Image Credit: Canva
Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.
Submitted by Peter Maher –
One of the few tangible financial benefits of my previous service as a public school Title I teacher in Memphis—spanning more than a decade and three different schools on the front lines of America’s urban public education, where some of the highest teacher vacancy rates and turnover in the nation have persisted for decades—has been participation in Tennessee’s Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS).
What is our TCRS? The TCRS is our state’s primary public retirement system. It was established in 1972 through the consolidation of multiple legacy retirement plans into a single system serving state employees, public school teachers, higher education employees, and employees of participating local governments. It operates as a defined benefit pension system under statutory authority in Tenn. Code Ann. Title 8, Chapters 34–37, with funding derived from employer contributions, employee contributions in certain cases, and investment earnings on system assets. As of June 30, 2025, the system reported approximately $74.9 billion in assets and serves hundreds of thousands of active, inactive, and retired members. The TCRS is administered by our Tennessee Department of Treasury.
Surprisingly, participation in TCRS is not limited strictly to traditional state government agencies and public employees. In addition to state and local government entities, the system includes “political subdivisions” and other participating employers that elect to join under statutory authority—an important distinction that expands participation beyond clearly defined governmental bodies.
A careful review of our Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025 raises important questions about the scope and composition of certain participating entities. Within the report—specifically in the section identifying participating employers—there is a category commonly referred to as “Miscellaneous Agencies.” This category includes a range of organizations, many with boards composed of elected and appointed officials and receiving varying levels of direct and indirect taxpayer support, but which are not traditional governmental bodies.
These entities include organizations such as:
- Tennessee Association of Property Assessing Officers – (1) registered lobbyist (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- Tennessee Municipal League – (6) registered lobbyists (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- Public Entity Partners – (6) registered lobbyists (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- Tennessee School Boards Association – (2) registered lobbyists (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- Tennessee Development Districts Association – (9) regional districts, with lobbying registrations not clearly centralized or publicly disclosed through a single entity
- Tennessee Education Association – (1) registered lobbyist (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- Tennessee County Services Association – (1) registered lobbyist (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
- County Officials Association of Tennessee – (2) registered lobbyists (based on Tennessee Ethics Commission records)
The structure becomes even more difficult to reconcile when considering governance. Certain organizations included within these nontraditional participants—namely the Tennessee Municipal League, the Tennessee County Services Association, and the County Officials Association of Tennessee—not only participate in TCRS, but are also statutorily authorized to appoint representatives to the TCRS Board of Trustees itself. In other words, some of these entities are not merely participants in our state-administered retirement system—they also have a role in its governance.
This creates multiple layers in which organizations that advocate on behalf of local governments, and in many cases engage in registered lobbying, also exercise direct influence over the administration of our multi-billion-dollar public pension system.
While these organizations vary in structure and purpose, most interact closely with public officials, have Boards exclusive to public officials, provide services connected to governmental functions, or represent public-sector stakeholders. In several instances, they function as statewide coordinators, government training partners, or advocacy organizations for elected officials—blurring the line between private association and public function.
At the same time, publicly available records from our Tennessee Ethics Commission indicate that many of these organizations—or individuals acting on their behalf—are registered to lobby or otherwise represent interests before our General Assembly. While lobbying activity is lawful, the intersection of lobbying activity with participation in a state-administered retirement system raises reasonable questions regarding transparency and classification.
This confusion raises important policy questions. TCRS was created to provide retirement security for public servants, and it operates within a system supported by public funding mechanisms, statutory authority, and fiduciary oversight obligations.
When entities that are not clearly governmental in structure participate in that system, it is reasonable to ask:
- What obligations do these TCRS participants have to Tennessee taxpayers?
- Are they subject to our Tennessee Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10‑7‑503)?
- Are they subject to our Tennessee Open Meetings Act?
- To what extent are their lobbying activities, funding sources, governance decisions, and policy positions transparent to the public?
In my experience, many of these entities have taken the legal position that they are private organizations and therefore not subject to public transparency laws. In some cases, they have retained private legal counsel and asserted that their internal records, governance structures, and lobbying activities are not accessible to the public—even where their operations intersect with taxpayer funding and publicly administered systems.
The TCRS report itself is an extensive document, spanning approximately 143 pages and containing complex financial and administrative information. Within that mess, however, are details that warrant closer examination—particularly the inclusion of nontraditional entities within categories of “political subdivision” participating employers whose employees receive state-administered retirement benefits within a system supported, directly and indirectly, by Tennessee taxpayers.
These issues do not necessarily indicate legal wrongdoing. However, they do point to a massive structural gray area—one that produces legitimate questions about whether Tennessee’s current framework appropriately balances participation in publicly administered systems with transparency, accountability, and consistency in how entities are classified under state law.
Public Resources for Review
To evaluate these issues yourself, check out the following official state resources:
- Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (TCRS) – Overview and Reports
https://treasury.tn.gov/retirement - TCRS Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (FY2025)
https://treasury.tn.gov/Explore-Your-TN-Treasury/About-the-Treasury/Department-Reports - Tennessee Ethics Commission – Lobbyist Search Portal
https://apps.tn.gov/ethicslobbyistsearch/
At a minimum, these are not narrow questions about participation in our state’s public pension system. In a state with one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation, and where property taxes have quickly and strangely become an increasingly significant component of local government funding, this raises broader issues of policy, ethics, transparency, and accountability—principles that are routinely examined when applied to traditional government agencies, but less consistently scrutinized when applied to quasi-public entities and affiliated organizations operating in the same space.
A broader question about Tennessee’s functional equivalency doctrine is relevant here, but it would be more appropriately addressed in a separate column.
Please review the TCRS materials, ask the important questions, and consider reaching out to your state legislators for a clear explanation of how these TCRS arrangements are structured, what safeguards are in place to ensure accountability, and how participation in TCRS aligns with their stated commitments to transparency.
One Response
With a few exceptions, lobbyists are cancers, ESPECIALLY those bringing benefits to legislators/policy makers.
The Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System has included many it shouldn’t.