Walking On Thin Ice

I'm in a cranky mood today. I'm annoyed that with two OPRI Board seats opening, NO (none, zero, nada, zip) recent retiree applied. Consequently, the OPRI Board remains unchanged for another couple of years. The OPRI Board is controlled by people from a different retirement era and who, thus, have very little interest or concern in the problems faced by recent and soon-to-be retirees. The old-guard is dying off and recent retirees outnumber them considerably. Yet, despite that demographic fact, not a single member of the 38,000 "window retiree" cohort took the time or interest to apply for those open positions, which would have resulted in a recent retiree majority. I *would* have applied, but the OPRI bylaws prevented me because I didn't work for one of the areas from which the open positions derived (State of Oregon, not Higher Education, or public schools, not Higher Education). But, I'd hazard a guess that those two areas covered about one-third of the "window retirees" - about 13,000 possible candidates.

Here we had a golden opportunity to have a significant influence on the direction that OPRI takes. Yet, only pure apathy can describe this lack of movement. It can't be ignorance because this blog and OPDG had countless announcements of the vacancies.

I'm getting very discouraged by things like this. While I appreciate all the individual kudos I get for writing this blog, and I appreciate the individuals who have contributed to the development of a high-class database of all PERS-related documents, it is the lack of effort on the part of most readers of this blog, most lurkers on OPDG, and the rest of the 38,000+ affected retirees that puts us in a sorry predicament. We have NO (none, zero, nada, zip) organization that exclusively represents the interests of recent PERS retirees. Right now, we have a couple of lawsuits out there that might change our collective fates, but legal representation costs megabucks and those megabucks are coming largely from the unions representing active workers, not retirees. How much longer do you think the unions are going to spend the kind of money required to litigate every injustice done to retirees, especially with the abject apathy evident. If people really cared, they'd be scrambling to overtake OPRI with current retirees; they'd be scrambling to be at PERS Board meetings where the action is; they'd show up at every court hearing on any of these cases. In fact, retiree inaction is so pitiful that we've let PERS walk right over the top of us. Do you think if we had a strong and highly visible presence, we'd have been stomped so hard? Either people have been lulled into a false sense of security that the litigation will eventually play out in their favor, or more likely they've chosen to bury their heads in the sand. Worse still, perhaps they don't care. Perhaps in the ultimate act of masochism towards oneself and sadism towards fellow retirees, they are into self-flagellation. I've seen this from a few - "We don't deserve the size retirement benefits we got. The current actions are fair." When I hear that, my blood pressure goes through the roof. Talk about blaming the victim. I sure as hell don't think my pension is too high. I chose to retire when I did on the expectation of getting my fixed pension plus COLA each year. I retired before any of this Lipscomb shit came down. Why the hell should I be screwed for the stupidity of the PERS Board. Their only fault was abject stupidity. They did nothing illegal and my pension does not contain any errors except for the COLA that PERS has been withholding since 2003.

I hate to say this but recent PERS retirees, in the main, have walked right into this buzzsaw and seem not to care. The apathy is PERS' strongest weapon. Recent retirees are walking on thin ice and are about to fall in and drown. Inactivity is our own worst enemy. I'm afraid that the longer I see this, the less motivation I have to keep spending the time and energy researching all these topics. If I can't motivate people to become more informed, more proactive, more reactive, and more energized to participate in all the various opportunities we have had to effect some change in our fates, then it may be time to retire in peace. I *know* my fate. I *know* how to fight and I will fight, but on my behalf. If 38,000+ people don't care enough to help themselves, why should I care so much? It is a question I find myself asking more and more each day. I'm gonna need a lot of convincing to stay at this.

P.S. Added at 9 p.m. I've learned that there might have been one applicant for the State Employee position but I don't know whether this was Kathleen Beaufait, incumbent in the position, or her and one other person. The fact is that Kathleen was reappointed. The other position, for a public school system retiree, remains open for anyone to apply for. The incumbent in that position chose not to "re-up".

Beware of Darkness

The PERS Document Library project is going well. The developer is meeting early benchmarks and we are on track to have an operational multithread database in about 6 weeks. We've raised about $2400 towards the expected $3000 to $4000 goal, but that leaves us far short of our needs. You have no idea how important this library really is. For people who are trying to figure out what PERS is done, what PERS has done, or what PERS is likely to do next, this library will be invaluable. I've already used it about a dozen times because it conveniently locates a boatload of documents in one place. Knowledge is power; information is knowledge; and access to information is the most important facet of a free society. Please consider a small, medium, or large donation. Whatever your budget can afford will help. The only thing we all have to fear is darkness. PERS has kept a lot of people in the dark for many years. Help shed some light on PERS and we can all watch the rats and cockroaches scramble from the corners they've been hiding in for years.

Pull My Strings

The notice PERS sends out with its recalculation letter contains some fascinating revisionist legal obfuscation. My favorite sentence in the whole letter reads: "At this time, there is a lawsuit pending in Multnomah County Circuit Court addressing the issue of whether PERS can collect this overpayment amount from you." This is the most blatant bit of blarney I've read in a very long time. How wrong is this sentence? Let me count the ways. First, there is not one lawsuit pending, but three (Arken, Robinson, and White). Both Arken and Robinson address questions related to whether PERS can collect the overpayment. White addresses the question of whether the PERS Board breached its fiduciary duty to members and retirees by entering into the so-called settlement agreement with employers. Second, not only is the issue of collecting overpayments at issue, there is also the question of whether PERS can reduce your benefit, particularly if you are a window retiree (Arken). Finally, there is the whole question of whether the Legislature even intended for retirees to be dunned if the City of Eugene case (now both mooted and vacated) was ruled in favor of the employers. There is this section of the 2003 legislation that deals with how PERS is supposed to treat retirees in the event the Lipscomb decision were upheld. The Robinson litigation argues that PERS has no right to collect from retirees using section 238.715; instead, they must use either a COLA freeze (ruled a breach of contract by the Supreme Court), or charge the expenses off to administrative costs from future earnings. Judge Kantor has already ruled that PERS is bound by section 14b of the 2003 legislation.

So, if you read PERS' letter, do not be misled into thinking that there is only one case with legal bearing on PERS and you, and do not believe that those cases before Multnomah County Circuit Court only address the limited question of whether PERS can collect overpayments from you. There is much more at stake than that. PERS is simply pulling your strings and watching you dance. Not me.

A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

And I sure as hell hope PERS drowns in it. Got my "invoice" today. I'm not surprised. PERS has been throwing everything they have at getting as many of these suckers out as they can *before* Judge Kantor rules. You can bet I will appeal, but I'm not telling anyone when my appeal will hit PERS. Mine doesn't contain any surprises, much less any good news. I "owe" those SOB's $14K+ for benefits that are genuinely mine, and my monthly benefit will drop by about $54 per month as a result of recalculations. I'm sure the calculations are correct. After all, my own calculator gave me the correct answer 6 months ago. But, I'm not going after THOSE calculations. I have my mind wrapped around a bunch of other things. Just wait for that hard rain. I've got an umbrella.

A Cold Wind Blows Through Your Door

The PERS folks are at it again. Although this is not new information, many of us are just discovering its implications. Remember the old days? The days when you would get a new PERS Member Handbook every couple of years. It would describe membership benefits, information about past Board decisions and legislation, describe all the retirement options, and in general make you feel warm and fuzzy about your retirement plan. You know the plan. The one that your employer kept telling you that it would make up for the crummy salary they were paying you. The plan that would take care of you in your retirement. Yes, that one. Well between 2005 and 2007, PERS decided to "retire" (their word, not mine) the Member Handbook and replace it with their online version of A-Z questions and answers. While it is nice to have an electronic version of typical questions and answers, this in no way replaces the Handbook. I have an entire file of handbooks from my time waiting for PERS to take care of me. They are, except their definition of "taking care" of me is to continually stab me in the back stripping little things from me regularly. The "public" reason given for "retiring" the Member Handbook is that it saves the organization money. True enough, except that the money doesn't seem to be finding its way back to members. In the scheme of things, the cost of printing the members handbook, or putting a pdf version online, is trivial. My hunch is that since the member handbook has been one of the "bones of contention" during the Strunk hearings and later, PERS didn't want to put anything in such permanent writing. If they post it on the web, it is ephemeral, and can be changed with the flip of a switch.

This latest trick is an injustice to all of those people who don't have regular access to a computer, but also to all those people who can find something easily by using a Table of Contents and an Index - something that appeared in the Member Handbook. The best WE can do is to collect as many documents, as many page impressions, and as much support we have to build the library of documents described above (Livin' in the Future) and below (Power To the People). If you want to thwart PERS' effort to make less information available, please help us in our effort to invert that and make as MUCH information public and accessible as possible. Support the database project. Complain to PERS about discontinuing the Member Handbook. That cold wind you feel is coming from PERS slowly sucking as much available printed information as possible into the electronic bit bucket.

It Ain't Right

Something is up at PERS. For the longest time I'd hear from a few readers per week about their invoices from PERS. I'd help them understand what PERS was doing and would point out how I might appeal if I were in their positions. Something changed late last week. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but all of a sudden my mailbox is overrun with notes from readers about being invoiced. Since yesterday, I've received exactly 25 emails from readers who found invoices in their mailboxes yesterday and today. Add that to the nearly two dozen I received last week and this adds up to a major campaign by PERS to push those invoices out the door. I find the timing somewhat suspicious. Of course I'm a conspiracy theorist. After all, I watch CSI, House, Grey's Anatomy, Cold Case, the Sopranos where everything is strange and suspicious. In PERS' case, I wonder if there is an in-house agenda to get the invoices out as quickly as possible so that by the time Judge Kantor rules, PERS can plead how complicated it will be to undo all the invoicing they've just busted hump to get out. And of course, with the plea will come the now-tired explanation that their staff is overworked and it will take a very long time to undo what they've done. And oh, how much money it will cost. This is common PERS blarney and I hope that Judge Kantor looks those dirtbag attorneys from California in the eye and says: "Tough shit cowboy. Fix it quickly." And I plan to be in court the day this happens, if Judge Kantor issues his ruling "in person." Otherwise, I plan to be a fly on the wall inside PERS and listen to the wideboys try to explain this to PERS staff by saying: "Whoops, the gig is up. We've exhausted that ploy. Time for some new lame excuses. Got any ideas." All the while, I'll be saying: It ain't right to make those PERS boys behave. They're bad to the core.

Power To The People

Since 2002, I've been writing and then blogging about PERS issues. I've had access to thousands of documents, none private, but many not circulated widely. Others I know have their own set of documents. Over the years, it has become increasingly hard to lay hands on a document related to PERS, the PERS "crisis", the PERS Legislation, and the PERS litigation without a lengthy search. A few months ago about 5 of us decided that we had to put our heads together to solve the document access problem. Pretty soon a plan developed, largely due to the skills and motivation of Greg Scott, to put all these collected documents into a searchable library. Our plan involves developing a search engine that will enable interested readers to find documents by keywords, phrases, author, possibly date. The search engine is under development. We have marshaled many documents - more than one thousand -- and collected them into a single place - http://oregonpers.info. As is noted at this site, it is dedicated to the memory of Martha Sartain, an incredibly smart, persistent, and avid chronicler of PERS. Martha not only sacrificed her life (perhaps not literally, but figuratively) by agreeing to be the OPRI plaintiff in the Strunk case. Martha's case - Sartain v PERS - was about the retiree COLA freeze. It was one of two cases where the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in retirees favor, agreeing that the Legislature had already made the COLA integral to the retirement contract and could not arbitrarily withhold the COLA from benefits. Although PERS has still failed to implement the Supreme Court's version of the COLA freeze - and Martha died before this issue was resolved - it was her intellect, her sense of righteous indignation, her understanding of PERS history, and her ability to communicate all this to OPRI's lawyer that resulted in an excellent and winning case to the OSC.

This library is now open, although the intelligent search functions are not yet ready, and is devoted to our collective belief that "knowledge is power". Information is knowledge in this day and age and we believe in power to the people. Please visit http://oregonpers.info and see for yourself the vast array of documents assembled. Please make sure you send comments, opinions, documents, criticisms, and suggestions to the link at the site. I will have a link on the left for this new site in a day or two. (Puppy calls).

I Don't Want You Now

Or ever, for that matter. You'll be pleased to know that Greg Macpherson's got the endorsement of Governor Kulongoski and former Governor Barbara Roberts. Big whoop. With friends like those, Greg doesn't need any enemies. Since there is no love lost between Governor ("I won't take benefits from retiree's accounts) Kulongoski and PERS members/retirees, and Barbara Roberts, through no particular fault of her own, managed to scare the state into passing Measure 5 by announcing how many people would die as a result of passing this measure. I'm afraid she cried wolf too many times and the voters were simply not swayed. As a result, we got Measure 5, and it took more than 10 years for the disaster to strike. By that time, nobody connected the doom with passage of that "little" measure back in 1990. In any case, I'm hoping that their endorsement of Greg Macpherson will help him with the kiss of political death. Gone from public life, at least for the near term, perhaps forever.

Hold On

I'm afraid the Police and Fire posts got a bit out of hand. My post yesterday netted me a few copies of the invoices in which the retirees had raised questions about PERS' reductions. After reviewing all these invoices very carefully, I've concluded that there's no there there. To understand this, you need to keep two different facts completely separate. The Strunk/Eugene remediation plan involves two DIFFERENT reductions that are only tangentially related. The first reduction involves adjusting the retiree's benefit to WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN if the 1999 earnings crediting had been posted at 11.33% instead of 20%. This requires PERS to go back to the date of the member's retirement adjust the account balance AT RETIREMENT to what it should have been if 11.33% had been credited instead of 20% and then refiguring the benefit on that basis. That benefit is called the adjusted benefit. To the adjusted benefit PERS then adds the COLAs from that point to the date of adjustment. That is now the new benefit. If that new benefit is greater than your current benefit, then you get the higher benefit. If that benefit is less than your current benefit, your benefit is reduced. The second reduction involves the overpayment of benefits (as a result of the 1999 20% earnings credit instead of 11.33%) from the date of retirement until the date of adjustment. For some retirees, the COLA on the adjusted benefit produces a "cross over" where the adjusted benefit exceeds the current benefit. When this happens, the overpayment amount is reduced by the amount underpaid after the cross-over. The OVERPAYMENT amount is subject to the Actuarial Reduction Method whereby PERS agrees to accept repayment of your OVERPAYMENT by reducing your monthly benefit by an amount based on your life expectancy and that of your beneficiary, if one is germane to your benefit.

With that explanation behind us, I can state confidently that PERS is NOT collecting or even documenting the actuarial reduction amount based on the "overpayment". They have been enjoined from doing that by Judge Kantor in the Arken/Robinson cases. The repayment amount has NO bearing on the amount of reductions Police and Fire members have been seeing on their recent invoices. The reduction of benefits being reported is ONLY the benefit reduction resulting from PERS continuing to adjust benefits (and account balances) to reflect the 11.33% crediting for 1999. Unfortunately, some Police and Fire members just happen to be in a situation where they were nowhere near the "cross over point" and were still being overpaid their benefits.

Apropos of those adjustments to benefits, PERS believes -- and so stated to Judge Kantor during the Status Conference on August 16, 2007 -- that Judge Kantor's injunction did not apply to those adjustments. Judge Kantor, in his (slightly incredulous) reply, let PERS attorneys know in no uncertain terms that he would clarify his final order so that PERS would know and understand exactly what he meant in his injunction. We are still waiting for Judge Kantor to issue that and, hopefully, stop PERS dead in its tracks and force them to reverse any adverse actions taken so far. Moreover, we hope that he will require PERS to follow the Supreme Court's ruling in the Strunk case that would restore COLA to the "fixed benefit" (the one you were receiving before you were invoiced). The Supreme Court was, in my opinion, quite clear on that order, but PERS disagrees and refuses to implement that. The Arken case raises that very issue and Judge Kantor is going to have to confront the Supreme Court's ruling directly in his final order. Whether PERS finds a way to parse the order to its advantage remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however. PERS will appeal Judge Kantor's ruling. So hold on to your hats, glasses, pens, computers, and iPods. It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the next couple of years.

Who'll Stop the Rain

A couple of days ago I wrote about Police and Fire retirees starting to get invoiced. I've now had emails from about two dozen P & F members who have been invoiced in the past month or so. Each of the emails raises the same problem. Although PERS is NOT reducing benefits to cover the repayment of benefits alleged to have been paid in error, PERS is including the amount the member owes and the actuarial reduction amount that WILL BE deducted monthly if PERS is authorized by the Courts to resume collections. The problem is that Police and Fire retirees tend to retire at younger ages and the ARM amounts included on their invoices are completely out of sync with what I've seen for General Service members who are similarly aged at the time of invoice. Controlling for variables such as option and beneficiary age, these amounts SEEM excessively high. I had assumed that PERS had different ARM factors for Police and Fire. PERS disabused me today of that assumption; Police and Fire retirees are subject to the same ARM factors as General Service members. This deepens the mystery. I'd like to be of help here but in order to do so I need to see about a half a dozen examples of real invoices to determine what pattern holds (if any) and whether or not PERS is doing something different than what they say they are doing. The only way this will happen is if recently invoiced Police and Fire (and General Service as well) retirees are willing to share a copy of their invoices with me. I absolutely, positively do not want to see any personal information (no addresses, social security numbers, account numbers or anything else of a personal identification nature) and these invoices can be FAXED to me with all that information blacked out. It isn't relevant. My plan is to use the software I have as well as some other information to see if I can reconstruct why and how PERS is invoicing members under the injunction. If it appears that there is a disjunction between what PERS is saying and what PERS is doing, I'm happy to contact the appropriate lawyers or provide you with information to contact your own representatives on the PERS Coalition. If you are willing to help out, please contact me via email so that I can provide you with my FAX number or other means of contact. Thanks for your help.

I'll Sleep When I'm Dead

In the spirit of "World Have Your Say" on NPR, I've decided that for a short period of time I'm going to open this blog up to comments. Shortly after I post this I will turn on comments and let readers "have their say". To reduce the SPAM problem, users will have to register to post comments, and drive-by commenters will be moderated. If this turns out to be a successful addition to the blog, I will keep comments on indefinitely. But contrary to the title of the post, I DO plan to sleep, long before I'm dead. So if this gets to be a burden, comments will be turned off. I'm actually looking forward to reader comments, so have at them. I ask only that your comments be somehow related to the post itself. Use your own judgement as to what is and isn't germane.

Message In a Bottle

Judging from my email in the past two weeks, PERS must have begun its campaign of adjusting member benefits of retired Police and Fire. I've heard from about a dozen P&F retirees whose benefit adjustments have been large (negative) and whose actuarial recovery amounts are significantly higher than general service members who owe the same amount and are approximately the same age at implementation. The reason for this is obvious - at least to me. PERS uses different actuarial tables for P & F. Undoubtedly, they also use different actuarial recovery tables for P & F retirees. These recovery tables clearly expect P & F members to have shorter life expectancies and therefore the recovery period for overpayments is expected to be shorter. Consequently the adjustment to the regular benefit is greater (shorter life expectancy) and the payback amount by the ARM is significantly larger. The end result is that P & F members are getting hit significantly harder than general service retirees.

As soon as I get copies of the ARM tables for P & F members, I will begin to adjust my program so that P & F members can get a closer estimate of their adjusted benefits than they can now. Hopefully, Judge Kantor's injunction will hold upon review. At least this way the payback amount won't play into P & F benefits (or any one else's for that matter) until Arken and Robinson run their course through the courts.

Fixing a Hole

I've been carrying on an extended email conversation with a recent PERS retiree (I'll call her "Linda", which is not her real name). Linda's issue seemed to be quite subtle and quite complicated at the same time. She worked for a PERS employer in her early years, left to work in the private sector, and then returned to work in the early years of this decade, before all the legislation. She recently decided it was time to retire. Linda kept impeccable records and is a CPA by training. Consequently, when she got her Notice of Entitlement followed by her first check, she was incensed as the account balance that PERS used was significantly different from what Linda calculated. She had every account statement going back to the 1970's and her calculations of her at-retirement account balance couldn't have been off by more than a few pennies, which I verified independently. Her NOE contained no useful information (except for the final account balance, significantly different from hers and mine), and phone calls to PERS were met with a "wall of words" by a whole bunch of uninformed representatives. After poring over her numbers, nothing popped out to me except a possible PERS calculation error. But how? Where? Linda and I communicated regularly and I finally suggested she contact David Crosley at PERS to get more specific information. What exactly was her regular account balance at retirement? What exactly was her variable balance at retirement? David supplied her with her regular account balance at retirement, which turned out to be exactly what her account balance used for her retirement benefit was. Where was her variable account? Linda and I met this morning. Before we met, she emailed David Crosley again to ask what her variable account balance was when she retired. She knew that she had selected the option to transfer her variable account at retirement, but variable accounts are first figured as part of the retirement package and then added to the regular balance before determining final benefits. Linda understood this as well as I do. No mystery here. About a half hour before Linda and I met, she heard from David with the astounding news that she had NO variable account to include in her retirement. This was news to Linda since she had account statements all the way through 2006 showing a variable account earning interest at the terrific rates (except for the sorry years in 2001 and 2002). By the time we met, Linda had figured out the problem and began to work towards a remedy. It seems that back in 2002, Linda requested a one-time variable transfer. Linda NEVER got any response from PERS and considered that she had "Failed" the test. Her instincts were confirmed when she continued to get statements from PERS showing both a regular account earning the fixed 8.0% and a variable account earning market rates in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 - the last statements she would ever get. Linda is also more well-trained in finances than I ever was, and she went to the Salem office in early 2004 to double-check on her hunch. This was confirmed when PERS printed for her a statement of account that showed she failed the variable at regular test and was thus still in the variable. After that, it became a moot point for Linda. The law changed, and the market started to recover. She never thought anything about this until today when she was astounded to find out that contrary to all evidence provided her (annual account statements, interim account statements directly related to the OTVT), she was moved out of the variable account as of 1/1/2003. Apparently, when she filed her retirement papers, PERS changed its mind, moved her out of the variable account retroactively, and reduced her account by about $15000. Needless to say, Linda is now preparing her attempt to fix this hole.

This sorry story is another sad example of how bad PERS has become. The suspicions have been there for a very long time. Bad customer service, lack of notification, unexpected unpleasant and costly surprises await many retirees or near-retirees around every corner. And PERS has the gall to put out customer service surveys. Why bother? The more things change, the worse it gets. And the truly sad thing is that members and retirees effectively pay for all this non-service. No wonder that PERS is truly one of the most hated agencies right now. And I can't say that I blame anyone for the antipathy. Cases like Linda's make one want to become Howard Beale screaming "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore".

Young Folks

Take heed. OPRI - Oregon Public Retirees Inc - is poised for some change. Currently, the OPRI Board consists of 3 "window retirees". That is not enough to effect any change in an organization whose bylaws were developed in the very early 1990's and reflect a style no longer relevant in today's electronically connected world. Several have tried to remake OPRI as more and more retirees piled up in the late 1990's and early 2000's. OPRI was not, and to some extent still isn't, entirely relevant to younger retirees. So long as the OPRI Board is controlled by members who are not well-versed and well-aware of issues germane to today's retirees, including all of the legislative changes and the litigation that is taking benefits away from the already-retired, OPRI will continue to be mostly irrelevant. But right now, the winds of change may be upon us. Two OPRI Board positions come vacant and will be selected by the current Board. One position is for a "state retiree" (a member who worked for any State of Oregon agency except Higher Education); the other position is for someone who worked for local school districts. Both positions expire in October. The current occupant of the local school district position, Dwayne Osburn, will not seek reappointment. It appears that the current occupant of the "state employee" position, Kathleen Beaufait, will seek reappointment. If you are interested -- and I strongly encourage someone from each area to BE interest -- please send a letter indicating your background and your interest to serving on the OPRI Board. Send your letter to: OPRI, P.O. Box 12945, Salem, OR 97309.

I cannot stress too strongly how important these two positions are. If it were to happen that "window retirees" or later were to be appointed to these two positions, recent retirees would control the OPRI Board. At that point it would be possible to get rid of some archaic by laws and implement some changes that would result in OPRI becoming more relevant to us "young folks". Right now, OPRI doesn't really represent our interests very well. It was once a feared organization with a reputation for getting retirees what they needed. Now, they're mostly ignored. It is time to restore the fear; it is time for OPRI to become relevant and to represent a whole new generation of retirees whose needs and interests differ in critical ways from the original founders of the organization. It is fine to honor our predecessors, but the time has come when we must cut the cords that bind the organization to outdated rules and attitudes.

Please, please, please. If you come from one of the relevant organizations and have a sincere desire to make OPRI relevant and feared, as it once was, please consider placing your name in nomination for one of the two vacancies. It is important now more than ever.

The Great Escape

Awhile back I wrote a detailed letter (email) to Greg Macpherson, who has announced his candidacy for Oregon's Attorney General. Macpherson is currently a representative in the Oregon House and happens to have represented my district (in both of my houses) since his election in 2002. In his "real" life, Greg is a lawyer with Stoel, Rives specializing in pension law and private benefit plans. It is that background that thrust him onto center stage in the 2003 Legislative session as Governor Kulongoski's "go to" guy on PERS reform. While Bill Gary's fingerprints are all over HB 2003 and HB 2004, Macpherson, with Kulongoski's blessing, if not his direct input, was instrumental in hammering out the details of HB 2003 and HB 2004 that didn't seem to be going anywhere under Gary's orchestration. In addition, it was Macpherson who helped grease the skids for the passage of HB 2020, which created the new "Tier 3" pension plan as well as the loathed IAP for current Tier 1 and Tier 2 members. It is Macpherson who helped the Oregon Senate General Government Committee, under Tony Corchoran, hammer out the compromise that became HB 2003, HB 2004, HB 2020, and HB 3020 (the bill that corrects all sorts of technical issues and errors that arose in HB 2003 and HB 2004 after passage). Such artful compromises as the "break in service" language that has confounded and confused both PERS and everyone else since 2003 have Rep. Macpherson's fingerprints all over it. Moreover, while Macpherson was probably not directly responsible, he participated in the travesty known as the COLA freeze and the 0% return for Tier 1 members until the deficit was paid out. Both of these were rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court. While PERS has reinstated the 8% guarantee for active members for 2003 and 2004, PERS has steadfastly refused to implement the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sartain case (part of Strunk et al). This was the ruling that rejected the COLA freeze as a breach of contract and held that the Legislature had defined a "new" benefit, called the "fixed benefit" that cannot be said to contain errors. Representative Macpherson was certainly involved in orchestrating this fiasco and if he is a pension lawyer, he can't be very smart or principled as to have NOT seen the inherent contractual violation. Furthermore, he certainly was not anxious to listen to the current Oregon Attorney General or the Legislative Counsel who both advised that these parts of HB 2003 (and 2004) were not going to survive a legal challenge in the Oregon Supreme Court.

So, I write all this in an email to Representative Macpherson. I explain that I can't support his candidacy for Oregon Attorney General and that I plan to work personally and through my blog to support his opponent (not then announced), John Kroger - a Lewis and Clark criminal law professor and former Federal Prosecutor. Macpherson writes me this "personal" response that more or less says: look, you don't understand how complicated this is. We (the legislature) tried to write legislation that wouldn't go back into retirees' accounts (true enough as far as it goes), but we didn't expect all this litigation.

HELLO!!!!!!! You want to be Attorney General? You want to give advice to the Legislature about the legality of proposed legislation and you can't even read a simple and straightforward letter. You can't grasp what I'm saying. I am blaming the original legislation for this entire mess, and you're telling me that your heart was in the right place. Bullshit!! You don't want to accept responsibility for failing to take proper legal advice. You don't want to accept the blame for the current fiasco. You can't think of any way to bring all this to a close in a way that will remove most of the basis for litigation.

Welcome John Kroger. I'll be posting more about him in a future post. In the maintain, let's watch Representative Macpherson try to plan his great escape from both the Legislature and the AG's office as PERS retirees and members thoroughly thrash his chances to succeed the quiet, soft-spoken, but incredibly prescient Hardy Myers. Greg, you aren't any Hardy. You aren't even Ed Meese. You're arrogant and you deserve to go. Bye, bye, bye.

Cleanup Time

I've had so many emails from faithful PERS readers asking to see a picture of our new puppy, Emma, that I thought I'd take time out from my regular posts to share a recent photo of said creature. The title of this entry says it all. Here is a picture of the little monster - all 21 pounds of sheer muscle and willpower at 11 (now 12) weeks old .

The Devil's Been Busy

Not much new to report here in PERSland. As I had predicted elsewhere, PERS has finally gotten its act together and posted a much more detailed explanation of why the net (take home) September 1, 2007 check (and those for the rest of the year) increased by either $14.04 or $28.08 (except for out-of-staters) and a few others who got odd increases. You can read about the increase here.

In Repair

Well, I'm back from vacation more tired than I left. I forgot to mention that our final act during our vacation was to pick up a new English (Yellow) Labrador puppy. "Emma" is certainly an entertaining and tiring dog. But she is as smart as a whip and is nearly completely crate-trained and is almost making it completely through the night without requiring an outside "potty" break. She's certainly been an easy, if energetic, dog so far. And for those of you who didn't know this already, Curtis completely beat my ass into a pulp on the Sage Springs Racquet Club courts. Curtis was a delightful companion and a gracious winner.

September 1 brought a new surprise from PERS - a completely unexpected, unexplained, and peculiar increase in net benefits for many retirees. So far, the only explanation PERS has offered is that during the year from January through August, they were overwithholding State Income tax for retirees. Somehow they found this mistake and in the September 1 check nearly everyone's net amount increase by one of four amounts (rounded here for convenience) - $11, $22, $14, or $28 (about 200 tracking points now). I have had only one example each of the first two numbers and only have a theory about why they exist. Since I have too few data points to confirm, I'll wait to see IF PERS offers up any other explanation for these odd amounts. The other two amounts - $14 and $28 - consistently and without fail have gone to either people claiming SINGLE ($14) or MARRIED ($28). No other variable (such as number of exemptions or deductions claimed on the Federal W-4) seems to matter. Now it happens that Oregon's per exemption rate for 2007 is $165 annually. Broken up into monthly chunks it turns out that $14 (rounded down) is the per exemption per month rate (Single = 1 Automatic Exemption; Married = 2 Automatic Exemptions). That would explain the $14 and $28 increases. However, currently unexplained are the first two numbers I've seen. If you have any other amount besides this one, please let me know. I'm dying to find out what is really going on here. To determine what your increase is take your August 1, 2007 take home and subtract it from your September 1, 2007 take home benefit. That's your net increase in benefits.

To dispel an opt-repeated canard, this is NOT a benefit increase associated with the COLA or any other piece of litigation. This is simply a computer programming error that PERS just discovered. There are plenty of conspiracy theories floating around about the timing of all this, but I'd just prefer to wait to see what PERS does to explain these changes more fully.

Note added 9/5: There are NO retirees reporting an $11 increase. That retiree recalculated take home and discovered a math error. That one is also single and $14. That leaves but one example that is an outlier - the $22 report. I suspect that, too, is an error. In all likelihood, that change is actually $28 and the person is married.

Saving Grace

Thank goodness vacation time is here. Twelve wonderful days in our little "cabin" in the woods. Expect nothing from this blog until after Labor Day. The one exception is that if any major newsworthy event breaks, my little cabin has wireless and I can still post. But trust me, when I vacation, I vacation. It is my saving grace in life. I can put down the keyboard and completely forget about it while I'm in my hidey hole in Central Oregon. Aside from getting the crap beaten out of me by Curtis on the tennis court, my contact with PERS and PERS retirees will be totally by accident. I wish you all a wonderful end of summer. The silly season starts for real after Labor Day; until then, let's all take a break and enjoy the flowers and the sunshine while it they are still with us. Adios, Au revoir, shalom, peace.

The Warning

For the past 5+ years, Representative Greg Macpherson has represented my district in the Oregon House. Now he's announced that he's planning to run for statewide office, running for the position that Attorney General Hardy Myers plans to vacate at the end of this term. I don't normally use this forum to endorse or savage candidates, but I'll make an exception for Mr. Macpherson. I urge PERS retirees to remember that Mr. Macpherson was Governor Kulongoski's hand-picked water boy to carry out the PERS reforms in 2003. Macpherson voted against PERS members and retirees on EVERY measure that came before the House. He also worked together (along with Rep Tim Knopp) with Senator Tony Corcoran on the compromises needed to get HB 2001, HB 2003, HB 2004, HB 2005, HB 2020, and HB 3020 passed in the 2003 Legislature. Mr. Macpherson is no friend of mine and I hope not yours. We have the opportunity to use our influence to prevent Mr. Macpherson from having another turn in the Oregon House and preventing him from serving as Oregon's Attorney General. I'm glad John Kroger (Lewis & Clark Law School) will be announcing his candidacy in mid-September. Perhaps others will pile on soon. The bottom line is that if ALL PERS members and PERS retirees work together, we will succeed in throwing out Mr. Macpherson from a future term in the Legislature and preventing him from being the nominee for the State Attorney General's position. Frankly, I don't think we could do much worse than Mr. Macpherson. He may be a nice guy - I've met him a few times - but I don't want him as the State's chief law enforcement guy and, ironically, the lawyer to whom PERS directs its legal questions. You want to send a warning shot across the bow in a statewide election. Here's your chance. Defeat Mr. Macpherson and let him know that PERS retirees have memories like elephants. He doesn't have the safe cover of a district that has long-been a Democratic stronghold. Whatever your party, help defeat this potential scourge on the landscape. With friends like Mr. Macpherson, we don't need any enemies.

Liar Liar (Pants on Fire)

I've been reporting since last Thursday the discrepancies between what went on in the Courtroom and PERS' absolutely misleading and, perhaps, dishonest representation of it. This morning Greg Hartman issued a letter sent to all members of the PERS Coalition describing his concern for this situation. I repeat it here because it says what I've been saying in a much clearer way. Hartman's words follow in quotes.

"Attached is a copy of PERS's website posting which reports on the recent hearing with Judge Kantor. I am disappointed because the posting is so incomplete and one-sided that it paints an absolutely incorrect picture of what happened before Judge Kantor. Unfortunately many retirees [have] no other source of information and will find this posting to be very troubling. The PERS attorneys argued very vigorously that Judge Kantor's opinion was not broad enough to restrict their ability to continue to go through the Strunk/Eugene reconciliation process with the remaining 70% of retirees who have not, as yet, had their accounts adjusted. I don't think their argument was well received by Judge Kantor but he acknowledged that there was apparently some ambiguity about his prior order and promised that he would decide the specific issue of whether his decision permitted PERS to continue with the Strunk/Eugene reconciliation process. In addition the judge indicated that he would be deciding the Arken contract issue and if he decides that in favor of the window retirees, it should stop the reconciliation process in its tracks. Again I am disappointed that PERS has decided to post something so clearly biased.

As I said above, I know that many members will find this distressing and find it difficult to understand why this process can go forward despite Judge Kantor's previous opinion. PERS represented to Judge Kantor that for the vast majority of the people who are still subject to the reconciliation process, that process will most likely result in a small increase in their monthly benefit. In response to the judge's question PERS acknowledged that this will not be the increase which we would argue that they are entitled to, but nonetheless pointed out that a small increase is the most likely outcome of that process at this point. Please share this general information with your members in whatever format you think most acceptable as I would like to see some information that is more accurate disseminated to the retiree community."

For those of you who haven't read the PERS posting to which Mr. Hartman is referring, you can find it here.

Body and Soul

Just a quick note to let all readers know that I am going on one of those vacations designed to replenish my body and soul. We leave 8/24 and return 9/3. During that period my posting frequency will diminish - in fact, unless there is something of importance, I won't post at all. My participation in OPDG will decrease at the same time. I'll be biking, hiking, playing tennis (see ya there Curtis), and generally spending some badly needed downtime with my family. Enjoy the rest of summer. I'll chime in occasionally, but I don't expect me to participate regularly in any discussion during my vacation. Family time is sacred time for me.

Nobody Told Me

That I'd still be writing about PERS since 2002. Never in a million years did I imagine that I would offering commentary, sarcasm, and trenchant observations about the Oregon Public Employees retirement system 5 years after I retired. Most of the time it remains fun; other times it is a real drag. I've set myself up for this. I spent the better part of two years prior to my retirement getting to know as much as I could about PERS, the retirement options, and the issues that confronted the agency going forward. I was prescient about the car-swallowing potholes that would arise from the City of Eugene case, and the Legislature's attempt at "fixing" those problems. I started warning my PSU colleagues in 2002, when things started to blow up. They forwarded my emails to friends and pretty soon I had a mailing list with 1750 people on it. PSU generously upped my email quota as will as my file storage capability. There are many people responsible for the success of my blog. Some of them must remain anonymous for obvious reasons. I do thank all the attorneys representing PERS retirees and actives - Greg Hartman, Aruna Masih, Mike Morris, Scott Jonnson, Jim Coon, Gene Mechanic. I thank the many working reporters in the MSM - Jim Mayer and Steve Law, in particular, for their willingness to share information, and I thank Jim Voytko, Tim Knopp, Greg MacPherson, and Tony Corcoran for their willingness to hear me out during the 2003 deliberations. Ultimately, I had a small, but significant, impact on the outcome of one bill (HB 2004) that ultimately benefited a small number of PERS retirees. I've been relentless in my pursuit of fairness in the Break-in-Service legislation, having helped convinced the various entities that the originally passed format would prove to be unworkable. Indeed, that was prophetic, and the 2007 Legislature altered the bill at PERS' request.

Why the history and why the expressions of gratitude and thanks? To reduce the suspense, the answer is NOT that I'm cashing in and stopping my service. On the contrary, I'm more determined than ever to keep at this until all the litigation is formally and completely resolved. I'm expecting another five years.

I have received literally thousands of emails thanking me for what I'm doing. It is gratifying to know that people trust me and follow my writings avidly. I've also had various offers for dinner, offers to take payment for help, and other things I have politely declined. I've shared lunch with a number of grateful readers. I've shared a beer or two with other grateful readers. From here on out, I would ask that instead of you making these generous, but unnecessary, offers, you instead help me with a hobby of mine. I collect shot glasses - the more bizarre the better. I have them from all over the world. If you are travelling - to anywhere - and you want to thank me, pick up a shot-glass or two. I'm more than happy to reimburse for the shotglass and the cost of mailing, but I won't object if you choose that for yourself. If this is something you'd like to do, just do it. When you're ready, you can email me and I'll provide my home address.

I do all this work as a labor of 'love' (I use the word in a very loose sense). I do this because *I* have skin in the game and have lost lots of money just like most of my readers. My family puts up with this because they know it is important. I plan to follow through on my plan to help place nails, one at a time, into the PERB coffin. I will not shed a single tear if any of these folks resign, are fired, or die. They've done more harm to all of us than any group of 5 people I've ever encountered. The Legislature gave PERB carte blanche, and PERB took their offer with reckless abandon. Retirees aren't people to them; they are numbers on an Excel spreadhseet. It is far easier to stomp on a number than a person. Yet the PERB is completely oblivious to people. It doesn't matter one bit to them whether 500 or 5 people show up at a Board meeting. And for me - as a people person afflicted with a numbers mentality - I'm deeply offended. My writing converts that offense into umbrage and I plan to keep after these bozos until we win.

Thanks again for all your positive comments, your thanks, and your readership. Tell your friends and family about this blog. Increase its reach and its readership. While it has a great audience, many more people reading and acting out will be far more effective. I figure that between here and OPDG, less than 5% of all retirees are being reached. Help me reach another 5 - 10%. Our strength lies in numbers of people aware that there is a problem. So far, I'm convinced that not enough of the affected members are aware of the problem, much less speak out about it. Let's get some movement here. Let's double the daily readership here and double the membership over at OPDG (it is free). Power lies in numbers. We've already got great attorneys, but having more people interested and active can only help our cause. Tell the PERB you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any more. A faint voice in the wind doesn't have much effect, but a Category 5 hurricane of objections will not go unnoticed. Let's seize control here folks. Get active.

Parallel Universe

I've decided that PERS and its paid henchmen from California must live in a parallel universe. In their universe, they get to make and interpret all the rules. They get to decide what a Judge means even when he doesn't say anything. Let's take a recent case. You've read my commentary about the Arken/Robinson Status Conference held yesterday. If you want more first-person accounts, you can go to the OPDG (see left for link) where you'll find a variety of perspectives, none terribly different than mine. Imagine my surprise today while walking through my local Pet Smart looking for supplies for our soon-to-be new puppy "Emma" ( a yellow lab for those who are interested). My cell phone starts ringing, I look at the number, I don't recognize it, but it is a 503 prefix. I figure it's a wrong number, but instead it turns out to be Steve Law from the Salem-Statesman Journal. He wants information on the status conference, which he didn't bother or have time to attend. I give him a brief synopsis, he asks me questions for "on the record" (I don't care), and then I suggest to him that he do what I've told others to do - read my blog, and go to OPDG - to get first hand accounts of the proceedings. His tone is argumentative; my responses fairly neutral. He asks me who I "represent". I explain that I am a "free agent", acting out of my own self-interest. He then asks about OPRI. I explain that no OPRI rep was at the hearings, as far as I can tell, and comment that I think OPRI is pretty much "out of it" except for paying dues in the PERS Coalition. I'm busy and so I blow him off so I can concentrate on getting stuff for "Emma", our not-yet-home Golden Lab.

While I'm in Costco shopping for something else, probably unnecessary and in the 55 gallon drum size, my phone at home rings. I don't get the call because I'm not home. But when I listen to the message, Steve Law is there telling me that he's talking with Paul Cleary of PERS and they have plans. Steve Law wants my comments. It is now 6 pm on Friday night. No Steve, no comments. Based on the fact that Judge Kantor did not explicitly tell them NO, PERS is planning to start up the recalculation of benefits again. This time they will ignore the overpayments and focus only on the recalculation of 1999 earnings at 11.33% and the revised benefit it results in. The PERS slimebag lawyers told Judge Kantor that for all but a few PERS members, this will result in a slight increase in benefits while the rest of the issue of repayment for past overages continues to play out in the Courts. Now, I sat through the entire hearing, listening closely, had more than 31 witnesses to what Judge Kantor said and didn't say. While it is true that Judge Kantor did not comment directly on PERS statement that they will do this, because it does not constitute getting into PERS members accounts, Judge Kantor also said, and conveniently forgotten by Mr. Malkin (Kreacher), that he would be issuing his final order so that PERS would have no trouble understanding what he meant. This does not sound like the solid support PERS would have you believe they have going into this next phase. They are clearly living in a Parallel Universe where the laws of gravity, physics, finance, and general law apply to everyone else but them.

The betting line holds that PERS is going to try for a "severability" approach to getting rid of opposition to this plan. Bets are being taken that by virtue of the Strunk Court's ruling that the COLA freeze in section 10 was unconstitutional, that the rest of the clause makes no legal sense. If that argument holds sway, the "fixed" and the "revised benefit" language, which the Supreme Court held to be controlling goes away. They have to convince the court that by severing the COLA from section 10, there is nothing left to implement. On that groud, PERS can argue that the "revised" benefit is correct for all members and retirees and that adjustments CAN be made under ORS 238.715.

I love Parallel Universes. They let you imagine anything, do anything, screw anyone, and all without any consequences. Let's hope that PERS Parallel universe collapses like the 1986 Challenger - perhaps taking a few California lawyers with them.

P.S. (note added 8/20). A fellow member of OPDG has raised a fascinating question. If PERS goes for severability (ORS 174.040) on Section 10 of HB 2003, not only will they kill the fixed vs revised benefit, but they will also kill the 11.33% rate for 1999. Since the City of Eugene case is now vacated and has no legal effect on anyone, what will be PERS' argument for the "correct" rate for 1999? It seems to me that if PERS chooses that route, it will be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Poor souls. I feel their pain.

Tennessee Stud

Ok, the Guv is from Missouri but Tennessee isn't far away. Just thought I'd add a little twisted detail from yesterday that I find amusing and informative in my own perverse way. A number of my PSU retiree colleagues were at yesterday's status conference in Portland. These people are followers of my blog and took me seriously when I suggested they write to the Governor and a bunch of other people about Judge Kantor's ruling and pressuring the PERB to stop pursuing retirees. So, while we're all sitting in Judge Kantor's court yesterday, breathlessly awaiting some morsel of information about how is final ruling will play out, guess where our Governor was? According to a source who walked back to PSU after the hearings, he bumped (literally) into Kulongoski and his guards coming out of Columbia Sportswear with some new gear (presumably for the Gov). I guess this says just about everything possible about the Governor's priorities and his interest in the extant PERS litigation. Our Tennessee stud is out rehabbing his wardrobe while we're all in sweating bullets over the outcome of this hearing. Guess we know how much he cares. To me, that was the equivalent of him saying to us: "Here's a quarter sonny. Go call some one who gives a damn." I'm sure he didn't even know that these hearings were going on about 5 blocks away. To him it was just another shopping day as Governor. I guess we can stop pestering him. He's too busy becoming a tennessee (or Oregon) stud, to care.

Soul Suckers

During yesterday's status conference, it became abundantly clear that the legal parsing done by the PERB's high California wideboys (and widegirls) has taken a turn for the worse. PERS just doesn't want to obey the Supreme Court and the fatcats from California have convinced them to behave like children who require exact and precise instructions before they might choose to understand. Case in point: PERS claims it doesn't understand Judge Kantor's injunction. PERS has interpreted it correctly that they can't collect money via invoicing, so they've stopped that. They were supposed to return money already deducted or paid in lump sum, which they're refusing to do. My reading said they were supposed to restore us to the condition we were in when the Legislature adjourned, which to me means that we should be getting large checks and vastly increased benefits due to the COLAs that were illegally withheld. PERS paid uninvoiced retirees a COLA on 8/1/07, but it was for 2007, not retroactive to 2003 as it is supposed to be.

In an incredible piece of parsing, PERS has decided that the injunction ONLY refers to collections of overpayments made after the Notice of Entitlement was issue. They believe that collecting overpayments and correcting benefits to their "right" (11.33% for 1999) amount is still within their purview. Thus, they told the judge that they were planning to continue the calculations of correct benefits and establishing the current level of benefit members should be at. It wasn't clear from this shaggy dog tale that PERS actually plans to notify the 70% whose benefit hasn't changed (except for the 2007 COLA) that their benefits are being reduced, or whether PERS is simply continuing with the calculations awaiting for an OK from the Court to send these out en masse.

The Court's reaction to this was interesting. Judge Kantor did not tell PERS they couldn't do this. He merely reminded them that his order wasn't final and that he would make double-dog sure that his final order would be crystal clear so that even the children at PERS could understand. My only question is whether anything a Judge writes that disagrees with PERS' take on the situation will ever be understood. I'm beginning to be convinced that PERS needs a Doctor Seuss-like picture book and rhyme to make judicial orders clear.

I can't begin to tell how how tiresome these California lawyers have become. Mr. Malkin is a caricature of a house elf in Harry Potter - he personally reminds me of Kreatcher. These guys are in it for the money and the longer they can string PERS along, the more money they make. Soul suckers of retirees' money coming and going.



I believe that out of all the decisions the 2003 legislature made, the absolute worst one was to permit the PERS Board to retain independent counsel and not rely on the DOJ in matters involving financial issues. This decision has already put nearly $3 million of members/retirees money into the hands of Orrick in San Francisco, and promises at least as much in additional billing if they persuade the PERB to pursue appeals of Arken and/or Robinson all the way to the Supreme Court. It isn't that other lawyers are profiting handsomely from all this litigation. At least Jim Coon and Hartman's firm get their money more-or-less voluntarily from members of the PERS Coalition. Orrick's money to fight retirees comes from accounts that would, under ordinary circumstances, be used to improve the reserves or be paid out to PER active members. It all gets written off under the category of "administrative expenses", which are those paid out of investment earnings BEFORE earnings are distributed to members.

Smile. It only hurts if you think about it. Ignorance is bliss on this detail, but what I can't figure out is why there aren't more happy people.

Instant Karma

I attended this morning's status conference in Judge Kantor's courtroom on issues arising from Judge Kantor's preliminary judgement in the Arken and Robinson cases. The proceedings started late and ended much earlier than the schedule planned. There were about 30 retirees, 2 PERS Officials (Rodeman and Crosley), Jim Coon (attorney for Robinson plaintiffs), Greg Hartman and Aruna Masih (Attorneys for the PERS Coalition), 2 California wideboys (Joseph Malkin and some unknown woman), Bill Gary and Sharon Rudnick (Attorney's for the non-State defendants in Arken), and an attorney from the DOJ (representing the State of Oregon). After getting to preview the PERS cases by listening in on two pathetic hearings from women in trouble and trying to game the system, the PERS cases finally got started about 9:35. The first surprise of the morning came when Bill Gary, Sharon Rudnick and the unknown DOJ rep were permitted to join the Robinson case as intervenors. This caught me by surprise since none of those parties have any stake in the outcome of Robinson. It occurs to me that they want in because they expect to be involved in appeals of Robinson (they as much said so). At first it wasn't obvious why they cared, but then it occurred to me that the outcome they need to prevent is a ruling in which all of section 14b is invalidated, a result that would leave employers with maximum financial exposure in a statute deliberately constructed to insulate employers from any responsibility. Judge Kantor allowed them intervenor status without any objections from any other attorney.

From there, Joseph Malkin launched into this tedious, incoherent, and pedantic lecture to the Judge about why he (the Judge) should stay the order for PERS to stop collection. The Judge called Malkin up short when he asked whether the summary of what PERS was asking for was based on "convenience" without any other judicial basis. Malkin didn't directly answer the question, but they explained what PERS *was* doing in regards to Kantor's order, and what it wasn't doing. (I'll come back to that later). The short form is that Judge Kantor denied PERB's request for a stay on the grounds that there is no final order entered; therefore the motion for a stay is premature.

Malkin admitted that PERB didn't fully understand the scope of Judge Kantor's order. Therefore, until they received clarification, they intended to continue the freeze on invoicing retirees for "overpayments", continue to withhold money from retirees already invoiced, but they anticipated continuing to recalculate benefits for all retirees not yet invoiced. This means, that PERS is planning to continue to adjust benefits for the 1999 "overpayment", but will not include an invoice for amounts due PERS. Judge Kantor reminded them that he hadn't finalized his order, but that he intended to make very clear in his final ruling what he considered permissible and what he considers impermissible. So, until Judge Kantor issues his final order, PERS isn't planning to do anything differently than it is doing now. Members already invoiced will continue to receive adjusted benefits and actuarial reductions; it isn't clear what those 70% of window retirees will get or not get from PERS until the Judge issues final orders.

Hartman's motion to have the judge change his ruling on the "breach of contract" was accepted without argument from any party. After receiving the motion, Judge Kantor reviewed his notes on the cases, reread all the original motions and briefs and concluded that his original order did not accurately portray the status of the "breach of contract" claim. Now, the claim is open and Judge Kantor will issue a clear ruling (we hope) on that claim on its own merits.

There was a curious monologue by Malkin (PERB attorney) about the apparent logical contradiction between Kantor's decision to rule on the "breach of contract" claim (arising from the language in HB 2003 and the Supreme Court's Strunk ruling in the Sartain case), and his ruling on Robinson. Malkin claims that by ruling in favor of the Robinson plaintiffs, Kantor had already tipped his hand in ruling on Arken's breach (in short, how can you claim a breach of contract for benefit said to be fixed and computed without error, and then simultaneously saying that the only way PERS can collect for the error is via 14b1b) Malkin's point was that since 14b refers to recovering "erroneous payments" from the City of Eugene case, it isn't possible to have both "erroneous payments" collected from administrative expenses, while at the same time ruling that there was a "breach of contract" in which retirees are said to be receiving fixed benefits computed without error. Both Jim Coon (Robinson attorney) and Hartman (Arken attorney) and Judge Kantor all reminded Malkin that the Robinson class included more than the Arken class and so there was no necessary preconceived bias or contradiction from the Robinson ruling and a potential ruling in the Arken breach.

That was pretty much it. The schedule for the whole day was totally unnecessary; the conference was done by about 10:50 a.m. On the whole, I'm optimistic that Kantor will get his act together and write a clear and unambiguous ruling. I'm reluctant to predict the outcome, although I sense that Kantor wants to do the right thing and that he is not terribly impressed by the legal skills offered by the California hotshots. I lost count of the number of times Malkin mentioned the City of Eugene or Lipscomb decision, as though it had any legal relevance anymore. Similarly, watching the body language of the plaintiffs' attorneys (Hartman, Masih, and Coon) as well as Judge Kantor revealed a clear "oh god, are they still babbling about the vacated City of Eugene case", and "get a clue, Malkin".

One point that I hope Judge Kantor grasps -- although it isn't anything on the table -- is how PERS retirees are paying for both sides of the legal questions. The PERB people always manage to get in a dig about how we're receiving excess benefits, but they never talk about who's paying their salaries -- under duress.

I'm hoping that this time through, Judge Kantor will take less time to issue his final ruling, that he has fewer complicated cases on his docket, and that we can get this party rolling to the appelate or Supreme Court level before the start of the New Year. That would be instant karma.

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.