Some would, some wouldn't. There's been a lot of discussion in various places about what effect the Supreme Court's ruling on Lipscomb will have on PERS' plans to implement the "settlement" in the City of Eugene case. Considerable disagreement exists between opposing sides in this dispute. The PERS Coalition believes that if the Supreme Court strikes down significant portions of the City of Eugene decision that this will invalidate the settlement that implements the agreement between the employers and PERS concerning certain practices that Judge Lipscomb found to be "abuses of discretion". By contrast, the parties to the settlement (PERS and the employers) believe that the Supreme Court's decision will be irrelevant to the settlement and expect to implement the settlement regardless (i.e. reduce member account balances for the alleged 1999 overcredit, and adjust retiree benefits for the same alleged overcredit). Apparently, the only way this could be averted would be for the Supreme Court to address the "settlement" directly in its decision and rule on its validity there. Otherwise, absent any mention of the settlement (or a ruling completely upholding Judge Lipscomb), the settlement will be implemented until the White case (in Multnomah County) wends its way through the legal system. The White case directly challenges the settlement.
So, although the Court's ruling in Lipscomb has to be imminent (next 4 - 6 weeks is my best guess), the ruling could do nothing to clarify or resolve any of the uncertainty still out there. So this is what democracy is all about, eh?
One further question continues to linger. Under Strunk, the Supreme Court held that it was not legal for PERS to use the COLA freeze mechanism to recover "excess benefits", while it was also illegal to pay less than the assumed rate to active and inactive members as a mechanism for recovering "excess crediting". In implementing both these mechanisms, the PERS Board and the Legislature divided retirees into multiple groups, but the most significant division came between those retiring before 4/1/2004 and those retiring on or after that date. The earlier group - the "window" retirees - were COLA frozen and clearly appear to be subject to the "settlement's" recovery mechanisms. However, those members who retired between 4/1/04 and 3/1/05 are in an interesting legal position. They received 0% for 2003 and for the portion of 2004 worked, while they were not COLA frozen. Members who retired on or after 4/1/05 had their benefits calculated "as if" Lipscomb and the settlement were the law of the land. So, only those in the period between 4/1/04 and 3/1//05 remain in a sort of legal limbo? What happens to them? Do they get their 8% back for 2003 and the pro-rate for 04, but have their benefits reduced because of 1999, or do they simply elude any further adjustment of benefits. What a mess. Ain't democracy grand?
So, although the Court's ruling in Lipscomb has to be imminent (next 4 - 6 weeks is my best guess), the ruling could do nothing to clarify or resolve any of the uncertainty still out there. So this is what democracy is all about, eh?
One further question continues to linger. Under Strunk, the Supreme Court held that it was not legal for PERS to use the COLA freeze mechanism to recover "excess benefits", while it was also illegal to pay less than the assumed rate to active and inactive members as a mechanism for recovering "excess crediting". In implementing both these mechanisms, the PERS Board and the Legislature divided retirees into multiple groups, but the most significant division came between those retiring before 4/1/2004 and those retiring on or after that date. The earlier group - the "window" retirees - were COLA frozen and clearly appear to be subject to the "settlement's" recovery mechanisms. However, those members who retired between 4/1/04 and 3/1/05 are in an interesting legal position. They received 0% for 2003 and for the portion of 2004 worked, while they were not COLA frozen. Members who retired on or after 4/1/05 had their benefits calculated "as if" Lipscomb and the settlement were the law of the land. So, only those in the period between 4/1/04 and 3/1//05 remain in a sort of legal limbo? What happens to them? Do they get their 8% back for 2003 and the pro-rate for 04, but have their benefits reduced because of 1999, or do they simply elude any further adjustment of benefits. What a mess. Ain't democracy grand?
No comments:
Post a Comment