The New York Times has an article this morning that is misleading about Oregon’s public retirement system. Many readers are furious. One wrote:

“As a Republican in Oregon I weep regarding the Mary Walsh piece on Oregon´s public sector pensions. It is to a large degree a rehash of periodic attacks by the state´s largest newspaper, the Oregonian. As it reported recently 9 of the top 10 pensions were either for physician-administrators at Oregon Health Sciences University or football coaches. The convoluted retirement system described by Walsh reflects a combination of rosy assessments, a willingness of successive state governments (including Republicans) to use the pension system to solve other problems such as reframing salary raises as future pension benefits, and the state’s idiotic constitutional requirement that income tax revenues above estimates two years previously must be returned to taxpayers rather than used to cover obligations such as future PERS benefits. Oregonians face pressures on services precisely because they voted to return to their pockets funds they had already paid out rather than channeling them to backfill a foreseeable commitment. This is what passes for financial prudence in Oregon. Walsh does not mention this, presumably because it is inconsistent with the narrative she wishes to promote. There is no reason for highly-paid administrators to be part of this system, nor for athletic coaches to be pensioned in the same fashion as corrections officers or state foresters. But beware of manipulated critiques. Note: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of PERS, nor is anyone in my family.”

I retired in 2015 at age 62 because during my final year of teaching English full time I was ill, twice, for 3-4 weeks at a time because of overwork. My district could “not find the funds” to allow me to continue working 2/3 or 1/2 time so retirement became my only option. I have been healthy since retirement, but I have not quit teaching. I still spend several hours each week as a volunteer in that school and also teach one class for two of the three terms.

My PERS pension is less that a third of what I made teaching despite working for this district since 1979, the first eleven years as a substitute teacher while my children were young.

ALL teachers in Oregon were forced into the new pension system when it was implemented, though the money I paid into the old one remained there. For the last years of my teaching I paid into the new system.

Yes, I paid into my retirement. And in addition to what I receive today from my work under the old PERS system, I also receive the princely (and variable according to the market) sum of about $350/month under the new system. This pension will end after 20 years.

I have 6 years of undergraduate education with three degrees, and 7 years of graduate school with a terminal degree (MFA). Thus I am qualified to teach K-college in four subjects. My former students from a small, rural, and poor school district have gone on to become doctors and lawyers, engineers and entrepreneurs, authors and dancers and more. They attended Duke and Pepperdine, Stanford, Harvard, Brown, Chicago, Columbia, and my alma mater of The University of Washington and Pacific University.

Oregon tried to renegotiate payments to retirees, but the court would not allow them to do this. Instead they forced all employees onto the new system, not just new hires. This detail is reported in the article inaccurately. Those hired under the old system kept that pension, but could not pay into it (many teacher, for example, accepted flat salaries for years and also paid into PERS). EVERYONE was required to work under the new system when it was instituted.

Like most retirees in my state, I am tired of being blamed for fiscal irresponsibility and the outlandish benefits paid to a few high fliers. My pension was reduced several times from what I was originally promised. My expectation that it not be reduced further is reasonable and only fair.