To say that the wheels of justice are turning slowly on the Arken and Robinson PERS lawsuits would be a major understatement. An initial decision from trial court Judge Henry Kantor of the Multnomah County Circuit Court has been expected for months, and while Kantor slowly continues to fashion his opinion, PERS Coalition attorney Greg Hartman feels compelled to offer an update on the case — even though there's little to update.

To refresh your memory, the Arken (named after AFSCME Retiree Chapter President Michael Arken) and Robinson cases deal specifically with issues involving retired PERS members.

Arken is a class action lawsuit on behalf of "window retirees" that challenges PERS' current efforts to re-allocate 1999 earnings and make collections from individual retirees. Robinson, a related case being handled by another law firm, though in conjunction with Hartman, also challenges PERS' collection efforts, arguing that they are inconsistent with Section 14(b) of the 2003 PERS reform legislation.

The wait has been so long that the unions in the PERS Coalition and Hartman's office are beginning to be peppered with questions about the lawsuits.

"Unfortunately, we continue to await decisions on both of these cases from Judge Kantor, so our circumstances have not changed," said Hartman. "We had a phone conference with the judge about six weeks ago and at that time he indicated he would have decisions 'soon.' But it all depends on what his relative definition of 'soon' is."

PERS has continued its adjustment process so that window retirees continue to be notified that their benefits are being adjusted downward. In addition, many are also being informed that they will owe money to PERS for overpayments, although PERS is not asking that the overpayment be returned at this time.

"There is also no change to the status quo for those who were previously invoiced for an overpayment," said Hartman. "People who paid the invoice are not having their money returned, and individuals who elected the actuarial reduction option continue to see their benefits paid at the reduced rate."

Perhaps most frustrating is the knowledge that it is highly unlikely that Kantor's decision, whenever it comes, is the final word on the matter. Whichever side "loses" will likely appeal. Technically, the two cases would go to the Oregon Court of Appeals and then, most likely, on to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals can, upon request, choose to waive its jurisdiction and allow the cases to go directly to the state's high court. Hartman believes all parties involved would favor that strategy, although he warns that the Court of Appeals may wish to hear the cases even if all plaintiffs and defendants request the direct jump to the Supreme Court.

"I know that this situation continues to cause very justifiable anger among window retirees, not only due to the unfairness of adjusting their benefits but also the uncertainty which comes with the current process," said Hartman. "Unfortunately, until Judge Kantor rules, we cannot change the status quo. And, alas, we must be patient and understand that Judge Kantor's opinion in all likelihood will not be the final say."