they chose to do so, should they pray on a daily basis?

Prayer in the home with family members seems to be the most logical choice.

If social ills of our country can be traced to the absence of daily prayer among young people, is not the correction of that problem the responsibility of parents and not the government?

To be sure, there is a convenience factor, since children must attend school and having a captive audience makes it easier to organize daily prayer.

But daily prayer, if it is an important experience in the development of spiritual values, can be done in the home by family members before the work and school day begins.

Home prayer may require some family discipline and juggling of schedules, but is it not worth the effort if daily prayer is a worthwhile activity?

Home prayer takes place in a familiar, comfortable setting with family members where the experience is more meaningful than praying in a government classroom run by a government employee in the midst of two dozen or so acquaintences.

Home prayer avoids the constitutionality issue. (For those students who wish to pray during the day, there is no constitutional impediment to in-school prayer as long as it is not state-sponsored.)

And home prayer places the responsibility for the development of spiritual values where it belongs, on parents and not public school teachers.

Although schools certainly should teach values, they should not be asked to perform a role which is the primary responsibility of parents.

William S. Liebman

Baltimore