The Special Master hearings in the Moro et al consolidated cases (SB 822 and SB 861) are due to conclude today, if they haven’t already. As a result of circumstances beyond my control (taxes, travel, crises), I wasn’t able to attend any of the hearings; however all of the pleadings, briefs, and responses are posted on the web page of the Bennett, Hartman PERS site (here). There is a remarkable deja vu about the pleadings, especially those concerning the COLA changes incorporated in SB 822 and SB 861. Besides the historical argument, new to the briefs this time around, there is an extensive discussion of what the court actually concluded in its 2005 Strunk decision on the Legislative reforms of 2003. The state’s response is also predictable, denying certain facts as facts, arguing that the plaintiffs are trying to present as facts, legal conclusions. The back and forth between the parties is so much like the Special Master hearings in 2004 that just reading the different parties arguments makes me feel like I’ve been teleported back to 2004.
The arguments over the income tax subsidies for out of state retirees is all new. The crux of the argument revolves around the Hughes case (1991), the adoption of HB 3349, and what the legislative intent of SB 651 (1991) was. This could be a trickier legal battle than I thought it might have been in the past.
The Special Master will digest all this material and present his report to the Oregon Supreme Court on or before April 30, 2014. Once the report is available, I will provide a link to it from here. Do recall that the Special Master report is simply another piece of evidence used by the Supreme Court in formulating its rulings. The justices are not obligated to use any or all of the report; they may reject some findings, accept others, and completely ignore still others.
Stay tuned as we play out this craps game on the legal felt in Portland and Salem.