Capital Bureau

SALEM — In a demonstration of the fraught political territory lawmakers enter when they scrutinize the state’s public pension system, firefighters, nurses, and teachers Monday testified against two Oregon Senate bills aimed at reducing the costs of that system.

The bills, both sponsored by Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, are the latest round in the Legislature’s seemingly perennial battle with the costs of PERS, the unfunded liability of which has been estimated to be at least $21.8 billion.

Senate Bill 559 would require that retirement benefits be calculated using the average salary from the final five years of employment, instead of the current three years.

Senate Bill 560 would take the 6 percent of salary employees contribute, or have contributed on their behalf, to a defined contribution plan called the Individual Account Program and redirect it to their retirement benefits. The bill also caps the amount of salary used in benefits calculations at $100,000.

In 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court scuttled most of a package of PERS cost reforms the Legislature passed in 2013. That decision, in a case called Moro v. Oregon, essentially said that the Legislature could not make cuts to benefits already accrued. Therefore, lawmakers can only alter benefits not yet earned.

The Legislature faces a complicated balancing act, one that attorney William Gary, who represented the Oregon School Boards Association in the Moro case, compares to a game of three-dimensional chess.

Gary told lawmakers last week that they’ll have to balance sound public policy, political demands and the requirements of the law.

Some school officials, such as Cheri Helt, the chair of the Bend-La Pine School Board, said Tuesday that cutting back on PERS benefits is the only option in order to prevent layoffs and further financial strain on local governments.

Others, such as Paul Kyllo, the vice-chair of the Salem-Keizer school board, said that the cuts proposed in Senate Bills 559 and 560 would worsen districts’ ability to recruit and retain talented people for positions that are already hard to hire for — such as math and science teachers.

Over the years, PERS has been divided into three generations, based on date of hire — Tier 1, Tier 2, and the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan.

Detractors say the proposed changes disproportionately affect current employees — many of whom are on the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan — and disincentivize new employees from entering public service professions.

Knopp said that according to an actuary, the approximate savings should Senate Bills 559 and 560 be implemented, would be $5 billion to $6 billion.

But Bob Livingston, a Salem firefighter and president of the Oregon State Fire Fighters Council, said Monday the actuary did not take into account a significant precedent: that more state workers than expected retire in years when the Legislature vows to take up reforms to the system. When that happens, more employees draw on retirement benefits.

Some witnesses testifying against the reforms also advocated for revenue increases.

The state faces two, somewhat interconnected financial problems: The nearly $1.8 billion shortfall in the budget that lawmakers must address by midnight July 9; and the unfunded liability of PERS. Personnel costs make up a significant chunk of the state’s costs every two-year budget cycle.

Business taxes are another subject legislative committees are taking up this week, three months after the failure of Measure 97, a ballot measure that would have raised approximately $3 billion per year by creating a gross sales receipts tax on certain corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. Union groups publicly advocated in favor of the measure.

According to legislative leadership, unions and the state’s business groups, which by and large have advocated in favor of cutting PERS, have started discussing possible common ground behind closed doors.

The Senate Workforce Committee convenes again Wednesday to discuss what Chair Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, calls a controversial topic — refinancing PERS. The committee will also discuss several “ideas” Knopp is working on, none of which were yet publicly available Monday evening as legislative concepts or bills.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.