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 - 2017 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.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Into The White

Finally, we have a date and time for the hearings on the White case. Plan to be at the Multnomah County Courthouse by 9:00 a.m. on Friday June 5, 2009. At this event both sides will get a chance to present their arguments. Since this case has been in the "mill" so to speak since 2004, it might be entertaining to watch as Judge Kantor tries to understand this case. Apparently he thought it was going to be an easy case for him last year, but decided after canceling the earlier hearings to reschedule them afterall. In a followup post, I will explain the issues involved in White. Suffice it to say right now that White challenges PERS' right to enter into the settlement agreement in the City of Eugene case (remember that one?) without involving one of the parties to be affected by the settlement (the members).


1 comment:

J Stevenson said...

There was an article recently(week of 5/20)in the Mail Tribune about a Jackson County judge's ruling in an aggregate extraction case. If I correctly understand the newspaper account, he ruled that since the settlement agreement between the county and the gravel owners didn't include the participation of the people opposing the mining operation, it won't stand. It concerns a measure 37 claim, but the ruling was based on non-participation of one party in an agreement arrived at by others.