Soul Shakedown Party

Hope you're all getting ready to attend the Soul Shakedown Party in Judge Kantor's Courtroom on Thursday August 16, 2007. The status conference on the Arken and Robinson rulings begin at 9 a.m. and are expected to run most of the day. Judge Kantor's courtroom is at the Multnomah County Courthouse at 1021 SW 4th Avenue in Portland. There are quite a number of carpools already being formed to ferry interested observers from Eugene, from Salem, from Central Oregon, and from other points further south. If you need or want a ride, please contact me and I'll do my best to put you in touch with people I know who are coming. I can't promise rides for everyone, but I'll try to put the word out. For those of you driving to Portland, please do be aware that downtown Portland is an absolute mess, with construction going on about every 3 feet between the south and north ends of town. On street parking is nearly impossible, and lot parking is available but expensive. For those of you who don't mind walking a bit, getting yourself to a MAX station in Beaverton, the Zoo, or Gresham and taking light rail into downtown, you will end up only a few blocks away from the Courthouse. For those who want to park and walk to the Courthouse, PSU is your best bet (6th Avenue exit from I-405, with summer session about over. Parking isn't free, but it is cheaper than more central downtown lots. And there are long term meters in and around PSU. The walk from PSU to the Courthouse is about 7 blocks. For those unfamiliar with Courthouse protocol, be prepared for airport-like security. Don't forget to remove all knives off keychains and anything that remotely looks like a weapon should be left at home. Plan to arrive in the downtown area and allow yourself 30 minutes to get to the courthouse and another 30 minutes to get through courthouse security. Those looking for a quick caffeine fix will find at least 8 Starbucks within 5 minutes' walk of the courthouse. For those unable to climb stairs (Judge Kantor's courtroom is on the 5th or 6th floor, I can't remember), elevators are available.

This is one party no retiree should miss. There should be plenty of fireworks and you'll get to see all the key players in the soap opera up close and personal. The hearings are rarely boring, and Judge Kantor usually has probing and interesting questions for the lawyers. Don't come expecting any kind of a decision. This is a conference only. However, it has been my long experience that seeing and hearing the parties first hand gives you a much better feel and understanding of what is going on that relying on the biased media to pick out small nuggets for you to feast on. Remember, they're only going to tell you what THEY want you to read. And if history is a guide, the last thing they want you to read is what really happened. Come and see for yourself.

Hope to see lots of retirees on Thursday August 16, 2007. It should be one hell of a soul shakedown party.

California Uber Alles

Those wideboys from California representing the PERS Board (PERB) have put together a humdinger of an appeal to Judge Kantor to stay his injunction on the Strunk/Eugene remediation. They have marshalled all their talent, all their brainpower, and all PERS members' money, to appeal to the good Judge that if they were compelled to stop recalculating benefits, to give money back, before all the appeals play out, this would be an awful lot of work and wasted time. And it would somehow come out of PERS members and retirees hide anyway. There were tears streaming down my face as I read this appeal and Paul Cleary's affidavit along with it. But they weren't tears of pity; they were tears of maniacal laughter as I couldn't help myself thinking what fools they will be in front of Judge Kantor if this is the best they can do. Like he didn't think of this himself when he issued his original injunction. You can read this masterpiece for yourself here. Be sure to notice what I missed on first reading. As several have pointed out, these California genuises manage to cite the City of Eugene case in their opening salvo. They're apparently forgotten that the City of Eugene case was vacated by the Oregon Supreme Court more than a year ago and has offers nothing in support of or against any current litigation. The Oregon Supreme Court rendered the case meaningless and superceded by the Legislation in 2003. We're paying an awful lot to this awful lot of California morons to act against our interests. Payback time!

Buzzbomb from Pasadena

Not quite that far away, but from Tigard, which has been sending buzzbombs from every direction. It is hard for me to imagine that an agency can be as stupid as PERS. Just when you think they might be starting to get it, they do something that defies rational explanation. What, ask you, did they do? Well, as they are required to do, they sent out the August PERSpectives with the check stub detailing the COLA that many of us have seen for the first time. Great, say you. But then your curiosity gets the better of you and you decide to read PERSpectives. After all, it is one of the few sources of reasonably current information from PERS, aside from PERS' website. The grey box on the first page begins the systematic sizzle factor. PERS announces in this box that PERSpectives will be reduced from quarterly to thrice yearly. The February issue will be deleted, and new publication dates will be December, April, and August. The corollary to this follows on the second page, where they announce the real capper - that the Quarterly stubs we've been used to getting will now come only once annually, in December. Of course, PERS qualifies this by noting that "if your retirement benefit amount changes, due to a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) or for any reason, you will also receive a check stub in the mail for the month the change is effective. So, you will probably get a statement in August, possibly in February (if you have a variable account after retirement), but no other time of the year. Now, there is an exception. If you have your checks MAILED to you, PERS will have to include a check stub, but PERS employs the big scare tactic about "IDENTIFY THEFT" and lost checks and uses that as the lever to encourage EFT deposit of your monthly benefit check. If you do that, you suddenly cease getting monthly statements.

What makes this so aggravating is that PERS further insults retirees, by providing an updated "PERS: By the Numbers" on the second page, that shows that PERS is not in any financial difficulty - in fact, PERS has rejoined the very upper tier of public employee retirement funds in funding ratios. We have no unfunded actuarial liability, we are at 104% funding and employer rates have stabilized at 15% (before side accounts), when they were predicted to go to 27% back in 2003. Moreover, Tier 1/Tier 2 rates for many large employers are significantly less than the systemwide average. After PERS adjusts for the employer side accounts, the Tier 1/ Tier 2 rate is 8.1% and 6.03% for members in OPSRP.

So, the takehome message here is much like that of Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" routine. The parrot (PERS problem) is dead, kaput, kicked the bucket, pushed up daisies, and so on. And so, this raises the question of why PERS feels compelled to cut down the frequency of our statements to once yearly. No longer will we know how tax changes affect monthly take home benefits because once the new year flips over, we'll get no notification of the new takehome amount because there is no change in the gross benefit.

Why is PERS doing this? Your guess is as good as mine? My guess is that they are being penny wise and pound foolish. They're going to end up with more people requesting a changeover to monthly check rather than EFT, the customer support lights will shine brightly on the first of every month, especially on February 1st. This is about saving a piddling amount of money, but mostly it is to save staff time so they can be deployed in other malignant ways to try to steal back money from us. There is not a single retiree benefit in this. People are already pissed about this. If you don't believe me, take a look over at the Oregon PERS Discussion Group.

Oh, and I'm at a loss for a good word to describe the chutzpah that PERS has to put the back page as a Customer Service Survey. Be sure to fill it out and mail it back it. PERS needs to hear from you about this. Acquiesce at your own peril. Customer service at PERS is defined by how deeply the knife is buried in your back.

A Child and His Lawnmower

Ah. Ninety one degree days on August 1. It reminds me of the time when I was a child and had my lawnmower going door to door mowing lawns on the cheap. I remember how elated I was when I made $10 for mowing 5 lawns in a single day. I felt rich. I didn't feel that way today when my credit union posted my PERS check after receiving my first COLA in 5 years of retirement. After taxes, my net went up $125 per month. Let me count the ways in which this helps. I reviewed my monthly gasoline bills from 2003 and they were less than half what they are today. Pretty much the same with my electricity and gas bills. To further the comparison, I owned two less energy efficient vehicles in 2003. My house today is larger, but it has top of the line energy efficient gas and electric heating and cooling, about 30% more efficient that the ones in my old house built in 1990. In 2003, my wife, daughter and I paid nothing for our health care. Today we still pay nothing for health care, but we do now have copays for office visits and prescriptions (my wife is a physician). It is hard to calculate the percentage increase going from no copay to a $5 and $10 copay. Needless to say, while every little bit helps, I truly felt like PERS threw me a bone in hopes of toning down all the criticism they've received for withholding the COLA far longer than they were entitled, and now illegally so. It simply makes me angrier and reminds me of how much more they owe me - about 6.27% compounded from 2003 - 2007. For most people, this is a non-trivial monthly increase, not to mention a 5 figure balance that PERS owes me for illegally withholding those COLAs since 2003.

Don't be fooled. Don't be complacent. And worst of all, don't be that child and his lawnmower. You didn't just make $10 for mowing 5 lawns. You got $1 for mowing 50 lawns and a bunch of IOU's that the deadbeats are still unwilling to pay.

Sorry to rain on the lawn. I'm not even close to being mollified.

The Bottom of the Barrel

Proving once again that they are incapable of understanding court rulings, the PERS Board is planning to appeal to Judge Kantor to "stay" the injunction he imposed against further collection efforts. PERS wants to continue billing retirees while this matter wends its way through the courts. In contrast, the attorney for the Robinson case (14b), Jim Coon, has announced his intention to oppose PERB's motion and to insist that not only must PERS NOT bill retirees, it must return any money collected so far. We'll get to see how deep in the barrel the PERB attorneys will dig to keep collecting money that Judge Kantor says is being collected illegally. The message this all conveys is how much contempt the PERB has for both PERS members and for the Courts. When this is all over, I want the PERB and its attorneys slapped on their collective a**es for their utter contempt of the courts in this state. I don't understand how they've been able to get away with this for so long. They are truly the bottom of a fertilizer barrel.

Out Come the Freaks

Readers of this blog are quite good about keeping me posted on their interactions with PERS and others involved with PERS. My letter-writing campaign challenged retirees to communicate with several of the key players with influence on Governor Kulongoski, who has been temporarily laid up following spine surgery. I sent letters to Ted, to Tim Nesbitt (Ted's Chief of Staff), Representative Greg MacPherson, State Senator Richard Devlin, and former State Senator Tony Corcoran. Of that group, only Senator Devlin has had the courtesy to respond. Friends have now sent me several responses they've gotten from Tim Nesbitt, and also an updated response from Senator Richard Devlin. From these responses, it is clear that PERS is providing no more information to their inquirers than they are to retirees. The answer Senator Devlin provided reads like a verbatim quote from PERS' website outlining what PERS has done in the wake of Judge Kantor's ruling. Mr. Nesbitt's response is more of the same, but includes the statement that could be interpreted to mean that the Governor's office still believes PERS has to find a way to recover the overpayments. In short, it appears that the Governor's office is not going to get involved in stressing to the PERB or to PERS Staff that the combination of the Supreme Court ruling and Judge Kantor's ruling combine to indicate that there is actually nothing to collect as the benefit being paid is legal and without errors. Both Nesbitt and Devlin have shared the information that those of us who haven't yet been invoiced by PERS will see a COLA on our monthly benefit, when our July payment comes out next Wednesday. Oh happy day, but the failure to ask the relevant questions is just palpable.

As for the question of PERS' compliance with the Judge's ruling, there is considerable argument about whether they are, in fact, even close to being in compliance. First, there is the matter of "suspending" collection activity and invoicing after June 20, 2007. From evidence reported on OPDG, this isn't happening universally. For example, lump sum recipients who elected the installment payout option are exposed to the recovery. One recent recipient (retiring about 2003) is about to receive the final installment on a 5-year payment. The payment is due August 3, 2007 - nearly two months AFTER PERS told all members and the court that they had suspended collection activity. Not shockingly - but cetainly contrary to what they are reporting - this member is in receipt of the final payout letter, which informs that $18,500 will be withheld from the last installment to recover the overpayment from the 1999 earnings, in acccord with the Strunk/Eugene remediation plan (suspended June 20, 2007). It is a bit hard to reconcile a plan that is temporarily suspended, with an action directly contradictory to that suspension. So much for compliance.

As this freak show continues, PERS and its enablers seem almost Clintonesque in their parsing of the English language contained in court rulings. Pretty soon we'll be debating the meaning of "is" again. Deja vu all over again.

Stranger in a Strange Land

From the emails I'm getting, some folks are just plain unaccustomed to using "terminal" or "console" applications, especially in Windows. Here's a piece of advice for those of you unaccustomed to these kinds of applications. It starts with the download. If you use any of the common browsers, the response when you click on the download link is whether you want to "run" the program, or "save the program to disk". As some have discovered, you CANNOT run the program from my website. It isn't set up for that - the website is Unix-based, while the applications are either Windows or Mac based. Neither will run on Unix. Consequently, when you try to run them from your computer while still tethered to my web site, the programs will do very unpredictible things. Save yourself some grief and me some time. ALWAYS "save the program" to YOUR disk. The "desktop" is a good place for both the Windows and Mac version will run from their respective desktops without any special tricks. The Windows version is known to run on Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista. The Mac version is known to run on Tiger starting with 10.4.5; it is not guaranteed to run with earlier versions. If you follow these simple instructions, you will save yourself a great deal of trouble.

P.S. Another Mac user reports success with Panther 10.3.9.

Good Intent

In my writing crusade to get some pressure put on the PERS Board to "back off" and start paying what the Court has ordered, I've written lengthy emails to Representative Greg MacPherson, Senator Richard Devlin, the Governor, former Senator Tony Corcoran, and Tim Nesbitt, the Governor's chief of staff. Until today, I hadn't heard from anyone except a canned response from the Governor's office bot. Today I got a brief note from Senator Richard Devlin, who has already written to the PERB asking precisely what they are doing to implement the latest Court ruling. I'm not expecting anything but more double-speak from PERS/PERB, but Senator Devlin, who was just elected as Senate Majority Leader, at least has started the ball rolling. Senator Devlin also promised to get back to me once he hears from PERS/PERB. For the record, Senator Devlin was one of the few to vote AGAINST HB 2003 back in the 2003 Legislature. I feel very fortunate that he is my Senator, but I am also very pleased at his good intentions here. One more good guy trying to help. Thanks Senator Devlin.

Shine On

Saturday's Salem Statesman Journal had another Steve Law piece about PERS. This one was about Friday's PERS Board meeting and the Board decision to provide COLA for those window retirees who haven't yet been "touched" by the Strunk/Eugene remediation. I wasn't at the Board meeting for personal reasons, but my friend PEG attended the entire meeting and took good notes. Mr. Law's article appears to leave out some important details about what went on at the meeting, and proves how important primary sourcing is. First off, PEG reports that Mr. Law didn't arrive until just AS the discussion of the COLA was beginning. She noted that before settling in, he was fiddling with his PDA, checking for emails etc. As a result, he failed to note two important facts: 1) the PERS Board was NOT asked for its approval to restart the COLA. In fact, the PERS staff merely was informing them as a matter of courtesy as they had the legal authority to do this without the Board's approval. And second of all, the staff wanted it made clear that this did NOT constitute a *restart* or *restoration* of the COLA for window retirees. Instead, it appears to be a one-time event until they get clarification and direction from Judge Kantor about the meaning and scope of the Arken and Robinson decisions. This important fact changes the complexion of what was done. We're happy to have the money, but not satisfied that this isn't the start of the whole restoration project. 2) PEG also reported a stunning monologue from PERB Chairman Michael Pittman chastizing PERS staff, and in particular Steve Delaney, for the number of legislative bills that were passed during the 2007 Legislature relating to PERS. Mr. Pittman chided Mr. Delaney (he's the Legislative Liason for PERS) for failing to better "manage" the Legislative process. Apparently Mr. Pittman doesn't read updates from Mr. Delaney, doesn't pay attention at Board meetings, and seems completely unaware of how the Legislature works. Perhaps he ought to take a civics lesson in "how a bill becomes law". Perhaps he might look at all those PERS bills and see who proposed them. They didn't all come at the behest of PERS. I'm always amused when these private sector types act confused and dismayed that they don't get their way in the Legislative process. This wasn't reported at all.

What the SJ reported was not inaccurate; just very incomplete and the slant somewhat misleading. This is one of the reasons why attending the PERS meetings and watching and listening to the exchanges may alter your opinions about what is really going on. I'm really sorry I didn't get the opportunity to attend, but 3 emergencies in one week just was more than my quota and something had to give.

Note: minor corrections made 7/23

Our Time Now

Although I didn't attend today's PERB meeting, PERS has already updated its website with the news that the Board approved the staff recommendation to pay a 2% COLA (seen in the next - August 1 - check) on the currently "frozen" benefits of some "window retirees". Those retirees who have already passed through the Strunk/Eugene sieve have had benefits adjusted and their COLA set (or already) to resume. Only the uninvoiced window retirees remain. The Board has now lifted the COLA freeze on the group of retirees who have not yet been subjected to the Strunk/Eugene process. That process is also currently suspended pending the outcome of a Status Conference on the Arken/Robinson cases before Judge Henry Kantor in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

While this is a useful beginning, it is important to not be lulled into complacency. According to the Strunk ruling from the Oregon Supreme Court, PERS has no right to collect anything from retirees for they are receiving a legislatively defined "fixed benefit" that doesn't contain errors. No errors, no collection. And even more significant is that PERS has no legal right to withhold COLAs from any retiree receiving monthly benefits. Thus, today's action takes care of 2007, but still leaves 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 as outstanding obligations. If you run my calculator (see left - SartainLipcomb files), you'll see how much PERS really owes you, contrasted with how much PERS thinks you owe them.

So, be happy you're getting something above your currently frozen benefit, but don't forget to keep your eyes on the prize.

I Fought the Law

A fellow commentator (JRS) on the Oregon PERS Information and Discussion Group (OPDG), sent the following letter to Steve Law of the Salem Statesman Journal in response to Mr. Law's article in this morning's SJ concerning the proposed resolution for the PERS Board to pay "window retirees" a 2007 COLA. JRS's letter is reprinted below with his permission:

"Steve –

"Your report about PERS paying a COLA this year includes the following statement, which is somewhat misleading:

'PERS has been withholding COLAs for about 35,000 retirees, as a result of 2003 pension reforms, a string of court decisions and an out-of-court settlement of a ruling by Marion Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb.'

"It is incorrect to say that, until Judge Kantor's recent ruling, PERS has withheld a COLA "as the result of" the pension reforms and a string of court decisions. The reforms that initially provided for withholding the COLA were ruled unconstitutional and a breach of contract several years ago by the Supreme Court in Strunk, and there is imply no "string of court decisions" that caused PERS to withhold the COLA.

"In fact, the only court to rule on the COLA issue before Judge Kantor's recent ruling was the Supreme Court in Strunk where that court ruled that the COLA could not be legally withheld. As for the ruling by Judge Lipscomb that you mention in connection with PERB's settlement agreement, that ruling said nothing about withholding a COLA, but actually cautioned against trying to make any recovery from retirees. Finally, Judge Lipscomb's ruling has been dismissed by the Supreme Court since the appeal from that ruling was dismissed as moot.

"Bottom line: Until Judge Kantor's recent ruling, PERB chose to continue violating the statute mandating a COLA be paid every year, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court specifically ruled that a COLA cannot be legally withheld. The only event that has "resulted in" PERB continuing to withhold the COLA all these years is PERB's claimed justification of the "settlement agreement" which is itself still under review by Judge Kantor [White v PERB, mrf] to determine if PERB violated its fiduciary duty to retirees by entering into such an agreement. PERB simply does not have any statute or court decision that supports its withholding of the COLA all these years."

For the record, JRS is a retired prosecutor (attorney). Perhaps "the Law" would like to clarify his article publicly. I'm happy to offer him the opportunity to reply to all, as well as whatever individual response he may offer to JRS.

An End Has a Start

It is becoming clear to me that the "end" of our PERS struggle may be getting closer than we might have thought as recently as a month ago. It started with Judge Kantor's ruling in the Arken/Robinson cases last month. It continued yesterday with the filing/posting of the Arken plaintiffs motions for clarification to Judge Kantor at the upcoming status conference on August 16. For the first time, the right question and the heavy squeeze is being put on the Judge: do not rule that our first and second claims for relief in Arken are moot. On the contrary, they *are* the issue. They ask you to order PERS to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Strunk (via Sartain) that the Legislature defined a "fixed benefit" that cannot be said to contain errors. Those are the Court's words, not mine, not the PERS Coalition, not Judge Kantor. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature cannot withhold a COLA on any retiree benefit. The COLA is statutorily required, not optional. Thus, settlement agreement or not, PERS has no basis to collect anything from retirees as their benefits - newly defined by the 2003 legislature as "fixed" and do not contain errors. To add to the point, Judge Kantor ruled that PERS erred in sending out their January 28, 2006 "notice of intent to collect" as it violated the statute it claimed to represented - ORS 238.715. In the meantime, Judge Kantor ruled that IF PERS could figure out a legal basis for collection, they were constrained by the Legislature's HB 2003, section 14b1, which Kantor ruled as the "exclusive" remedy offered by the Legislature to the City of Eugene case. PERS didn't have 238.715 available, and even if they did, they didn't follow the rules in applying it. The notice was improper and illegal. End of story. Statute of limitations has run out, but more importantly, there is nothing to collect as no errors were made in the computation of the "fixed benefit". Judge Kantor started the end.

In the meantime, PERS seems hellbent on continuing its vendetta against retirees, all under the guise of "fairness to actives". If the retirees win, the actives will be forced to subsidize retirees. Nonsense. The Supreme Court answered the question quite clearly. If the fixed benefit is a new benefit created by the legislature, it cannot have any errors. No errors, nothing to collect, no subsidy by actives. The retiree benefits are paid from the BIF (Benefits in Force ) reserve. COLAS are normally funded by the BIF reserve. Benefits are funded by the BIF. In short, the money to cover retirees has already been collected from retiree accounts and from employer matches and sits in either the BIF or the BIF reserve. The BIF reserve is huge right now as a result of a stellar stock market for the past 4 years and continuing. There is no PERS crisis. The reforms permitted and permissible have been implemented; the stock market has soared and PERS is fully funded and sitting on top of more than $2 billion in reserves. The PERS crisis was over 2 years ago.

It is time for us to do our part to pressure the "heavy hitters" to start putting the screws to the PERS Board. The Governor is the heaviest of the heavy hitters. He appointed this board and he can influence its behavior. He may not be directly responsive, but letters pointing these facts out aimed at Representative Greg Macpherson (D, Lake Oswego), Senator Richard Devlin (D, Tualatin/Lake Oswego), Tim Nesbitt (Governor Kulongoski's Chief of Staff and former Oregon AFL-CIO President), and former State Senator Tony Corcoran all have strong influence with the Governor. Your own legislator may also be influential if he/she is from the same party as the Governor. If not, the influence may be limited. I am assembling all the needed email addresses and will place them in a link to the left later today. Now is the time to start exerting the pressure. We need to be respectful, but we don't need to be patsies any more. We won in the Supreme Court; we've won in Judge Kantor's court, and we stand before Judge Kantor real soon now to request even more. The PERS Coalition has placed compelling issues before Judge Kantor. They will be hard for him to ignore. It is time we begin to exert our own influence and remind those "heavy hitters" that they were put in those positions by the actions of "organized labor" and its subsidiaries. The reforms have worked; the crisis is over. Accept the gains and stop fighting about the losses. Give us what we are entitled to and shut down this expensive, draining, and foolish tilting at windmills. Otherwise, we are doomed to another 4 or 5 years of litigation. Pretty soon the courts will get tired of us, tired of PERS, and tired of this bickering over issues that were settled in 2005. Enough is enough already. Pay me what you owe me and I'll go away and live my retirement the way I had planned.

Update 1:30 PM. I have posted the list of those representatives and others who carry sway with the Governor in a pdf file accessible from the top link on the left. I am certain of the email addresses for all listed EXCEPT for Tim Nesbitt, whose email I'm still trying to verify. I'm pretty sure it is correct, however.

Burn Down This Town

The PERS Coalition has released the text of its motion to be presented to Judge Kantor for argument at the August 16, 2007 Status Conference. You can read it here. Informed sources tell me that Judge Kantor has set aside an entire day for the Status Conference. The reconsideration motion that the PERS Coalition has filed requires one hour to argue. Apparently PERS has filed its own motions, but I have not yet seen them although I'm trying to get my hands on copies, as well as any copies of motions to be filed by the 14b plaintiffs' attorney Jim Coon. I *will* keep you posted. I've chosen not to summarize the Arken motion for reconsideration as I believe EVERYONE should read it for themselves. It is easy to understand and makes explicit some of the things we've all been talking about. It is a pleasure to read.

Good Intent

I just got through reviewing the Board packet that accompanies the meeting agenda for the PERS Board (PERB). The monthly meeting for this month is Friday July 20 at 1 p.m. The agenda doesn't appear to be terribly interesting, but there is one item that should please almost all "window retirees". Apparently, as a result of the Arken/Robinson ruling, PERS will consider restarting the COLA process for all "window retirees" who haven't been invoiced under Strunk/Eugene (these people have COLA restoration already but under different circumstances). The PERS staff is recommending that the July 1 2007 COLA be restarted for all the uninvoiced retirees effective immediately. This would mean that if the PERB approves the staff recommendation, we should see a 2% increase in our next (August 1) payment. This will have a small impact on the Strunk/Eugene balance if that process resumes, but that question remains quite open right now. I will be attending the meeting on Friday and will know for certain whether there is any opposition to this proposal. I doubt there will be as there is more than sufficient money to do this and PERS staff appears to be somewhat "sensitive" to the fact that some of us have gone almost 5 years without any benefit increase. This is the first ray of sunshine for many of us in a very long time. The Arken/Robinson outcome was really good news, but actually resuming the COLA process is even better news. Hopefully, we can count on this to take place. I'm very positive about it. I'll be even more positive if we start seeing reimbursement for the previous 4 years of lost colas. Please don't mistake my optimism as a sudden reprieve for PERS. Run the SartainLipscomb calculator and find out what you're really missing. This barely takes the sting away, but they have to start somewhere and now is as good a time as any.

There are some who are very suspicious of PERS' actions and motives for doing this. I would be derilect if I were not to acknowledge the downside of the PERS decision. It could be that PERS is doing this to look like a good citizen before going before Judge Kantor on August 16. If they had just let another COLA go unpaid, they could be subject to all kinds of repercussions from Judge Kantor. This may be nothing more than another attempt by PERS to distract attention from what they are really doing. At this point in the game, I wouldn't put this past them. On the other hand, PERS has admitted in its staff memo that COLAs are automatic UNLESS there is an exclusion list, which has been what all window retirees have been on since 7/1/2003. If COLAs are automatic and all it takes is a "no exclusion" switch in their RIMS system, it will make it much harder for PERS to claim hardship if the court orders restoration of all past COLAs. So, even if PERS is just playing legal games, this could come back to bite them. Too bad, so sad. (And BTW Curtis, I agree with you. Arken/Robinson is the catalyst that makes everything else happen. It deserves more credit than I gave it above. The COLA resumption is driven by Arken/Robinson, not the reverse.)

The Strange Becomes Acceptable

Apathy, disinterest, diffidence all seem to characterize many "window" retirees' attitudes towards PERS. PERS has been screwing over retirees for some years now, yet a large percentage of those affected (or to be affected) seem completely unaware of the size and magnitude of the hole PERS is putting in us. The strange has become acceptable. It is time to change. It is time to get off the dime and stop permitting this to go on. If you haven't already, take a few minutes to read my post from yesterday "Heading For the Light". Download the calculator that works best with your system. When you're all done running it (it is easy, trust me) calculate your "spread" - the difference between what you are reputed to owe PERS and what the Sartain verdict says PERS owes you. If you find out that your spread is less than $10,000 I'll be very surprised. Nevertheless, when you find out just what this "spread" is, try to be more than just plain sanguine or indifferent about it. This is real money - your hard-earned money - that we're talking about. Time for some activism. Join the PERS discussion group (OPDG, link on left near bottom) and find out what others' spreads are. Post yours. Get involved. The next court hearing at which PERS retirees' fates will be discussed is a Status Conference to be held at 9 am on August 16, 2006 in Judge Henry Kantor's courthouse (Multnomah County Courthouse - 4th Avenue entrance). Be there to watch the PERS lawyers try to spin and dissemble and delay. Be there to watch PERS retiree lawyers Greg Hartman and Jim Coon try to get Judge Kantor to clarify his ruling and to urge PERS to just comply and quit stalling. What should aggravate you no end is that PERS is using member and retiree money to fund the legal fees needed to prevent retirees from getting what is due this. What gall! What chutzpah! The strange is UNacceptable. Let people know this. Don't let them continue to stomp on your bones, because that's all that will be left if we let PERS continue its delaying tactics. Time for a movement, some attitude, and to restore our benefits. Delay, indifference, and apathy are our worst enemies. The PERB is "doing its job"; unfortunately that "job" is on us. Time for it to stop.

Bring It Back

It never left. For those of you using the new "SartainLipscomb" calculator, the output is automatically saved as a text file that you can print, edit, do with what you want. To distinguish it from the old calculator, I've named it "sartain.txt". It should be saved in the same directory from which you ran the software. If not, use Spotlight (Mac) or Windows Explorer (PC) to find it. It is there. It even says this in the "PLEASE READ THIS" screen of the software. If you can't find it, I need to know. But please don't ask until you've looked first. It is part of the code and an essential piece of output. It is there so you don't have to "print" the screen.

Heading for the Light

Prior to her death (and before I knew she was sick) Martha Sartain helped persuade me to rewrite my "Lipscomb" calculator to compute the outcome if PERS were to be forced to implement the Sartain decision from the Supreme Court's ruling in Strunk. Under the Sartain decision, PERS is obligated to restore the COLA on the fixed benefit retroactive to July 1, 2003. PERS has not implemented this ruling and has tried to avoid it by throwing up a fog based on the "Settlement Agreement". Until the recent Arken and Robinson rulings in Multnomah County Circuit Court, there seemed no likelihood of the Sartain ruling ever being implemented and there was no incentive for me to offer people a false hope. But the calculus has changed and I now believe there is *some* hope that we might finally get justice (not quickly mind you, but justice nonetheless). In anticipation, I thought it would be fruitful for retirees to examine their situation under the "Settlement" (or Lipscomb) outcome, and also under the "Sartain" decision. For those who have fallen under PERS' BS about the benefit cuts being small, the outcome under the newest calculator will be truly eye-popping. PERS' baloney only smells good if you never believed you were entitled to something else - what your retirement contract actually calls for. Now you will be able to see the light and hopefully shed your indifference and apathy regarding what you truly are entitled to.

Windows users can go here for the program. Mac users will find their version at this location. The Mac version is a "universal" binary that will run under OS X 10.4.5 and higher and should run on older Macs with the PPC chip, while also running on the newer Intel-based Macs. Good luck with your calculations and let the light shine in corners it has never shone in before.

Knocking on Heaven's Door

St. Peter welcomed our sister, Martha Sartain, today with open arms. She was sent off in a wonderfully special and simple service. I haven't been to a memorial service that showed as much love and affection as Martha's today. There were probably 75 people in attendance, including a few of us from here. Martha selected two people to speak after first having to be urged to even permit a memorial service. It became clear from the two selected that Martha was an incredible person, both as a talented and path-setting engineer with ODOT, a terrific and inspiring mentor for many, and a wonderful, funny, and loyal friend. Leave it to Martha to remark just before her passing that her biggest regret in life was that she wouldn't live long enough to collect social security. That brought a smile to everyone's face. Martha chose a beautiful piece of "real estate" (her term, not mine) for her final resting place. It will give me great pleasure to remember her each Memorial Day with flowers that she loved. I learned many things today about Martha that I didn't know. We all knew how smart, how worldly, and how articulate she was. I didn't know that she was a wonderful mentor, an amazing (and mischievious) friend, and I surely didn't know how talented a poet she was. The poem she wrote (but didn't expect to be read aloud) was specifically for attendees at the memorial and others who would mourn her passing. It was beautifully written and, while it brought a tear to my eyes, it comforted me in many ways as well. I hope that someone in her family or her circle of friends will urge its publication - it was that good. Martha is now at peace; may we all rededicate ourselves to the mission she set out to accomplish on *all* our behalves. It would be a wonderful memorial to her to actually get the justice she won.

Apropos of that justice, after the service I had a chance to talk "shop" with Scott Jonnson, the attorney who represented Martha and retirees in the Sartain v State of Oregon case that was part of the Strunk consolidated matter ruled on by the Oregon Supreme Court two years ago. Scott filled me in on the tardiness of the Oregon Supreme Court in issuing their final ruling in the "fee award" portion of Strunk. In her final days, Martha was concerned about the disposition of "her" case should she die before PERS was forced to implement. Scott assured her (and then me) that he would continue pursuit of PERS until they complied so that Martha's estate could get what she was denied in her lifetime, not to mention all the retirees she represented. There is no legal uncertainty created by her death. He also noted that Martha would live on forever through the case, as legal precedents are always referred to by the cases in which they were decided. Thus, "Sartain v State of Oregon" will become an historically important case and will continue to be cited in both Oregon and other state pension cases. One interested factoid emerged that I was unaware of. The attorney fee award in the Sartain case was tripled by the Special Master because he wanted the award to be sufficient to cover expenses and the donations made by OPRI members to subsidize the litigation. This is to prevent double jeopardy to OPRI contributors - the original donation plus the cost levied against retirees to pay OPRI for the legal fees incurred in its litigation against PERS. Thus, OPRI will have a difficult time NOT offering to refund the donations once PERS pays them what the Court is expected to order. The Court (in particular Judge Breithaupt, Special Master) made this an important part of its recommendation.

Finally, I now know the date, time, and place of the Arken/Robinson status conference. It is scheduled for August 16, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Judge Kantor's courtroom in the Multnomah County Circuit Court. A nice turnout would both honor Martha and provide us with important clues about how PERS is going to treat the ruling. Scott thought that with a summary judgement, PERS may have about 90 days (probably not any more) to decide whether to appeal. Nearly 30 days have already elapsed and we'll be up to almost 60 by the time of the status conference. PERS is going to have to fish or cut bait fairly soon and no one seems to be certain what they'll do.

Rough Justice

I've received quite a number of requests from retirees for me to resurrect my calculator that computes the COLA on the fixed benefit.  Although I never had such a calculator (wishful thinking on my readers' parts), I've decided that I will include a "good news" section to my Lipscomb calculator.  In honor of both the court decision that called for it, and in memory of a good friend whose name is associated with the decision, the revised calculator will be called the Lipscomb/Sartain Calculator.  As before, the Lipscomb piece will compute the scenario for window retirees under the now enjoined method PERS intended to use to recover money from retirees.  The Sartain portion calculator will unwind the process, extract the original "fixed benefit" and calculate the COLAs due retirees on that benefit.  It will provide an estimate of the current benefit as of 7/1/08 (note date carefully; I'm not expecting PERS to hurry), in addition to the amount PERS owes each retiree to for lost COLA.  I am unaware of any provision that will require PERS to pay interest on the "held" money.  

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about what this calculator is for.  Its existence in no way suggests that PERS has rolled over and will suddenly pay us what they've refused to do for 4 years.  But, if the contrast between the Lipscomb outcome and the Sartain result motivates apathetic window retirees, many of whom have seemed to accept their fate without a fight, to rethink the importance of the battle, then I will consider the outcome a success.  I don't know how much work this will involve - I've only briefly examined the Lipscomb source code.  I'm guessing it will take me a few weeks to get a clean run and so watch for the revised calculator in early August -- before the status conference on the Arken case.

Magical Mystery Tour

On August 8, at a time and place to be announced, all attorneys involved with the Arken and Robinson cases are scheduled for a status conference with Judge Kantor. The agenda is not set, but will surely include the PERS Coalitions' request to clarify the order and to address claims not answered by Judge Kantor in his opinion and order. PERS will also be required to show how they are complying with Judge Kantor's order. That ought to be an interesting tap dance. No doubt they'll employ Steely Dan's "pretzel logic" to come up with their latest justification for doing nothing. I can't wait.

Note at 6 p.m. PERS have changed the date on their web site to August 16th. It is unclear whether there has been a genuine scheduling change, or the date was wrong initially. I will try to clarify and repost soon with a correct date (and maybe time).

Feet In the Clouds

Yesterday morning, one of the main plaintiffs in the Strunk et al case, and my friend, Martha Sartain, passed away from complications related to lung cancer. Martha was the "face and soul" of "window retirees" as she agreed to have her name and her life explored in relentless detail during the proceedings leading up to the Sartain v PERB case in 2004. This case, sponsored by OPRI, involved the COLA freeze issue for window retirees and it still stands front and center as the Arken case wends its way through the courts, and the fee reimbursement issue remains before the Oregon Supreme Court.

I will remember Martha as a smart, savvy, and keen observer of the goings on at PERS, and an impossible person to put something over on. I'll remember Martha's companionship through endless hearings in Strunk, in Arken, and in the final days of the hearings related to fee reimbursements of lawyers in the Strunk cases. I'll also remember her generosity in sharing copies of court transcripts and her persistence in getting audio documents of important hearings for me to use in writing my blog. Without her assistance, many of my posts would have been impossible to write.

Martha was a tireless advocate for "window retirees". She served on the OPRI Board with distinction and should be credited with getting the Board to recognize "window retiree" issues and for pursuing an agenda of openness and use of modern technology.

Martha's memorial service will be held on Thursday July 12th [NOTE: corrected date] at Belcrest Memorial Park Cemetary in South Salem at 2:00. Martha's family asked that in lieu of flowers or charitable gifts, please "instead treat your family or a close friend to meal out .... and remember friends".

Godspeed Martha. We will all miss you.

Lowdown

There is considerable debate, speculation, and prediction afloat about what, exactly, Judge Kantor meant in his recent ruling in the Arken and Robinson cases. In an effort to get the lowdown from one of the attorneys involved in the Arken case - Greg Hartman - I dropped him an email this morning. Greg was kind enough to respond and give me some general answers about what is coming down the line. Obviously we are not alone in being unclear about some elements of the ruling. Hartman (and Coon?) are trying to schedule a hearing with Judge Kantor in order to clarify some of the issues under discussion. From the looks of things, this hearing will be scheduled sometime in the early part of August. The plan is to submit a proposed order that would clarify a number of issues relating to the "scope of the ruling." In addition, Hartman shared with me that he believed Judge Kantor had ruled that 14(b) (the "exclusive remedy") precludes the application of 238.715. He observed "...even if it turns out that the alternatives provided in 14(b) don't work that does not mean that the legislature's decision to limit the application of 238.715 can be attacked." He also remarked that there were a number of issues in Arken that were independent of Robinson and 14b and that he hopes to "encourage" Judge Kantor to address them. In short, it is probably the case that the debate, speculation, and prediction will remain ongoing (or not) until the outcome of August's hearing is known. Once the date of the hearing is known, I will let people know. It would be encouraging to have retirees once again pack Judge Kantor's courtroom.

Whoa Bessy

Or was that Betsy? You might want to take a look at Greg Hartman's memo to PERS Coalition members concerning the accuracy of the Oregonian and Statesman Journal reporting on the Arken decision. In case you don't know how to use Google, you can find it here. Bottom line is that administrative chargeoffs were not an issue in the Arken case. Until and unless PERS tries to charge the Arken victory to active and inactive PERS members, there is no fight. If they do - a point they argued was illegal on its face - they can expect a knock on the door from Greg Hartman and the PERS Coalition. So, Betsy, take your bias and that of your newspaper and shove it.

Get Miles

Questions are starting to arise about contributing to legal defense funds to force PERS to start distributing COLAs on the fixed benefit. Personally, I think it is too early to send money. Moreover, I don't know where I'd send it. OPRI is not my favorite organization these days. Their attitude toward window retirees has been less than stellar although their new Board now has 3 window retirees on it. They participated in Arken by joining the PERS Coalition. The PERS Coalition is mostly about unions representing active employees. They've made it clear that if PERS moves to compensate retirees at the expense of actives, they will fight it (and retirees). There is no evidence that PERS is planning to do much of anything yet. I think waiting until PERS decides whether it will appeal or not would be the most prudent course of action right now. If you do contribute to a legal defense fund, make sure you get miles for doing so.

To keep you up to date, the Oregon Supreme Court has yet to rule in the fee award dispute in the Strunk case. Both OPRI and the PERS Coalition have argued that they should be awarded attorney fees. If OPRI is awarded attorney fees, they will receive back much of what we, as individuals, contributed to their legal defense fund. Should we find ourselves in a position of having to pursue additional litigation, I'd want OPRI to use recovered funds first before asking me for more - especially since they promised to return my donations if they won fees in the Sartain/Strunk case. So, first I want to see if they win. Second, I want them to offer to return my donations and only if they do that would I consider letting them keep those funds and receive more to pursue the final phase of this shaggy dog legal case. I just wouldn't rush to send money to anyone quite yet.

How Much Did You Get For Your Soul?

The Oregonian's Betsy Hammond swallowed the kool aid again with her latest editorial (oops, was that supposed to be a news article?) on the outcome of two related PERS court cases in the Multnomah County Circuit Court.   In her article "New Retirees will pay for old mistakes" (Oregonian, 6/21/07), Ms Hammond again fails to read either (a) the court's opinion or (b) the legislation to which the court's opinion refers.  Nowhere in Judge Kantor's decision does it say that "new retirees" (or active members) will pay for Judge Kantor's decision.  Judge Kantor merely ruled that the Legislature established two methods for dealing with the actions of the 1999 PERS Board - either to freeze the cost-of-living increases for those retiring between 4/2000 and 4/2004 or to charge the expenses to administrative costs.  Since the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that withholding cost-of-living increases was illegal, Judge Kantor ruled that the Legislature left the PERS Board with only one viable option - the administrative charge off.  It is true that administrative expenses are taken out before earnings are distributed and so the potential exists for active members to subsidize benefits for this small group of retirees; HOWEVER, PERS has been reserving funds like crazy since 2003 and now has nearly $2 BILLION in reserves from which these expenses could come.  These reserves are not available to any members and charging expenses to them will not reduce the benefit of ANY member now or in the future.  Instead of pointing this important fact out, Ms. Hammond draws the financial implications out of the air and creates a potential conflict where there is none.  In so doing, Ms. Hammond again wears her bias on her sleeve and continues the Oregonian's long history of bashing public employees.   

Best of All Possible Worlds

By now it should be pretty common knowledge that the PERS Coalition was the big winner in the Arken and Robinson cases. Judge Kantor's combined ruling in both cases earlier today - after a 9 month wait - pretty much puts the kibosh on PERS' plans to recover anything from retirees. In Arken he invalidated PERS' January 27, 2006 collection order (the subject of the March 2006 "letter" we all received), and enjoined PERS from recovering anything from affected retirees. Moreover, he ordered PERS to return payments that retirees have made in response to now illegal invoices. To put the icing on the cake, Judge Kantor did a careful review of the legislative history of section 14 of HB 2003. In so doing, he hoist non-state defendants' attorney Bill Gary on his own petard. He quoted Gary's remarks to the legislative committees that took testimony on HB 2003. In that testimony, Gary explained that the intent of section 14 was to insure that retirees would not have to pay anything "out of pocket" and would simply be subject to a COLA-freeze. On the basis of such testimony, and the Governor's declared statement that retirees would not have money taken away from them, Judge Kantor concluded that the legislature's clear intent was to make section 14 the EXCLUSIVE remedy for the City of Eugene case, thus removing PERS' right to collect under ORS 238.715. As a result, Judge Kantor ruled that the Robinson plaintiffs were correct in arguing that PERS has no choice but to recover the overpayments from administrative expenses, not by invoicing retirees.

As in any legal proceeding, this battle is far from over. There is the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that still await. But for now, we can savor the victory that we have waited several years to have. It feels good right now. It would feel a lot better if Judge Kantor had explicitly told PERS to start paying COLAs on the fixed benefit immediately. The next COLA is payable next month and it probably wouldn't be too much of an effort for PERS to start that process now while taking a bit more time to restore the previous 4 COLAs that have been frozen. That's probably too much to expect right now. It will probably require PERS to be told at the point of a legal gun that it has to do that. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't haul enough big steel to make PERS quake in its boots. Perhaps now the thought might cross their minds. THAT would be the best of all possible worlds. In the meantime, I'll savor this moment of complete vindication. Frankly, I didn't think I'd live to see this day.

I Got the News

This just in from Joe DeNicola, SEIU president:

Sisters & Brothers,

Judge Kantor, Multnomah County Circuit Court, has issued opinions in both the Arken and Robinson cases. He has ruled in our favor in both cases and has enjoined PERS from additional collection efforts
with regard to PERS retirees. Additional analysis from our attorney. Greg Hartman, will be forthcoming soon.

I am seeking independent verification, but it appears that stage one in the long waiting game may be over.

P.S. 11:50 a.m. Judge Kantor's office confirms that the decisions were filed this morning. I will have copies of both rulings by FAX later this afternoon and will try to have them posted by tomorrow.

Here is a copy of the decision.

Girl They Won't Believe

Really a woman, but it doesn't really matter.  I spent more than an hour on the phone yesterday afternoon with a woman whose husband - an active Tier 1 PERS member and PSU colleague - had died unexpectedly in his early 60's.   Her story is most perplexing and qualifies as one of the more difficult issues I've heard about in quite some time.  She's been dealing with PERS' death unit for several months and has, thusfar, been unsuccessful in prying any money from them.  The issue hinges on PERS' belief that her husband died without officially naming her as a beneficiary.  Leaving aside the question of whether he did or didn't officially name his wife as a beneficiary, it has always been my understanding that one's spouse is always the beneficiary unless an individual is (1) unmarried at the time of death or retirement or (2) explicitly declaims the spouse *and the spouse agrees in writing to the declamation*.  Otherwise, the spouse is the default beneficiary.  According to PERS, in the absence of an official beneficiary form, the only way the spouse can recover benefits from the account of a deceased non-retiree is via probate of the will.  Since the husband was very careful to put all property in both of their names, had explicitly named his wife as the beneficiary of the IAP account, had a current will naming his wife as personal representative and recipient of his entire estate, how likely is it that he *forgot* to name his wife as the beneficiary of his Tier 1 account?  I find this nearly impossible to believe.  So, she's left arguing with PERS that they've misplaced the relevant information, while PERS claims that they don't have it.  She's left to pursue probating a will that otherwise doesn't require probate (and the legal fees involved), or she can enlist the aid of a lawyer to sue PERS.  The challenge is that few people ever get a copy of the information PERS receives when it enters a new member into the system and so many people may be unaware of the beneficiary status of their PERS account.  I'm hopeful that this can be resolved favorably and quickly.  I've certainly pointed her in a direction that will, if at all possible, lead to a quick resolution.  (Answer to obvious question:  wife and husband married a very long time.  Husband began work at PSU long after he and his wife married).

The moral of this story is that if you are an active PERS member, make sure you have a named beneficiary attached to your PERS account.  Don't make any assumptions.  If you are in doubt, fill out another form to make double-dog sure you're covered.  

Handle With Care

As a result of many complaints to me and suggestions to PERS from me, the online PERS Retirement Benefit Estimate Calculator will have some updated verbiage to clarify what it does and doesn't do. Rather than paraphrase, I'm going to use David Crosley's response to me for the rest of this entry. David is PERS' official spokesman and is coordinating the PERS Retiree Focus Group, of which I am member. Here is David's description of the changes to be made to the Calculator verbiage:

"I reviewed the verbiage in the disclaimers and will have some changes made. Also, we corrected the "2005 ending balance" to 2006 for the variable portion.

The disclaimer at the beginning of the calculator will be changed to read: "The PERS Benefit Estimate Calculator calculates an estimated retirement benefit based on the data you provide. The calculator is not connected to your earnings record, PERS information file, or your employer's information file. As a result, near-term retirement dates tend to produce more accurate results. The accuracy of your estimate
will depend on how closely the information you provide matches the information used to calculate your benefit at the time you retire."

I will also have the updated disclaimer highlighted in bold. A member must agree to the statement before he/she can produce an online estimate.

I will also have information bolded regarding the calculator's limitations (what the calculator does not do):
· Estimates for judges, legislative members, and TIAA-CREF members.
· Costs and impacts associated with optional purchases. For information on purchases, please contact PERS Customer Service.
· Estimates if any part of an account balance has been or will be distributed to an alternate payee, or if a benefit will be adjusted as a result of a divorce decree.
· Disability retirement benefits.
· Estimates where any of your total service time includes time accrued under the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP).

Our Benefits Calc section tells me that the calculator provides an estimate that is within pennies of a written estimate for Money Match.

If Money Match provides the highest benefit estimate for a member, the verbiage at the top of the estimate page states: "The information you have provided indicates you MAY BE affected by the City of Eugene vs. PERS settlement. The impact of the settlement is not included in the figures below. If you would like to estimate the impact of the settlement on your benefit, please click here."

The member is then directed to a page with a disclaimer that will be updated to read: "This calculator is not connected to your earnings record, PERS information file, or your employer's information file. As a result, near-term retirement dates tend to produce more accurate results. The accuracy of this estimate will depend on how closely the information you provide matches the information at your retirement."
This will be in bold text as well.

Our Benefits Calc section tells me that the calculator provides a "var at reg/var at var" estimate that is very close to a written estimate."

Hopefully, these clarifications and disclosures will make the benefit calculator more useful for members and will make transparent the areas where the calculator is apt to produce either too optimistic or too pessimistic estimates.

Everybody's On the Phone

Only been gone a week, but the old voicemail box has runneth over. The PERS news is pretty mundane, although if you are a lump sum retiree already faced with or soon to face a large lump bill to pay, HB 2397 may be your remedy. In little-noticed action during the week, HB 2397 passed both the Senate and the House and is on its way to the governor for either his signature, or him sitting on it and allowing it to go into law without his signature. There seems to be some disagreement whether he will sign it or not. Basically, HB 2397 allows those who owe PERS a lump sum from a lump sum retirement settlement to make the payment using a custodial transfer to PERS from an IRA, 401K, or other tax-sheltered account without incurring any tax or early withdrawal penalties. It does not change the obligation to repay in a lump sum, but it will allow the repayment to take place from a tax-advantaged account without triggering adverse tax consequences. The effective date is unclear, as is whether those who have already paid with non-tax advantaged money will be given a retroactive opportunity to pay this way. Actually, for those who have already paid, it isn't clear whether this bill has any benefits, but at least it makes the option available in the future. You can read the text of HB 2397 on the Oregon Legislature's web site (sorry for not having the link immediately at the tip of my fingers; I'm still adjusting to time changes).

In another development, PERS released its latest "PERS By The Numbers" with a June 2007 date. It continues to prove the point made by the PERS Coalition that had the Legislature done nothing in 2003, the structural problems with PERS would have resolved themselves and the PERS Board could have made incremental fixes along the way that would have been relatively benign for all members and retirees. I doubt we'll see the media touting this document as proving *this* particular point; if it gets mentioned at all, it will be cited as further proof that the reforms were both necessary and are working. It completely belies the Ron Saxton claim that the reforms were too little, too late. You can read the whole document here

As expected, Judge Crater is still missing. He didn't release any decisions in the Arken or Robinson cases, and the White case continues to spin slowly. The Legislature will adjourn for this year on June 29th; perhaps we'll see decisions after they go sine die for 2007.

100 Miles and Runnin'

Nothing to post. I'm out of town and have brief access to a computer in one of those fancy-schmancy airport clubs for frequent flyers. Nothing again until at least June 17t. According to weather reports, the Rose Parade will have rain. It wouldn't be Oregon if it didn't rain on the parade. Everyone be safe and on your best behavior. As Ahnold vould say in da Terminator: I'll be back.

Jet Lag

News from the PERS front is pitiful right now. There are three lawsuits awaiting action from Judge Henry Kantor of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Despite promising a "quick" ruling, both the Arken and Robinson cases have been awaiting Judge Kantor's decision since September 28, 2006 - 8 full months now. Both of these are high stakes cases that could affect the way PERS is currently handling the invoicing and collection from "window" retirees (Arken) as well as a broader segment of PERS retirees (Robinson). Judge Kantor has had several high profile cases on his calendar since he made the prediction of a relatively quick decision, but those cases have come, gone, and are in various stages of appeal. Resolution of the Arken and Robinson cases would hardly be definitive at this legal level. Parties on both sides of both cases have promised to appeal any adverse ruling, so both cases are ultimately heading for the Oregon Supreme Court. However, to get to the OSC, both cases would have to go through the Oregon Court of Appeals first, leaving final resolution in limbo until at least 2011 by current estimates. Justice moves very slowly.

There is considerable debate among window retirees and others targeted for collection efforts as to whether the PERS Coalition should push for an injunction to stop PERS from its collection efforts if it wins either or both cases at Judge Kantor's level. PERSonally (sorry, couldn't resist), I'd prefer PERS continue its collection efforts rather than stop part way through. There is no way I can imagine that PERS would suddenly decide to grant COLA raises on the original benefit. Consequently, I could see an injunction having the effect of freezing our original benefit indefinitely. I'd rather be getting COLA adjustments on my revised benefit than to have my current benefit frozen for another few years. Most window retirees are at or near the point where the revised benefit with COLAS exceeds the current benefit. Not seeking an injunction at this point would probably mean that we'd all get something more than we're getting now (MOST would; a few continue to be screwed by some bizarre unintended consequences that make their benefits significantly smaller). And we'd continue to get COLA each August 1. I hope the PERS Coalition sees the disadvantage of trying to force an injunction unless they pursue one that restores the COLA to the original fixed benefit.

This will probably be my last post until after June 16th. I will be on the East Coast visiting friends and family (and catching a few plays) for the next several weeks. As always, I will monitor email and try to respond to urgent issues. I will also keep watching for any significant events that are "of the moment" and will attempt to update this blog from a distance via Internet Cafes. I can get email on my phone, but I can't do blogging from it and I'm not taking a notebook computer with me this time. Enjoy the great weather while it lasts. Since the Rose Festival has started, it is a given that crappy weather will soon be upon us. Just remember the Oregon summer law - "in Oregon, summer begins on July 5th".

Note added at 5:30 p.m. In my haste to write this, I omitted a couple of other significant issues that remain to be resolved. The "White" case challenges the settlement agreement itself. Should this case finally get a hearing and a ruling, it has the potential of overshadowing any of the other extant cases as it would invalidate the settlement and make both Arken and Robinson unnecessary. Similarly, the Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to take up the matter of attorney fees in the Strunk case. To apportion attorney fees, the court has to decide who are the "winners" and who are the "losers". In a perverse twist of fate, the Special Master concluded that the "window retirees" won their case, while the opposition argued that the "window retirees" won nothing and are worse off now than they would have been if the Sartain case had never been filed. The special master recommended that PERS pay attorney fees and PERS has decided that "window retirees" should be dunned for "winning". PERS has no independent money to foot these bills and all such judgements eventually come out of administrative expenses. The Supreme Court has not accepted the Special Master's conclusions and has not issued a ruling. Those of us who think deeply about such things think that the SC may be trying to dodge a ruling here as a declaration of "window retirees" as "winners" and their attorneys as deserving of attorney fees might require the SC to clarify what it meant in its ruling. Nothing would please me more than to see the SC forced to explain its ruling in the Sartain (COLA freeze) case. If they explain it the way they wrote it, PERS has a very difficult time justifying what it is doing now and it would trump all existing legal cases. Some part of me is enjoying imagining the SC squirm. The other part of me is wondering how the "current" SC can interpret what a "previous" SC might have meant. Needless to say, the SC will eventually have to issue a decision and no matter how they choose to parse it, it *will* clarify (or further obfuscate) the Strunk decision. This is one of those few legal decisions I await with some glee. I like watching the SC twist slowly in the wind.

Calling Elvis

Anybody home? Despite widespread efforts to spread the word, the PERS Coalition and its attorney Greg Hartman have not been successful in finding suitable plaintiffs to file suit against PERS for the travesty known as the "Lipscomb Match" for variable account holders at retirement. To refresh your memory, this change in matching methodology was prescribed by Judge Lipscomb in his remand of the 1999 earnings crediting decision to the PERS Board. In response, the PERB entered into a settlement agreement with the suit plaintiffs that, among other things, required PERS to compute the employer match in an entirely different way. This affects retirees with a variable account who retired ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2004. Aside from the going-nowhere-fast White case, which contests the settlement itself, there are no specific legal challenges to the variable match change. So, the PERS Coalition is looking for suitable plaintiffs. If you retired on or after July 1, 2004, had a variable account, and have substantial evidence that you were financially harmed by this revised approach to the variable match, you should contact the PERS Coalition through its attorney, Greg Hartman.

The Lipscomb methodology deprives retirees of the employer match to actual earnings in the variable account. Instead, the revised method considers employer match only as if the money had been in the regular account for the total length of time the retiree was in variable. There are two calculations done: var@var (the old method which provides a dollar for dollar match to variable account balances) and the var@regular (which matches only what the variable dollars would have earned if the money had been in the regular account). There have been claims of massive harm, but to date the claim has not been backed up with a sufficient number of documentable cases to file suit. If you are in the category of having experienced harm (i.e. lost money that you thought you should have been entitled but for the change in methodology), get in touch quickly. Both the time and motivation for filing suit is getting shorter each day.

Can't Get No (Satisfaction)

This morning's FAX brought me a copy of PERS' response to a retiree's petition of the Strunk/Eugene remediation. The case was pretty straightforward. The retiree retired under the "lookback" not too long after the 2003 legislation took effect and right around the time of the PERB "settlement" of the City of Eugene litigation. PERS' remediation of said litigation resulted in their recalculating benefits. This retiree was not in the "window" and was expecting a check and/or a small benefit increase as he had retired when 2003 and 2004 were tracking at 0% rather than 8%. When he got his invoice, he was chagrined, shocked, and staggered by PERS' calculations. Indeed, his account balance was adjusted positively, he owed PERS no money - all expected and good outcomes. His benefit would go up - he thought. But no. It didn't go up. Instead it decreased significantly - a fact that just wouldn't compute for him. We've been longtime correspondents and so he sent me his invoice - the first of many I would see. When I looked at it, it became obvious quickly what had happened, although PERS did not make this even slightly clear. After all the adjustments to his account balance resulting from 2003 and 2004 add backs and 1999 take backs, his lookback balance was lower while his at-retirement balance was substantially higher. As a result, the "lookback" no longer produced the highest benefit. The highest benefit resulted from his at-retirement account balance using the NEW mortality tables. Unfortunately, the highest recalculated benefit was several hundred dollars lower than his previous "lookback" benefit. Consequently, his monthly benefit was lowered. Nowhere in any of the discussions surrounding the remediation plan had this unintended consequence been discussed. Even the PERS Coalition had not seen it before.

At my recommendation, he forwarded his concerns and my interpretation to the PERS Coalition attorney, Greg Hartman. Mr. Hartman reviewed the situation and concluded that it was unfortunate but fell within the parameters of the remediation. Only the outcome of existing litigation could possibly change the result. My correspondent then petitioned PERS following the procedure contained in the recalculation letter. Yesterday they responded. After a lot of yada, yada, yada, it concluded: "The appeal is denied because it does not raise a bona fide dispute of material fact, the pertinent statutes and rules are clear in their application to the facts, and there was not an administrative error". Not surprising, but disappointing. He's left now only to appeal to an administrative Judge petitioning for a contested case hearing. In the meantime, PERS has offered to provide him with the material facts of his calculation for a simple toll-free phone call.

I suspect that anyone else who tries to appeal the Strunk/Eugene calculations will find the same result. I don't discourage members who genuinely believe that PERS has MISCALCULATED something to challenge them. But appealing on the grounds that you don't believe you owe the money isn't going to get you anything but a response much like Mr. T.

Turn, Turn, Turn

Here's our latest poll, motivated by a lot of discussion on the Oregon PERS Discussion Group and my lack of sympathy for the lump summers who profess to be surprised or stunned by their invoice. I'm sympathetic to the financial burder, just not the surprise of getting an invoice.

Since there is no injunction against PERS to prevent them from collecting overpayments, should members who took lump sum settlements?
	Pay the lump sum and wait for the courts to decide on the legality
	Consult an attorney and appeal to PERS?
	Ignore the invoice and see what happens?
	Plead with the PERS Board for mercy?
	Sue for installment payment options although no statute currently permits them?
pollcode.com free polls

Looking at the World from the Bottom of a Well

The blog entries for these last two months have been dominated by various tales of woe from retirees caught in the snare of PERS Strunk/Eugene remediation team. One group that I've singled out for special care has been the not-so-small group of retirees who had the misfortune to retire after 3/1/04 - not window retirees - whose benefit was calculated on the basis of the "lookback". To refresh memories, the Legislature implemented the "lookback" as part of HB 2004, which mandated that PERS implement new mortality tables every two years as part of an ongoing effort to keep the tables current with actual experience. To "protect" a small group of individuals whose service occurred virtually entirely under one set of mortality tables, the Legislature offered a small sop. PERS was to calculate the benefit as if the individual had retired on 6/30/03, use the account balance at that time, use current service, and compute the benefit using mortality tables last updated in 1996 (sometimes called the 1978 tables for reasons that elude me). If the "lookback" benefit was higher than the benefit calculated using the current (at retirement) account balance and the newly implemented mortality tables, the retiree got the "lookback" benefit; otherwise the benefit from the new mortality tables.

When PERS set out to do the Strunk/Eugene remediation, it decided that it would completely recalculate the benefit by reviewing the entire employment history to make certain that as the new computer system was phased in, it began with entirely accurate information. As a side effect of this, the Strunk/Eugene remediation also adjusted the 1999 account balance to reflect the revised earnings crediting for 1999 (from 20% to 11.33%), and to recalulate 2003 and 2004 balances using 8% earnings rather than the 0% mandated by the legislature and struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court. Unbeknownst to most, the one group for which this recalculation was about to produce a most curious and deleterious effect was the "lookback" group. The "lookback" recipients had benefitted from the 20% in 1999 and received a pro-rate of 8% for 2003 at the time of retirement. No further additions occurred to their accounts. When the recalculations occurred, a curious thing happened. The "lookback" was no longer the winning benefit method. As PERS is obligated by statute to give the highest benefit to an individual, this should a moment for happy celebration. Unfortunately, "winners" in this situation found themselves with a significantly higher at retirement account balance, a lower balance for the "lookback", and a higher benefit from the non-"lookback". Paradoxically, the higher benefit is lower than the current benefit. Thus, "lookback" winners have been turned into big losers with a lower adjusted benefit and a higher repayment amount than they ever imagined. They expected a check; instead they got an invoice for a lot of money and a monthly benefit sizeably lower than their former benefit. Moreover, because these people were outside the "window", they had no COLA freeze dollars to rely on to offset some of the debt.

At my encouragement, several of my correspondents did two things: (a) appealed to PERS following the procedures described in the invoice and (b) communicated directly with Greg Hartman. To date, there has been no response from PERS, and very discouraging responses from Greg Hartman. In a nutshell, unless the White case wins and holds through appeals, there is no litigation potential for these folks. Talk about your caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence the title for my entry today.

I wonder how many other surprises still lurk out there? Back to celebrating Mother's Day. A reason to take pictures, look at a slide show, and not think about PERS for half a day.

Soul Suckers

Things continue to be quiet in PERS-land. PERS is quietly invoicing anyone with a pulse who had an account in 1999 including quite a few lump summers who have been cruising in another galaxy while this whole debacle has been unfolding over the past 5 years. I guess I find it amazing that anyone residing in Oregon could be unaware of PERS issues at this time. You'd literally have had to have had your head buried deeply in the sand these last five years to be caught out unaware right now. Yet, each day my mailbox brings new surprises and I have to write the same pathetic reply to let them know that "no, there isn't an error. You have won the negative lottery and you don't have much choice but to pay PERS back or start finding yourself facing some rather severe efforts to recover that money.

For a brief moment last week, an unsubstantiated (and incorrect) rumor was floating that Judge Kantor was going to release one or more of his PERS-related rulings. For those of you who've forgotten, Judge Kantor is the Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge who heard the Arken and Robinson cases last September 28, 2006. He promised all in attendance - lawyers, reporters, PERS members and others - of a relatively quick resolution. We're starting to measure quick in geological time, not clock time. I don't have any sense that Judge Kantor is any closer to releasing a verdict in either case anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's managed to redefine "relatively soon" so many times that I no longer know what it means.

Our Quebec foreign exchange student left this morning and we're all feeling a bit sad. It is wonderful to have the opportunity to spend time with young people from another culture. They try so hard to speak English and we try so hard to speak French. Regardless of language barriers, we and our daughter had a wonderful time. And, by way of symmetry, our daughter had a great time staying with our student in Quebec.

I hope I have some interesting, relevant, and useful PERS news before we leave on our next trip to New York City in June. At the current rate, that seems unlikely.

Cutting Board Blues

PERS began mailing some invoices to retirees who had taken lump sum distributions (either single or double) upon retiring. These invoices demand full payment of amounts reputed to have been overpaid as a result of the 1999 earnings crediting decision. For many people, the demand for full payment constitutes a severe, if not crippling, financial imposition. The PERS Coalition, through its attorney Greg Hartman, has published some general observations and discusses the various options available to individuals receiving these invoices. You can read this memo here. The memo isn't entirely helpful and advises members faced with these invoices to seek advice from their own attorneys. Nevertheless, regardless of what the attorney advises, the options listed in the Coalition memo seem to be exhaustive. I can't think of any other option that isn't listed.

New Train

Or at least a greatly revised web site. The first in a series of changes to the PERS web site went live today. Many of the changes are the result of input from a focus group PERS selected (yours truly is included). If you haven't been to the PERS website in awhile, you should find the new site much easier to navigate and important information more prominently displayed. I'm not much of a style maven, but the color scheme seems a bit garish to me. But that's my opinion and I have no room to quibble, especially after the color choices I've made in putting together blogs and websites.

In other news, a PERS-sponsored bill to eliminate the "Break In Service" statute enacted in 2003 has gotten its first hearing. This statute has created more havoc, more unintended consequences, and more headaches for PERS and for many employers and employees than anyone imagined when HB 3020 (formerly 2020) passed in 2003. The City of Portland has blessed PERS' efforts to eliminate the rule, as has the PERS Coalition. Our friendly Oregon School Boards Association is opposed to eliminating the rule, in part no doubt because they were instrumental in drafting it during 2003. Hopefully this statute is headed for the dustbin of history.

Home at Last

We arrived home safe and sound yesterday. We managed to keep the jet lag to a minimum by an old trick of forcing ourselves to stay away through two long flights. By the time we were on the west coast, we were sufficiently exhausted to sleep all the way through the night and wake up totally on West Coast time. It doesn't work perfectly, but minimizes the amount of jet lag we experience. By Thursday or Friday we'll be a bit strung out, but it should last only a couple of days. Until then, I can fake coherence.

Obviously nothing of substance took place while I was gone. The Oregonian seems to have had an article extolling the management of PERS and lavishing praise on the Board, which has taken a large deficit and converted it to a $1.75 billion surplus. No mention is made of the fact that the unions predicted this would happen by a market change without any reform. Surprise, surprise, the stock market has been on a roll since 2003 with new records being broken daily. Little wonder the PERS fund is as healthy as it is. Now, if the public could only understand that it was market forces that put PERS in the hole in the first place, not outsized public employee pensions. But I'll be dead before the Oregonian or the public makes that admission.

While I was gone, I decided to change my image a la London style. You can see the results of this change here. It just seem appropriate for me so that I can continue to remain low profile. Sorry for the image quality. No flash permitted and I didn't have a tripod handy. Even Photoshop couldn't clean up the blur, but you'll get the point anyway.

Who are You

At the suggestion of others, I'm interested in polling all the non-PERS individuals who read my blog. So here's your chance to respond. If you've already voted, don't vote again.

Now that we know about PERS members and retirees, let's find out about the others who read this blog
	Attorney
	Judge
	MSM Journalist
	Blogger
	Related to a PERS member
	Have no PERS affiliation
	none of these
pollcode.com free polls

So Quiet In Here

You can almost hear a pin drop. The only news of substance I have to report prior to my departure is that the PERS Retiree Focus Group has had one online query. It concentrated on the current layout of the PERS website and how and whether PERS should make information more readily available. The group offered some suggestions of what other information would be helpful and some navigation hints. These were taken seriously and some reorganization of the website will be forthcoming. The group was also asked about the desireability of making our names public or at least available to each other. Obviously you know my feeling about that subject, but my opinion was not shared by a majority of the (unknown) group. So, we will continue to operate ignorant of each other's identity. (We don't communicate in a forum; we don't even see what each other writes. It's not really a focus group in the strict sense as it is 9 independent voices providing input to PERS. I wish it were a real focus group where we are all involved simultaneously. I also wish I were a billionaire :-)

On The Road Again

I'm getting ready to take another road trip this week. I'll be out of blogging range until April 30th. I'll probably have internet access, but at the rates charged, I probably won't be posting mundane items. If a major development occurs, I'll try to find time to blog about it, but this isn't my highest priority. It hasn't been very often that I've had travel time without children and with a housesitter. So, my wife and I will be trundling off for a quick jump across the pond to visit friends in the UK. Retirement *is* good.

This is Us

Here's a new poll to gauge the readership of this blog. Please take the poll below. To make it accurate, please answer the question only once. Thanks.

What is your PERS retirement status
	Active Tier 1
	Inactive Tier 1
	Window Retiree, old actuarial tables
	Window Retiree, new actuarial tables
	Window Retiree, "Lookback"
	Post-Window Retiree, new actuarial tables
	Post-Window Retiree, "lookback"
	Tier 2 or Tier 3 active
	OUS ORP active
pollcode.com free polls

Another Round of Blues

Over the past few posts (except my April Fool's post), we've been exploring the plight of a narrow group of retirees whose benefit was calculated on the basis of the "lookback" - a legislatively designed method to ensure IRS compliance when the new actuarial tables went into effect on July 1, 2003 (HB 2004, 2003 Legislature). You can review previous entries to see how this particular calculation has led to some perverse outcomes for retirees subject to the Strunk/Eugene remediation efforts. The short version is that when the Strunk/Eugene adjustments are made, the "lookback" no longer gives the best retirement estimate. Instead, retirees are finding that they have significantly higher at-retirement account balances and are re-retiring under a straight Money Match calculation using the higher balance. While at first blush this might seem to be very good news (and most people in that situation thought that would be the case), the fact is that the higher account balances don't translate into higher retirement benefits. Instead, the higher balances become subject to the new mortality tables, which are considerably less generous than the tables they replaced. Consequently, retirees who find themselves in this situation are faced with benefits lower than they were receiving under the original "lookback". In some cases, the benefit cut is significant - several hundred dollars per month. When a spate of these started showing up in my mailbox, I walked through the calculations in the instances where I had all the relevant data. Alas, there is nothing wrong with PERS' calculations. I suggested that affected individuals contact the PERS Coalition through its attorney, Greg Hartman. Several did and this resulted in the PERS Coalition publishing a brief response on the AFSCME web site. The short answer is that while these cases are unfortunate, they do not appear to be litigable, or at least the PERS Coalition isn't going to litigate them. I don't know how many retirees are in this boat. I heard from 16 individuals. In the time period where this effect could possibly occur, there were a total of about 5000 retirements. Based on my own experience and communications, I would say about half those retirements were "lookback." Of those, I'd guess that approximately half will experience what my correspondents have experienced. The key factors will be age at retirement, retirement option, and percentage of account in variable. Younger individuals are less likely to experience this than retirees 60 and over. This is because the mortality factor changes are more evident for older retirees than the younger ones.

On an unrelated topic, I want to alert everyone to another "quiet" period for this blog. I'm leaving on April 21st for London and returning April 30. I will have my laptop with me, but I don't know how easy it will be for me to have wireless access. Our friends don't have it, so I may have to depend on finding a handy Starbucks or equivalent. Given the current exchange rate, I'll probably ration my time online. So, don't expect too much news from this source during that time period.

Party At The End of the World

I've returned from my Spring Break party at the end of the world (or at least at the tip of it) and found a piece of spectacular news awaiting. It seems that the PERB has decided to withdraw its complaints in the Arken and Robinson cases and has joined forces with the PERS Coalition. From the looks of what they're doing, they finally understand what the Supreme Court ruled in Strunk and plan to give "window retirees" everything they're entitled to receive - adjusted current benefits, restored COLA and the like. A spokesman from one of the PERB's law firms Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe said: "It took us quite awhile to parse the wording of the majority opinion in the Strunk et al case, but just last week it dawned on us that the Supreme Court wrote the words "fixed benefit" and said that because it was legislatively determined, it cannot be in error. Therefore, we plan to re-remediate the collection efforts and turn it into a method by which PERS repays all the retirees for lost COLAS and any associated expenses. Because the mechanism is already in place, we will first adjust those members who've already been invoiced and then we will address those members whose accounts have not been touched. It is a complex task, but we should be able to complete all account adjustments by 2009." This seems like such an anticlimactic end to such a long and exhausting process, and I'm a little disappointed at how easy this has been to resolve. I wonder if the Governor was involved in bringing the PERB to its senses. In any case, be sure to mark this day on your calendar as the day this exclusive news appeared, just in case PERS changes its mind tomorrow. [And in case you haven't noticed, do check today's date for important clues about the veracity of the information contained in this post.]

Soon As I Get Paid

I now have permission to share with you the Special Master's Report to the Supreme Court in the matter of Attorneys' fees in the Strunk case. The report is here. I also have a copy of Stipulation 1, which pertains to OPRI's attorneys' fees. It is here. It appears from reading these reports that retirees have won their battle for attorney fees, but it unclear how they might benefit from this ruling. If OPRI keeps its promise, those of us who donated to their Legal Defense fund might expect a refund of our donations -- that was the promise Jack Sollis made to members who donated. It seems only reasonable since PERS is going to "ding" retirees for their "win". Of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the Supreme Court accepts Judge Breithaupt's recommendations without modification. The unfortunate news is that there is nothing in the Special Master's report that would compel the Supreme Court to clarify its Strunk ruling as it pertains to the "fixed benefit" and its computation "without error". We had hoped that in the attorney fee hearings that this issue would be forced in order for the Supreme Court to declare how retiree's had "won". Alas, nothing in the report seems to force that clarification. On the other hand, having this out of the way removes any further obstacles to getting rulings in Arken and Robinson. Many believe Judge Kantor was waiting for the Special Master to issue his report and for the Supreme Court to clarify its Strunk ruling. Since that isn't likely to happen, Judge Kantor will be forced to rule on the merits of the cases before him without any "help" from the Supreme Court. Enjoy your reading.

On a totally unrelated subject, I will be out of the country from March 23rd to March 31st on a family vacation. I will have no access to email, the internet, or phone service. Do not expect anything posted here, on my other web site, or on the PERS Discussion Group at Yahoo. I will be truly out of contact (the sound you hear is my family cheering).