Loading...
04-26-2000 - Special '-' .."." EDGEW ATER POLICE PENSION BOARD SPECIAL MEETING April 26, 2000 Minutes CALL TO ORDER: The Police Pension Board special meeting was called to order in the City Hall Conference Room, Wednesday, April 26, at 1:02 p.m. ROLLCALL: Bret Teitelbaum Gary McElroy Renee Green Larry Loeffler David Muth Present Present Present Present Present Also present were: Jack Ascherl, Consulting Agent of Record, Ken Hooper, City Manager, Corp.Gary Conroy, Sgt.William Lenz, Mr. Larry Westfall and Deborah Sigler, Personnel Director. AFPROV AL OF MINUTES: None NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Teitelbaum entertained a motion to elect a secretary for the board. Mr. Loeffler moved to appoint Gary McElroy as the board's secretary, being seconded by Mrs. Green. Motion CARRIED. 5-0. Chairman Teitelbaum expressed to the board how important it is for the members to attend the conferences to keep updated on retirement plans and laws, etc. He asked Mrs. Green if she could still attend the conference in June, which information was supplied in today's agenda package. Mrs. Green checked her calender and answered she could attend. Officer McElroy made a motion send Mrs. Green to the conference, being seconded by Mr. Loeffler. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Chairman Teitelbaum introduced Mr. Larry Westfall to the board members and explained that Mr. Westfall has requested the board to review his situation insofar as whether he is included in the new Police retirement plan. Mr. Westfall began by referring to his memo dated March 14, 1999, the first item being his disability calculation. It is his contention that his disability should have been based on 46% not 25% as Principal has done. He wants this corrected. He reminded the board they have a letter from their attorney stating his opinion that he is included in the plan according to the language in the ordinance the City passed. Mr. Ascherl spoke to the board on behalf of Principal's point of view. He explained that Principal has no opinion or preference as to whether retirees are to be included in the plan amendment. They are simply saying the way the ordinance/amendments were worded does not give them the authority to include Larry Westfall, or any retiree. If that was the intention, then the City Council must inform them and they will prepare the correct language. Corp. Gary Conroy was asked to comment. He stated he was the board chairman during the negotiations for the plan amendments. The officers desired a better disability benefit and twenty (20) years and out. If the intent was to include retirees it would have cost a lot more and the current officers, who are the ones this board represents, agreed to increase their own contribution by 5% to fund the amended plan for their benefits and the calculations did not include retirees. Mr. Loeffler referred to the letter from Attorney Sugarman dated March 22fld, which states if we don't apply this plan to Mr. Westfall, we may face legal action. "., ....., Chainnan Teitelbaum reiterated that it is Attorney Sugannan's opinion that this does include Mr. Westfall, however, it is a matter of interpretation and this board only has the authority to administer the plan we have, not what we wish to have. Mr. Ascher! agreed with this statement and added that Principal will abide by the City's wishes. It is their interpretation that only active participants are included which is standard retirement plan language, unless specifically stated differently. He added that Chainnan Teitelbaum is correct, the City Council has the authority to make amendments to the plan and they are the only ones who can explain what their intentions were. It is the responsibility of this board to insure that the plan is being administered as written. City Manager Hooper infonned the board that his understanding was the same as the previous board chainnan; the intent was not what is being asked today. The Council had empathy for Mr. Westfall's situation and voted to pay him a lump sum from the City's general fund which would not affect the current members costs. Mr. Westfall disagreed with the City Manager, he feels it is this board's responsibility to take action on this. He showed the members a work sheet used at the Council meeting in which he and the other retirees' income are listed as examples. He added that if the board does not consider their attorney's opinion there is a problem. Chainnan Teitelbaum read from the State statute concerning the duties of the board... "the sole and exclusive administration of and the responsibilities for, the proper operation of the retirement trust fund and for making effective the provisions of this chapter are vested in the board, however, nothing herein shall empower a board of trustees to amend the provisions of a retirement plan without the approval of the municipality." Mr. Ascher! added that anything with fiscal impact can only be decided by the municipality, and as the previous chainnan of this board, who was involved with the negotiations, has told you that the calculations for the cost of the amendments did not include retirees. So if the intent is to include them, then new costs will have to be figured. Mr. Westfall stated he does not know how far all of this has to go, litigation is not good for anybody but he still contends the board needs to take action. Mr. Ascher! asked for clarification, what was the two years of retro pay for that the Council agreed to pay to Mr. Westfall? Mr. Westfall explained that two of the Council members wanted to go back and pay him retroactive for 24 months rather than four years, the vote went 4-1 with the Mayor voting no because he wanted the longer retro for me. From his point of view a reasonable person would assume from this that there was intent for him to receive retro benefits. Mr. Hooper stated that was Mr. Westfall's opinion but one could also view it from the reverse perspective since the first motion to pay him more retro died for the lack of a second. He added that the money was not paid to Mr. Westfall because this request came in and it depends on the determination. He added that he will put this on the Council agenda for the May 22nd meeting. Corp. McElroy suggested the board vote to recommend to Council our support ofMr. Westfall's position and leave it up to the Council to decide. He added that he knows a lot of work went into the changes and the current officers wanted it done this way. Mr. Ascher! again stated the City just needs to tell Principal what to do and they will do it. Mr. Westfall reviewed his memo, restating all of his requests. He stated it is the board's responsibility today to consider his request of being given the retro and ifthe board supports that it would go to the Council. Chainnan Teitelbaum asked Corp. Conroy if he was aware of Attorney Sugannan's letter giving his opinion and whether he agreed with it. '-' ....." Corp. Conroy restated it was not the intent to include retirees and as previously said by Mr. Hooper, the Council had empathy for Mr. Westfall and agreed to pay him a lump sum as a compromise or whatever to make up for him not being included. Corp. McElroy commented that the lump sum payment would be an issue between Mr. Westfall and the City, not this board. Mr. Westfall suggested the board make a motion to either agree with the attorney's opinion or not agree with it and send that to the Council. He stated he was included in the negotiations and he asked that the board vote to agree with his retro pay. Mr. Muth made a motion to defer this issue to the City Council. The motion died for the lack of a second. There was also discussion about having Attorney Sugarman attend a special meeting of this board before the May 22nd City Council meeting. Corp. McElroy stated the information is too vague to make a decision. He wants Mr. Westfall to receive what is due him, if that is the case. He made a motion that Attorney Sugarman be requested to attend a special meeting of this board to clarifY his opinion. There was discussion as to whether Attorney Sugarman would accept a conference call with the board. Corp. McElroy withdrew his motion and made another motion that Attorney Sugarman be contacted by Chairman Teitelbaum and a date and time be arranged for a telephone conference with the board, prior to May 2200. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Green. Motion CARRIED 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: None ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Muth made a motion to adjourn, being seconded by Corp. McElroy. Meeting adjourned 2:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by: D. Sigler