Attorney argues conflict of interest in two Oregon Supreme Court decisions
|
December 15, 2011
SALEM, Oregon: Bend attorney Daniel C. Re filed a brief in early December 2011, arguing that the judges who decided two cases concerning the Public Retirement System had a conflict of interest because they would eventually receive pensions from the system.[1]
- "It's really in the benefit of everyone to ensure that we're treated fairly and that our right primarily to independent judges is maintained,"[1] -Attorney Daniel C. Re
One of the decisions in question overturned a 1994 ballot measure which had limited public pension benefits. The other decision prevents the state from rolling back benefits that were already promised to retirees. In those cases the Supreme Court found that a "rule of necessity" allowed judges with financial interest to handle the case. All Oregon judges are required to be part of the Public Employee Retirement System therefore making it impossible for a panel of impartial jurists to be seated.[1]
Attorney Re responded to this by arguing the court was wrong due to the fact that judges are not required to join the Public Employee Retirement System after 70 years of age. He said it would be possible to create a panel of retired judges to hear the case.[1]
Footnotes
| |||||
