12-11-2001
--
..."
EDGEW ATER POLICE PENSION BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
December 11, 2001
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER:
The Police Pension Board special meeting was called to order in the City of Edgewater
Planning Conference Room, Tuesday, December 11,2001,2:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members present were Gary Conroy, Rena Green, Ferdinand Heeb, Phil Niebieski and
Jon Williams. Also present was Ken Hooper, City Manage, Jack Ascherl, Agent of
Record, Debby Sigler, Personnel Director, and Donna Looney, Recording Secretary.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chairman Conroy informed the board that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the
letter received from Mr. Sugarman and Mr. Klausner concerning Larry Westfall. The
board is here to figure out what we are going to do from here.
Mr. Heeb asked if the law firm that represents the City has someone with expertise in
this area.
Mr. Hooper informed the board that the City's attorney was sent this same information.
The City has received a fax back from them, Foley & Lardner, saying it is very
confusing. We have discovered that they were sent the 99-0-08 ordinance, when they
should have received ordinance 2000-0-14. This is the one the previous board asked him
to go back to council with and ask what they had intended to do in 1999. Also Principal
made a list of the changes that needed to be clearly stated and this was done in an
ordinance form. This is the final document that the attorney is missing. We now have
an adopted ordinance that restates the plan. Sugarman's opinion is when they restated the
plan it inadvertently brought something in that shouldn't have been. Ordinance 2000-0-14
fixed that. The council was asked if it was for active participants only, that is the whole
issue. They voted yes it is and they adopted a whole series of plan changes, which are the
changes that came out of the pension board originally and went to them with the 2 %
change over, 6% contribution, etc. Mr. Hooper stated he feels it has been clarified. He
also has talked to Sugarman. Sugarman was unaware that he had gone back to the
council to clarify their decision.
Mrs. Green said at one of the classes she took they really pounded into them not to
discuss taxes.
.....
...,
Mr. Heeb said one of the problems he has with Mr. Sugarman is that he thinks he should
not be involved with this. Mr. Heeb does not think it is appropriate. He thinks if they
have two attorneys arguing on opposite sides of the fence we should ask a third attorney
to look at it, which would be the firm that is representing the City. Let the attorneys get
into it and the board get out of it.
Mr. Niebieski does not understand how the board can make a decision that the attorneys
are getting paid to make. He agrees that the attorneys need to hash this out.
Chairman Conroy thanked Mr. Hooper for stepping in and helping the board out.
Jack Ascherl told the board one of the attorneys said the board is responsible for
administering the plan, which is correct. But this board isn't responsible for establishing
those benefits. It is to make the changes in the plan that generates different benefits, the
City's responsibility because they are financially responsible for paying for the cost of
these changes. The board negotiated the changes with the City and as was testified
before, it was to be for active people. But the way the changes were made there was
some confusion about that. When he went to Principal with this they didn't feel there
was confusion. They said that in the language you normally have in plans it would not
have specifically included previously retired participants. It's always assumed that it is
for active participants. We sent it back to them and they came back and made that
conclusion. Then we went back to Principal and asked them to amend this plan in the
proper language so we could remove any doubt about what was intended. There is a fine
line between administration and making sure benefits are being paid properly. This issue
was about what benefits were intended to be put into the plan. This was cleared up with
amendment # 1.
After further discussion by the board Mr. Heeb made a motion that this board engage the
law firm that represents the City to represent this board in the current issue relative to
Larry Westfall and request this attorney to correspond with Mr. Westfall's attorney and
Mr. Sugarman and relay our position that this is not an issue that should be brought
before the board and why the wherefore there of. Phil Niebieski seconded the motion.
There was discussion before roll call. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chairman Conroy referred to invoice #14220 from Sugarman & Susskind for reviewing
the letter from Mr. Klausner.
Mr. Ascherl wanted to bring up before he left~ the demutualization of Principal and that
the plan has received a one time credit toward the cost of the plan in the amount of
$250,586.
Mr. Heeb referred back to Sugarman's bill for $50~ he made a motion to pay. Jon
Williams seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
,..,
."."
Mr. Ascher! infonned the board that Florida law changed and certain things have to be in
the investment policy. A letter was received from Sugannan stating he would draw up a
new policy. Jack contacted Principal to see if they could. They can not, however they
have a sample policy the police can tailor for theirs.
Mr. Hooper infonned the board that Sugannan has just done this for the fire pension. If
the law is the same for both, police could use theirs.
Mr. Heeb would like to look at fire's and work with that.
After further discussion, Chainnan Conroy will call Mr. Sugannan's office to infonn
them they are not to work on the police investment policy.
Chainnan Conroy infonned the board the City would be advertising for bids on the
investment audit. He will set a meeting when he has the results.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business, Jon Williams made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Rena
Green at 2:40 p.m. Motion CARRIED 5-0
Minutes submitted by:
Personnel Department