Oregon pension proposals face uncertain legal road

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon lawmakers looking to cut public-employee pension benefits face a difficult political and legal balance as they try to find a plan that saves money and can get through the Legislature and survive a challenge to the state Supreme Court.
Democratic leaders have proposed cutting the annual cost-of-living increases for retired government workers. Sen. Richard Devlin of Tualatin, one of the two Democrats who lead budget discussions, compares the effort to threading a needle in the dark, because a workable pension cut is a very small target to hit.
Public pensions will cost taxpayers at all levels of government $2.9 billion over the next two years, an increase of $900 million over the last two years — making it a bright target for elected officials who would rather spend the money on reducing class sizes in public schools. The board that oversees the pension system is trying to dig out from devastating investment losses that wiped out more than a quarter of the system's revenue.
The work is complicated by a 2005 Oregon Supreme Court case that stems from the Legislature's last attempt to cut public-employee pension benefits. The court threw out a provision that froze cost-of-living adjustments for certain retirees, ruling that a COLA was part of a binding contract.
Opponents of pension cuts argue that the 2005 decision prohibits cuts to the COLA. Proponents say they might be able to legally limit the size of a COLA as long as all workers earn one. Lawyers have come to different conclusions on that issue, and any legislation affecting the COLA is certain to end up in front of the state Supreme Court.
In a memo to Gov. John Kitzhaber's office, a lawyer for the state Department of Justice concluded that the 2005 decision may have left a small opening to cap the COLA. The lawyer, Keith Kutler, chief of the tax and finance section, also argued that Supreme Court justices might be convinced that the court made the wrong call in 2005.
One of the justices who made that decision now says Kutler may have an "intellectually justifiable argument." W. Michael Gillette, now a partner at the Portland law firm Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, made the conclusion in a Feb. 26 letter to the League of Oregon Cities, which supports pension cuts.
"I'm inclined now to think that it may have been mistaken and that DOJ has a good argument," Gillette told The Associated Press this week.
"I'm not claiming I'm any smarter now than I was then," Gillette added. "As a citizen who can say what he thinks as a citizen, my feeling is we may have missed it."
Kitzhaber proposed capping the cost-of-living adjustment so it applies only to the first $24,000 per year of income.
Devlin and Rep. Peter Buckley, an Ashland Democrat who leads budget work in the House, on Monday proposed a graduated cost-of-living increase, with a smaller hike on higher incomes. Their proposal would save less money than Kitzhaber's, but they reason that it may be more likely to survive a court challenge. They said they're still working out details.
They also propose eliminating — for retirees living out of Oregon — a tax break intended to cover Oregon income taxes.
Together, the lawmakers' proposals are estimated to save all state and local governments about $450 million in the next two-year budget.
Devlin and Buckley also propose saving governments another $350 million by delaying contributions until future years.
Public-employee unions are opposed. They argue it's illegal and would lead to substantial legal fees.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
PERs was a contractual labor offering to keep the take home pay less! Now that the state has gotten what they wanted from the labor force they wish to rewrite the contract! Is that legal, or moral? What do the labor force get, besides screwed? I won't mind the cuts if the politicians are ready to give the retirees an exemption to the state income tax for the rest of their lives. It only seem fair since the retirees can't take back any of their spent efforts!
The legislature created PERS, now they finally understand that it is to expensive for all the programs they want to run. Can't have it both ways,fix it
"I'm not claiming I'm any smarter now than I was then," Gillette added. "As a citizen who can say what he thinks as a citizen, my feeling is we may have missed it."
You did miss it, and you are trying to justify a means of recounting what was done. Selfishness is just crazy when it comes to PERS.Â
"Together, the lawmakers' proposals are estimated to save all state and local governments about $450 million in the next two-year budget."
Is "save" the correct word? Â Â Â Save could apply if they are cutting COLA, but 'eliminating' a tax break is increasing revenue.
Why would the âlawmakersâ be concerned about the state supreme court?  (. . .and any legislation affecting the COLA is certain to end up in front of the state Supreme Court.)
The court has demonstrated that it supports the state, state agencies, and ignores the average citizen.   Â
âThey also propose eliminating â for retirees living out of Oregon â a tax break intended to cover Oregon income taxes.â
For retirees living in Oregon (as is true in many other states) the state taxes your retirement regardless of where it was earned and taxes you retirement if it was earned in Oregon regardless of where you live. Â Â Â [http://www.oregon.gov/DOR ]Â Â
Oregon, in its infinite wisdom, has included loopholes for PERS retirees, and some others, to âdeductâ those, or portions of those, incomes. Â Â Â Â Â Â
âThey argue it's illegal and would lead to substantial legal fees.â  Lawmakers feeding lawyers.
The pension will only cost 45% more this biennium than the last? Why are we as taxpayers being so cheap and thankless to our public employees?
I love it. Another government boondoggle that will suck money we don't have out of the budget.
Never trust government with money. They have no idea what to do with it.
Government has no obligation to provide any retirement at all if they choose to abandon the retirement plan. That was decided in the 1960 case by the SCOTUS.
@RalphCramden I looked up the case you reference and it isn't the same thing. IN PERS you have contractual obligations in play that the state can't walk out on without basically undoing all contract law in the state. (Want to watch business flee?)Â The case at hand was a plan which had no retirees and where the company was turning over all assets and accumulated interest to the employees. Not the same thing.
And that is what you are endorsing? Perhaps part of the problem is that they scuttled PERS contributions many years ago and contributions from future retirees are not going into that fund. So these idiots rode the market down as the market failed  they did not continue to invest fresh money when stocks were cheap. They sent that money somewhere else. That left no opportuinity to ride the market back up with new money making good earnings. A big chunk of this was created by diverting the money.
@BrownknightÂ
The problem is that they promised returns that were not reasonable in the long term.
They need to go with a 401k like everyone else. The benefits are that a 401k can be passed on to heirs once the holder died. Not so with PERS or SS.
Anything that the government controls is subject to the will of the politicians.
@RalphCramden @Brownknight In 2003, all new employees went into a glorified 401K. I also looked at the returns since the plan was implemented, and the 8% projection has been almost exactly on the money (actually 8.11%). Going forward, it might be tough because of the artificiality suppressed interest rates.
So, they lost a bunch of pension money in a bad investment. Why am I not surprised?
@Morticae  They may have "lost" it on paper, but in case no body has seen the news, the stock market is at all time highs - any losses should have been fully recouped in the market by now. I know mine have, as well as everyone else I know. Perhas they need to re-examine who their investment advisors are.
@wondering @Morticae @Dr. Rawdog What I know as fact is that after losing 50% of my 401K under the last 8 months of George Bush, it was fully regained and doubled under the first 2 years of Obama.  Don't bother guessing which way I'll vote in the future.Â
@Sundowner @wondering @Morticae @Dr. Rawdog Libertarian?
The issue that is ignored is the fact there is no new money has gone into PERS since about mid 2003. They shifted to a new retirement plan. When the market was at rock bottom was the time to invest. All working PERS members money was diverted into a new program.Â
This comment has been deleted
Mine too. Obviously those investing the PERS money did better reallocating the investments than I did.Â
Oh No- unions getting cutbacks - Like the SEIU is going to take a cut from puppet obama