If you wish to help support the ongoing costs of running this blog and you haven't purchased anything through Amazon on this site, please consider a small donation to defray basic costs. It isn't free to me to keep this site current. I have to pay for bandwidth, costs of duplicating documents when they exist only in paper form, and keep printer ink around to read lengthy documents, and the time to do the research. Thank you. Marc Feldesman, site owner and publisher.
Oregon PERS Information is Copyright Marc R. Feldesman (c) 2003 - 2018 All Rights Reserved. Posts may not be reprinted without prior consent.

Please don't post your comments more than once. I moderate all comments and a delay between posting and appearing is part of the drill here. I get to all comments in due time. Please don't continually repost the same comment. Only one will be posted. Thank you.

Friday, May 01, 2009

The Beat Goes On

Just a quick note here to let people know that Judge Kantor granted PERS' motion to stay implementation of the Robinson judgement. This ruling affects only people who were invoiced and either paid or were started on the actuarial reduction plan before Judge Kantor's ruling in June 2007. PERS will not refund any payments received or collections started before that date until all final rulings at the appelate level play out.


mrfearless47 said...

This is actually the second post with the same title. The first version was live-blogged from inside the court as the proceedings were ongoing. It is far snarkier than this brief summary. I guess the gods were punishing me for my sarcastic comments and didn't publish it. Oh well. Jim Coon and I did have a nice chat before and after the proceedings. He's going to be starting his own blog to keep interested retirees up on the various proceedings. Go for it Jim.

mrfearless47 said...

During the hearings Kantor was snarky to both sides. Malkin, speaking for PERB, was chewed out by Kantor for using "California" forms to form the stay motion. Kantor chided him that things are done differently in Oregon. Nevertheless, the issue deciding the matter in PERS' favor was the number of different matters currently under review. Kantor opined that it made no sense for PERS to go back and refigure this for the 4300 retirees affected by the stay, only to have the rulings undone by a higher court, or to have a different decision in another case require PERS to take a completely different approach. He was not sympathetic to PERS' argument about the financial cost of complying, nor to its argument of how long it might take, but he did suggest that the number of balls up in the air right now make such a stay virtually a necessity. There was no worry expressed about the effect on retirees if the stay were denied and then reversed. The issue was simply that there were too many things going on that could lead to too many different possible outcomes and that muddying the waters by forcing PERS to implement Robinson now was simply premature. PERS is OK so long as they comply with the order to take no further action to collect overpayments from those not under collection already.

MollyNCharlie said...

Thanks for these details, for helping us get a feel for what went down in Kantor's court. I'm sure it made it easier for Kantor to discount the impact of his decisions on retirees that you were the only retiree who showed up for this hearing. Sorry I didn't come to watch and keep you and Jim Coon company.