A8
State
Blue Mountain Eagle
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Proposals take aim at reducing PERS liabilities
By Claire Withycombe
Capital Bureau
As lawmakers head into the 2017
legislative session, at least two pro-
posed bills plan to address oft-tread
territory: the state’s pension system.
In 2013, the Legislature approved
a slew of changes to the system, re-
ferred to as PERS, only to have many
of them rejected by the Oregon Su-
preme Court in 2015.
This time around, those legislators
who have called for reforms to PERS
— including members of an informal
work group — say the Legislature
needs to address the system’s $22 bil-
lion unfunded liability while meeting
legal requirements.
Two proposals that have emerged
thus far have co-opted some ideas
floated at that work group, which is
led by Sens. Betsy Johnson, D-Scap-
poose, and Tim Knopp, R-Bend.
SB 559 would increase the num-
ber of years used in calculating final
average salary of public employees to
prevent end-of-career spikes; and SB
560 would redirect employee contri-
butions from an individual account
program to the pension fund and cap
the final salary used in the benefits
calculation at $100,000 starting Jan.
1, 2018.
Both bills’ chief sponsors are
Knopp and Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Rose-
burg, who said that the two bills might
not be the only proposals to expect
from Senate Republicans this session.
“We’re still kind of dancing around
a few things,” Kruse said Wednesday.
Currently, PERS beneficiaries
who were hired prior to Jan. 1, 1996
— known as Tier 1 employees — are
promised an assumed 7.5 percent rate
of return on investment, credited to
their regular accounts every year.
Kruse said changing that 7.5 per-
cent rate, which the market has failed
to match, could be legally permissible
but that it and other ideas were still
being vetted.
“We don’t want to propose any-
thing that we don’t think would
survive a legal challenge because
it would be a waste of time,” Kruse
said.
Legislative Counsel, in a memo to
Knopp and Johnson in late August,
noted that the court hasn’t addressed
the method of calculating final aver-
age salary and whether it is a term of
the PERS contract. If it is, they said,
changes to the calculation are permis-
sible “if the changes protect accrued
benefits.”
Calls to Knopp and Johnson
Wednesday afternoon were not im-
mediately returned. Lawmakers were
gathering at the Capitol this week to
organize for the upcoming session
and attend a slew of mandatory train-
ings.
Attempts at reform could face an
uphill battle politically; some union
representatives have already public-
ly questioned the legality of possible
changes to the system.
In her inauguration speech Mon-
day, Gov. Kate Brown called for
“smarter government,” including bet-
ter management of PERS, just over
a month after she nudged Oregon
business leaders to contribute ideas to
address the state’s budget shortfall in
the wake of the failure of Measure 97,
a tax on corporate sales.
Supporters said the tax would
have raised about $3 billion per year
and could have fixed the state’s per-
sistent budget shortfalls.
Brown said in her speech Monday
that beside her proposal — outlined
in SB 107 — to bring more invest-
ment functions in-house under a new
Oregon Investment Department, she
looked forward to “the other solutions
proposed in the months ahead.”
“As we consider our next steps,
let’s agree to keep our promises to
retirees,” Brown said, according to
her prepared remarks. “Let’s ensure
that no one can (take) advantage of
the system. And let’s seek solutions
that are legally viable, so that dead
ends aren’t left to languish in court
while the challenge of PERS only
continues to grow.”
In a phone interview in late De-
cember, Sen. Johnson said there was
“very little political enthusiasm to
engage in the discussion to find a
solution or a partial solution.”
“In an ideal world, I would en-
vision an omnibus bill that would
have some revenue raising mecha-
nisms done or agreed to with busi-
ness rather than done to business,”
Johnson said in late December. “The
same omnibus bill would address the
expenditure side of the ledger and
include one or two strategic PERS
reforms that would yield financial
benefit to the system as well as sur-
vive any legal test.”
Oregon’s new policy bans weapons in workplace
New HR
policy narrows
pre-existing
policy banning
weapons in most
state buildings
By Paris Achen
Capital Bureau
The state has adopted a
new policy prohibiting state
employees from having
weapons in their workplace
as a condition of employ-
ment, narrowing a preexist-
ing policy banning weapons
in most state agency build-
ings.
The new policy, which
took effect Jan. 6, prohibits
weapons in the workplace
unless having a weapon is
part of the employee’s as-
signed duties.
The policy applies to all
employees, board and com-
mission members, volunteers
EO Media Group file photo
The Oregon Capitol.
and others working in an
agency.
“It is a new HR policy, but
it’s not a new requirement,”
said Matt Shelby, a spokes-
man for the Department of
Administrative
Services.
“Since 1998, we’ve had a fa-
cilities policy of no firearms
or weapons in our buildings
unless you are essentially a
police officer. That covers
everybody, not just employ-
ees.”
Such facilities policies,
which also ban visitors to
the buildings from bringing
in weapons, have been chal-
lenged in some instances
around the country.
“For DAS we have a pol-
icy on file there will be no
firearms in our buildings, but
those have been challenged
in other instances,” Shelby
said.
Shelby could not con-
firm Thursday night whether
those challenges were the im-
petus for separate HR policy.
House and Senate Repub-
licans condemned the new
policy Thursday.
“I am extremely con-
cerned to learn that our state
government has taken steps
that limit employees’ rights
to self-defense and believe
that these actions may violate
the Oregon Constitution,”
said House Minority Leader
Rep. Mike McLane, R-Pow-
ell Butte. “I will be asking
Gov. Brown’s office to ex-
plain where they believe their
power to take such actions is
derived from and, if neces-
sary, take swift action to re-
store the rights of Oregonians
as soon as possible.”
Chris Pair, a spokesman in
Gov. Kate Brown’s office, was
not immediately available late
Thursday to confirm whether
the policy change was ordered
by governor.
Oregon law generally
prohibits the possession of
firearms in public buildings,
but in most cases exempts
individuals who have a li-
cense to carry a concealed
weapon.
It was unclear at deadline
how those laws relate to DAS
policy.
Monday - Thursday
7am- 6pm
Friday 8am - 5pm
Mendy Sharpe FNP
Apppointments
available
130 S. Canyon Blvd.
John Day
541-575-0544
05099