sb 822 amended pet rev, jones

8/13/2019 SB 822 Amended Pet Rev, Jones

1/24

d'Correct Copy of the Original 12/5/2013

Wayne Stanley jones, pro se j T q ~co;

~, ~ ,+~~ .18 N orth Fox hill Road 7qz~a~ ~ 0North Salt Lake,~ Utah 84054 E~ ~ q T ~ ~801-296-1552 r: ~ sG~. p ~ 3

[email protected] , , . v ~ ~ ~ p ro p C O p 9 )_ , :, ,

.' . .~ '1; ~/ ,~S

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ~STATE OF OREGON

EVE RICE M ORO, TERRI DO ME NIGONI, CHA RLES ) Supreme:CourtCUSTER, JOHN HAW KINS, MICH AEL ARKEN; _ . Case No.

EUGE NE D ITTER; JOH N 0'KIE F, M ICHA EL SM ITH, LANE) S061452JOHNSON~, GREG' CLOUSER, BRAND ON SILENCE, (Coritrol) ;ALISON VICK ERY, AND JIN VO EK ,

Petitioners,V .

STATE O F OREGON, STATE OF OREGO N by and AMENDED PETITIONThrough the DEPA RTM ENT OF C ORRECT IONS, FOR SUPREME CO URTLINN COUNTY; CITY OF PORTLAND; CITY O F SALEM; ) REV IEWTUALATIN.VA L'LEY'FIRE&RESCUE; ESTACAD A

SCHOO L DISTRICT;`OREGON-CITY SCHC+OL D ISTRICT; )ONTARIO SCHO OL DISTRICT; BEAV ERTON SCHO OLDISTRICT; W EST LINN SCHO OL DISTRICT; BE ND SCHO OLDISTRICT;, AND PUB LIC EM PLOY EES'RETIREM ENT )BOARD,. , .

Respondents... . .-... . ,_. _ 7 . . - 3 . . . _

MICHAEL D . REYNOLDS,Petitioner,

Supreme C ourtPUB LIC EM PLOY EES:RETIREMENT B OARD ; State of ) ase No.Ore on; and OH N A: K ITZHA B ER, Goverrior, State 061454 '..of Oregon,

Respondents.

.. . . ,


2/24

G E O R G E A . R I E M E R ,Petitioner,

V. uprem e Court ,S T AT E O F O R E G O N , O R E G O N G O V E R N O R J O H N A .ase. N o.

K I T Z H A B E R , O R E G O N AT TO R N E Y G E N E R A L E L L E N )061475R O S E N B L U M , O R E G O N P U B L IC E M P L O Y E E SR E T I R E IV I E N T B O A R D , a nd O R E G O N P U B L I C E M P L O Y E E SRETIREM ENT SYSTEM ,

Respondents.

W AYNE STANLEY JON ES, 'Petitioner ;

V . upreme C ourtP U B L IC E M P L O Y E E S R E T IR E M E N T .B O A R D , ase,No.EL LE N R OSE N BL UM , Attorney General, and 061431JOH N A . KIT ZH BE R, Governor,

Respondents..-

..

W ayne Stanley Jones, Petit ioner,. on June 19, 2013 filed a PET ITIO .N F O RR E VIE W as provided in Section.l-9 of Senate.B ill ,822 (S.B. 822); 77th O reL egislat ive A ssem bly, 2013 Regular S ession.

1a.W ayne Stanley Jones, Peti tioner, hereby fi les this A M EN DE D PE TIT IO N FSUPR EM E CO UR T R EVIE W as provided in Sect ion 11 of Senate Bil l 861(S.B:861), 77,h O regon Legislative Assemb ly, 2013 'Special Session. This AM EN D EDPE TIT IO N arises from the additional decrease in the CO LA taken from O regopub lic em ployees retirees such as Petitioner under S.B .861. ,

2.THIS AM ENDED PETITION FOR SUPREM E COURT REVIEW CHALLEN G

CON STITUTION ALITY OF SEN ATE BILL 22, 77th OR EGO N .LEG ISLATASSEM BL Y, 2013 RE GU LA R SESSION .

Petitioner, in his June 19, 2013 PE T ITIO N FO R R E VIE W , and included in thAM ENDED PETITION FOR SUPREM E COURT REVIEW challenges the

2


3/24

constitutionality of Senate B i11;822,-7;7thtOregon Legislati"ve Assernbl..y;-2013Regular Session (S.B . 822): + f _3 : ; : t : : i ) ..

Petitioner asserts S:B . 822 breaches the contract Pub lic E m ployees Retirem en

System:had w ith.Petitioner,ras'aformer em ployee.-of the C ity;of-P ortland -D evelopment C omm ission. SeeHugh es v. State of Oregon ,314 O r.1, (1992).

Petitioner asserts S:B . 822-is a-violationiof the Oregon-C onstitution and theUn ited States C onstitution+ as an inipairmen t of the con tract rights that existedbetween Pu blic Em ployees Retirement Sy stem and P etitioner, as a form eremp loyee bf the C ity of-Portland Development Commissiori:

, .f, _ . . , . .. . iL.. ., .

Articl'e 1, Section 21 'of the O regon C onstitutiorf prov ides::r "No ex-postfacto law; or'law impairirig the.obligationrof'contracts, shall ever b e passed;

.,,. ..... .. + _ , ,

A rticle 1, Section 10 of the Un ited States C onstitution states: "No state shall. . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts, . . . ."

. # ~.. - . . +

Petitioner asserts that application of S.B . 822 , which prohibits the full retiremen t+ :henefit to those retirees who no longer live in the state of Oregon,is-a violation of.Amendnient X1V;. Section 1 ofrthe United. States Constitutionw hich states: "No S tate shall m ake or enforce any law w hich shall abridge theprivileges or imm un ities of citizens of the United States."

.2a.THIS AMENDED PETITION FOR SUPREME COURT REVIEW C HALLENGES T

CONSTITUTIONALITY 'OF SENAT-E B ILL 861; 77th'OREGON LEGISLATIVEASSEM BLY, 2013 SPECIAL SESSION.

~+ . + .. .I..

Petitioner=challenges the constitutionality`of Senate B ill 861;-77th OregonLegislative A ssembly , 2013 Special Session (S'.B . 861). Petitioner. asserts S.B .

861 breaches the contract Pub lic E m ployees Retirement Sy stem had w ithPetitioner, as a form er emp loyee of the C ity of:Portland D evelopmentCommission.See 'Hu ghes v S ta te of O regon,314 Or:1;' (1992):

Petitioner asserts S:B . 861-is a violation of the O regon C onstitutiori and theUn ited States Constitution as an impairm ent'of thefcontract+ rights that existed

3


4/24

betw een Pu blic Em ployees Retirement Sy stem and P etitioner, as a form eremployee of the C ity of Portland D evelopm ent Com m ission.

A rticle 1, Section 21 ofthe O regon C onstitution provides: "No:ex-post ..

facto.law, or law impairing the obligationof contracts ishall ever b e passed;,

A rticle 1, Section 10 of the United States ~C onstitution states: "No state shal... pass any :.. law im pairing the obligation of contracts;.: ..:.".

. . f _

Petitioner asserts that application of S .B . 861 to reduce P etitioner's C O LAunder this 2013 enactm ent b y the Legislature v iolates Petitioner's Notice ofE ntitlemen t, O ption-2 A nnu ity: W hen P etitioner actually retired underthe,O regon Pu blic Em ploy.ees Retirem ent System ,.Petitioner qualified for and ham et all the conditions p rerequisite to an an nuity c ontract being formed, andhis retirement annuity constituted a contract at the time of Petitioner'sretirement:.

.

Petitioner had contributed to Oregon Public Retirement System for 30years. and 8 mon ths;

Petitioner had worked 30 years and 8 months, more than the:requirednurnber bf years to retire from the O regon Pub lic E m pl6yees-Retirem enSystem; and f

Petitioner retired.

3 .

STATEM ENT OF FACTS W ITH SUPPORTING AFFID"AV IT-

A s highlighted in Petitioner's SUP PO RT ING A FFID A V IT, Petitioner worked fo30 years; 8 months for the C ity of Portland D evelopm ent Com mission:;Paragraph 4 , A ~ j ``idavit of Wa yne StanleyJones.

. , .

A pproximately 24 years and 4 m onths of Petitioner's service occu rred prior tOctober 1, 1991.Paragraph 5, Affidavit of W ayne S tanleyJones.

W hen P etitioner retired, he chose retirem ent ben efit Option 2 A nnuity, FullSurvivorship, which p rovided full benefits to-Petitioner's spouse, C hristine 0..

4


5/24

Jones, if Petitioner predeceased her:-Paragraph6 , A f j` ìdavit of 'Wa yne Stanley :Jones:

.

.. t; . .

As a result of choosing this option, Petitioner's .retirement benefit was:: f :

reduced to provide for this survivorship option. Paragraph7 , A f j ìdavit ofWa yne StanleyJones.: ,

_,.

Petitioner received a Notice of Entitlement dated April 10,1998, confirmingthe contract between him and PE RS and verifying the.amounttof P etitioner'sretirement benefit under Option 2 Annuity. Paragraph8 , A J j ` ìdavit of Wa yneStanleyJones.

-. . .

On August 6, 2006, Petitioner'swife, Christine 0. Jones, died. Paragraph 9,Affidavitof Wa yne StanleyJones:

Under the terms of the PERS Service Retirement Application, Petitioner couldnot, after Petitioner's:wife Chr,istine died, ehoose a different retirement- -option; one.that would pr.ovide a higher retirenierit.allowance to him:Paragraph 10,Affi'davit of Wayn e StanleyJone s.

Petitioner is bound by the PE RS Service Retirement Application dated January12,1998, which became ai binding and unalterable contra'ct between him and'PERS, as confirmed.bythe Notice of-Entitlement from PERS, dated April 10,1998. Paragraph 11,Affidavit of Wayne S tanley Jones. .

As a result of the passage of Oregon Senate B ill 822 signed into law byGovernor Kitzhaber on M ay 6, 2013;. Petitiorier will suffer a signifcantreduction.infuture retirement benefits..Paragraph 13;Affidavit of Wayne - :StanleyJones.

Petitioner estimates that the amount of future CO LA adjustments under S.B .822.wi11 be reduced to approximately one half of the--amount Petitioner hasbeen receiving in the past, from -two percent to~approximately.one percent.Par,agraph14; AfiTdavit of Wayne .'StanleyJones .

, ,... ' ''; ': ._ . .

As a result of the passage of Oregon Senate Bi11.861 signe.d inm law-byGovernor Kitzhaber on O ctober 8, 2013, Petitioner will suffer an additionalsignificant reduction in future retirement benefits. Paragraph 14a,Afj ` ìdavit ofW ayne StanleyJones.

-'5


6/24

Petitioner is familiar with~.general accounting principles, having taken mathclasses as part of his college deg ree, and additional coursew ork and trainingafter college in accoun ting, financ ial data, and loan collections. P aragraph 14bAffidavit of Wa yne Stanley Jones.

Pe titioner's service at PD C requ ired him to use these general accoun tingprinciples on a reguiar basis in his full-tim e em ploym enu P aragraph 14c, .Affidavit of Wayne StanleyJones.

A s part of Petitioner's employm ent at PD C , he managed the Econom icD evelopment and Housing Loan-Portfolio of 5;7001oans, w ith a principal.

balance of $71 m illion. Paragraph 14d,A J j `idavit of Wayn e Stanley Jones:

A s part of his em ploym ent at PD C , Petitioner was chairm an of the LoanC om m ittee,w hich approved all housing loans, including large m ulti=fam ily projects of $1 m illion or more. Paragraph 14e,A f ~ ` `idavit ofWa yne StanleyJones.

A s part,of Petitioner's em ployment at PD C, he m anaged all PD C owned andleased facilities, consisting of an- inven tory of 50 properties. Paragraph 14f,Afidavi tof Wayne StanleyJones A

A s part of his em ploym ent at PD C , Petitioner oversaw the preparation,_production, and monitored a$5.1 million department annual budget. JParagraph 14g,Affidavit of Wayne StanleyJones.

Using Petitioner's.professio'nal experience and u nderstanding, he estim ates _that the amount of future CO LA adjustm ents under S.B . 861, which amendedand superseded S.B . 822 C O LA adjustments, w ill be'teduced-to Jess than onehalf of the CO LA Petitioner has been receiving in the past. Paragraph 14h,Affidavit of Wayne S tanley Jones.'

. . . . .

6


7/24

Using Petitioner's professional experience-and understanding, he prepared 'the ~following table to illustrate his loss' under the revised CO LA .' :__-~ -I

Year Petitioner's Estimated Benefit Loss Attributable

.,. .to S.B. 861 (CO LA Loss)

. .

July, 20141st Y ear - $789Cu mu lative Loss

5th Y ear Cum ulative $13,113' 'Loss

. . . .

10th Y ear Cum ulative $53,381 -Loss

15th.Y ear Gu mu lative ~ $126;175òss

Paragraph 14i,A J j ` ìdavit of -Wayne StanleyJones.. . . f .. , ;. - . .

Petitioner:w as.born in O r.egon in 1'943 and he resided'continuously in O regonuntii.2006, w hen personal family c'ircum stances necessitated a m ove toanother State:Paragraph.15, Affidavftof WayneStanleyJones

~:. . ...

As a result of the provisions of O regon:Senate: B i11822 that:reduce theretirem ent benehts to those living,outside the state of O regon; P etitioner.:-anticipates a further decreaseln his.pensiori lbecause Petitioner no longerlives in O regon. P etitioner estimates that Petitioner's pension could bereduced"liy approxiinately $6 ,660 per y ear. Paragraph17,Affrdavit of Wayrie `Stanlevl ones:

:j. _

, , ~ .

..

The'riiultiplier'effect of-these two decreases; areduction in CO LA ànd the out=of-State reduction in b enefits, will have a sign ificant impact on Petitioner's 'future financial situation. Paragraph 18,Affidavit of Wa yne Stanley Jone s.

': . ,'.. . '

.; , 4.

.

, . ; , .

ARGUMENT ON-E - CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.B . 822-. . . a . ' ; .

I


8/24


9/24

Petitioner `resided: contiriuously.inO regon from his birth in-1943 unti1-2006 ;w hen circum stances n ecessitated Petitioner relocate to anotlier state.t S:B :822 eliminates the additional beriefitmandated.by tlie O regon~Supreme Courtin theffugh s case (Hugh es v: State:of Oreg on;3-14 Or.1(1992)) and provided

by the Oregori LegislativeAssembly in 1995 :H.B: 3349, (O.R.S: 'Section238.364,'arid-1991 S.B :'656 (O :R:S: Section-238:366 ) if a retiree does notreside in the state of O regon: In-H ughes 'v State of Oregon,314 Or -1,1838 P2d '--1018 (1992), argu ing that the 'repeal imp aired the state's contractual obligationto provide PE RS retireinenfb enefits~free of taxation an d therefore v iolatedt-' -Article I, section 26,of tlie Oregon-Constitution (relating-to impairmeiit o'f `contracts); the Oregon Supreme,Court concluded that: "(1) PERSt mem bers had acontractwith thetstate to receive:PE RS retirement'benefits free fr.om-state and'local taxation, (2) the repeal.amoun ted to-a breach :(bu t not an impairmernt) ofthat contract, and (~3)."[aJny onewhose-PERS benefitsare contractually exemptfrom.taxation ** - *.is entitled to a remedy for the state's breach:"Id. at 33 uTherefore; this provision of S.B . 822-is unconstitutional under. Article 1, :Section 10 of the. United:States-.Constitution, which,states: "No S tate shall ...pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts ...... '

Petitioner also asserts that application of S.B . 822, which prohibits the.fullretirement b enefit,to. those; retirees w ho norlonger live in the,state of Oregon,is a violation of A mendm ent,XIV , Section 1.of the,United


10/24

W hen Petitioner exercised his right to retire and chose O .ption .2- Annuity; his retirement.benefits fully. vested and his Annuity-benefit became a fixed-.amoun t;,subject:only to the statutory 2 % CO LA, increase. This, is consistentwith O.regon state,law w hich: says: "An annuity.or pure endowm ent policy .

shall contain a p rovision that the policy, including a copy of the ap.plication if endorsed upon'or attached:to;the.policy when~issued,- shall cons titute theentire contract between the parties:" . O .R.S. 743.261.

.. . . :. ..

The O regon Supreme:C ourt held inRagsda le:v. Departm ent of Reven ue321.Or.216 (1995), that the 1991 retiremen t benefit gr.anted b he LegislativeAssem bly:w as not a tax rebate. The-Court said: "W ith respect to ~Oregon. Laws199.1, chapter 796, that statute con tains indicia that cou ld.lead one toconclude eitherithat the "benef its" are a kind of tax'r.ebate or that the

"beriefits" are compensation: : The pr.ovision to- end the paym ents,if statetaxation en ds[,] points toward a tax rebate. How ever; for the reasons thatfollow, weconcludethat, in context, the 1991 legislation4s a[sic],not'[a]taxrebate-or tax benef it that would implicate the p rinciple of iritergovernm entaltax imm unity."Id, at

Furtlier, the Court inRagsdaiestated: " Fourth, consisterit w ith the pointsmade abov e regarding state payinerit of coinperisation to" its retirees; theincrease in b enefits provid"ed by the 19911egislature is notpart of the systemofstate taxation in-O regon: It does not involve the asse'ssnient or-collection'ofrevenues, which is the hallmark of a tax."Id. at =_:

T he C ourt went on to state: ""T he 1991 increase in com pensation is nottransform ed into a tax-rebate or tax benefit simplyb ecause it w as motivatedin w holeor inpart as-a response to theDavfsdecision'and theconsequent 'removal of the tax exemption for-PERS retiremerit'benefits."Id. at

. : . . _

"Fifth and last" tYie Court held; "w e find no correlation;-either direct o'rindirect, betw een state retirees' state tax'obligations and the'am oun t ofincreased PE RS retiremeint benefits; if -any , to'whichthey m ay be entitledunder the provision of O regon Law s 1991; chapter 796: A s noted, theamounts of increased retiirement benefits a're based on the PERS m embers'years of service; not`ontheir state income taxobligations: A ll eligibl'e PE RS' -retirees:receive those increased b enefits. M oreover, the 'increased b enefits-received pu rsuant to the 1991 statute are themselves sub ject'to state and "feder'al'taxation. Indeed, the taxpayer's claim for a tax refiind m easured by

1 0


11/24

the .increased bene.fit -paidto state retirees incorrectly assumes that every state=retiree. who receives an increase in.benefits.paid ~state :income taxes, butit is conceivable-that;many state r.etirees paid little or no state income tax for1991." Id. at -. , : (Emphasis in the original.) .

. ~ t -, ; ,

The RagsdaleCourt;:,in-comparing Oregon's law to that of M ontana, concluded:"In contrast, under Oregon Laws 1991, chapter 796, every state retiree whoqualifies for benefits (based on years of service) will receive the benefits,regardless of the-state retiree's residency."Id. at So it is clear that, as tothe 1991 benefit,-the'Court understood andlaclalowledged that the 1991 ,retirement benefits were not to be considered as a tax rebate or a tax benefit.TheRagsdaleCourt also aclmowledged that the 1991 benefit was payable tothe- state retirees, regardless of whether the retiree paid. little or no income

taxes to the state of-0regon; and regardless of the residency of the retiree.

In Vogl v D epartmentof Revenue,327 O r: 193 (1998), the Oregon SupremeCourt called the 1995 statutory retirement benefits, "in substance, a.taxrebate."Id, at However theVogl Court made it clear that this holding didnot overruleRagsdale: "W e'emphasize that.our holding necessarily isconfined to the 1995. statute. W e do..not overruleRagsdaleor its analysis ofthe 1991 law."Id. at . So the holding inRagsdaleremains the controllingprecedent as to the 1991 benefits not being considered a tax rebate or a tax :benefit. And the 1991 benefifis payable to the retiree, regardless of the statewhere the retiree currentlyre'sides: S:B : 822.attempts to recastthe retiremenbenefits provided in 1991,as a tax rebate: That is an inappropriate attempt bythe Oregon Legislative Assemblyto` overrufe the Oregon Supreme Court'sholdirig inRagsdale.

-. _ . . d . : . .

4a.

ARGUME NT TW O - CHALLENGE TO C ONSTITUTIONALITY O F S.B. 86. . . . ; , ~.. .

Petitioner incorporates hereinthe.-argum ents presented in'AR G UM EN :T O NE CHA LLENGE T O CONSTITUTIONALITY .OF S. B: 822.

< ~ 1 . F F, 1~. .~.. . ~, ,. .

Petitioner'sAnnui,ty,Retirement B enefit is a Contract that.has been.Sub.s.tantially,and Unreasonably Impaired-by S.B :.861in V iolation ofArticle 1, Section 21J of the Oregon;Constitution, and Article:.1, Section 10of.the United~~States Constitution., .. ...,

1 1


12/24

To establish an im pairment of contract; federal contracts clause cases requ irethree questions to be satisfied. (1) There must be a contractual:relationship. ;(2) T he change in the law impairs the contractual relationship. :(3) T heimpairmen t is substantial. Stuart B uck, "L egal O bstacles to: State.Pensiori

Reform," A ssociation for Edu cation Finance and Policy (A ug. 26 , 2011)http://www:aefpw'eb.org/sites/default/files/webform/Stuart Buck,_Legal_0bstacles_to_Pension_Reform.pdf

Let'sexaminethe first question: Is there a contrac tual relationsh ip?Leg islatures and cou rts across this country have~taken b asicallythreeapproaches to retirement.benefits.

O ne: States in W hich Pension B enefits are Not C ontractual. As an example,

Iow a is one of a few states that provide that the duty to pay pub lic pensionbenefits are purely statutory and not contractual. Cam pbell v City ofMarshalltown,235 N.W . 764 (Iowa 1931). B ut even-in lowa, courts have heldthat a pension. is protected once a m em ber app lies for retiremen tCity of lowaCity v: White,1 11N.W . 2nd 266 (Iowa 1961)..See also,National Conference onPub lic E mployee Retirement Systems (NC PE RS),State Con stitutional -Protections for Publfc Sector R etireme nt Ben efits,(M arch 15, 2007).

T wo: States in W hich Pension B enefits have State, Constitutional Protection a C ontract Seven states,.A laska, Arizona, Haw aii,:Illinois, Louisiana, M ichigaand in New Y ork, have constitutional provisions that provide, for, examp le,that "Membership in-a,public retirement system is a contractual relationshipthat is subject to article II, Sec tion 2 5, and pub lic retirem ent system;benefitsshall not be diminished or impaired." AZ Const, Article XX IX, Section 1; andNational Conference on Pu blic Em ployee Retiremen t System s (NCP ER S),StateCon stitutiona l Protections for Publfc Sector Re tirem ent Ben efits,(M arch 15,2007).

Third: States which hav e No E xplicit Constitutional Protection for RetiremenB enefits; but in which Courts have H eld. Pension B enefits A re~Entitled'to StaC onstitutional Protection. Th irty- fou r of the states p'rovide stateconstitutional protection against imp airm ent of contracts, particularly forpensionbenefits that have fully'vested.Id: Or`egori is one tof these states. ' TheStrunkv. Public Employees RetiremeritBd., '108P.3d 1058 (Or.'2005) decisionheld that suspens'ion `of C O LA benefits b reaehed obligation of'contract underO regon C onstitution A rticle 1, Section 2 1. Arid the'Oregon`Police Officers'Ass'n

1 2


13/24

v State, 918 P-.2d 765. (1996) provided.that once: an employee. prov idesservices in reliance.on a,promise-to provide benef its on reti `rement ;aheem ployer is contractually boun d toEhonor that prom ise:';

So, using O regon case law, the answer to the first question is yes, Oregonretirement beneftsiare a.contract; particular'lyto those like the,Petitioner whom et all the requiremen ts of.this retirem ent,benefit annuity b y working;contributing, and choosing a con tinuing pub lic retiremen t benefit inaccordancevith laws and' rules:established by the Oregon Legislature arid theOregon-Public R'e`tirement System.

,f ,. + , - : ,. .

The secon d inquiry is. does the change in the law~impair the vontractua l .relationship between PE RS a nd Petitioner.W hen Petitioner retired M arch 1,1998, he chose Option 2 A nnu ity. Petitioner's A nnu ity promised him lifetimebenefits,:using~payments Petitioner..and his employerhad-made into PE RS.This is affirmed in Ore'gori :Revised Statutes Section.238:005 (2): "A nnuity'-:m eans paym ents for life der.ived from coritribu tions m ade by a m em ber. asprov ided in this chap ter." P etitioner,.iri'determ ining'whether to take a lum p-sum option or take the option _of a lifetime benef i't, used PE RS inform ation,which states: "A ~ lifetime b enefit First; the mon thly benefit fro`in PE RS is paidfor tlie mem ber's lifetime:- D epending:onahe,benefit:option, it:can~ also be paidfor a beneficiarys -lifetime: .[This PERS information sheet encourages`pub licretirees to choose.the PE RS'inonthlylifeti'me;b enefitby ihighlighting themonthly -PE RS b enefit is notsub jectto bad m arkets: It goes on.to. state:] Y oucan pu rchase lifetime annuities in the private sector, bu t if your investm entsare sim ply in stocks, including m utual funds, the retirem ent benef it fromthose inve'stm ents lasts as long as the prin'ciple` [sic] and-iriterest. B adm arkets or poor investments m ay m ean your rnoney w ill be gone w hileyoiistill need it."

" C ost-of-living adjustmerit , Secorid, mon thly benefits 4re subject to anautomatic.2 percent cost-of-living adjustm ent (CO LA ) each A ugust w hen theConsum er Price Index increases at least 2 percent the previous year. 4 CO LA sare rarely included in pay outs from private investmen ts." "Im portant ,information for you about T he Total Lump-sum O ption;" .w ww .oregon.g-ov/pers/m em% docs/pub lications/totallum psum :pdf, (A pril '2008). A s this pub lication show s, PE RS entices retirees to choose theretirement option with the monthly benefit with the added promise that itw ould have an "autom atic 2 percen t cost-of-living adjustment" each year, if

; 1 3


14/24

the CPI increased by at least that amount Petitioner relied on theserepresentations; chose O ption 2 An nuity w ith m onthly lifetim e benef its whiche was promised would- grow at up to- 2 percen t each year, based onC onsum er Price Index increases.

The Oregon 'LegislYature, through S.B . 861; has impaired. Petitioner'sguaranteed retirementannuity.by reducing his COLA.

The third question that m ust be sa tisfredis whe ther the im pairmen t issubstantial .B efore S.B . 822 w as enacted, ORS 2 38.360 provided Petitionerw as entitled to receive a cost-of-living adjustm ent on his m onthly retirem entallow ance, not to exceed two percen t in any year, based on,the C onsum er.Price Index.

S.B . 861 provides that "(2) (a) If the, mem ber's or m em ber's beneficiary'syearly allowaince is-$60,000 or less, the.allowanc e shall be: increased by 1.25percent: (b ) If the m em ber.'s or:mem ber's beneficiary's yearly allowance ism ore than $6 0,000, the allow ance shall be increased b y $750 plus .15 percenof the am ount of the.yearly, allowance exceeding $60,000." In -addition, .Section 8(2) of S.B . 861 provides "Each year, the Public Em ployeesRetirement B oard .shall m ake a supplementary p aym ent to each m em ber orm em ber's b eneficiary. - The su pplementary paym ent shall:be equal to 0.25percent of the member's or member's beneficiary'syearly allowance or yearlypension or benefit, bu t in n o event m ay the. supplementary paym ent-exceed$150.

Petitioner- pr.epared the following table to.illustrate the im pact of S.B . 861 onhis annuity , retir,em ent contract.

Year Petitioner's Estimated Benefit Loss Attributableto S.B . 8.61 (CO LA Loss)

July, 20141st~Year~-. . .$789Cumulative: Loss

.

5th Year Cu mu lative $13,113Loss

1 4


15/24

10th Y ear Cumulative .. ; . $53,381Loss

~ ~

15th Y ear Cum ulative $126,175.

, LossParagraph 14i; Affidavit of Wayne StanleyJones... ,- . ~ ,This table illustrates that ;Petftioner',s-contractually provided for Annuity.retirement benef its are,substantially reduced b y S.B : 861; .which is-,a violationofA rticle 1, Section 21- of the Oregon C onstitution, and Article 1, Section 10 ofthe Un ited States C onstitution. B ecause Petitioner,lives out, of state, Petitionerwill suff er an additional substantial reduction.4n:his retirement annuitycontract under S.B . 822. .;

Oreg ,on's Public RetirementSystem Fund;is.in ExcellentFinancial Co nditionr, , ;., .

According to Portland State A AUP News, dated June, 19; 2012, "The O regon:Pu blic E m ployees Retirem ent System con tinues to rank among the best-fun ded pub lic pension plans in the United States, according to a new report bythe Pew C enter on the States."

;

"O regon ranks eighth in the nation in terms of the funded status of its pensionplan, said the P.ew Center in,a r.eport-released M onday called "The W ideningGapjUpdate:",~The report,found that.O regon PE RS in 2010 ow ed active andformer pub lic em ployees about $59.3.:billion in.pension pay rnents, with 87percent;of that amoun t fun ded.- In other words, for; ever,y dollar of pension ..paym ents the state m ust pay out, it has on hand :,87 cents.'.". , , I-: .

`.'It's an im provem ent.over_last-year's-Pew report on pub lic pensions, in w hichOregon ranked;lP in the country. Pension experts say a -funded. status :..greater than?80, percent is a,sign of &healthy pension plan." Portland State '.AA UP News,O regon PE RS: R eport praises pension funding as one of.best fnUS, (June 19, 2012). Later in the article, Oregon PERS E xecutive D irector PaulC leary n oted, ~"A s .of theend of 2 .011,+ the system stood at 81'percent fun ded."Id. This is still:within.thefundinkstatusthat is considered a-healthy pensionplan: . 7 .

- lt ;~. t .:' .. 1 > ; l: _

1 5


16/24

B ased on strong m arket returns, this unfu nded liability in,the pension f undcontinues to shrinlL O n D ecemb er 31, 2010, Oregon Pub lic E m ployeesRetirement Fund returns showed total operating fund net asset value at$56,681 b illion. A t this point, the Pew Report praised O regon's Public

E m ployees Retirement Fun d, noting 87 percent of the pension paym ents werfunded. Portland State AA UP N ews,Orego n PER S: Report praises. pensionfundingas oneof best inUS," (June 19; 2012). On D ecemb er 31; 2011; the: =Fund had $55,487 billion in assets. If the system w as 81 percent fun ded at thend oU2011;as noted by Executive D irector Paul C leary in the abovereferenced'report, this was 'at a low point in' its investments.1 d :,The Fuind isseven stronger today.' O n D ecem ber 31, 2012, the Fund -had grown to $61,056billion~in-assets: A nd in tenm onthstime, as of O ctober 31,2013, the Fund hagained over $5 b illion to stand at a total of $66, 323 billion in assets.

http//www.oregon.gov ./treasury/Divisions/Investment/Pages/Oregon= ,Pu blic-Em plo,yees-Retirement-Fund.aspx. B ased on these strong m arketreturns,'and O regon's pu bl'ic retiree's funded status at over 80'percen t, the.'O regon Legislature's enactment of S.B . 861 is an unconstitutional impairm enof Petitioner's annuity retireriment cdntract

. . . : .

. z ..

RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner respectfully asks the O regon Su prem e C ourt to revie.w his `AM END ED PE TIT IO.N FOR JUD ICIA L REV IEW and render a'decision declariS.B . 824=77th Oregon Legislative A ssembly, 2013 Regular Sessionunconstitutional as a law that substantially impairs the annuity retirementcontract Petitioner has with' PE RS.

Petitioner also requests this;court to declare -S.B . 822 to be un constitutional asit is a law that abridges the P etitioner's con stitutional right to travel and livewhere he w ants, without the -ab ridgm ent'of his privilege to receive hisretirement benefit.

: _ ... , _ .. _ Petitioner acknow ledges that mu ltiple claim s;:similar to his; w ill'be m ade to ;this Court. . Petitioner reques ts: his claim , and tlie argum ents and relief :requested from all these claim s be c om bined in an effort to provide judicial .econom y and apply to all petitioners in like circum stances.

16


17/24

5a.

- ELIEF REQ UESTED

Petitioner respectfully asks the Oregon Supreme C ourt to review hisAM END ED PE,TITIO N-F,OR JUD ICIAL'REVIEW and render-a'decision declaririSenate B ill 861, 77th Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2013 Special Session

~ unconstitutional as a law that sub stantially impairs P etitioner's annu ity ...retiremen t contract with PE RS.

ReW ectfully pb mitted this 3rd day of D ecember, 2013.

W ayne Stanley Jon~s, pro se18 North Foxhill RoadNorth Salt Lake; Utah 84054Telephone: 801-296-1552

; ~~

i . ~~Em ail:, wstanmgt@gm ail.com

Ma

6 .

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I certify that on' December 3, 201.3; I fi'led the original of this AM END EDPETITION FOR SUPREM E:CO URT REV IEW with the Appe'llate ~Court" ,Adm inistrator by United States Postal Service, first class, certified'mail, retui-nreceipt requested at this address:

Appellate Court AdmiriistratorA ppellate C ourt Records Section1163 State Street .

' Salem, OR 97301-2563, .

..

'J

CERTIFICATE OFSSERVICE

17


18/24

I certify that on D ecember 3, 2013, I served a true copy of this AM END EDPETITION FOR SUPREM E COURT REV I-EW by United States Postal Service,first class certified mail, return receipt requested, on:

Public Em ployees Retirement'B oard 'tllen`F .Roseriblum, AttorrieyGeneral11410 SW 68th Parkway Oregon Department of justiceTigard, OR 97223 Office ofSolicitorGeneral

400 Justice Building1162 Court Street N.E.

.

` Salein,'OR 97301-4096

Governor John A. K itzhaber

State C apitol B uilding900 Court St NE, Suite 254Salem, OR 97301-4047 ,

I hereby further certify tha t on Decem ber 3, 2013, I serv ed a true cop y'of ' thAM EN DED PETITION FOR SUPREM E CO URT REVIEW by United S ta tes Service, first class m ail , on:

G regory A . Har tman M ichael Porter

A runa A. M asih M il le r N ash LL PBennet H artman M or-r is 3400 U .S. Ba ncorp T ower.210 SW M orrison Street, Suite 500 111 S.W. FifthAv e .Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204

AttorneyforB eaverton SchoolDistrict

George A. Riemer Michael D. Reynolds,23206 N. Pedregosa Dr. 8012 Sunny side Av e. NorthSun City W est, AZ 85375 Seattle,W A98103

Eugene J. Karandy II Harry AuerbachOffice of the County Attorney Office of the City AttorneyLinn County Courthouse City of Portland104 SW Fourth Ave. #123 1221 SW 4 Ave. #430PO Box 100 Portland, O R 97204Albany, OR 97321 Attorney for Respondent City ofAttorney for Respondent Linn.CountyPortland

18


19/24

D aniel A tchison B end School D istrictO ffice of the C ity A ttorney Superintendent Ron W ilkinsonCity of Salem 520 NW W all Street555 L iberty Street B end, O R 97701

Salem, O R 97301Attorne -- Res ondent City of SalemW illiam F. Gary Lisa FreileySharon A . Rudnick O regon School Boards AssociationPeter F. Simons PO B ox 1068H arrang Long G ary Ru dnick, P.C. Salem, OR 97308360 E .10th A ve., Suite 300 Attorney for Respondents Estacada,Eu gene, OR 97401 Oregon City, Ontario, and W est LinnA ttorneys for Respondents Linn School D istricts and Intervenor

Coun ty, Estacada, Oregon C ity, O regon School Boards AssociationO ntario, and W est Linn SchoolD istricts and Intervenors OregonSchool B oards A ssociation andA ssociation of O re on C ountiesEdw ard TrompkeJordan Ramis PCPO B ox 23099Portland, O R 97281

A ttorney for Tualatin V alley Fire&RescueK ristan Roggendorf W . Michael GilletteRoggendorf Law LLC Schwabe, W illiamson& W yatt PC5200 S.W . M eadows Road, Suite 150 1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900Lake Osw ego, O R 97035 Portland, OR 972 04A ttorney for Intervenor Cen tral A ttorney for Intervenor League ofOre on Irri ation District O re on C itiesH onorable Stephen K . B ushong Michael Eliason

Special M asterAssociation of O regon Cou nties

M ultnomah C ounty C ircuit Court 1201 C ourt Street, NE , Suite 3001021 S.W. 4th Ave. Salem, O R 97301Po nd, OR 97204 Attorney for Linn County

W ayne Stanley Jone,Petitioner, Pro Se

19


20/24

AFFIDAVIT._

. ,


21/24

10. Under the term s of the PE RS Serv ice Retirement A pplication, I could not,after my w ife C hristine died, choose a different retiremen t option; one thatwould prov ide a higher retiremen t allowance to..m e.

. .

11. I am b ound by the PER S Service Retirement A pplic,ation dated January 11998, which becam e.a binding and unalterable contract between P E RS andme.

12. I believe that PE RS is also bound to the contract it m ade with me, asaffirmed by Exhibit B , the Notice of En titlemen t dated Apr.il 10; 1998.

13. A s a result of the passage of O regon Senate B ill 822, signed into law byG overnor K itzhaber.on M ay 6 , 2013, I will suffer a significant reduction infuture retirement benefits.

14. Under Senate Bi11.82.2, I estimate that the amount of future CO LA ,.adjustments I receive w ill be reduced to approximately one. half of the amouI have b een receiving in the past: from two per cen t to approximately one percent.

14a. A s a result ofthe passage of O regon Senate B i11,861 signed into.law byG overnor K itzhaber on O ctober 8, 2013, I w ill suffer.anadditional significantreduction in future retirement benefits.

14b. I am familiar with general accounting principles, havingtaken math ,classes as part of my college degree, and additional coursework and trainingafter college in accoun ting, financ ial data, and loan, collections.

14c. M y service. at PD C required me to use these general accountingprinciples on a regular basis in m y fu ll-tim e,emp loym ent:

14d. As part of m y em ployment at PD C , I managed the Economic, .. .D evelopm ent and H ousing Loan P ortfolio of 5,700 loans, with a principalbalance of $71 m illion.

2


22/24

14e: , As :part:of-my employ.ment at PD C, I w as chairman of the LoanC om m ittee, which approved all housing loans, including large mu lti-fam ilyprojects of $1 m illion or more.

14f. As part of my em ploym ent at PD C, I m anaged all PD C owned and leasedfacilities;consisting of an:inv entory of 50 p roperties. .

14g. As-partofmy employm ent at PtD C, I oversaw the preparation, -production; and'mon itored a:$51 m illion department annual bu dget:.,:

14h. Using .my iprofessional experience and,-un derstanding, I estimate.that theamount of-future -CO LA adjustments under S.B . 861; w hich:amended andsuperseded S.B . 822 C O LA adjustments, will be reduced to less than one half othe C O LA I have b een receiving in the past

14i.Using m y p rofessional experience and understanding, I have prepared thefollowing table to illustrate my loss under the revised CO LA of S.B . 861:

Year Petit ioner 's E stim ated B enefit Los s A ttributableto S.B . 861 (CO L A L oss)

July, 20141st Year,- $789.

Cu mu lative Loss "

5th Y ear Cu mulative $13,113Loss

10th Y ear Cum ulative $53,381Loss

15th Y ear Cum ulative - 126,175Loss

3


23/24

15. I was born in Oregon in 1943 and I resided continuou sly in Oregon u ntil2006, w hen~personal fam ily circum stances n ecessitated a m ove.to-anotherState.

16. I now live at 18 North Foxhill Road, North Salt Lake, Utah 84054.

17. As a result of the provisions of O regon Senate B il1~822-that.reduce the :. -retirem ent ben efits to those living outside the state of O regon, I an ticipate afurther decrease in m y pension because I no longer live in O regon: I estim atethat m y pension'cou ld be reduced by approximately $6,660'per_year. .

18. The- rriultiplier effect of these two decreases, a reduction;in CO LA : and theout of State reduction in ben efits, will have a significan t irripact on rny fu ture financial situation. . . ~ . _ ` . ... . I I .

19. Further affiant saith not

State of UtahCounty of D avis

I sw ear or affirm that the above and foregoing representations are true andaccurate to the best of my inform ation, know ledge, and belief.' .

a e Stanle J nes

Subscribed and Sworn before me this _~Aay of December, 2013,

r - ~o , rx OTARY PUBLIC

Notary blic for Utah .`'' `~ MARGARETCARTERHAWKINS~~ N 56Y 22 I

* . . . s~ I . . ' ~ P

M y comm ission expires~Du- b ~ . ~ ~ . ~ 2 0 ~ u

0mm~ssion o.Corr:mission E xpires

APRIL 26, 2014STATE OF UTAH

-- -- -- -- --

4


24/24

~~~ r. . a ~'. .,... . ' ~.~ _..,.. e~.~s.~.:. ro ~k.'. , au .. .. . Y4.'. :.,. .

Le1nC, UI' 89054d027, ~

. r ..~. ...., ...~ . .. .... .. ..~r'~ ,i

7012.1010 001 1258 0092; i o u N e

~EpM.'.ros.xaav,cs oP. :~'

- -_ ' , ' _

sb 822 amended pet rev, jones

Documents