There is a heated discussion going on over at the Oregon Pers Discussion Group about the possibility that the Oregon Supreme Court will "remand" the City of Eugene decision back to the Marion County Circuit Court ruled by Judge Paul Lipscomb. The reason given for this is that the Court may ask Judge Lipscomb to rework his decision in light of the Court's ruling in the Strunk et al case in early March. Speculation is rampant on what such a remand might accomplish and how it might affect active PERS members and "window" retirees (4/1/00 to 3/1/04). The twist (of fate) might be that PERS members and retirees, quick to celebrate victory after Strunk, might find themselves impaled by a passing remark Judge Lipscomb made in his October 2002 ruling. For those wanting to know where Judge Lipscomb was heading, read the Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 238.715 and ask yourself how and whether this might be a way for PERS to recover money that the Court ruled couldn't be collected by the means devised in HB 2003.
Later. While the initial sturm und drang has died down a bit on this issue, there continues to be a disagreement over the relationship between the "fixed benefit", as defined by the Court in Strunk and the 1999 revised earnings order adopted by the PERS Board at a meeting last year following the settlement. Since the Strunk language was clear on the "fixed benefit" and the COLA freeze (the benefit that would have been the case on 7/1/03, and the illegality of the COLA freeze mechanism), hope continues that the Court won't undercut itself or members/retirees and rule in the City of Eugene appeal that the Board overstepped its legal authority in its 1999 crediting decision. It just isn't clear how the Court will deal with the matter of the 1999 earnings decision and the whole "abuse of discretion" verdict that Lipscomb handed down.
Later. While the initial sturm und drang has died down a bit on this issue, there continues to be a disagreement over the relationship between the "fixed benefit", as defined by the Court in Strunk and the 1999 revised earnings order adopted by the PERS Board at a meeting last year following the settlement. Since the Strunk language was clear on the "fixed benefit" and the COLA freeze (the benefit that would have been the case on 7/1/03, and the illegality of the COLA freeze mechanism), hope continues that the Court won't undercut itself or members/retirees and rule in the City of Eugene appeal that the Board overstepped its legal authority in its 1999 crediting decision. It just isn't clear how the Court will deal with the matter of the 1999 earnings decision and the whole "abuse of discretion" verdict that Lipscomb handed down.
