Everyone paying attention to Allegheny County’s pension fund agrees: It has roughly $1.5 billion less than it will need to cover the retirement benefits of the county’s more than 12,000 employees and retirees. Everyone also agrees the problem took decades to create, and will take time to solve.

But at the moment, there’s the debate about who to blame.

District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has sued Allegheny County and its retirement board over the shortfall, on behalf of an employee in his office. And he’s also publicly accused the seven-member Retirement Board of Allegheny County of “pay-to-play politics” and “gross mismanagement of the Pension Fund,” and called for the ouster of its current members.

That’s despite the fact that the pension fund’s problems were well underway before those board members took office, a period that overlaps with Zappala’s own quarter-century stint in office.

Other county leaders are questioning his timing.

“Questions remain about why the DA did not act sooner, given that these issues date back decades,” said County Executive Sara Innamorato, who serves on the pension board, in a statement.

Zappala arguably became the most prominent critic of the pension management plan in late 2024, when he warned that the fund risked insolvency and asked the court to step in to ensure it remains “actuarily sound” over the long term. The pension system is “severely underfunded and presents a long-term risk for current and former County employees,” the lawsuit said.

Zappala said the system amounts to a “Ponzi scheme,” in which employees will “pay a substantial portion of their gross wages into the [pension] System over the next 14 years” but “face an insolvent System when they reach retirement, if nothing is done.”

But last week, after winning a partial victory in court earlier this month, Zappala sent a four-page letter addressed to the “employees and taxpayers of Allegheny County,” in which he accused the board of holding a series of “secret meetings” and engaging in “pay-to-play” politics by accepting political contributions from the board’s investment managers. The letter alleged that board members have long known of shortfalls but “failed to request needed funds because they were too politically conflicted to ask.”

Zappala’s letter urged “that County Council demand the immediate resignations of all members of the RBAC,” to be replaced by a chief investment officer. And his letter strongly suggests that further reckoning may be on the way.

“I hereby invite all current and former RBAC board members to come forward and tell me what you know regarding the ‘pay to play’ politics of the RBAC with political contributions from its investment advisors that surfaced in a spring 2023 RBAC meeting,” he says in the letter. “You can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way.”

When asked by WESA what “the hard way” would involve, Zappala responded in writing that the phrase was a “stern warning reminding board members of their fiduciary duties. We think they know what this means.”

He also said little to clarify what he meant by “secret meetings,” other than to say they were not executive sessions, which are permitted by law to discuss personnel and legal matters. Instead, he said they were “closed meetings with limited participation, [the] purpose of which was to deflect blame from the current RBAC board.”

Zappala’s letter does not identify specific contracts he believes to be improper, or single out individual board members he believes may have acted improperly. And he did not respond to a WESA query about who he suspects of “pay-to-play politics.”

But any misconduct in or prior to 2023 would have taken place before the current board took shape.

Both Innamorato and County Treasurer Erica Rocchi Brusselars serve on the board, but neither took office until 2024. Acting County Controller Amy Weise Clements, another pension board member, did not take her post or join the pension board until her predecessor, former Allegheny County Controller Corey O’Connor, became mayor of Pittsburgh this past winter.

Innamorato said Zappala is “presenting an alternate history of my actions and the Retirement Board’s.”

“The public deserves answers about the timing of his actions and his office’s conclusions,” she added — as well as about “what his office has determined about decisions made by prior board leadership.”

Zappala did not respond to questions about why he did not raise the concerns in his letter sooner, nor whether he planned to review the performance of previous board members.

But much of the pension deficit’s growth, as well as debates about potential pay-to-play politics on the retirement board, took place on other officials’ watch.

According to a consultant’s analysis of past actuarial reports, the deficit began to grow in 2004, six years into Zappala’s tenure as district attorney. It has been flagged by the county controller’s office in annual reports as a “chronic concern” for the county since at least 2020.

Innamorato’s seat at the time was held by Rich Fitzgerald, who led the county and sat on its retirement board since taking office in 2012. Brusselars’ predecessor had an even longer tenure: John Weinstein was elected as treasurer in 1999, and chaired the pension board prior to stepping down in 2023. Weinstein chose not to run for another term as treasurer that year, vying unsuccessfully to replace the term-limited Fitzgerald as county executive instead.

During the spring Democratic primary contest for that office, rival candidate Michael Lamb faulted Weinstein for not pushing forward on a proposal, advanced by then-Controller O’Connor, that would address concerns about “pay-to-play” politics by barring political contributions from firms with professional services contracts related to the pension fund.

Weinstein initially tabled the proposal, calling for further review. The board passed the measure the following month.

Under the policy, “a person or affiliated entity that, within the past two years, has made a contribution to a county official or candidate for county office … may not enter into a professional services contract with the county pension system.” Those holding professional services contracts are also barred from offering gifts to pension officials, or having any other “direct financial, commercial, or business relationship” with them.

The policy did not apply to contributions made prior to the spring of 2023, the timeframe in which Zappala’s letter expresses an interest, but it remains referenced in the board’s bylaws.

Weinstein, who has had political ties to Zappala from the early days of their political careers, did not respond to requests for comment on this story. But in 2023 he pushed back on Lamb’s attacks, noting that he had not opposed the ethics proposal, and defending his own record on ethics.

Fitzgerald, who sat on the retirement board from 2012 to 2023, told WESA he never used his power to add to his campaign coffers, and had no involvement in picking the fund managers that oversaw the pension.

“There was no pay-to-play with pensions or anything,” Fitzgerald said.

For their part, nine of 15 County Council members told WESA that they have no plans to demand anyone’s resignation from the retirement board — in part because they don’t believe they have the legal authority to do so.

The state law that established the retirement board also dictates its makeup: The county executive, county controller, and county treasurer are statutorily required to serve. Two seats on the seven-member board are filled by political appointees: one chosen by the county executive and the other by county council. Two others are chosen by members of the retirement system.

“County Council does not have the legal authority to create a new pension board,” said President Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis. “Those seats are designated by state statute.”

Zappala “should know that County Council has no authority to compel the resignation of the members of the Retirement Board,” other than its own appointee, said council member Dan Grzybek.

“I would encourage Mr. Zappala to work collaboratively with members of the board to solve this problem that was created by the politicians whom he has served alongside over the last 28 years,” Grzybek added.

Maria Montaño, a spokesperson for Brusselars, said the treasurer agrees with Zappala that the county must shore up the fund. Brusselars raised the concern during her 2023 campaign, though the issue gained little traction in the low-wattage race.

Montaño said Brusselars didn’t necessarily oppose Zappala’s key suggestion for replenishing the fund: putting it into a recovery program under Act 205, a state law that outlines pension funding standards and provides oversight to financially distressed plans.

But to be eligible for the program, the county would need action from the state legislature, and Montano said that any other fix similarly “would need authorizing legislation from the state.”

“There are limitations” to what leaders can do without state intervention, Fitzgerald agreed.

During his own time in office, Fitzgerald said, the board doubled the county’s yearly contribution from $40 million to $90 million. That entailed raising the employee contribution of the fund to 11% of their salaries.

That, Fitzgerald acknowledged, was a “very high level” that can “make it difficult for the county to hire people.” But he said that was one of the few changes the board could make without state action.

Earlier this month, an Armstrong County judge assigned to hear the case ruled that the county has a legal obligation to better fund the system. But Common Pleas Court Senior Judge Kenneth Valasek put a hold on the case for one year, during which time he hoped state and local officials could find alternatives.

“It will likely be necessary for the [state legislature] and the governor to intervene and give the county additional mechanisms to fund its employees’ retirements,” he wrote.

Montaño said a retirement board working group, convened in 2024 to address the faltering pension system, has been meeting with County Council and union representatives for the county’s more than 6,000 employees to discuss possible solutions. She said the problem was “an issue that's 20 years in the making, 25 years in the making, and the solutions are going to take quite a long time.”

This past Tuesday, meanwhile, County Council voted to seek to become a party in Zappala’s lawsuit against the retirement board. Council will seek permission to join the suit as an intervenor — a third party not named in the original complaint, but with a stake in the case’s outcome.

“We as a body need to be brought up to speed with all of the matters that have been brought before the court,” she said.

Council is responsible for approving the county’s multi-billion-dollar budget each year, and will ultimately need to ensure that the pension becomes actuarially sound.

Joining the suit “gives us a formal seat at the table,” Naccarati-Chapkis said.

On Tuesday Naccarati-Chapkis also announced plans to assemble a special committee on the pension, allowing council to hold its own investigation and hearings.

Both moves, she said, are meant to “paint a full picture of this particular issue and what the needs are moving forward.”

But Zappala isn’t waiting to take action. His office, the letter asserted, “will be pursuing other avenues of inquiry concerning RBAC’s business dealings.”