August 6, 2004

Dear Oregon PERS members,

I hope everyone’s summer is going well. I wish there was some uplifting concrete news regarding the fate of Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System that I could report to you. Since it may take years for the Oregon Supreme Court Justices to decide the outcome of recent reforms, I’ve decided to bring you up-to-date on what we know so far this year regarding PERS.

I’ve included highlights from articles since January 2004. It’s important to realize this is not a complete list, but we have tried to document everything. If you know of any news or articles that we’ve missed, please let us know.

This information is meant to keep you informed, not to provoke an immediate decision. Please do not make an irrevocable decision based on events in the media, or confusion at PERS. We believe you should keep focused on what’s best for you and your family.
There are many concerns that we feel are not being covered or addressed, for example:

• Why are “Special Deals” allowed to happen for some PERS members and not others?
• Why should PERS members be punished for following PERS rules?
• Why is investment information regarding PERS outdated for PERS members?
• Why do loopholes continue to exist for PERS officers and Elected officials?
• Why are legal fees taken from PERS retirement funds?
• Why are judges allowed unlimited free estimates of benefits when everyone else must pay?
• Why is double dipping permitted, while the double lump-sum option and returning to work is not?
• Why are unexplained, abrupt resignations of top PERS related officials kept quiet?
• Why must rules be applied on a case-by-case basis rather than equally and evenly to all members?
• Was fiduciary responsibility breached by not providing members with current information?
• Could losses in members variable accounts have been limited if current information was available?
• If you knew the variable account had two-and-half times greater risk than the regular account, would you still have invested in it to receive less than one percent more in returns?
• Was there a breach in fiduciary responsibility by knowingly using outdated life expectancy tables?
• Should full disclosure be required regarding Oregon Investment Council and PERS?

The guaranteed monthly income so many members counted on continues to dramatically decline with each change. Yet the majority of PERS members continue to be prohibited from making informed decisions due to outdated, inaccurate and inconsistent information from PERS. To make matters worse, PERS leaders and elected officials continue to advise PERS members to stay in the troubled retirement plan, while protecting their own retirement savings from PERS reforms (by utilizing loopholes and special favors).

PERS members should be allowed to keep benefits that were originally promised. The question is, should PERS members have to pay for the mismanagement of the previous PERS Board? Arguing over throw away items such as outdated life expectancy tables do nothing more that waste Oregon PERS members money on legal fees and reduce their retirement income.

As each of you know, these are complex issues that are far from being resolved. I continue to believe if we stick together and demand to be treated equally and evenly we can get PERS back on track.

Stay in touch,

Jesse Villarreal, Jr.
Founder- PERS Help

PERS Help © 2004 All rights reserved.
 Last Revised: May 14, 2006