With the recent Oregon Court of Appeals ruling on the Murray lawsuit, a case that is most likely not to be appealed, there are now four outstanding cases remaining that were generated, in one way or another, from the 2003 PERS reforms undertaken by the Oregon Legislature.

 

Here is a brief synopsis of those four cases from PERS Coalition attorney Greg Hartman.

 

• Arken. This is the case on behalf of "window retirees" arguing that they are entitled to the full benefits they were promised, including the 20 percent 1999 distribution and, in addition, all COLA payments. Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Henry Kantor ruled against us at the trial court level. The case has been fully briefed for some time. The Oregon Court of Appeals has finally decided to schedule Arken and Robinson (see below) at the same time, or at least before the same panel, so we're hoping that we'll get an argument date in the near future. Oregon AFSCME Retirees Council 75 President Michael Arken is the lead plaintiff in this case, hence the "Arken" moniker.

 

• Robinson. This is the case being handled for retirees by another firm, arguing that Section 14(b) of the 2003 reform legislation prevents the PERS board from making recovery from these retirees. Kantor ruled in favor of the retirees; however he also granted a stay that freezes the status quo. Under the stay PERS will make no attempt to collect any amounts that they believe to be overpaid but will continue to adjust pension benefits for retirees to reflect what they believe to be the correct payment with the lower earnings rate of 11.33 percent for 1999 earnings, rather than the 20 percent initially granted (and still at dispute in Arken). The final briefs have recently been filed in this case, so as mentioned above we hope to see an argument date in the near future.

 

• White. This case challenges the City of Eugene (aka Lipscomb) settlement. Unfortunately Kantor ruled against us and his ruling opens the door for potential action by the PERS board inconsistent with the best interests of members. Kantor ruled that there was a fiduciary duty to members but also a fiduciary duty to the system (and it is unclear legally what that means), then went on to rule that the PERS board didn't even have to follow their own settlement agreement if they felt that taking an alternative action was in the best interests of the system. Needless to say the ruling is a major disappointment and opens up the potential of additional mischief by the PERS board. We have filed our opening brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals and await the first brief from the defendants. It will be some time before oral argument is set in this case.

 

• Kay Bell. This was the case that attorney Aruna Masih from my firm handled, arguing that the PERS board violated their fiduciary obligation by giving Ms. Bell incorrect information that she relied on at the time of retirement. The jury gave us a substantial verdict and both sides have now appealed this case to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Masih argued the case in late April and we are now awaiting an opinion from the court. This case was the jumping off point for the verification process contained in SB 897, which was vetoed by Gov. Kulongoski but overridden by the 2010 Legislature in Special Session. We are now dealing with PERS on the implementation of the process outlined in SB 897 even as we await the Court of Appeals verdict on Kay Bell.