Opinion ID: 835784
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner Dahlin

Text: Petitioner Dahlin's opening brief asserts, in part: Petitioner Dahlin relied on the PERS statutes, rules, handbooks, annual statements and web site estimates when planning his retirement. Based on his review of the communications from PERS, Petitioner Dahlin believed that the Money Match would produce a greater retirement benefit than the Full Formula. Petitioner Dahlin's understanding that the Money Match calculation would exceed the value of the Full Formula benefit was confirmed by annual statements that he received from PERS beginning in 1998.      At all relevant times, the PERS handbooks    stated that `vesting means you cannot lose your benefit rights, even if you stop working in covered employment.' Respondents offered essentially the same arguments in response to petitioner Dahlin as they did to Whitty petitioners, summarizing their response as follows: [P]etitioner Dahlin asserts that his contract rights  to the extent they exist  arise from PERS handbooks and his annual statements, in addition to the PERS statutes and regulations. This assertion is incorrect. There has been no legislative delegation to PER[B] that would allow the agency to bind future Legislative Assemblies. Indeed, such a delegation would be unconstitutional. Moreover, these documents on which petitioner Dahlin relies actually contain language disclosing the fact that they are not legal references or complete statements of the PERS statutes or rules, and that in [the event of] any conflict the statutes and rules shall prevail. In reply, petitioner Dahlin states: [Respondents] respond that as of 2001 the Handbooks contained a disclaimer that indicated that if a conflict exists between the PERS statutes and the Handbook, the statute will control.    [Respondents'] response, however, missed the point of Petitioner Dahlin's argument. Petitioner Dahlin is not arguing that a conflict exists between the PERS statute[s], its administrative rules, and the PERS Handbook. Rather, Petitioner Dahlin is arguing that the PERS Handbook is consistent with Oregon Law and the lack of a `reservation of rights clause' is the recognition of and an embodiment of the contract theory of pensions.