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.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Hang Loose

Very tittle is happening in the world of PERS these days.  The election is just two weeks away and many elements of the PERS agenda will be established after we know who will control the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate.  If the Democrats take both houses, the PERS bills are likely to be less draconian than if the Republicans control the Legislature.  Dr. No is still Governor and so a veto of any anti-PERS bill is still possible.  On balance I expect a number of major PERS bills to be introduced into the Legislature but have no idea which will pass and which will not see the light of day.  I'm hard at work gathering information, but I am not in a position to report anything because the election will determine many things about the likelihood of major PERS reform.  There WILL be a change to the assumed rate decided during 2013 for implementation on January 1, 2014.  Both employers and PERS members are likely to oppose this change since it will mean higher employer rates and lower employee benefits.  However, PERS has some latitude to reduce the employer impact, while still socking it to members on the verge of retirement.  The Legislature convenes in late January, with the first bills likely to be passed in late March or early April.  The courts have consistently ruled that the Legislature cannot change PERS retroactively, but the definition of retroactivity has not be firmly defined.

Right now, I am far away from Portland and do not expect to be back until the early part of November, before the elections.  Although I continue to get information, I'm not in a place where it is simple for me to just pick up the phone and gab with people about the perceived impact any particular action might have.

Please stay tuned as once the election is over, the serious business of figuring out what the Legislature might have planned for PERS will become clearer.  The 2013 session is likely to be as volatile as 2003, but the courts have made the boundaries of legislative action more marked.  In actuality, there aren't many bad things that can happen to people on the contingent edge of retiring.  Even a reduction in the assumed rate will have little impact on members retiring through 2013.  But there are other changes that will have direr consequences for members further away from retirement, and several changes that *could* have a significant impact on members already retired.  This is where the definition of "retroactive" becomes crucial and will be, most likely, up to the courts to determine.  The Legislature has an unfortunatete habit of shooting first and worrying about the consequences later.  Happily, if this occurs, every legislative bill on PErS has a clause that directs resolution immediately to the Oregon Supreme Court.  This means that the time between a law passing and the law's legality being determined is typically two years or less.  There are no civil actions extant, and so any litigation that arises to PERS will be of the sort that goes directly to the OSC for immediate resolution.

My advice to those anxious about this is to hang loose until after the election.  You can help the situation out by voting against any candidate twho has expressed any negative opinion of PERS.  If you don't know about your own legislator, write the candidates and ask them their position on PERS.  Most will answer honestly, or at least in a way that clues you in to how they might vote on prospective PERS legislation.  Support those candidates with established records on PERS issues or those who have taken a stand that indicates that they would be inclined to give some leeway to PERS members.  If not, then any negative results are on you, not me.

Keep your eyes and ears open, and seek information wherever you can.  The vote you use may be to your benefit if exercised properly.  I'll be back after the election to handicap the outcome of certain likely PERS bills to appear before the Legislature.

 

 

5 comments:

mrfearless47 said...

P.S. the "Doris" story below is coming to a conclusion soon. We've already got Doris' payment down to $200 (from $500), and OPRI has stepped in to nudge PERS down to the statutory maximum of 10%, which will be $149. PERS really doesn't have a choice but to comply with the 10% statute unless you actualy agreed, in writing, to the higher rate. Things should settle out this week for Doris.

Unknown said...

Have been hanging loose since 8/09, tier 1, 27 yrs, fixed not currently drawing.
How would this new rate affect me in terms of when to begin drawing on the pension. Take the eight or hang with the new rate?
The goal is to try and get back to the calculated benifit estimate of 2004 before the adjustment. Current estimate of attaining said goal is three years down the road without any changes.
Thanks

mrfearless47 said...

I'm not sure what I'd recommend that you do. It isn't clear whether you are still working for a PERS agency or not. If not, then you will surely go out under Money Match. The thing I'd be concerned about is what the Legislature has in mind. I've heard some rumors that some Legislators would like to disconnect the assumed rate for retirees from the assumed rate for members. In effect, they'd like to use a much lower actuarial assumption for retirees than the Board set, actuarially recommended, assumed interest rate. Whether that is legal or not remains to be seen. If you are not working, surely the earnings since 2004 have more than exceeded whatever you lost as a result of the takeback from 1999. And you're 8 years older. Hard to imagine that you haven't reached back to the level of 2004 with 8% returns in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. From what I've heard, a 50 basis point (0.5%) reduction in the assumed rate would cost you 6 months. In other words, you'd have to wait 6 months longer to draw the same benefit you would at 8%. Assume that every 50 basis points costs you 6 months, so you should be able to cost out how much longer to wait assuming the Legislature changes nothing else. You'd also have to factor in any changes to the actuarial tables that would go into effect at the same time any changes to the assumed rates go into effect. Personally, if I were in your situation, a bird in the hand.....

mrf

Bob Frazier said...

I'm completing 30 years in PERS, and plan to "quit" June 30th 2013, and just hold my PERS then actually retiring (drawing on it) nine years from now.

I understand a lot could and probably will happen in those 9 years that could change that plan.

I appreciate while, though already retired, you're still looking out for those of us planning to "hang loose"... that would be me.

Thanks,
BobF

Bob Frazier said...

I'm completing 30 years in PERS, and plan to "quit" June 30th 2013, and just hold my PERS then actually retiring (drawing on it) nine years from now.

I understand a lot could and probably will happen in those 9 years that could change that plan.

I appreciate while, though already retired, you're still looking out for those of us planning to "hang loose"... that would be me.

Thanks,
BobF