August 13th, 2007 Overland Council Meeting
Well this was an interesting meeting. I suspected a move to add the swearing in ceremony to this meeting as the mayoral election results were certified Monday. However that didn't happen (and I have since learned, thanks to discussions on OVCC, that it would have likely been in violation of the Sunshine Law if they had done so). Apparently, they plan to add the swearing in Ceremony to a meeting scheduled for August 27th, 2007 to address property taxes.
By far the most interesting items on the agenda were two ordinances proposing changes to the police and the non-uniform pensions. First, they were interesting because no one seemed to know where they came from or what they were about. Several on the Council expressed concerns about there being no discussion about these items prior to being asked to vote on ordinances to enact them.
One was to eliminate the mandatory retirement age of 65 from the police pension. The argument has been made that this is discriminatory and could open Overland up to a lawsuit. However, a review of the EEOC Compliance Manual, specifically the "threshold issues" section, suggests that this is not exactly the case. There is an exemption when it comes to age discrimination in regard to firefighters and police officers (direct link).
While I am no lawyer and so I am not sure why these specific dates are important, this concern could apparently be easily resolved by simply repealing the current requirement and passing the same requirement directly after the repeal. For whatever reason, EEOC exempts 65 year old mandatory retirement requirements for firefighters and police officers so long as the requirement is put into effect after September 30th, 1996 (which it certainly would be if done now or in the future). While I have the utmost respect for our police officers, and I thank them for the job they do for us, I don't think it's advisable to have someone older than 65 bearing those responsibilities, many of which can become intensely physical at the drop of a hat. I also can't fathom why any officer would want to continue dealing with the unsavory characters they encounter daily after age 65. Our officers have a great pension that they definitely earn. They should retire when they still have years ahead of them to enjoy it.
The other was not so clearly referenced at the meeting. It's my understanding that this was a change for the non-uniform pension involving spousal benefits that made this option automatic rather than something the employees have to select. However, considering how only half of the story about the mandatory retirement issue has been told, I'm not sure if the entire story has been told about this provision either.
Thankfully, the Council agreed (voting 7 to 1 with only Councilman Tim Jones (Ward 4) dissenting) to table these issues and hold a workshop meeting where they could be considered at length. Hopefully this will also give the two Pension Boards an opportunity to add their input as well. Though it was said at the meeting that this is what the pension boards wanted it is my understanding that this may not be the case at least with the police pension board. Hopefully, all of this will be ironed out, and these issues can be resolved in the best interest of the city in the near future. Some other changes to the pensions that have been suggested recently do not have the support of the actuaries. We'll have to wait and see where they stand on these particular issues as well (I hope the rumors that some at city hall want to change actuaries because of these opinions are false).
Interestingly, City Attorney Robert Herman was apparently surprised by these ordinances as well. He didn't draft them, and I got the impression he was not involved in any discussions about them either. Who drafted them is still a mystery. So far, the only answer given has been "they" instructed that these items be added to the agenda. So much for open government.
As if to keep with the theme of "so much for open government", even though this is the only regularly scheduled Council meeting for the month of August, neither Chief Herron nor Acting Public Works Director Chuck Boone had anything to report to the Council. I found this odd since they always seem to have things to report at length. You would think, Chuck Boone would want to at least pat the street department folks on the back for their hard work in this blistering heat, and that the Chief might at minimum want to pass along a few heat related safety tips to the public as well as the recent arrests involving an armed robbery at PX liquor.
Once again, even though there was no Chief's report, Councilman Owensby decided to raise several questions. One involved a suggestion for camera systems that would have been more appropriate to raise during New Business. Another involved a possible lawsuit which should probably be left to executive session until it's resolved. One issue he brought up involved a Police Officer we recently wrote about here. Unfortunately it is my understanding that the Police Department terminated this officer because of his poor health. He had 17 years on the force and was only 3 years away from being able to retire and receive his full pension. There does not seem to be a disability provision in the police pension for health issues. That is definitely one thing that should be discussed at a workshop meeting about the pensions in my opinion. The non-unformed pension (for city employees other than the police) apparently has such a provision. While I realize those employees have difficult jobs and work hard for our city, our police, whose work is incredibly stressful, taxing and thus detrimental to health, don't have such protection and that seems a bit absurd to me.
Hopefully most if not all of these issues will be addressed at the future workshop meeting. I hope the Council will seek to include input from the pension boards, the actuaries, and the employees (preferably through a secret ballot or something similar so the employees and officers can answer freely). We need to ensure that we properly balance the needs of the city, the needs of the employees and officers, as well as what is fiscally sound. There are also potential legal ramifications to consider such as what happened in San Diego, California.
Another issue that came up was an ordinance to adjust bidding requirements to require that only "responsible contractors" be considered. This ordinance was exceptionally detailed and rather than try to go into it at length I will try to get a copy from city hall and add it here as soon as possible. The basic concept seemed to be that contractors had to provide benefits to their employees, pay prevailing wage, not have been barred, disqualified, fired, etc by any local, state of federal agency, have proper licensing, insurance, etc in order to be considered when bidding city projects.
Under old business, Councilperson Conlon again asked the Council about moving forward with finding a City Administrator through the East - West Gateway Council. President Pro Tem May stated that he had been advised to wait until the our new Mayor took office so that the process could move forward without issue. That's assuming Mayor Schneider chooses to do so (which I hope he does).
The remainder of the meeting was standard fair. Ordinances were passed to make it illegal to leash dogs in front yards, change parking regulations on Millet, and add stop signs to Meadowbrook at S. Milton and the Driver and Bryant intersection. Other than that it was business as usual. Several new businesses and liquor licenses moved forward, Councilman Owensby questioned the bills, minutes were passed with only a few issues raised and resolved, etc.
You can review our video of the entire August 13th Council Meeting below. I apologize if you have difficulty with the sound, as the sound system seemed a bit off at this meeting.
By far the most interesting items on the agenda were two ordinances proposing changes to the police and the non-uniform pensions. First, they were interesting because no one seemed to know where they came from or what they were about. Several on the Council expressed concerns about there being no discussion about these items prior to being asked to vote on ordinances to enact them.
One was to eliminate the mandatory retirement age of 65 from the police pension. The argument has been made that this is discriminatory and could open Overland up to a lawsuit. However, a review of the EEOC Compliance Manual, specifically the "threshold issues" section, suggests that this is not exactly the case. There is an exemption when it comes to age discrimination in regard to firefighters and police officers (direct link).
While I am no lawyer and so I am not sure why these specific dates are important, this concern could apparently be easily resolved by simply repealing the current requirement and passing the same requirement directly after the repeal. For whatever reason, EEOC exempts 65 year old mandatory retirement requirements for firefighters and police officers so long as the requirement is put into effect after September 30th, 1996 (which it certainly would be if done now or in the future). While I have the utmost respect for our police officers, and I thank them for the job they do for us, I don't think it's advisable to have someone older than 65 bearing those responsibilities, many of which can become intensely physical at the drop of a hat. I also can't fathom why any officer would want to continue dealing with the unsavory characters they encounter daily after age 65. Our officers have a great pension that they definitely earn. They should retire when they still have years ahead of them to enjoy it.
The other was not so clearly referenced at the meeting. It's my understanding that this was a change for the non-uniform pension involving spousal benefits that made this option automatic rather than something the employees have to select. However, considering how only half of the story about the mandatory retirement issue has been told, I'm not sure if the entire story has been told about this provision either.
Thankfully, the Council agreed (voting 7 to 1 with only Councilman Tim Jones (Ward 4) dissenting) to table these issues and hold a workshop meeting where they could be considered at length. Hopefully this will also give the two Pension Boards an opportunity to add their input as well. Though it was said at the meeting that this is what the pension boards wanted it is my understanding that this may not be the case at least with the police pension board. Hopefully, all of this will be ironed out, and these issues can be resolved in the best interest of the city in the near future. Some other changes to the pensions that have been suggested recently do not have the support of the actuaries. We'll have to wait and see where they stand on these particular issues as well (I hope the rumors that some at city hall want to change actuaries because of these opinions are false).
Interestingly, City Attorney Robert Herman was apparently surprised by these ordinances as well. He didn't draft them, and I got the impression he was not involved in any discussions about them either. Who drafted them is still a mystery. So far, the only answer given has been "they" instructed that these items be added to the agenda. So much for open government.
As if to keep with the theme of "so much for open government", even though this is the only regularly scheduled Council meeting for the month of August, neither Chief Herron nor Acting Public Works Director Chuck Boone had anything to report to the Council. I found this odd since they always seem to have things to report at length. You would think, Chuck Boone would want to at least pat the street department folks on the back for their hard work in this blistering heat, and that the Chief might at minimum want to pass along a few heat related safety tips to the public as well as the recent arrests involving an armed robbery at PX liquor.
Once again, even though there was no Chief's report, Councilman Owensby decided to raise several questions. One involved a suggestion for camera systems that would have been more appropriate to raise during New Business. Another involved a possible lawsuit which should probably be left to executive session until it's resolved. One issue he brought up involved a Police Officer we recently wrote about here. Unfortunately it is my understanding that the Police Department terminated this officer because of his poor health. He had 17 years on the force and was only 3 years away from being able to retire and receive his full pension. There does not seem to be a disability provision in the police pension for health issues. That is definitely one thing that should be discussed at a workshop meeting about the pensions in my opinion. The non-unformed pension (for city employees other than the police) apparently has such a provision. While I realize those employees have difficult jobs and work hard for our city, our police, whose work is incredibly stressful, taxing and thus detrimental to health, don't have such protection and that seems a bit absurd to me.
Hopefully most if not all of these issues will be addressed at the future workshop meeting. I hope the Council will seek to include input from the pension boards, the actuaries, and the employees (preferably through a secret ballot or something similar so the employees and officers can answer freely). We need to ensure that we properly balance the needs of the city, the needs of the employees and officers, as well as what is fiscally sound. There are also potential legal ramifications to consider such as what happened in San Diego, California.
Another issue that came up was an ordinance to adjust bidding requirements to require that only "responsible contractors" be considered. This ordinance was exceptionally detailed and rather than try to go into it at length I will try to get a copy from city hall and add it here as soon as possible. The basic concept seemed to be that contractors had to provide benefits to their employees, pay prevailing wage, not have been barred, disqualified, fired, etc by any local, state of federal agency, have proper licensing, insurance, etc in order to be considered when bidding city projects.
Under old business, Councilperson Conlon again asked the Council about moving forward with finding a City Administrator through the East - West Gateway Council. President Pro Tem May stated that he had been advised to wait until the our new Mayor took office so that the process could move forward without issue. That's assuming Mayor Schneider chooses to do so (which I hope he does).
The remainder of the meeting was standard fair. Ordinances were passed to make it illegal to leash dogs in front yards, change parking regulations on Millet, and add stop signs to Meadowbrook at S. Milton and the Driver and Bryant intersection. Other than that it was business as usual. Several new businesses and liquor licenses moved forward, Councilman Owensby questioned the bills, minutes were passed with only a few issues raised and resolved, etc.
You can review our video of the entire August 13th Council Meeting below. I apologize if you have difficulty with the sound, as the sound system seemed a bit off at this meeting.
If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the video below.
August 13th Overland Council Meeting
( 1 hour 5 minutes )
you might not be able to see the video below.
August 13th Overland Council Meeting
( 1 hour 5 minutes )
Comments are enabled on this article
Labels: City Council, Council meeting, pensions
posted by Overland Sailor @ 2:13 PM 
7 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
7 Comments:
uniman (BTW I appreciate the shorten version of the name), Thanks for your kind words they are much appreciated.
Also, remember what I said earlier, if you need a hand in these difficult times don't hesitate to email me and I will gladly help where I can.
One item I forgot to add to the article was the passage of an investment policy resolution.
Currently the City is limited to keeping reserve capital in bank accounts. This resolution is a step towards the City being able to put that money in secure investments like CDs, Treasury Bonds, etc. The result could be a doubling or even a tripling of the interest the city earns on that money.
As you might expect, despite the fact that the Investment policy resolution specifically forbids it, and the number of times this has been explained to him Councilperson Owensby once again raised concerns about loosing the money on stock market investments and the like.
I'm not sure if this is a political maneuver on his part, or if Councilperson Owensby is having severe memory issues lately. Either way, there is a lot of time wasted when the Council as well as the city employees have to continually repeat themselves to him.
Why is Owensby doing his best impression of Boomhauer from King of the Hill?
I have a question. When the pension money is being moved, do we have a way of knowing if every dollar is accounted for? Or could someone or some people draw interest on this money during the move of the funds?
Sweaty,
You actually asked two questions:
1. "do we have a way of knowing if every dollar is accounted for? "
The answer is an unqualified yes.
If you have a checking, savings, money market, brokerage or mutual fund account Sweaty, how do you account for every dollar?
Financial institutions are required by law to issue what is known as a "monthly account statement" which records any and all activity in your account for the previous month. Interest payment would be considered activity.
2. Or could someone or some people draw interest on this money during the move of the funds?
The answer is an unqualified NO.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the term "move" the funds. I suspect you have watched Superman III too many times.
But generally, any transfer of funds from one account to another does not earn interest as it is near impossible to earn interest over the course of a millisecond.
If there was earned interest, it would be recorded as activity either in the originating account statement or in the destination's account statement.
It is impossible to earn interest on cash.
Cash-Noun
cash (uncountable)
Money in the form of notes/bills and coins, as opposed to cheques/checks or electronic transactions.
I would like to clear up one rumor. After talking to one of the non-uniform pension board members it was explained to be that they are considering changing actuaries.
According to the board member the issue with the current actuary is a matter of performance not opinion. Apparently the actuary's firm was bought out by a larger institution and since then there have been excessive delays when dealing with them.
As always, rumors seem to have a sliver of truth in them, but that truth is twisted around beyond recognition.
As I said in the article, I hoped those rumors were not true. It appears to me that they are not.
Also, thanks Gravy for your informative response above. I'm not sure how I missed that comments on this post (normally I get emails notifying em of them) but I did. Thanks for covering for me.
The video of Monday's Council meeting is being uploaded now and should be available for viewing this evening. However, I am not sure if I will have some of the information I need for an article until tomorrow.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home