Murray v. Public Employees Retirement Board

230 P.3d 993, 235 Or. App. 262, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 494
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 12, 2010
Docket115032; A129306
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 P.3d 993 (Murray v. Public Employees Retirement Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murray v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 230 P.3d 993, 235 Or. App. 262, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 494 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

*264 ARMSTRONG, J.

In 2001 and 2002, the Variable Annuity Account (Variable Account) of the Public Employees Retirement Fund sustained losses, and the Public Employees Retirement Board charged a combined total of roughly $1,964,000 against the principal of the Variable Account for the Variable Account’s pro rata share of the administrative expenses of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for those years. Petitioner, a PERS member who had allocated 75 percent of his employee retirement contributions to the Variable Account, challenged the legality of those charges in a contested case proceeding. The board ultimately issued a final order affirming those charges because it concluded that the Variable Account’s pro rata share of PERS administrative expenses in 2001 and 2002 was required, by statute, to be paid from Variable Account principal. Petitioner sought judicial review of that order, asserting that the board erred in its interpretation of ORS 238.260 (2001) and ORS 238.610 (2001). 1 We conclude on judicial review that the board erred in its interpretation of those statutes, and we reverse the board’s order and remand for reconsideration.

Before delving into the facts of this case, the following summary of the history and operation of PERS provides necessary context. PERS is funded “from three sources: (1) employee member contributions * * *; (2) employer contributions * * *; and (3) investment earnings on those contributions.” Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145, 157, 108 P3d 1058 (2005). Those combined assets constitute the Public Employees Retirement Fund and are used to pay the administrative expenses of the system and member service retirement allowances. Id.

The fund is composed of a number of accounts. In 2001 and 2002, two of the accounts within the fund contained member contributions and the earnings allocated to them: *265 (1) the Variable Account, which contained those contributions that members had elected to direct to their personal variable accounts, plus the earnings allocated to those contributions; and (2) the Regular Account, which contained the balance of member contributions not directed to the Variable Account, plus the earnings allocated to those contributions. See id. at 158 (explaining structure of PERS); ORS 238.250 (establishing regular accounts); ORS 238.260 (establishing variable accounts). With the exception of Variable Account funds, “all PERS funds are commingled for investment purposes.” Strunk, 338 Or at 157. Interest earned by the Variable Account must be credited to the Variable Account and not to other accounts within the fund. ORS 238.260(2).

Originally, PERS members had only regular accounts, and their contributions were collectively deposited in the Regular Account within the fund. However, in 1967, the legislature created the Variable Account program “for members who are willing to have their contributions and benefits fluctuate with the equity markets.” Strunk, 338 Or at 158. Although the members’ variable accounts would not be subject to the guaranteed rate of return available to Tier One members’ regular accounts, 2 it was considered likely that the Variable Account would, in the long run, outperform the Regular Account in earnings and would result in larger account balances for participating members. ORS 238.260(1), (6).

In 2001 and 2002, PERS members could direct a portion of their employee retirement contribution — 25, 50, or 75 percent — away from their Tier One or Tier Two regular account 3 into a personal variable account, which, in turn, would be paid into the Variable Account within the fund. ORS 238.260(3); Strunk, 338 Or at 158. Members could start, stop, or change the percentage of their contributions directed to their variable accounts on a calendar-year basis. Additionally, at various times, members could (and still can) elect to transfer to their regular account their accumulated variable *266 account contributions and allocated earnings. ORS 238.260(9), (14). Effective January 1, 2004, PERS members are no longer permitted to contribute or transfer funds to variable accounts. Or Laws 2003, ch 67, § 3. PERS continues to credit the remaining variable accounts in existence on January 1, 2004, with earnings and losses attributable to those accounts. See Strunk, 338 Or at 164.

Petitioner is a PERS member who elected in the early 1990s to direct 75 percent of his employee retirement contributions to be placed in the Variable Account. In 2001, the Variable Account suffered a loss of 11.19 percent of its value, and the board charged approximately $1,050,000 against the principal of the Variable Account for its pro rata share of PERS administrative expenses for that year. The Regular Account also suffered a loss that year; however, the board determined that ORS 238.610 required the Regular Account’s share of PERS administrative expenses to be “paid by charging employer accounts based on 2001 employer contributions.” Then, in 2002, the Variable Account suffered a loss of approximately 21.3 percent, and the board charged approximately $914,000 against the account’s principal for its pro rata share of PERS administrative expenses. Again, the Regular Account also suffered a loss, and the board directed that that account’s share of the administrative expenses be paid from employer contributions.

In June 2002, petitioner submitted an appeal to PERS challenging the computation of his 2001 PERS variable account balance. He contended that the computation understated his variable account balance because it included a reduction in the account resulting from the board’s decision to charge a pro rata share of PERS administrative expenses for 2001 against Variable Account principal. In April 2003, petitioner submitted an appeal to PERS, based on the same grounds as his first appeal, challenging the computation of his 2002 variable account balance. PERS denied both appeals, and petitioner requested contested case hearings to challenge the denials. Ultimately, the board granted the hearing requests and consolidated the two matters.

A contested case hearing was held in August 2004. The statutory arguments at the hearing primarily focused on

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Topaz v. Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering & Land Surveying
297 P.3d 498 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 P.3d 993, 235 Or. App. 262, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-public-employees-retirement-board-orctapp-2010.