HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
March 04, 2003 Hearing Room E
3:00 PM Tape 26
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Tim Knopp, Chair
Rep. Alan Brown, Vice-Chair
Rep. Jeff Barker
Rep. Tom Butler
Rep. Greg Macpherson
Rep. Mary Nolan
Rep. Dennis Richardson
Rep. Wayne Scott
MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Deborah Kafoury, Vice-Chair
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2008 – Public Hearing
HB 2020 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in compliance
with Senate and House Rules. Only
text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the
tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
Tape 26, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Knopp |
Calls meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. and opens simultaneous
public hearings on HB 2008 and HB 2020. |
|
HB 2008
AND HB 2020 – PUBLIC HEARINGS |
||
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Enters into the record a letter from Nikki Whitty,
County Commissioner, Coos County, suggesting an amendment to HB 2020 (EXHIBIT A). |
|
018 |
Lisa Zavala |
Associate Director, Government Relations, Oregon
University System (OUS). Introduces
Denise Yunker. |
|
|
Denise Yunker |
Human Resources Manager and administrator of the
Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) for OUS.
Explains retirement plans offered by OUS and proposes amendments to HB
2008 (EXHIBIT B). |
|
080 |
Yunker |
Continues presentation (EXHIBIT B). |
|
147 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if any of the employer contribution under the
ORP goes into the unfunded liability of PERS. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds they do not; the plans are entirely
separate. |
|
|
Rep. Butler |
Asks if OUS previously considered decoupling. |
|
|
Yunker |
Explains they did consider it in 1997 when they
became aware of the costs associated with HB 3349, the tax remedy legislation. They realized the increase in their
premium payment did not apply to ORP participants. Adds that they had internal discussions but the rates at that
point were still not significantly high enough that they felt they needed to
bring the issue up. They can now see
the dramatic increases due to the amortization because of the losses. |
|
160 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if all contributions in the ORP are the same as
the contribution rate required of the OUS to PERS. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds affirmatively and states the provisions for
the payments are in ORS 243.800(8) and (9). |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if the problem would be solved if members were
folded into a successor plan and there was no ORP. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds it would solve the contribution
problem. Comments that the OPR was
designed for the mobile work force.
Explains that faculty are recruited nationally and internationally and
they wish to take their account balances with them. The participants in the ORP have 147 options for investments
and can manage their own accounts. |
|
200 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks how the performance of the ORP has compared to
PERS over the last five years. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds that PERS has done better. States they do not track the overall
investments of the ORP and therefore do not have figures on the overall
performance of the ORP. States that
they perform reviews to look at the stability and viability of the fund
sponsor and to look at the asset allocation.
Typically, OUS employees tend to be fairly conservative in their
investment strategies. |
|
223 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if there would be substantial interest in
people changing to a new system. |
|
|
Yunker |
Comments on new employee choices. States that of the 2,100 employees enrolled
in the ORP, 700 were PERS members who chose to retain their PERS accounts and
participate in the ORP. |
|
256 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks what Yunker’s response is to the concern that
employees may not be able to or will not make good choices in a defined
contribution plan. |
|
|
Yunker |
States she supports a different benefit plan for a
portion of the population. The 2,100 employees
who have elected the ORP are just 30 percent of the eligible population. The total OUS eligible population is
another 3,000 employees. A majority
of OUS employees have a high comfort level with a defined benefit plan. States that should PERS decide to adopt a
different defined contribution plan, as a plan administrator, her concern
would be whether there is a differentiation for a certain portion of the
population. |
|
292 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if it has been administratively difficult to
have two options for their employees. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds that it has not been very complicated. Explains that they have provided
comparative information so people can make their decisions. The biggest challenge has been to explain
the difference between a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit
plan. |
|
323 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if they have considered offering a combination
plan. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds negatively. |
|
|
Rep. Barker |
Asks if it is correct that the ORP is attractive to
those in OUS who know they will not be here for 30 years. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
348 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks who is eligible to participate in the ORP. |
|
|
Yunker |
Explains OUS has two classes of employees that are
eligible for the plan: administrative and academic. States they also differentiate between classified and
unclassified employees; ORP is available to the unclassified employees. |
|
|
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if any of the people who are eligible are
covered by collective bargaining agreements. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds affirmatively. Explains they have faculty who are in collective bargaining agreements
and those faculty are eligible for the ORP. |
|
395 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks what classes of employees in OUS are not
eligible for the ORP. |
|
|
Yunker |
Explains that a single class of employees called
classified are represented by SEIU Local 503, OPEU, and PCIU; about 3,500
employees of the 11,000 total. |
|
|
Rep. Macpherson |
Concludes that about one-third of the population of
OUS are not eligible for the ORP. |
|
400 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks Yunker if she is a member of PERS or the ORP. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds she is in PERS. States that the committee should not infer anything from
that. Explains that PERS was a big
draw. Comments on previous employment
and retirement plans. |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Asks if the OUS coaches are eligible for the ORP. |
|
|
Yunker |
Responds that she would suspect they do qualify. |
|
420 |
Chair Knopp |
Enters into the record a letter from Joseph
Schweinhart, Associated Oregon Industries (EXHIBIT C). |
|
434 |
Chair Knopp |
Comments on the continuing work toward a resolution
and agreement on a successor plan by employer and employee groups. |
|
459 |
Chair Knopp |
Adjourns meeting at 3:36 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 2020, prepared statement and proposed amendments, Nikki Witty, 3 pp
B
– HB 2008, prepared statement and proposed amendments, Denise Yunker, 4 pp
C
– HB 2008, letter, Joseph Schweinhart, 1 p