The Oregon state employee., August 01, 1944, Page 7, Image 7

5
The bill prepared by that committee
was not introduced in the 1941 legis­
lature but the principle suggested by
the committee will undoubtedly influ­
ence any future state action on this
problem.
The Bureau of Municipal Research
did some of the staff work for the
Governor’s Committee on Public Em­
ployee Retirement. There were at that
time between 18,000 and 20,000 state
and local public employees in the state.
The Bureau was able to obtain com­
plete personnel records for about 9500
employees on the payroll of the state
government, 13 county governments, a
number of school districts, and 23
cities. Out of 4923 state employees, it
was found that 194 were over 65 years
of age and 572 were between the ages
of 5 5 and 64. The State Highway Com­
mission had 29 employees over 65 years
of age. Each of the state institutions
had a number of such employees. Out
of 5 53 county employees of the 13
counties tabulated, 2 8 were over 6 5
years of age and 5 5 were over 60 years
of age. Out of 2,623 school employees,
57 were over 65 years of age; and out
of 1,309 city employees tabulated, 165,
or over 10 per cent, were 65 years of
age or over. It is interesting to note
that many of these older employees
were over 70 and some were over 80.
The payroll of the public employees of
65 years of age or over amounts to a
large sum annually in Oregon. The 194
state employees, for example, were re­
ceiving a combined salary of $329,197
annually. The total payroll of public
employees of 65 years of age and over
in the state amounted to well over a
million dollars per year.
While some of these older employees
were still able to perform the duties of
their positions, many of them, depend­
ing upon the vigor of the employee and
the type of job, were no longer able to
perform _ their tasks. They were in ef­
fect being pensioned.
One problem in Oregon is that out­
side of the city of Portland, Multno­
mah county, and the state government,
none of the governmental units have
enough employees to set up a financially
sound pension system on an economical
basis. As stated in the report of the
Bureau of Census on its survey of re­
tirement systems for state and local
government employees:
"A number of public functions are well suit­
ed—perhaps even better suited— for adminis­
tration by small units of a size adequate for
efficient management. Retirement adminis­
tration calls for an administration unit larger
than that for most functional services. To
maintain a solvent pension system, according
to the concensus of actuaries, requires a suf­
ficient number of employees and taxpayers
over whom to spread risks and costs which in
small units are unpredictable orexcessive.”
In discussions of retirement and pen­
sions too little attention is given to the
loss of efficiency and to the cost in-r
volved in the "hidden pensions” that are
being paid in the form of salaries to
superannuated employees. Most public
agencies follow the practice of keep­
ing their employees on the payroll just
as long as they are able to report at
their place of work. At least two of
them in Oregon, however, have recog­
nized the cost and the inefficiency re­
sulting from the payment of "hidden
pension” salaries on a full-time basis,
and have therefore made provision for
carrying superannuated employees on a
special payroll. The city of Portland has
for some years been paying superannu­
ated employees, who are not members
of a retirement system, a pension sal­
ary of from $1.00 a day to $100 per
month. The employee makes no contri­
bution toward this pension and has no
guarantee that it will continue to be
(Continued on page 30)