HELENA -- Gov. Brian Schweitzer is again urging the board that oversees the Montana public employees retirement system to release information to a group that represents police officers.

The Montana Police Protective Association filed a lawsuit against the state Public Employees Retirement Board on Nov. 1, after the board refused to release financial information on a police retirement fund.

The board argued that releasing the information would violate the privacy rights of those covered by the retirement fund.

The association, which represents nearly 600 active police officers, is seeking the data so its own expert can look at how a deferred-retirement program is affecting the state retirement fund for about 1,200 retired and active police officers.

In a November letter to the board, Schweitzer said the police group provided a ''pragmatic resolution'' when it offered to work with the board to get a protective order that would limit the disclosure of any private information. He asked the board to ''seek to resolve this dispute expeditiously.''

But board members have continued to withhold the data. And in a July 10 ruling, District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock of Helena ordered them to turn over the data to the police group, saying the people seeking the information weren't ''just any Tom, Dick and Harry.''

''These are individuals who wish to examine the workings of a government program that significantly affects them,'' the judge wrote.

Sherlock also encouraged the two sides to obtain a protective order that would limit disclosure of the information to the police group's expert, its director and its attorney.

On Tuesday, the governor sent the board another letter, asking for a quick response to Sherlock's order.

''I write you again, this time to express more strongly my advice that you respond to the court's order without delay, work with the association to fashion a protective order and provide the requested information to that organization,'' Schweitzer wrote.

Scott Miller, legal counsel for the retirement board, said the board has scheduled a special closed-session meeting for Friday to discuss its legal strategy in the case. Members will decide then whether to appeal Sherlock's ruling, and their decision will be made public after the meeting, he said.

''If they decide not to appeal, then we'll work with MPPA's attorney to craft the protective order the judge wanted,'' Miller said.

He declined to comment on Schweitzer's letters but said board members have a ''responsibility to administer the system as it's written and to take into account the constitutional rights'' of those covered by the fund.

''The board believes it is protecting the privacy interests of these individuals,'' he said.

The deferred-retirement program at the center of the dispute was created to encourage veteran police officers to keep working rather than retiring after 20 years. Officers who continue to work can still begin drawing retirement money, but it goes into a deferred account and is paid out in a lump sum when they retire.

Those who keep working must continue paying 9 percent of their salary into the retirement fund for all officers, but their retirement pay is frozen at the 20-year level.

Tim Hawkins, president of the police association, has said officers are questioning why they should keep paying into the fund when they see no increased benefits.

In addition, a consultant hired by the retirement board in 2006 said the deferred-retirement program was harming the financial health of the police retirement fund.