Happiness is a Warm Gun

And a quick trigger finger.   I'm getting dozens of emails per day asking for advice about when to retire during 2011.  As we all know, the Legislature will convene on February 1, 2011.  During the first month of any legislative session, except an emergency session, the bills are introduced and assigned to committees.  During the second month, the bills start moving through the committees and eventually out on to the floors for a vote if so recommended by the committee in charge of hearing the bill.  We've already seen at least a dozen "suggestions" for ways to reduce PERS costs.  Some of these suggestions are properly in the purview of the PERS Board, not the Legislature.  Others are in the purview of the Legislature.  Still others *may* be effected by the Governor's order.  In a situation like this, it is worthwhile to examine the timing of one's retirement.  The courts have ruled that neither PERS nor the Legislature may unilaterally abrogate the PERS "contract", nor may they enact changes that apply either retroactively or retrospectively.

Armed with this information, I've been suggesting to people that IF THEY WERE ALREADY PLANNING TO RETIRE DURING 2011, that I would consider a retirement on or before March 1 to be the safest bet.  It is unlikely that the Legislature will be able to get anything out of committee, passed, joined by the other house and signed by the Governor much before March 31, at the earliest.  This means that if a bill is enacted as an emergency, it could be in effect as soon as the Governor signs the bill.  If you can possibly retire before March 1 -- and were planning to retire anyway during 2011 -- it is unlikely that waiting a few extra months is worth the potential risk.

Please bear in mind that this is not advice but merely a suggestion.  Some people aren't eligible to retire by March 1, but might be able to retire in August.  Obviously, you can't retire before you're eligible.  Similarly, some people need the income that a few extra months might bring.  What you have to do is to ask the question of whether waiting a few extra months is worth the chance that you might not get the extra income you expected because of some rule change that goes into effect between March 1 and the time you planned to retire.

To my friends at PERS, I am not advertising for anyone to retire.  I am merely advising people about the timing of certain events that are forthcoming in the new year.  The worst thing I could wish for you is a crushing caseload to fill all your spare time.  I know that you've got more than enough on your plate with the nuisance requests from the Oregonian and the Statesman Journal.  I hope you can get some extra bucks from the Legislature to hire a few more bodies.

This will probably be my last post before Xmas.  I'm leaving in the morning for a brief vacation in Minnesota (only I could go on vacation to a place where the high will be 9 degrees for the next four days.  I've got my shorts, my HawaIian shirts, my sunblock and my Maui Jim's already packed).

Merry Christmas and Happy Kwaanzaa to all my friends who celebrate those holidays.  Happy belated Hanukkah to my landsmen who celebrate that glorious 8 days.  And to all, a happy new year.

 

 

 

Deja Vu (all over again)

I spent two hours yesterday sitting through a pretty content rich but sizzleless PERB meeting. I could report on the whole meeting, but much of the meeting was pretty tedious and there wasn't much to get into a fuss over. I'm going to focus on several things that members/retirees/future retirees should be concerned about.

First, the system is in pretty good shape - indeed better than most of the other public retirement systems nationally. The earnings for 2010 are on track to meet the assumed rate, though not much more. The system needs earnings greater than 8% for quite a few years in a row to return to fully funded status and keep employer rates stable. For the system, the bad news is that there are currently 66,000 PERS members who are actually eligible to retire right now. I think that is about 1/3 of the total public employee workforce. PERS is in no way equipped to manage a sudden blast of retirements much in excess of about 6000 per year, which is normal and expected for 2010.

The bad news. PERB and PERS staff continue to fight SB 897 (the verification bill). Despite being passed in the 2010 special session, both staff and board are bothered by the word "guaranteed" in the bill's language and passed a legislative concept to amend the bill to remove the guarantee. Despite an impassioned plea from new Board member Pat West - a retiree - having the "guarantee" removed would be tantamount to gutting the bill's intent, which is to provide potential retirees of the correctness of their information up to two years before retirement. PERS is simply uncomfortable with "guaranteeing" anything. If they win on this battle, potential retirees will be no more assured of the accuracy of their retirement calculations than they are now. It is frustrating to see the number of ways that PERS and PERB is trying to thwart the intent of the law.

The big-ticket item - the laundry list of potential actions against PERS members and retirees described in "Tiny Apocalpse" - was not a subject of discussion at the Board meeting. It was information presented by Director Cleary to show the format in which all such proposals will be reported back to their proposers, the Legislature, etc. There will not be provided any legal analysis of the bills since that properly is the AG's jurisdiction. Cleary pointed out that these were just "some" of the ideas that have been gathered from the publishing ozone over the past few years and do not represent anything substantive or indicative of what might be proposed in the upcoming Legislative session. Cleary also pointed out that "some" of the items are clearly only the purview of the Board (e.g. setting the 'assumed rate'). This telegraphed to the Legislature that PERS was going to be proactive in preventing the Legislature from trying to micromanage PERS. This was good news, at least to me.

Next, Mercer presented a very brief overview of the rate setting process and explained clearly *why* employer rates would be going up in the next several biennia. It was informative and it revealed that Mercer is a bit uncomfortable with the current 8% rate assumption. Following Mercer's presentation, there was a report on the audit of Mercer by yet another firm. This is considered "best practice" to audit the actuarial work every half decade or so. This is PERS' third such audit since 2000. Again, the auditor reported an extremely "clean audit" with only several areas where Mercer should be rethinking some of the actuarial assumptions. In particular, the auditor reported that although PERS' assumed rate of 8% is at the median of public employee systems, that many are beginning to lower that assumption to figures under 8%. She suggested that Mercer and the PERB consider the possibility that 8% is too high for these times and that something along the lines of 7.5% or 7.75% might be more appropriate (see above for Cleary's stance on proper venues for consideration of certain changes). This is much better than the numbers floating around now, such as 6%, and probably represent the most likely scenario for the next actuarial valuation in July 2011.

Lastly, the Board and PERS staff had a somewhat lengthy discussion of the Oregonian's request(s) for retiree information, as well as the Statesman-Journal's request for even more. Recall that the Oregonian asked for detailed information on retirees earning more than $100,000 annually. They subsequently asked for the same details on all retirees who returned to work in some capacity during 2009. These requests are placing PERS in a difficult position, bringing into conflict two core values of the organization - transparency and privacy. The present law allows "public records requests" to be contested on an individual basis. PERS has three such general requests - all declined - hanging out in some phase of litigation. PERS staff has recommended, and the Board approved, a concept that includes writing the Judge in Marion County and asking him to appoint a special panel to review these general requests and to guide all stakeholders towards a clearer way for PERS to evaluate these requests. If litigation is the only route, it could take years before any request is ultimately ruled on. Rodeman also mentioned that the costs of these requests are not only non-trivial, they are ridiculously high. He gave the example of the Statesman Journal's request for complete information (similar to the Oregonian's) on ALL PERS retirees (110,000), not simply those making more than $100K annually. He pointed out that each individual requested requires about 20 minutes of staff time to pull together all the information from the various systems, collate the information into requested and redacted, and get it to hard copy. With 110,000 retirees, each taking 20 minutes, it would take approximately 20 man-years to collate the necessary information. He remarked that "...it hardly makes sense for someone to order us to give out the information and for us to say 'OK, come back in 20 years' and prepare for a large bill". Hartman advised the Board to be working with the AG's office since that office has stated that it wants to amend and update the open records' law in the next Legislature. He argued that it doesn't make a lot of sense to be worrying too much about the current issues since whatever the Court might decide could be undone by the Legislature in 2011 anyway.

In the meantime, you can all be assured that PERS has come down on the side of retirees' privacy in this instance, asserting that it can see no public interest to be served in releasing the names along with the other information, which is already public in many documents. The names add nothing to the public's "need to know" and that "PERS By The Numbers" provides all the detail that the public and any stakeholder needs to see exactly how and where the money is going.

Next meeting set for January just after the Legislature convenes. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Tiny Apocalypse

This coming Friday (November 19) PERS Board meeting contains some juicy tidbits about what ideas are floating around for reforming PERS. For those who want to see them in their raw form, check the PERS website and look for the information packet posted yesterday for Friday's meeting. The item of interest is labeled D.2.c under new business. For those who don't want to see this, I summarize here.

We have speculated for some time about what *might* happen during the 2011 legislative session. Based on all the ideas floating around, PERS has assembled the most plausible ones and has analyzed them for costs (to members, retirees, employees), costs to PERS to administer, and the net savings from making the changes.

Three of the items pertain to the 6% IAP contribution. One eliminates it; one allows partial "pickup" of member contributions, and the third eliminates in statute the requirement to contribute. This is no surprise; we've seen it discussed repeatedly. In any form, this is a salary cut.

The next raft of potential cuts include those affecting already retired, and retiring members. This is, in fact, the longest list. It includes: 10% across the Board benefit reduction for all retirees (this hits everyone hard and saves a ton of money as you might expect). The second proposal establishes a maximum annual benefit cap as a percent of FAS. This would directly affect members getting ready to retire. The next would be to change the interest rate used to calculate money match benefits for new retirees. PERS estimates that going from 8% to 6% would reduce benefits for a 60 year old by 16%; for a 55 year old by 25%. Next, there is floating the idea to change the factors used to compute FAS, eliminating vacation time, sick leave, overtime, and others that inflate FAS from what the base salary rate is. Next, they have considered the impact of requiring members to have worked at least 10 years before retiring to be eligible for a COLA. Another would eliminate the tax adjustment for out of staters. Two more variants include eliminating the COLA for one biennium (2 years), or setting COLA eligibility to the first $24,000 of annual benefit. Next, we have the predictible proposal for a 4th tier for new members - yet another defined benefit plan - or a 4th Tier consisting of a defined contribution plan

Finally, there are the usual arrays of accounting tricks to benefit employers in the short or long term. One is to increase the UAL amortization period to 30 years from 20 years; next is to reduce assumed earnings rate to 7.5% (note, this is different from reducing the Money Match earnings rate from 8% to 6%), and finally, to limit net employer rate increases to 3% of payroll. Both the first and third changes would simply push the deficit further down the road, forcing future generations to deal with the problem.

Before anyone panics, these are simply analyses done because one or another or all of these ideas have been floated by someone, somewhere, and relatively recently. PERS decided to analyze these for costs and benefits without any regard to the legality of any of them. Virtually all of the cuts to existing retiree benefits (and there are surprisingly more than I thought), would be challenged immediately and probably would not stand court muster (I hope). But this doesn't mean that we can remain blithe about these and ignore what is going on. We should be ramping up to oppose any adjustment to benefits we are already receiving, including the COLA. Most of us have already given as a result of the 2003 legislation; I'm not planning on giving more.

Study these closely. Read the agenda and look at the amount of money that would be saved. Examine the amount of the budget shortfall for 2011-13 and see which of these changes would do the most to reduce that shortfall while also limiting legal exposure and potential loss in the courts.

The time to get active is NOW. The time to be conversing with your legislators is NOW. For actives, the damage potential is severe; for retirees, the impacts could be catastrophic since we're not working and have no way to make up the lost income (I suppose we could become greeters at WalMart). Also not analyzed is the loss to Oregon in tax revenue from any benefit cuts for future retirees or current ones.

I'm sure there are other ideas floating around, but this list represents the most complete elucidation of areas for potential cuts that I've seen in one place for some time. We are looking at an array of potential changes that are nothing short of apocalyptic. If this list doesn't energize you to do something, I don't know what will.

Time for all of us to get off our complacent rears and start writing letters. This stuff makes my head spin.

Cleanup Time

An email appeared in my box yesterday containing a copy of an October 18, 2010 order from the Oregon Court of Appeals directing the Arken case (and, by implication, the Robinson Case) directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.  The Arken/Robinson cases were argued before the Oregon Court of Appeals last month.  Instead of ruling on those appeals, the Oregon Court of Appeals wisely decided to fast-track them to the Supreme Court without taking a time for a ruling.  They reasoned that both cases pertain to the Supreme Court's own ruling in Strunk and the City of Eugene. Since the Oregon Legislature directed appeals of the Legislative assembly's statutory changes in HB 2003 directly to the Supreme Court, and since these two cases fall directly out of those challenges, the Oregon Court of Appeals felt that the only proper jurisdiction for these cases was the Oregon Supreme Court itself.

I regard this as good news, as it expedites (I hope) the process of litigating these cases.  While I still hold to my original prediction of 2012, I am willing to assume that the decision will come sooner in 2012 than I had expected.  I don't if there is any more to do with the Oregon Court of Appeals (the White case remains there, but it has a different set of judiciable issues), but I think it is safe to assume that nothing further will be done with Arken and Robinson until the hearings before the Supreme Court, and awaiting the Court's decision.  The parties to all the cases will now have to prepare all the appropriate briefing materials for the OSC.

If you want to see a copy of the court's ruling, it should be posted at the PERS Library soon.

Ventilator Blues

(I've edited the date so this remains on top for awhile.  It is vitally important that as many as possible read it and have an opportunity to take action preemptively.)

The definition of insanity is trying to do something over and over and hoping for a different result.  Our local whoremongers and fishmongers over at the Whoregonian are wheezing out their last breaths on their ventilator.  Nevertheless, they have the unmitigated gall (chutzpah) to demand a public records hearing with the Marion County Circuit Court to get PERS to release, to them, the names (and more) of all PERS retirees earning more than $100K per year.   In addition to the names, the Oregonian asked for retirement date, employer, years of service, job classification, final average salary, regular monthly payment, any other monthly benefit, any other benefit from PERS monthly or annually (e.g. IAP).

The Whoregonian wouldn't take no for an answer from PERS, which claimed it was exempt from the request under ORS 192.502 (the public records disclosure statutes), as well as OAR 459-060-0020.  They went to Attorney General Kroger and requested that he order PERS to comply.  On October 2, the AG's office order PERS to comply.  On October 15, 2010, PERS filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Marion County to determine whether, in fact, the records request meets the standards set by the public records law.

Although I am not affected by the outcome of this decision, I know a few people who are.  Most are physicians who worked at OHSU; a few were heads of very large agencies managing near billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees.  You would expect those people to earn more than $100,000 in retirement just because you know what they earned when they were working.  It isn't clear that the Oregonian is after those people.  It appears to me that this is a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks".  I think the Whoregonian is searching for the more "ordinary" people who retired at more than 100% of their somewhat high 5 salary and whose earnings during the period from 2002-2007 pushed them into a money match retirement of 100% of salary + more.

If this is the whores' request, then Ted Sickinger is trying to serve two ( and possibily three) objectives in this request:   1) to up the electorate's outrage prior to November 2, 2010 and influence the outcome of the election; 2) to up the ante for new and continuing Legislators and the new Governor to take further action to reform PERS during the 2011 Legislative Session; and 3) to open the door to more requests for the same information for all retirees, or for at least those possibly earning more than 100% of FAS.

I think that point number 1 is probably moot now.  I don't see how the court will issue a ruling that can compel PERS to collect and turn over that information before the outcome of the election is known.  And I expect PERS to drag its feet as long as it can, even if it is ordered to comply.  However, if it is ordered to comply, then there can be no legal reason to prevent PERS from being asked for all the rest of the information.  After all, if the public records law ORS 192.502 does not apply to the cohort whose names and other information the Whoregonian is requesting, then it doesn't apply to anyone.

This is one of those cases where everyone should hope that PERS wins and it wins big.  I do not want my information to be made public.  I do not want to be held up to harassment and other forms of actions and neither do you.  You should be afraid, very afraid of this request.   This is an invasion of privacy of the worst kind.  When we accepted a public employment job, we agreed that our names and our salaries would be a matter of public record.  But we did not agree that our retirement benefits would be made public.  I knew that during my working career, all of the pertinent salary information on all public employees was available at the PSU library for the price of the time for looking for it.  But I never believed I had a right to go to my employer and ask for salary information on anyone else.  If I wanted it I had to work for it the hard way.  The whores at the Whoregonian want it the easy way, by demanding it.  They have no right to this information.  OAR 459-060-0020 states it clearly:  the financial records of a retired PERS member are exempt:  "unless, to do so would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy and if there is clear and convincing evidence that disclosure is in the public's interest..."   I submit that disclosing such information has no public interest except voyeurism and exposure to harassment, and therefore is exempt. The Whoregonian has no right to this information, period!  Let's hope that the same Marion County Circuit Court that shafted us in City of Eugene will show the same legal fortitude it used in that case to prevent the Whoregonian from making our lives more miserable than ever.

If you are concerned about this, I suggest you find legal counsel to represent your personal interests.  If you don't care, don't say you weren't warned.

 

Heartache For Everyone

Our favorite bird-cage liner, the Whoregonian is mining its readers for ideas on how to cut the budget for the 2011-13 biennium.  They posted a half-assed poll yesterday asking readers to vote for their top five choices for cuts or budget enhancements for the next Legislative session.  Among the choices were diverting some portion of the gas tax to support state police, a 5% sales tax, ending the corporate kicker.  But more significantly they had some delicious (not) ideas for state employees - across the board pay cuts of 10%, and eliminating the 6% pickup.  When I checked yesterday, about 4000 people had voted and a large percentage of voters had listed the two anti-public employee cuts among their top 5 choices.  Since the paper is not doing this for enlightened self-interest, they are undoubtedly going to hand off this poll to legislators and gubernatorial candidates to take to Salem to consider in the next legislative session.

This next legislative session promises to be brutal on public employees.  Keep that in mind when you consider who to vote for in the upcoming general election.

 

The Laws Have Changed

I now have enough information from independent sources to reconstruct pretty much both hearings last Thursday on the Arken and Robinson cases.  Because of the surprise change in length of the hearings, many were surprised and somewhat unprepared for the quadrupling of the hearing time for each case.  That is why it has been somewhat difficult to cobble together accurate notes.  I am collating the notes now and will be back later to offer a summary graciously supplied from four different people in attendance at the meetings.  Not all attendees were civilians.  At least one is a member of one of the legal teams in attendance.  The notes are fairly consistent so I feel that collectively my sources have provided accurate summaries of what turned out to be very fast moving questions and answers.

Check back here later today for more details.  I won't write a separate post.  I'll just amend this post.

 

Life has a way of interfering with my writing.  Labor Day weekend proved to busier than I expected.  I didn't have time to put together the summary of the hearings on Thursday.  Do not despair.  I *will* get them written up and posted; just not as quickly as I had expected.

I Should Have Known It

Yesterday, the Oregon Court of Appeals took oral arguments in both the Arken and Robinson cases.  As originally billed, the arguments were to be 15 minutes for each case, to be heard sequentlally.  I decided that going down to Salem for a 15 minute oral in each case was hardly worth the gas and parking and so committed to other plans for yesterday, which left me carless for most of the morning.  About 8:40 a.m., 20 minutes before the cases were scheduled to be heard, I got a voicemail from my dear friend PEG, who lives much closer than I to the court, that they had changed the oral arguments from 15 minutes to 30 minutes and then to 60 minutes for each case.  Had I known this about 45 minutes earlier, I could have managed to get to Salem in time for at least one of the cases, if not both of them.  As it turned out, I could get to neither, and PEG's schedule did not permit her to stay for the entire Robinson argument.

The upshot of this is that I have very little information to report on either hearing until one of the other sources present offers up his/her reactions and notes (if any) on the proceedings.  I do know that the questioning in Arken was very brisk, the court was fully engaged, and seemed to have managed to do its homework and had a far better grasp of the nuances and complexities of the Arken case than Judge Kantor seemed to have of the case.  That said, there are no contemporaneous notes of the hearing (at least not now).  All that exists are PEG's reactions to the judges' questioning during the hearing.  She reported that the judges directed far more of their questions at Greg Hartman than to the PERS/State attorneys.  PEG felt that the questions were designed, at least partly, at getting to the human cost of the decisions.  This seems to be the first time that the actual retirees affected by the various interpretations of the settlement agreement and the Lipscomb decision, as well as pieces of HB 2003, were actually viewed in human terms, not just legal terms.  Whether this means that the Court is leaning more towards overturning Kantor or not remains to be seen.  As PEG and I would both agree based on sitting in on dozens of these legal proceedings is that there is hardly any relationship between the questions asked, who they're asked of, and the final decision.

It actually matters little in the end anyway.  These cases will not be decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals.  They will render a verdict and whichever party loses will appeal the decision(s) to the Oregon Supreme Court.  This will not be over until the Supreme Court decides.  If retirees win, expect PERS to drag its feet until another law suit forces them into moving (as is what happened in the Hughes decision in 1991, which wasn't implemented until two legislative sessions later).  On the other hand, if the retirees lose, especially the Robinson case, you can expect PERS to proceed to collections with lightening speed.  PERS moves fast if they are getting money; they move with glacial speed if they have to return some.

As I have predicted many times before, we won't have a final set of verdicts in these cases until 2012, at the earliest.  It may take some additional time if we actually win Arken.  If we win Robinson it will merely preserve the status quo except for a very small number of people who will have a large debt wiped away and their monthly payments go up by some small or slightly larger amount to adjust for repayments they've already made.

Another small step has now been taken in the speedy (not!) process of justice.  These cases involve acts from 2003 and 2004 and 2006.  Who says justice is slow?  Isn't 8 or 9 years pretty normal for a case to run its course?

Enjoy your Labor Day weekend.  Hopefully will have a nice bout of weather for us to enjoy the outside a few more times before the rains return.

 

A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

The usual bunch of the "sky is falling crowd" have awakened from its summer slumber to announce that PERS is in trouble. We have the Oregonian (yesterday) describing the different poisons the legislature and PERS might have to choose from to make the system less expensive, the Register-Guard whining over the conflict of interest that exists because the Legislators and the Judges are all PERS members, and Phil Keisling, new to his bully pulpit at PSU, publishing a shortened version of his PERS "white paper" in the PSU Real Estate Review (god knows, why there?).

Let's face facts. PERS is a very unpopular topic these days. Everyone from Dennis Richardson to Phil Keisling have ideas for further fixing the system. From looking over all the various suggestions, there is only one possible change that could affect a small percentage of retirees. Right now, ALL PERS retirees who worked in the system prior to October 1991 receive a "benefit increment adjustment" to offset the loss of the income tax waiver that PERS members had prior to October 1991. Some are now proposing that people who choose to live out of state should not be getting an adjustment meant to offset Oregon income taxes since they don't pay Oregon income taxes now. This is a very old topic that has been around since HB 3349 was enacted in 1995. Back then, both PERS and the Oregon Department of Revenue argued that they didn't have the resources to be the "residency police". They are worse off today than in 1995, so I'm hard-pressed to see how this bird will fly during the next session. Neither party responsible for enforcing this change wants to do it because it is a giant resource sink. The savings are comparatively small - $72 million *before* overhead. This is likely to net less than $40 million. Other grand ideas include renegotiating the 6% pickup so that employees, not employers pay the bill. This was originally negotiated in lieu of a salary increase; it is only fair then that it be renegotiated and be replaced by a salary increase. Of course, no one wants to do this; it would negate any savings that could be netted from taking away the benefit.

There are a variety of other ideas out there too. They include a forced lowering of the assumed rate. The Oregonian finally gets it that this is a money loser for the system, but it is even worse for PERS actives. This will be a very hard sell with both employers and employees initially aligned together in opposition. Another idea is to change the way PERS interprets the COLA adjustment for new retirees. Basically, what is being suggested is that new retirees not get a COLA for the first year or so after retirement. It is more complicated than this, but it relates to why so many people choose to retire on July 1. This one can be enacted by the PERS Board, but will be entangled in litigation for years if they try it.

Finally, various parties have suggested that health care benefits for actives be less generous by making active employees pay some greater share than they pay now. Again, this is a negotiation item, not a legislative action.

Between the Legislature, a new Governor, a bunch of rabble-rousers, and a hapless PERS Board that capitulates to almost anything the employers want, I can see the next year being brutal on active PERS members and new retirees. It is going to be a difficult contract negotiation for the unions, unclassified employees might find themselves with changes shoved down their throats without any option, and the Legislature could enter the act and inflict new forms of horror on actives and new retirees. A new Governor, elected on a platform of fiscal reform, could be just like our current Governor, perhaps worse, not likely better.

Get out your umbrellas. The hard rain is coming.

Apologia

Sorry for the rude invitation to engage with Yahoo.  I'm not exactly certain how that post got there except to say that it was something I did in the fog of being jet-lagged from our trip to Europe (Netherlands, Italy, Croatia, Greece, and Turkey).  In any case, I *think* I inadvertently accepted an invitation to link my PERS blog with another PERS blog.  It turns out that I had linked to an invitation to receive updates from my own blog - what a moron I was to do that.  I have deleted the offending and stupid post along with any links that may have been created inadvertently.  We now return to our regular programming.

The only news I have to report is that the Oregon Court of Appeals will hear the appeals of the Arken and Robinson cases on Thursday September 2, 2010 at the Supreme Court in Salem at 9:00 a.m.  The cases are scheduled to be heard sequentially, not simultaneously as was originally reported.  Each side in each case will get only 15 minutes to present the essence of its argument.  This clearly means that the case will be argued through the briefs, not on the basis of what anyone says during the oral hearings.  This may be one of those instances where you will expend a lot of energy to get to the hearings, only to discover that not much of value is said and that you will come away knowing just as much as you knew before you left.  Nevertheless, these judicial exercises are always entertaining so if you have some time to kill, I urge you to attend.

First Flash Of Freedom

The family and I will be leaving for Italy at the end of the week.  It has been a year since we were last in Europe, and the great exchange rate between the Euro and the Dollar inspired us to do a more protracted trip this year.  We've got housesitters, dog sitters, mail sitters, and newspaper sitters all aligned like the stars in the out nebula.  After a week or so in Northern Italy, we shall catch a Norwegian Cruise Ship and make our way to Athens, Dubrovnic, Napthlion, Ismir, and Split, finally heading back into Venice when August tips its nose at us.  Consider this your warning that PERS news is empty right now and I will have no hit tips to offer for the next three weeks or so.  I plan, jet lag willing, to be present at the Arken/Robinson hearings at the Oregon Court of Appeals on August 6.  Hopefully, my brain will be in tact enough to glean anything intelligent from those august proceedings.

Thanks to everyone for all the nice emails you've sent me about this site.  I've been writing about PERS-related issues for close to 10 years now.  The current blog has been running for close to 7 years.  Without all my sources, both within agencies big and small, and PERS members/retirees sharing their experiences, this blog would have been much impoverished.  Enjoy the sunny weather, enjoy the tease that is an Oregon summer, and most of all, stay tuned for further developments on cases that bear our our future incomes.

I will toast all of my readers at our first meal in Venice, and in each subsequent meal in all the cities that will follow.  This is the most relaxing trip we have ever planned and we expect to enjoy it to the fullest.

Au revoir, arrivederci, ciao.   I shall return.

P.S. 8 p.m. Tuesday night.  The Arken hearing has been canceled for now.  It will NOT take place on August 6th as planned.  It will obviously occur later, perhaps in September, which will give me more time to recover from my demented state following the crossing of 10 (or 11, not sure) time zones.


P.P.S. Thursday night, from airport.  The rescheduled hearing will be September 2, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the same location.  Same players.  See you all then.  Glad all these corrections caught up with me before the big plane take bwana to Netherlands - land of disappointment in World Cup.

Another Brick in the Wall

At long last there is a schedule for the Oregon Court of Appeals hearing of the Arken and Robinson appeals.  These two cases will be heard back to back on August 6, 2010 at 9:30 in the Supreme Court building in Salem.  These two cases both harken back to the combination of the settlement agreement between the employers and PERS in the City of Eugene case (Arken), and to PERS' invoicing window retirees for alleged overpayments on 1999 earnings (Robinson).  The Arken case challenges the validity of the settlement agreement and alleges that the PERS Board did not exercise its fiduciary responsibility to members and retirees by entering into an agreement that harmed the very people who the PERS Board is charged to represent.  The Plaintiffs (PERS Coalition) were rebuffed by Judge Kantor in the Multnomah County Circuit Court.  The Robinson case alleges that PERS did not follow the statutory requirements of HB 2003 in attempting to collect money from retirees that HB 2003 did not give them permission to collect.  It alleges that only the employers were required to subsidize the "excess payments" and that retirees should not have been invoiced at all.  This case was also heard in Judge Kantor's court.  Judge Kantor ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs in this case and enjoined PERS from collecting any further amounts from retirees.

The Court of Appeals has allowed one hour for oral arguments in each case.  The only surprise was that they didn't join the cases to hear them simultaneously.  This means that they will, again, be ruled on separately.

This is, by no means, the end of the line for these cases.  Regardless of the outcome of the cases in the Court of Appeals, both will end up in the Supreme Court, and that path confirms my earlier guess that it will be at least 2012 before window retirees and others will gain any final resolution on these cases.  Both of these cases have been in the legal system for a very long time, and we still have two long years to go before seeing the end of the tunnel and the wall completed.

Watching and Waiting

The old email bag is overflowing with questions from (mostly) Tier 1 members eligible for retirement. The theme of most of the questions is "should I retire before the Legislature convenes near the end of January 2011".

This is not an uncommon question for me and so I've given this a lot of thought. I generally don't offer advice on when people should retire as there are so many individual variables involved. That said I can share my own thought process on this matter. Before doing that I always raise a crucial question that bears on what you do. My question is this: in an ideal world when would you retire? If the answer lies beyond 2011, then you should stop reading right now. Go on with your life. Retiring earlier makes no sense and the financial risk is greater in retirement than in not retiring. The rest of this essay is for people already eligible for retirement and planning to retire during 2011.

Retiring in 2011 carries with it a lot of uncertainty. This uncertainty arises principally from the fact that this is a legislative year. There is tremendous pressure on the legislature to "fix" PERS again. This pressure is coming from the media (Oregonian, Statesman-Journal, Register-Guard, Corvallis Gazette, Bend Bulletin), from private citizens on both sides of the political spectrum (E.g. Phil Keisling, Gary Coe), from public employers frothing at the prospect of another rate increase, from hundreds of concerned citizens throughout the state who write nasty anti-PERS letters to the editors of the above-mentioned newspapers, and both legislators(e.g Dennis Richardson) and legislative candidates alike. The political environment right now is made more complex by a very unfavorable economic climate and a prolonged recession, making additional PERS reform an extremely large target. I think it is fair to speculate that PERS will be reformed yet again in 2011.

I've discussed the likelihood of reform in certain ways in previous posts, especially my public response to Gary Coe (previous post) and to Phil Keisling this past fall. While the unions will fight like hell against any changes to current benefits, they are more or less helpless to defend against changes that apply prospectively, I.e. to benefits accrued after the effective change date. Retroactive changes are risky and the Oregon Supreme Court has taken a pretty firm stand against such changes so far. But the stakes are even higher in 2011 than they were in 2003. The economic climate is much worse this time around and the legislature may be willing to take more risks than in 2003. The unions are less powerful now than they've been in the past, and many see labor unions as the cause of our economic woes rather than the haven from them. With budgets being cut right and left, with more layoffs, furloughs, and wage freezes or cuts looming, the unions coffers are not as full as before. They will have to spend their money wisely this fall and in their lobbying efforts in the legislature. All of this points to a rocky session ahead for PERS members and prospective retirees.

So the bottom line for members thinking about retiring in 2011 after the legislature convenes is this: what might you be risking by waiting the legislature out versus getting out ahead a bit and retiring sooner? It is A very tough decision, but one where an earlier decision might end up being more beneficial than gambling. It is certainly something you ought to put in your analytical engine and reflect upon carefully.

Standing Eight Count

By this time in the game, I should understand that there are many, many, many ignorant people out there when it comes to PERS, Occasionally I run across something that makes ignorance look intelligent and I thought I would share my latest experience with monumental stupidity with a vengeance.

The background story is irrelevant. How I came into possession of this speech doesn't matter. What does is that I got hold of it AFTER it was delivered, which only multiplies my frustration at how this stuff continues to perpetuate itself.

As you all know, Representative Dennis Richardson (R, Some Place in Southern Oregon), has been on a one-man crusade to introduce some new, dastardly, legislation anti-PERS legislation into the 2011 Legislative session. Richardson isn't the brightest bulb in the pack and hasn't yet learned from prior court experience what is legal and what isn't legally changeable within the context of the existing PERS contract.

Now, imagine a dim bulb like Richardson sharing a bit of quiet time with a broken bulb like Gary Coe, President of Speed's Towing in Portland. Gary may know what he needs to know about running a towing business, but when it comes to PERS, my 11 month old granddaughter knows more than he does. So imagine what comes out of the blender when dim bulb meets dimwit. You get a speech so wrong, so incoherent that those who heard the speech will be laughed out of the room if they spout any of these inaccuracies near anyone who really knows anything about PERS. To arm you, I have prepared a lengthy rebuttal to give you what you need to refute this nonsense. I'm not going to repeat Coe's speech, but I'm going to highlight all of his egregious errors for you here:

1. According to Coe, the PERS Board consists of 12 Members and a huge bureaucracy. This is just plain wrong. The PERS Board was reduced to 5 members in 2003, only one of whom is a union member. The remaining four are three citizens and one PERS agency manager. PERS has about 350 employees to service 321,000 members and retirees.
   

• "All long-term Tier 1 PERS members are paid more than 100% of salary". The average PERS retiree has served 22 years and is aged 59. The average benefit from 1990-2008 was 58% of final average salary; for 2008 alone it is 52% of final average salary. For the period from 1990-2008, 8% of ALL retirees received 100% or more of FAS; while in 2008, it was only 5%. The average length of service for the "long-term" employees was 31 years and they represent approximately 12% of all retirees. Therefore, the math alone does not support Coe's assertion that ALL "long term" employees earn 100% or more of FAS. In fact, barely half of them do and many of them have more than 35+ years of service.
• "One of the problems is the guaranteed 8% annual yield on their investments". One again a generalization not supported by the facts. ONLY Tier 1 employees are eligible for the guarantee. Tier 1 members now constitute only one-third of all active and inactive PERS members. The remaining two-thirds of PERS members are NOT eligible for any guarantee of any sort. More to the point, of the Tier 1 members still in the system, almost 90% are already age eligible to retire and most would retire if there were any effort to change the guaranteed rate. Moreover, the guaranteed rate is evaluated by PERS and its actuary every two years since it is so integral to determining employer rates. The employer rates ASSUME an 8% rate of return; what employers actually pay is dependent on that assumption. Lower the rate and the employers rates will go up, not down. There is hard math involved here, but if pressed, I would be happy to show how this is true. The PERS Board and the actuaries just visited this topic in January 2010. They concluded that there was no compelling reason to change the assumption since actuaries from all over the country representing hundreds of public employee retirement systems were still making the same assumption.
  
• "Tier 1 employees can retire as early as age 50, then because of PERS legislative loopholes, continue to work and collect their full salary on top of their retirement benefit". This is only partly true. It leaves out the part about having to have 25 (Police and Fire) or 30 years (general service) to retire this early. As for the loopholes, they are very limited to an even smaller number of members. The back to work provision applies only to areas with populations with 75,000 or fewer residents, is limited to a fixed period of time, and applies only to certain professions where there are extreme shortages of qualified professionals. PERS is already proposing to study the loopholes to reduce the number of instances where there are exceptions granted. But regardless, this doesn't apply to just any retiree; only a subset that probably numbers a few hundred of the more than 100,000 retirees out there.
  
• "Warren Buffett says that 8% is unsustainable". While Warren Buffett may be a "guru" on many things, he is not a pension actuary. State statute requires that the determination of the assumed actuarial rate be done by the PERS independent actuary and then reviewed by the Board and stakeholders. Thusfar, pension actuaries around the country have predicted that the long-term earnings rate on equities will range between 7.75% and 8.25%. The current assumed rate falls exactly at the midpoint of those estimates and provides adequate safety for all concerned. The PERS fund earned 19% in 2009 and 11% of those earnings went into reserves.
  
• "Supreme Court Judges ... are Tier 1 PERS members" [at the time Measure 8 of 1994 was passed]". This is true, but irrelevant. The Supreme Court and all other judges are PERS members, but are not eligible for the same benefits police, fire, and general service members are eligible for. Judges get only a Full Formula benefit, which doesn't depend on account balances or the guaranteed rate. I think it fair to assume that they can be impartial, especially when their decisions have no impact on their own accounts.
  
• "Ballot Measure 8 required members to pay their own 6% [instead of permitting employers to "pick up" the 6% for the employees]". A brief bit a history is required here. In 1979, with inflation running at 16%, the unions asked for a 10% across the board pay increase. The employers balked at that pay increase and offered, instead, the 6% 'pick up' of the employee portion of PERS. This is properly a subject for collective bargaining, but be aware that the employers do not have the unilateral bargaining power to force unions and their employees to accept paying their own 6% without some compensation increase elsewhere. Many agencies have already done this - given employees pay increases and bargained for them to pay their own 6%. There is nothing to prevent this from happening now, but it would have to be bargained, not unilaterally imposed.
  
• Coe's solutions are as follows: "Change the law that does not allow local governments to opt out of PERS. Replace PERS with a standard 401K, like the private sector". Well, even if this happened, what would become of the legacy structure of PERS. The IRS won't allow changes that affect accrued benefits. So, even if the employers were to opt out of PERS, the employees would be permitted to retain all their accrued benefits in PERS and the employers would be paying for both PERS and the 401K. Actually, the 2003 Legislature did this already for all employers. The PERS system, as we knew it, doesn't really exist for active employees now. Employee contributions go into an IAP account (a 401K in everything but name), while employer contributions maintain the legacy structure of PERS. Absolutely nothing would be accomplished by doing this.
  
• "Drop health coverage when PERS member reaches age 65 and qualifies for Medicare". I don't even know where to begin with this one. First, there is no health benefit for retirees. Retirees are allowed to PURCHASE health care prior to becoming Medicare eligible. This health care is paid for out of the pockets of the retirees, not from PERS or the former employers. There is a small subsidy available for certain PERS retirees, but only if the retiree purchases the [very expensive] PERS health plan for retirees. In the main, retirees, pre- and post-Medicare, get no paid health care benefits as part of their retirement packages, and so terminating health coverage when members reach Medicare age isn't likely to save any money. It isn't even relevant to any rational discussion of PERS. That PERS has a unit devoted to health care benefits for retirees is a service provided for retirees and all this service does is to negotiate with health care providers to get the best deals available for an aging pool of retirees. Eliminating all of this infrastructure wouldn't save the money it would cost to outsource this service.
  
• "Reduce the Bureaucracy governing PERS. Review the size and compensation of the PERS Board; privatize the IT functions and the auditing functions." Yoo hoo. The PERS Board has 5 members, all volunteer except for transportation expenses. Reducing their compensation would save exactly what they cost: $0. Privatizing the IT and auditing functions is rather scary. The PERS chapters of the ORS are more than 74 pages long. Having IT and Auditing in house is required to accomodate all the changes imposed on PERS from the Legislature and the Courts. Just because a few members have gotten incorrect information from PERS and PERS has been sued a dozen or so times isn't going to change if these functions were privatized. In fact, privatizing those functions would be a complete disaster. PERS manages accounts for 321,000 members and retirees. It administers a system that has been changed in almost every legislative session. It is hard enough for the in-house team to manage all of PERS' functions correctly and in a timely manner now; just imagine what would happen if this were turned over to a private firm(s) who would take years to get up to speed on all of the complexities and nuances of the system and be legally exposed the entire way. Can you imagine the indemnification required? Right now, PERS is fairly insulated from litigation because it is a state agency. The minute this was outsourced, the external agency would lose the protection of the state and would be exposed to some nasty litigation. How much, do you think, you'd actually save by outsourcing PERS' central functionality? I'm betting it would cost 4x as much as it would save. Have you bothered to look at the size of PERS' budget? It is probably less than the budget of your towing operation.
  
• "Reduce the guaranteed 8% from this day forward." As discussed earlier, this is already reviewed every two years. Until you understand how the assumed actuarial rate interplays with many elements of the PERS system, you shouldn't be discussing this. It sounds good to say it, but implementing it would be very expensive and certainly would not save anyone any money in the first 5-10 years.
  
• "Negotiate in future Union contracts that employees make their own 6% contribution to PERS." You assume that such negotiations are unilateral. How do you plan to "force" unions and their members to agree to this without exchanging this benefit for some other form of compensation. Your understanding of union/management negotiations is ignorant.
  
• "Consider a 'Nuclear Option' and lay off all public employees on December 31 and hire them back January 2 under a new and affordable retirement plan." From Dennis Richardson's mouth to God's ears. There are some not-so-small problems here. The state isn't bankrupt; neither are any other public employers. Thus, the IRS prevails in such actions. The IRS requires that ALL employees be given their "accrued benefit" to date before the new system starts. Since the "accrued benefit" includes all existing account balances, any matches due to an employee as a result of vesting, plus any other benefit that was part of the system on the day of termination, this would probably cost about $63 billion (give or take a few billion). The PERS portfolio is valued at about $52 billion right now, there aren't enough assets in the system to completely pay for all "accrued benefits" to date of termination. How do you suppose these agencies come up with an additional $10-$12 billion? Borrow it? How much of the state's credit rating depends on the assets in PERS? What happens to the credit rating if all those assets are transferred from the state to individuals? Finally, remember that there are about 60,000 PERS members (Tier 1 and Tier 2) who are already eligible to retire by age and/or service right now. Do you think that they would stay around and wait for the "nuclear option"? Then what would you save versus what would it cost. Everytime I hear this proposal I just laugh and laugh and laugh. There is almost no way to come out a winner in this scenario because so many members have the option of retiring at the first hint of something like this. Getting rid of those employees now simply removes their funds from the PERS side and puts it in the individual side where the benefits can't be touched.

Shine A Light

I feel a bit like the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" skit.  I'm not dead; I'm resting.  PERS news has been remarkably sparse these days.  Good news occurred last week when the Oregon Court of Appeals held for the plaintiff in the case of Murray v PERB.  This case has potential ramifications for PERS members who weren't retired between 2001 and 2002.  The case involved apportioning administrative expenses from the Variable Annuity Account in two years when there were negative returns.  In those two years, PERS deducted the losses from the accounts and then applied administrative expenses on top of the losses deducted from the remaining principal of the individual account balances.  The Oregon Court of Appeals held that PERS couldn't do that as losses were not legally defined as "negative earnings" from which PERS could still deduct administrative expenses.  This is a particularly complicated case and it isn't clear yet what the outcome will be for people who were still active members at that time.  If PERS doesn't appeal, and we might know after today whether that is the case, then it will have to decide how to administer the outcome.  It could, theoretically, decide to apply this as a class action case, or it could decide it applies only to the plaintiff.   Time will tell, but, in the meantime it is a victory to celebrate for a change.

 

I attended the PERB meeting today.  Meetings like this make you want to chew glass for entertainment.  Talk about a terminally boring meeting.  The tedium was exacerbated by the lengthy reading of changes to administrative rules, reports on the portfolio value (nothing new to report), and the final turgid explanation of the ETOB (equal to or better comparisons required by state law when a public agency decides to stay out of PERS) comparison methodology to be used this year.  The *only* relevant message to be taken from the ETOB comparison is really for those who want to terminate PERS.  The methodology for determining whether a plan is comparable to PERS or not has some sobering results.  It would be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY expensive to terminate PERS and meet IRS requirements for making members whole.  So those in the Legislature espousing this as a "solution" for PERS' (non)problems ought to read this analysis carefully.  Compare the risk-free rate of 4.7% to the assumed rate of 8%.  Bottom line is that to guarantee all members that they got present value of their accounts would cost billions and billions of dollars.  Not gonna happen now or anytime soon.  I am very glad that Mercer shown a light on those kinds of calculations.  The PERS Board was in shock seeing the cost and they weren't even talking about terminating PERS.  This is the take-home message from that.

 

 

With A Little Help From My Friends

One of the more interesting political races this year pits Incumbent Dennis Richardson (R, 4th District) against retired Community College President Richard (Rick) Levine (D). This district encompasses a portion of Jackson County in Southern Oregon. Since both candidates are running unopposed in May 18th's primary, they will face each other in November's election.

This race is important for PERS members and retirees because it pits a consistent anti-PERS legislator (Richardson) against a PERS retiree. While Levine wouldn't be expected always to be favorable to PERS, its members, or its retirees, it is highly likely that we would get a fairer hearing than Richardson would ever give us. Richardson first appeared as troublesome for PERS members in the 2003 Legislature when he introduced the bill known as HB 2020 which, in his form, would have created the new Tier 3 as a total 401-K plan with no employer match whatsoever. Richardson has since gone on to wail and gnash his teeth publicly over PERS' current financials and claiming that PERS would bankrupt Oregon. Richardson has consistently and repeatedly cried doom and gloom over PERS and has become the most outspoken current legislator to propose the "nuclear option" of terminating PERS.

Regardless of your political party, it would be helpful if some of us could send a few spare dollars towards Rick Levine's campaign. It makes no sense to send this money now. It would be better to wait until after the primary so Levine has some ready cash to help him campaign against Richardson.

I have no opinion on most of the other races, including the Governor's race, right now, but the 4th District presents one of the clearest choices we've seen since Greg MacPherson went down to defeat against John Kroger in 2008. The less unfavorable treatment and disrespect we get in the Legislature, the more we can begin to relax against the latest reign of terror against PERS members and retirees. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired of the constant doom and gloom perpetrated by ignorant legislators and bored media types.

Rick Levine can use our help. Everyone like him should get a little help from his friends.

Are We There Yet?

The Oregon Supreme Court announced this morning that the cases known as Arken and Robinson were so stupid that victory should be awarded to the plaintiffs in both cases. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Paul de Muniz remarked that he had never before seen such a gross miscarriage of justice and that unless he got everything coming to him in his retirement benefits, he would hold PERS and the PERS Board personally responsible for the disruptions in his life if his check didn't arrive on time, wasn't computed properly, and was off by more than one cent over his own personal estimates. The PERS offices and PERB are reeling from this judgement. They are planning to go to the legislative Emergency Board to discuss additional funding and additional personnel to assure Chief Justice de Muniz that his benefit is computed exactly correctly. Justice de Muniz grumbled that he didn't care how many new employees were required, that his benefit better damn-well be computed right.

This offers a brief glimmer of hope that others might soon start getting correct estimates.

In other news, the City of Eugene is again planning to sue the PERB, this time over any preferential treatment it may give Chief Justice de Muniz. It wants the court to order that PERS continue screwing up like is has always done.

Sleight of Hand

The PERS Board and PERS Staff continue to fall all over themselves trying to weasel their way out of implementing SB 897, which was enacted during last month's special legislative session. This bill requires PERS to verify all information within 2 years of retirement if a member requests it. A member would be absolutely foolish to NOT request this verification. At today's PERB meeting, my reliable informants reported that the PERB voted to request that the 2011 Legislature reconsider this bill because it would enshine potential errors permanently in the process. My response is that if PERS wants to avoid this, they will take the time and apply the effort to making sure they don't make mistakes such as those that affected Kay Bell and others over the past 10 or so years. God knows how many others have been ensnared by PERS' laxity in preparing estimates and Notices of Entitlement. I'm sick and tired of PERS complaining that we are responsible for their errors but that they ARE NOT responsible for their errors. I'm really sorry but the volume of errors PERS makes is simply unacceptable. The only thing that will force them to clean up their act is the point of a very loaded gun.

Of course, the next step in the process is for PERS to complain of staff shortages and computer problems that make it hard for them to meet the deadline. This has been a recurrent theme of every piece of legislation implemented over the past decade. PERS simply does not want to take ownership of the system it is responsible for administering. It wants to have it both ways - it gets to make all the rules and it wants no responsibility for any mistakes that arise from its making the rules. Tough shit. PERS complains that it will need 13 additional FTE to handle these "verification" requests, on the assumption that 25% of potential PERS retirees will request them; if more than 25% request verification then more than 13 FTE will be required.

In typical PERS fashion, they allow that "estimates are not legally required", and that they might suspend formal written estimates if they have to make choices about what to do with limited resources. People will then be expected to rely on the, thusfar, almost worthless online calculator available on the PERS website. Of course, PERS promises to make it more accurate, if they have staff time and money to do it.

I am so sick and tired of this pile of horseshit from PERS. They have only one reason to exist - to manage OUR money, and to compute and pay our retirement benefits to us. They continue to act like retirees are inconveniences that they have to put up with and that their only responsibility is to try to KEEP retirees money, rather than pay it to them. It is long past due when PERS members can get a reliable and accurate benefit verification before making that life-changing decision to retire. We're awfully sorry that this troubles you PERS, but frankly we don't give a damn about your inability to do the work you're paid to do. This is just another attempt at sleight of hand - now you see it, now you don't.

My advice to members planning to retire within the next four years. As soon as PERS implements the verification method, apply for a verification. This will be the ONLY way you can be assured of getting something close to being accurate before you retire. Request it early because PERS will be swamped.

Must Be The Ganja

Today's Salem Statesman Journal has a full front page spread article on the sustainability of PERS. I have read every article in their series and I can tell you that there is not ONE SHRED of new information in this "tell all" story. It is just a bunch of rearranged paragraphs and rehashes of old articles appearing in the various news sources around the state since about mid-2009. It just goes to show you how desperate for news the dead-tree papers are. When there is nothing new to report, lets recycle some old news and make it appear as though some new, earth-shaking revelations can be drawn from rearranging electrons on a screen. Anything to sell ads; anything to keep the tea-partyer's partying.

I can only conclude that they got some bad ganja and ran out of newsworthy information today.

Boring. Again. Still.

Still Standing

Sorry to have dropped off the radar for awhile. Things have been pretty quiet on the PERS front, and I'm certain that nothing will change for awhile. I'm still waiting to determine the revised hearing date for the combined Arken and Robinson cases before the Oregon Court of Appeals. When I find out, I will post a note here and on POD.

On an unrelated note, I've received some emails from readers asking if the snowmobile accident up on the Three Sisters area was my wife and daughter. To have divined that from the newspaper accounts required that you know a lot more about me than is publically available. Nevertheless, it is correct that my wife and daughter were injured in a very freak snowmobile accident this past Monday. My wife was bruised up pretty severely but is otherwise OK. My daughter had to have stitches in her knee and she has multiple facial fractures that will require surgery relatively soon. We have snowmobiled for the past five years and both I and my wife are experienced snowmobilers. We always go in a guided tour and we don't own our own equipment. We were an on unfamiliar route with a new guide when my wife lost control of her dual going around a banked curve. The right "ski" on the snowmobile got entrapped on a snow shoe mogul and made it hard to steer out. My wife's glove got caught between the thumb-throttle and handle bar and the snowmobile wouldn't slow down. In desperation, she hit the brakes and the vehicle went into a slide ending up in some brush. Both my wife and daughter were thrown from the snowmobile. My wife ended up flat on her back, pinned under the left ski of the snowmobile. We were able to lift the snowmobile free and get her out and upright. My daughter took a fall from the snowmobile and hit a tree, suffering a deep laceration in her knee, and multiple fractures of the small bones around her right eye. The Deschutes County sheriff's search and rescue teams were able to ambu-sled them out and then they were transported to St Charles Hospital in Bend. They were kept under observation until about 8:30 Monday night and then both were released. We stayed at our house in Sunriver until yesterday when both seemed stable enough to return home. Both are resting comfortably at home. My daughter has an appointment with a facial surgeon on Monday to discuss surgical plans. She will probably have some wiring done to hold all the small bones together while they heal.

Thanks to those of you who were able to figure out that this was my family. The first I knew this was a news item was Wednesday morning when a family friend called me to find out if this was really my wife and daughter. That's when we discovered that the articles had added nearly 10 years to my wife's age - she was really insulted - and had some details incorrect. In any case, I suspect we'll not be snowmobiling again anytime soon.