►
Description
Docket #0173 - Petition for a special law re: An Act Regarding the Disability Pension for Harry Jean;
Docket #0174 - Petition for a special law re: An Act Regarding the Disability Pension for Ryan Lenane; and,
Docket #0175 - Petition for a special law re: An Act Regarding the Disability Pension for Terry Cotton
A
B
A
Right
good
morning,
everyone,
I'm
city
council,
lady
edwards,
chair
of
the
governor
of
the
committee
on
government
operations.
It's
tuesday
february,
2nd
2021,
we're
here
today
for
a
virtual
working
session
on
docket
0173
petition
for
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
regarding
the
disability
pension
for
harry
gene,
docket,
0174
petition
for
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
regarding
the
disability,
uh
pension
for
ryan
lannane
and
docket
zero,
one,
seven,
five
petition
for
a
special
law
regarding
an
act
regarding
the
disability
pension
for
terry
cotton.
These
matters
were
referred
to
the
committee
on
january
13
2021.
A
A
A
A
All
the
officers
are
retired
under
accidental
disability.
The
committee
discussed
the
impact
and
trauma
the
officers
deal
with
as
a
result
of
being
injured
in
the
line
of
duty.
The
committee
also
discussed
similar
homeworld
petitions
that
were
approved
in
the
past,
in
accordance
with
governor
baker's
executive
order
modifying
the
open
meeting.
He
modified
the
open
meeting
laws
which
allows
the
city
council
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities
on
zoom,
um
and
so
we
are,
this
public
may
watch
this
meeting
live
via
by
live
via
livestream.
Excuse
me
at
www.boston.gov
city
council
dash
tv.
A
A
Quick
summary.
These
are
homeworld
petitions,
which
means
they
must
be
passed
by
the
city
council
and
then
ultimately
go
to
the
state
house,
and
they
are
too.
They
are
requesting
to
increase
the
accidental
disability,
retirement
allowable
payable
to
the
officers
named
individually.
In
each
proposal,
massachusetts,
general
laws,
chapter
32,
section
7,
governs
the
accidental
disability
retirement
allowance
and
currently
allows
for
a
yearly
amount
of
pension
equal
to
72
percent
of
the
annual
rate
of
an
officer's
regular
compensation.
A
This
proposal
will
increase
the
retirement
allowance
to
the
rate
of
the
compensation
that
the
officer
would
have
received
had
such
office
or
continued
service
as
a
police
officer,
essentially
going
from
72
to
100,
all
other
provisions
of
chapter
32
will
apply,
except
for
section
91a,
as
long
as
any
income
is
not
earned.
Performing
a
sworn
law
enforcement
function
that
the
home
rule
petitions
also
provide
for
the
surviving
spouse
as
follows,
followed
an
annuity
in
the
amount
of
three-fourths
of
the
amount
of
the
pension
payable
to
the
officer
per
month.
A
At
the
time
of
the
officer's
death,
if
the
surviving
spouse
spouse
remains
unmarried
and,
if
said,
surviving,
spout
spouse
remarries,
the
city
shall
pay
in
lieu
of
the
aforesaid
three-quarters
or
75
percent
of
the
officer's
salary,
an
annuity
of
550
per
month.
The
statutory
standard
for
accidental
disability
retirement
is
physically
unable
to
perform
the
essential
duties
and
responsibilities
of
the
job
and
that
such
inability
is
likely
or
deemed
permanent
before
attaining
the
maximum
age
of
the
member's
group.
A
By
reason
of
personal
injury
or
violent
act,
injury
sustained
by
a
hazard
undergone
as
a
result,
and
while
in
the
performance
of
the
officer's
duties,
that's
section
32,
number,
seven
section:
seven.
I
wanted
to
just
further
break
down
a
little
bit
more
of
any
of
the
exceptions.
I
think
jessie
will
be
sending
out
uh
kind
of
a
breakdown
if
he
hasn't
already
jesse.
A
Is
my
policy
director
a
breakdown
of
the
the
laws,
so
that
my
accounts
so
that
my
my
colleagues
I'm
trying
to
be
I'm
trying
to
be
like
professor
or
professor
box,
not
as
well
but
trying
to
break
down?
I
guess
in
uh
I
guess,
if
you
will
a
more
clarifying
comparison
chart
so
that
my
colleagues
can
see
the
law
and
the
exceptions
that
it's
providing.
A
I
also
in
that
chart
explain
what
we've
done
before
and
also
what
what
is
different
today
if
there
are
any
differences,
so
that
there's
I
know
counselor
flaherty
is
our
is
our
as
our
resident
historian.
um
Our
counselor
bach
is
our
doctor.
This
historian,
but
just
so
people
know
when
we're
talking
about
what
we've
done
before
we
actually
have
that
all
in
one
piece
of
paper
I
didn't
want
us
to
be.
You
know
flinging
off
of
memory,
so
I
don't
know
if
jesse
sent
that
out.
A
Yet
um
I
also
wanted
to
let
let
folks
know
who
our
special
guests
are.
Today
we
have,
um
I
believe,
um
larry
calderon
from
the
boston,
patrolman,
police,
association
or
representative
thereof.
We
have
donald
casey
from
the
boston
uh
police,
detectives,
benevolent
society,
um
who
I
bel
or
representative
thereof.
We
have
padraig
uh
lyden
from
the
boston
retirement
board.
We
have
timothy
smith
from
the
boston
retirement
board.
A
We
have
michael
collins
from
the
disability,
survivor
retirement
board
and
we
have
pam
culture
from
the
boston
municipal
research
bureau
and
I
believe
I
have
martin
o'malley
as
well.
They
all
may
be
coming
in
or
out
or
submitting
testimony,
but
they
were
asked
to
be
here
to
make
sure
that
we
had
a
full,
comprehensive
discussion.
A
um
I'm
going
to
announce
my
colleagues
in
order
of
arrival
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
counselor
um
anissa's
bobby
george
one
second,
just
making
sure
I
have
the
final
yep.
Okay,
we
have
counselors
bobby
george,
who
is
the
lead
sponsor?
We
have
counselor
flynn,
counselor
bach,
councillor,
braden
and
counselor
flaherty.
Of
course
myself
um
am
I
missing
anybody?
C
As
I
mentioned,
they
were
terribly
injured
and
um
all
three
have
been
retired
out
as
um
uh
because
of
their
injuries,
both
physical
and
emotional
uh
injury.
I
am
grateful,
madam
chair,
that
we
don't
have
the
police
officers
present,
as
they
have
already
offered
their
testimony
in
length
last
year,
and
that
today
is
a
working
session
based
on
some
of
the
efforts
uh
to
improve
this
home
rule
petition
uh
prior
to
passage
and
sending
it
up
to
the
state
house.
This
petition.
That's
before
you
has
all
three
officers
uh
it
had.
C
It
directs
all
three
officers
or
the
the
retirement
board
to
retire
them
out
at
100,
as
opposed
to
the
72
percent
that
they
are
currently
at.
It
will
provide
no
cap
to
their
potential
future
earnings,
but
also
a
stipulation
that
they
are
not
involved
in
law
enforcement
duties
in
any
potential
future
employment.
That
particular
note
is
important
to
me,
as
all
three
men
are
fairly
young
um
and
similar
in
age
to
me,
so
I
do
think
that
they,
if
they
should
have
the
opportunity
for
additional
employment,
that
they
have
that
opportunity.
C
I
think
that
it's
really
important
as
police
officers
who
served
our
city
and
were
injured
um
pretty
significantly,
while
on
the
job,
all
all
all
shot
in
the
line
of
duty,
that
we
are
supportive
of
their
efforts
for
wholeness.
I
suppose
and
that's
the
effort
that
I
have
underway
and
why
I've
presented
these
petitions,
I'm
grateful
for
colleagues
who
have
informed
the
petitions
to
date
and
happy
to
have
that
discussion
here
in
this
working
session.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
council
edwards.
Thank
you,
councilor
sabi
george.
um
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
central
staff
and
the
members
of
the
retirement
board
that
are
here
as
well,
including
tim
smith.
um
I
had
the
opportunity
to
thoroughly
re
review
the
documents
for
both
for
all
three
rather
of
the
police
officers,
harry
gene,
ryan,
linnane
and
terry
cotton,
and
um
I
don't
have
any
questions.
I
don't
have
any
um
concerns.
I
read
it.
I've
read
the
documents
thoroughly
and
will
be
in
support
of
um
in
support
of
providing
them
the
respect
and
the
dignity.
D
E
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
um
I
too
had
an
opportunity
to
review
all
the
documentation.
I
did
attend
the
the
hearing
in
september
and
uh
I
like
um
councillor
bach
I'd
like
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
this.
I'm
a
new
counselor-
and
this
is
the
first
time,
get
a
better
understanding
of
the
process
here
and
to
get
a
standard
practice
across
the
board
so
that
going
forward
when
future
cases
come
up.
That
will
have
a
clear
path
to
awarding
um
compensation
as
necessary.
So
thank
you.
H
uh
Yeah
just
obviously
to
appreciate
the
lead
sponsored
efforts
on
this,
and
matter
has
been
fully
vetted
and
it's
in
good
working
order.
While
the
proper
paperwork
is
there,
all
the
individuals
have
retired
uh
in
proper
form,
so
looking
forward
to
uh
probably
more
or
less
hearing
from
um
tim
smith
and
pork
who,
by
the
way,
do
from
or
on
behalf
of
our
city
and
the
retirement
board.
I
just
want
that,
but
look
forward
to
supporting
these
three
petitions
anything
else
that
every
time
report
has
to
offer.
H
A
Thank
you,
um
counselor,
flaherty
and
I'll.
Just
conclude
by
saying,
I
agree
with
um
councillor
bach
and
councillor
braden,
in
that
uh
we
should
be
thinking
about
the
precedent
that
that
this
sets.
These
are
again
three
individual
dockets,
though
it
made
more
sense
to
have
the
conversation
about
all
of
them
together,
um
they
should
be
judged
on
their
individual
merits
and
each
one
of
you
have
packets
and
information
and
can
watch
the
video
hearing
from
the
officers.
A
But
but
this
is
about
how
we
move
forward,
as
as
as
we
are
expecting
another
four
potential
officers
to
come
through
as
well
this
year
and
historically
as
councillor
flaherty
had
once
let
us
know
we
since
2000-
and
I
think
95
actually
have
only
done
about
five
of
these
total
right,
and
so
here
we're
potentially
setting
um
a
standard
for
these
three
and
then
potentially
another
four
or
seven
to
come,
and
so
it
is
it
is.
It
is
not
just
enough
for
us
as
a
body
to
think
about
this
as
these
ones.
A
A
So
you
know,
as
as
chair
part
of
my
learning,
is
that
one
if
they
come
in,
they
come
in
and
they
tell
their
story
and
they're
not
subject
to
count
uh
to
to
peppering
or
to
cross-examination
in
a
way,
shape
or
form
that
they
can
speak
their
story,
and
we
have
that.
That's
one
thing
I
want
to
promote
going
forward.
A
A
So
I
wanted
that
to
be
clear
because
again
those
are
the
details
and
those
are
the
standards
that
we
should
be
discussing
and
we
should
be
setting
and
be
informed
about
when
we,
when
we
make
those
standards.
This
is
not
a
yes
or
no.
This
is
a
let's
be
clear
about
what
we're
doing
conversation
and
that's
that's
why
it's
very
important
for
me
especially
um
doing
this
for
the
first.
For
the
first
time
um
so
to
counselor
or
excuse
me
so
again,
we
have
special
special
guests
all
right.
I
All
right,
good
morning,
ma'am,
um
let
me
start
off
by
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
boston
police,
detectives,
uh
benevolent
society.
I
would
uh
most
certainly
like
to
start
off
by
thanking
you,
council
airways,
for
your
patience
through
this
process.
I
know
there
was
lots
of
confusing
during
this
process.
um
I
would
also
like
to
thank
council
flaherty
for
um
his
guidance
and
uh
bestowed
his
experience
on
us
as
well
as
obviously
um
counselor
asabi
george,
for
her
work
on
these
different
darker
numbers.
I
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
different
councils
that
took
the
time
out
of
their
busy
schedules
to
uh
take
phone
calls
from
us
and
listen
to
us.
We
certainly
understand
that
this
is
um
very
tough
to
explain
the
um
different
nuances
of
harry
jean's
injuries.
You
know
through
a
quick
glimpse
of
what's
going
on
and
by
reading
his
um
medical
records,
but
I
I
will
say
that
harry
jean
is
a
a
city,
kid,
a
black
male
from
the
city.
That's
of
haitian
descent.
I
I
did
not
know
harry
for
several
years.
I
would
just
see
harry
in
court
or
um
on
different
duties
as
a
police
officer
and
harry
was
always
the
guy
that
would
shoot
a
smile
on
you
and
he'd
light
up
the
room
that
was
harry.
I've
sat
in
harry's
uh
disability
hearing
with
him.
I've
talked
to
him
several
occasions
and
um
I
regrettably
say
that
you
know
harry
is
now
a
shell
of
the
man.
He
was
as
a
result
of
the
internet.
A
K
C
Madam
chair,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
um
as
the
lead
sponsor
and
um
as
we've
spent
you
and
I,
and
a
number
of
us
have
spent
uh
basically
almost
a
year
on
this
stock,
these
dockets
and
uh
redrafting
and
drafting
what
we
have
presented
today.
I
don't
have
additional
questions.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
A
E
Thank
you
thanks,
um
madam
chair
yeah,
I
had
a
few
questions,
so
one
was
justin.
This
might
be
for
um
mr
smith,
but
just
to
understand
um
the
the
additional
um
financial
liability
is
it.
Is
it
paid
directly
from
the
city
side
of
the
boston
retirement
board
like
how
does
it
like
who's?
Whose
money
are
we
using
to
fund
this?
If
you
could
just
walk
us
through
a
little
bit
when
these
do
go
through
and
and
um
obviously
maybe
taking
the
four
that
have
gone
in
recent
years
as
a
as
a
benchmark?
J
J
E
J
J
These
folks
um
go
from
what's
called
fund
one,
which
is
the
typical
contributory
retirement
payroll,
which
is
paid
by
the
boston
retirement
system
to
what's
called
fund
two
fund.
Two
is
what
we
call
non-contributory
retirees,
meaning
their
annuity
portion
was
paid
back
to
them.
Usually
it's
in
the
language
in
the
special
acts
or
if
it's
a
line
of
duty
of
death,
it's
in
the
statute
and
then
it's
paid
directly
by
the
city,
so
they
we've
we've
segmented
them
from
our
population.
For
that
reason,
because
the
city
of
boston
pays
pays
the
benefit
in
in
total.
J
Now
they
are
considered
retirees
uh
in
this.
This
these
special
acts
touched
upon
section
91a,
and
I
did
hear
some
discussion
about
91
small
b.
uh
They
also
get
colas,
like
any
other
retirees
um
short
of
that,
though
they
are
somewhat
unique
and
currently,
in
that
fund
too.
We
have
uh
58
members,
but
that
also
includes
um
surviving
spouses
of
line
of
duty
death
and
um
believe
it
or
not.
J
There's
about
27
retirees
and
beneficiaries
from
the
1950s
back
way
back
in
the
day,
if
you
were
tired,
I
can't
remember
the
date
off
the
top
of
my
head.
1958
is
jumping
out
at
me,
but
if
you
retired
before
that
date,
you
would
be
issued
your
annuity
account
back
and
put
on
the
pension
payroll,
but
that
obviously,
that
benefit
has
been
uh
repealed
and
we're
down
to
27
people.
The
average
age
is
about
95
for
that
population.
J
E
Got
it
great
and
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
you,
if
those
could
get
to
the
council
for
the
record,
um
you
have
a
chance.
um
Oh,
but
sorry,
I
think
there's
a
point
that
I'm
still
confused
on,
which
is
the
normal,
because
there's
already
an
act
of
the
um
legislature
right
this
mass
general
laws,
chapter
32,
section
7
that
deals
with
folks
who
go
out
retire
on
disability
that
gives
them
the
72
percent
of
the
regular
rate.
E
J
J
J
E
I
would
imagine,
I
think
all
three
memory
serves,
but
I'm
not
sure
um
and
then
um
can
I
ask
uh
the
I'm
looking
now
at
counselor
edwards
chart.
um
So
one
question
I
have
is
on
survivor
benefits.
It
looks
like
we,
the
like
the
32
7.
The
regular
law
has,
has
you
know
a
spouse,
getting
a
survi
and
children
if
they're
left
orphaned,
getting
benefits
and
the
same
with
the
ones
we
did
in
o405,
but
we
don't
have
that
stipulation
in
these
counselors,
george
or
others.
Can
you
speak
to
sort
of
why
that
difference
here.
C
E
E
From
jesse
yeah,
so
this
suggests
and
counselor
edwards.
Maybe
I
don't
know
if
you
had
any
clarity
on
this
just
because
it
suggests
here
that
there
are
survivor
benefits
in
the
existing
law
and
also
there
were
surviving
benefits
in
the
0
405
acts
that
aren't
on
this,
and
now
I
there's
two
different
possibilities.
One
is
that
the
survivor
benefits
of
are
in
here,
kevin
are
still
applying,
and
so
we
don't
need
to
put
in
the
requisitions.
We
didn't
show
an
exception
right,
so
is
that.
A
C
E
I
don't
have
it
anyway,
so
so
strike.
My
question
at
survivor.
Benefits
sounds
like
we've
got
consistency
there.
um
So
then
um
the
the
financial,
certification
and
financial
documentation
piece,
what
what's
sort
of
the
theory
behind
having
a
a
different,
more
relaxed
set
of
requirements
in
these
than
in
the
in
3291a.
E
C
E
A
A
E
A
B
A
Year,
we're
doing
also
an
exception
to
the
91a,
with
those
things
being
applied,
as
does
that
make
sense
3291a,
so
2021
has
100
exception
to
3291a
and
does
have
survivor
benefits
in
2004
2005
of
the
previous
five
cases
that
we've
had
we've
had
only
100
percent
and
the
survival
benefits.
That's
the
difference.
A
E
F
G
H
J
G
H
A
H
H
The
theory,
obviously
being
that
um
in
a
situation
of
a
spouse,
uh
would
have
left
behind
it.
They
should
not
be
punished
um
in
the
event
that
they
wanted
to
sort
of
move
forward.
We
saw
a
lot
of
situations
where
spouses
would
remain
um
would
be
in
committed
relationships,
but
would
not
be
able
to
marry
because
they
were
being,
they
would
be
punished
uh
financially.
For
that.
So
I
think
that
was
sort
of
the
theory
behind
that.
A
A
Okay,
so
just
wanted
to
go
back.
um
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
each
one
of
the
exceptions,
so
we
can
send
out
chapter
or
section
91a.
If
that's,
if
that's
what
people
think
makes
sense,
but
in
as
much
as
the
language
is
granting
exceptions
to
it,
it's
granting
exceptions
to
several
things
um
which
include
the
cap,
which
include
all
of
these
different
kinds
of
forms
of
affidavits,
financial
certification,
etc,
etc,
and
it
may
it
may
make
sense
honestly
if
you
are
getting
rid
of
the
cap.
A
What
do
you
need
proof
of
income
and
what
do
you
need
the
back
and
forth
for
right?
So
that's,
I
think,
that's
the
point
um
I
still
don't.
I
think
I
want
to
have
that
debate
um
financially
fiscally
about
removing
the
cap
as
a
standard
which
we
have
not
done
before,
and
we
should
have
that.
So
I
don't
know
I
don't
know.
K
K
K
Yes,
I
am
having
some
internet
issues,
so
um
if
it
happens
again,
I'm
happy
to
just
I
don't
know
if
I
can
like
type
in
an
email
to
someone
on
your
staff
and
have
those
notes
available
or
reach
out
afterwards.
I'm
happy
to
send
a
note
with
what
would
have
been
my
testimony:
okay,
so
quickly
to
beat
the
internet
connection
from
from
breaking
off
again
um
costs
um
for
these
special
pensions.
K
Or
per
year,
excuse
me
per
year
and
then
for
seven.
um
The
seven
proposed
for
to
receive
this
additional
benefit
for
all
seven.
The
total
over
the
ten
years
would
be
just
under
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
or
sixty
two
zero.
Zero
zero,
so
pointing
out
here.
Just
that
uh
exceptions
for
specific
people
do
carry
costs
and
those
costs
can
grow
over
the
year
and
add
to
overall
liabilities
for
the
city
and
the
more
exceptions
that
are
made
outside
of
the
standard
pension
system,
with
the
different
types
of
retirements
that
are
allowed.
K
K
um
A
personally
I'm
certainly
not
looking
to
take
anything
away
from
somebody
who
has
had
been
I've
been
hit
with
some
very
difficult
circumstances
related
to
their
job.
But
my
I
have
experience
um
working
with
folks
who
have
been
heavily
injured
on
the
job
and
wanting
to
better
understand
how
they're
getting
the
support
that
they
need
to
financially
and
in
terms
of
physical
therapy
or
whatever
else
they
need
to
try
to
recover
from
those
injuries.
K
And
I
know
that
that
can
be
incredibly
difficult
and
frustrating,
but
as
the
research
bureau,
when
it
comes
down
to
trying
to
do
additional,
provide
additional
resources
to
individuals
outside
of
the
standard
system.
For
all,
we
have
concerns
about
that
as
a
policy
approach
um
or
a
beyond
policy
approach,
and
we
have
concerns
about
that
in
terms
of
the
increased
financial
responsibility
that
the
system
would
then
carry.
A
K
A
K
I
believe
it
was
representing
the
additional
that
they
could
possibly
get.
um
In
fact,
maybe
this
is
something
that
um
councilor
sabri
george
can
speak
to
a
little
bit
better,
because
I
am
having
a
little
trouble.
I
admit
um
right
now
um
remember
how
remembering
how
this
got
calculated.
So
um
if
the
proposal
was
to
close
that
gap,
then
that's
what
we
tried
to
calculate.
K
C
I
think
is,
is
a
real
note
during
this
time,
and
also
since
so
many
are
bringing
up
the
additional
four.
When
we
originally
presented
this
there,
there
were
seven
um
police
officers
who
were
shot
in
the
line
of
duty
who
were
either
already
out
retired,
which
these
three
were
or
the
additional
four
and
I
think
of
the
other
four.
Now
they
are
all
fully
retired,
also
shot
in
the
line
of
duty
unable
to
return
to
work.
C
So
it's
certainly
important
for
us
to
come
up
with
um
a
template
and
sort
of
a
strategy
to
approach
anyone
um
gravely
injured
in
the
line
of
duty.
So
so
this
is
an
important
important
conversation
to
have-
and
I
do
want
to
know
and
just
reiterate
how
important
it
is
for
us
to
talk
about
the
financial
commitment
and
burden
is
places
on
the
city.
C
But
I
do
not
want
to
miss
the
burden
that
these
three
men
that
we're
discussing
today
and
their
families
deal
with
every
single
day
and
the
the
conversation
around
100
percent
is
making
them
whole,
but
also
not
punishing
them,
because
if
they
were
active
duty
police
officers
today,
they
would
not
potentially
be
limited
in
making
additional
income
outside
of
their
role
as
police
officer.
If
they
owned
a
business
if
they
had
a
part-time
job,
if
they
had
other
commitments
that
they
could
other
skills,
other
talents
and
areas
of
expertise.
C
We
are
in
this
petition
limiting
their
ability
to
participate
in
lawrence
enforcement
employment,
um
and
I
do
believe
that
this
is
the
right
thing
for
us
to
do
as
a
city,
um
and
although
it
does
come
at
a
financial
cost,
I
do
think
it's
an
appropriate
action.
I
would
also
note
I'm
adam
chair
that
larry
calderon
has
joined
us.
A
Thank
you.
um
So
I
guess
then.
I
would
like
to
turn
down
my
questions
to
the
retirement
board.
um
Specifically,
I'm
not
comfortable
again,
as
we
said
before.
It's
about
the
standard
that
we're
setting
and
how
we
approach
this
because
they're
going
to
keep
coming
and
they
should-
and
this
is
the
process
in
which
they
have
to
come
through
right.
So
we
discussed
how
we
want
to
balance
office
of
trauma
with
actually
being
able
to
understand
what
happened.
A
That's
one
way
of
making
sure
that
we
don't
retraumatize
people
when
they
talk
about
it
could
be
officer,
firefighters,
whomever,
so
that's
one
set
of
standard
that
I
want
to
be
very
clear.
The
other
standard
I
want
to
have
be
part
of
our
conversation
is
no
having
the
numbers
having
the
numbers
and
the
financial
impact
on
either
a
10-year
um
a
10-year
or
20-year
impact
of
a
person
retiring
at
100
percent,
and
I
think
that
that
should
be
on.
A
uh
I
don't
know
if
the
retirement
board
should
present
that-
or
I
don't
know
if
the
uh
patrolman
association,
but
someone
before
we're,
making
a
financial
decision,
we
should
have
numbers
in
front
of
us.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
to
the
retirement
board.
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
calculated
the
impact
on
each
three
of
these
um
cases.
A
C
A
J
J
I
I
don't
think
so,
counselor
on
on
fun2,
because
they're
not
part
of
our
pension
liability,
I'd,
have
to
double
check
with
my
comptroller,
but
probably
not
because
I,
like
I
said
at
the
very
beginning,
it's
this
is
a
city
cost.
So
it's
not
something
that
the
retirement
board
normally
uh
concerns
itself
with.
J
J
J
A
I
Thank
you
very
much
council
around.
I
I
would
have
to
um
just
a
little
information.
Is
that
it's
it's
um
it's
a
lot
more
common
to
you,
thinking
that
there
are
in
fact,
people
within
the
boston
retirement
system
that,
uh
through
the
state
house,
have
not
been
kept
um
recently.
A
couple
of
examples
outside
of
boston
because
I
know
boston
hasn't
had
um
thank
god.
I
uh
100
cases
in
several
years,
uh
mario
oliveira
vera,
from
up
in
somerville
and
robert
dinapoli,
were
two
that
you
know
their
council
of
select
people
um
have
written
right
into
their
targets
and
petitions
that
they
uh
would
not
in
fact
be
capped
up
at
the
state
house
on.
It
is
unique
to
different
towns
in
different
councils,
but
um
I
know
within
boston.
There
has
been
in
the
past,
in
fact
um
non-cap
through
the
state
house.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
um
My
other
question
was
around
another
exception,
or
at
least
applying
possibly
chapter
91
to
this,
which
would,
I
think,
prohibit
uh
the
person,
um
who's,
receiving
pension,
disability,
pension
retirement
allowance
from
the
commonwealth
um
from
basically
working
for
the
commonwealth,
county
city
or
town
or
district,
and
I
was
wondering
if
that
was
more
encompassing
of
the
limitations
on.
A
I
do
have
honest
concerns
that
the
a
person
who
is
getting
a
hundred
percent
um
in
their
retirement
as
though
they
are
a
you
know,
continuing
to
get
the
raises
continuing
to
get
increased
salary
continue
to
have
100
of
their
salary
as
a
police
officer,
but
unable
to
perform
their
duties
as
a
police
officer
um
which
I'm
not.
I
hope
people
know
no
one's
doubting
that.
um
I
feel
that
way.
I've
heard
the
officers
I've
seen
the
impact.
I
understand
intimately
what
ptsd
feels
like.
So
that's
not
a
question.
A
This
is
this
is
the
question
for
me:
is
then
why
do
they
get
the
exception
to
the
cap
that
other
workers
don't
get?
That's
what's
different,
that's
what's
not
that's!
What's
not
about
making
them
whole
right,
other
retirees
who
go
out
injured.
Other
retirees
who
leave
at
the
75
percent
have
that
fifteen
thousand
dollar
it's
fifteen
thousand
dollars
that
they
can
make
in
other
retirement,
so
that
I
am,
I
am
I'm
comfortable
with
looking
at
the
hundred
percent.
I
am
comfortable
with
making
sure
the
spouses
are
made
whole.
A
I
think
also
just
for
my
colleagues
sake.
We
should
uh
uh
check
in
with
our
um
our
uh
colleagues
at
the
state
house
to
make
sure
that
they
have
some
more
gender
inclusive
language
and
how
they're
describing
officers
and
how
they
were
how
they're
describing
some
of
the
folks
that
just
saying
we
should.
You
know
check
in
that
we
did
our
job,
but
in
terms
of
this,
I
I
think
we
need
to.
We
really
need
to
be
um
careful
about
the
the
message
that
we're
sending
and
also
um
to
the
retirement
board.
A
This
is
a.
This
is
something
that
came
to
me
and
I
could
be
this.
Could
be
totally
wrong
and
I'd
like
to
kill
this
rumor
if
it
is
wrong,
um
what
I
was
told
you
know
bedlam
will
happen,
you
open
you
do
this.
You
could
open
up
the
floodgates
because
someone
who
was
retired
out
um
could
could
petition
for
a
special
act
for
themselves
if
they've,
already
retired
and
they're
at
the
fifteen
thousand
dollar
cap-
and
they
decide-
listen,
hey,
you
know,
I
think
I'm
deserving
my
injury
has
has
caused
me.
A
A
Okay,
that's
I
mean
and
again
that's
why
it's
for
me.
It's
the
precedent
that
we're
setting
it's
the
conversation
and
how
we
approach
this
again
from
from
the
officer's
injury
and
believing
people
when
they
say
that
they're
in
pain
right,
not
questioning
that,
but
also
then
moving
to
the
financial
impact
of
whatever
decision
we
make,
which
we
we
all.
We
usually
have
that
information
in
front
of
us
for
other
financial
decisions
to
what
are
the
exceptions,
so
we're
looking
at
an
exception,
no
cap
or
subsequent
income
that
they
can
make.
A
um
There's
also
the
part
of
this
chapter
91
is
that
they
wouldn't
have
to
submit
financial
documents
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
I
think
that's
directly
keenly
related
to
the
cap,
not
so
much
as
I'm
trying
to
hide
anything,
um
and
so
these
are.
These
are,
I
think,
fair,
good
questions
and-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
fully
vetted
them
as
a
body,
because
when
we
turn
to
the
people
of
boston
and
say,
we've
made
a
decision
to
grant
these
exceptions
to
the
rule.
A
I
don't
want,
as
pam
noted,
um
one
off
um
kind
of
conversations,
because
she
is
correct
in
that
it
doesn't
create
a
stability
or
standard
for
those
to
understand.
I
see
you
counselor
flaherty
one.
Second,
counselor
bach
did
have
a
question
in
between,
so
I
want
to
go
to
her
and
then
to
you,
council
flaherty,
but
I
do
see
you
so
this
is.
This
is
the
point
of
this
conversation.
This
is
not
about
whether
the
officers
served
this
community
serve
this
suit.
A
city
were
willing
to
die
for
this
city.
A
E
Sorry,
it
was
just
a
very
quick
technical
question
to
tim,
which
was
just
when
you
gave
us
that
3.9
million
this
year
snapshot
like
how
should
we
understand
the
distribution
across
those
58
people
like
if
you
divide
that
you
sort
of
say
at
67
000
ahead.
But
I
imagine
it's
much
more
variable
than
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you.
J
J
E
E
Right,
I
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
that.
um
I
think
that,
and
also
to
the
point
about
what's
a
shorthand
to
counselor
isabe
george's
question,
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
like
yeah,
trying
to
trying
to
play
the
actuarial
estimation
of
all
the
x
factors
for
some
relatively
young
officers
from
now.
E
E
A
um
Before
you
do
um
just
for
a
point
of
clarification
to
the
retirement
board,
um
so
if
someone
is,
I
understood
that
they
weren't
necessarily,
so
if
they
made
more
than
fifteen
thousand
dollars,
if
they
made
more
than
the
cap,
then
they
just
wouldn't
receive
the
difference
or
they
would
their
retirements
would
be
adjusted.
But
it's
not
a
like
a.
A
J
J
I
don't
want
to
complicate
things,
but
you've
got
two
different
sections
of
chapter
32
91
big
b
is
only
for
disability
folks,
91
small,
a
and
small
b
is
for
every
public
public
retiree
and
that
only
pertains
to
work.
If
you
go
to
work
for
a
public
employer,
with
the
exception
of
the
nb
uh
yeah
with
a
public
employer,
including
the
mbta,
I
almost
said,
with
an
exception.
J
J
B
G
H
Just
my
position
only
is
on
um
one's
ability
to,
in
this
particular
instance,
be
um
you
know,
be
in
law
enforcement,
be
a
uh
be
a
cop
and
or
a
work
in
security.
uh
We've
got
um
the
accurate.
The
actuarians
are
not
uh
factoring
in
uh
overtime
and
details
that
uh
they
potentially
be
exposed
through
the
remainder
of
their
career,
and
we
have
situations
where
they're
so
young
number
one.
H
In
particular
instance,
uh
one
of
the
individuals
has
six
kids,
so
in
the
event
that
he,
you
know,
regains
the
ability
maybe
to
go
back
to
school
and
earn
a
degree
or
open
up
a
coffee
shop
or
start
a
dog
walking
or
dog
training
business
or
starts
a
trauma
or
peer
support,
consulting
company.
I
I
don't
think
we
should
be
standing
in
the
way
of
that.
I
think
our
lane
is
to
determine
as
to
whether
or
not
uh
their
ability
to
perform
their
function
as
a
boston,
police
officer
has
been
compromised
during
this
particular
instance.
H
So
we're
factoring
it
all
in
um
you
know
they
label
a
lot
on
the
table
so
to
speak
and
in
these
instances
where
they're
so
young
and
they
have
an
upside
of
their
life
in
front
of
them.
I
again
I
I
would
caution
as
to
we
want
whether
we
want
to
be
in
the
business
of
curtailing
their
potential
future
income,
provided
that
it's
not
in
some
type
of
law
enforcement
role.
So
that's
my
two
cents
on
it.
Thank
you.
A
I
I
There
was
children
of
jehovah
witnesses
he
um
he
had
to
move
down
to
georgia
because
he
could
not
afford
to
live
not
only
in
the
city
of
boston
or
but
also
massachusetts.
At
this
point
talking
about
earnings
in
the
future,
um
this
is
an
everyday
anxiety
for
harry.
um
In
addition
to
the
the
other
burdens
that
he's
having
now
that
at
some
point
he
might
try
to
attempt
to
put
these
six
children
into
college.
I
The
hundred
percent
sounds
great
and
it
sounds
um
sounds
like
one
would
be
able
to
live
off
of
it,
but
the
reality
is
uh
that
this
day
and
age
with
six
children
that
are
looking
at
schools
and
uh
as
a
result
of
harry
having
to
put
these
um
children
in
uh
based
on
the
religion
to
to
private
schools,
it's
not
sustainable
for
him
or
his
family,
and
um
he
he
will
suffer.
I
I
don't.
I
I
don't
think
that
um
anybody
should
put
any
restraints
on
harry
jean
because
he
almost
lost
his
life
and
had
to
take
a
life
of
another.
That's
the
reality
of
it.
um
You
know
he
didn't
choose
to
have
a
sex
children
if
he
did
that's
fine,
but
at
this
point
um
you
know
he's
doing
god's
work
by
taking
kids
in
and
and
trying
to
um
do
the
best
he
can
for
them
and
um
I'll
end
on
that.
But
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
A
A
I
want
to
be
talking
about
the
numbers
and
the
standards
that
we're
setting
in
this
body
there
are.
There
are,
thank
god,
not
very
many
people
who
have
100,
as
as
officer
o'malley
uh
had
mentioned
before.
Thank
god
for
that
detective
o'malley.
I'm
sorry
I've
if
I've
gotten
your
um
your
ranking
correct,
um
but
I
want
to
be
very
clear
that
the
standards
that
we
set
is
so
that
we
don't
have
the
emotions
and
the
moments
kind
of
in
there,
because
they're,
I'm
all
I'm,
I
I'm
going
to
be
um
inclined
to
open
up.
A
You
know,
I'm
you
know
open
up
the
purse
and
open
up
whatever
to
to
to
make
sure
that
someone
feels
better
because
they've
gone
through
a
traumatic
experience
and
so
again,
looking
to
the
research
municipal
bureau
and
the
standards
that
we're
setting
and
the
questions
that
we're
asking.
These
should
be
all
part
of
the
system
and
the
part
of
the
analysis
that
we
have
and
that's
all
I'm
trying
to
do
um
so.
A
I
have
right
now
some
outstanding
things
that
we'd
like
to
get
um
some
um
sooner
rather
than
later.
um
That's
the
financial
commitment
or
the
expected
expected
costs
for
each
of
the
individuals
we
understand
to
be
down
to
the
penny
will
probably
take
longer
than
we'd
like
um
so
we
were
asking
if
there's
some
at
least
uh
analysis
based
on
the
2004
2005,
the
five
ones
that
we've
had
give
us
give
us
a
range.
Maybe
that
would
be
helpful.
um
We're
not
we're
not
going
to
hold
this
anyone
liable
for
that.
A
A
I
know
officer
o'malley
uh
had
mentioned
that.
I
see
I
see
you
um
if
you
um
larry
calderon,
I
will
call
on
you
one.
Second.
um
uh
He
had
mentioned
that
there
were
some
exceptions
in
other
cities,
but
let's
just
confirm
that
or
not
if
these
exceptions
are
really
that
new
um
um
and
then
I
do,
I'm
gonna
have
probably
to
do
my
own
um
back
the
waiver.
A
The
waiver
is
interesting
to
me
um
about
how
if
someone
over
over
earns
or
has
an
overage,
how
many
waivers
have
been
sought
um
in
the
past.
um
That
would
be
another
question,
I'm
curious
for
the
retirement
board
and
how
this
balancing
act
actually
works.
I
you
know
I
I
don't
again.
um
I
just
want
to
know
that
I
I've
turned
over
every
single
stone.
I've
looked
at
every
perspective
and
I've.
I've
pushed
for
this,
and
so
people
understand
what
my
role
is
is.
A
After
doing
all
that,
I
try
to
get
consensus
of
my
colleagues
and
present
before
the
body
each
one
of
these
individual
things,
I'm
ideally
recommending
what
I
think
is
the
consensus
around
to
vote
for
it,
and
so
I
want
to
be
able
to
get
ahead
of
questions
that
we're
going
to
receive.
I
want
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
laws,
the
impacts
of
the
laws
and
decisions
that
we
make
and
also
know
that
there
are
four
other
officers
coming
and
maybe
more,
which
is
their
absolute
right
by
the
way.
A
L
L
L
This
is
the
minimal
cost,
in
my
opinion,
to
taking
care
of
a
member
in
their
family.
It
should
be
considered
whether
or
not
that
child
is
going
to
be
properly
fed,
clothed
or
how
they
might
go
to
college
and
truth
be
told.
Even
the
100
benefit
that
we
are
asking
for
that,
we
hope
will
go
through
it's
still,
approximately
40
to
maybe
50
less
than
an
officer
would
make
with
forced
overtime
and
private
work.
L
L
L
L
A
C
E
Sure,
thank
you,
um
madam
chair,
and
uh
one
a
quick
question.
I
a
first
question
that
I
have
for
um
for.
uh
Is
it
detective
o'malley?
Sorry,
excuse
me,
forgive
me,
sir,
um
and
also
uh
for
larry.
Just
if
has
there
been
any
effort
to
change
this
systematically
at
the
state
house
such
that
you
wouldn't
have
to
do
this
piece
through
special
laws.
This
way.
L
I
don't
know
if
larry
calderoni
counselor-
I
don't
know
if
he
wanted
me
or
or
detective
o'malley.
First,
um
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
confusion
when
you
deal
with
elected
officials
on
beacon
hill
as
well
when
it
comes
to
matters
like
this
uh
in
the
city
of
boston.
The
way
it
is
set
up
is
that
we
must
have
the
home
rule
petition
signed
off
by
the
majority
of
the
council
and
the
mayor,
which
then
formulates
the
bill
and
goes
to
the
state
house
for
the
legislative
process.
L
uh
What
we
have
experienced,
both
myself
many
of
the
detectives
and
their
their
lobbyists
up
on
the
hill
over
the
last
several
years,
dealing
with
outside
boston,
but
yet
still
within
our
law
enforcement
family
is
certain
representatives
will
tweak
and
change
pieces
of
legislation
as
they
go
committee
to
committee
um
the
same
as
the
council
process
would
move
on
uh
councils
get
together
and
and
there's
conversations
to
be
had
and
um
the
legislation,
as
it's
being
formulated,
changes
from
committee
to
committee
so
like
at
the
state
house
level.
It's
no
different.
L
Some
chairman,
specifically
one
past
now
retired
of
ways
and
means
on
the
house
side,
um
was
intricate
in
changing
the
language
to
have
a
cap,
because
in
his
opinion,
not
that
I
speak
for
him,
but
in
the
conversations
that
were
had,
they
were
trying
to
set
a
precedent
where
all
individuals
and
law
enforcement
would
be
treated.
The
same.
L
The
unfortunate
part
that
we
do
have
counselor
in
my
long
answer
is:
yes,
legislation
gets
changed
repeatedly,
both
at
the
council
level
and
the
house
level,
and
whether
or
not
uh
the
60
members
up
at
the
state
house
on
on
the
house
side
or
although
40
other
senators
are
doing
anything
at
all
to
change.
The
way
the
process
is
done
is
unbeknownst
to
me
in
this
new
legislative
session.
I
uh
Well
well,
thank
you.
um
Yeah,
like
larry
said
um
our
lobbyist
larry
works
from
on
a
regular
basis,
um
I'll
piggyback
what
he
said
that
there
has
been
individual
um
bills
passed
and
uh
representatives
up
at
the
state
house
that
um
will
tweak
them
for
us.
um
uh
Besides
that,
I
have
nothing
to
add
on
that
subject.
um
I
just
wanna
once
again
on
behalf
of
the
boston
police
of
texas,
but
I'm
gonna
say
thank
everybody
for
their
time
and
um
we
appreciate
all
the
cooperation
that
you
have
given
us
to
this
point.
E
um
I
think
those
are
kind
of
the
three
things
information
wise.
That
would
be
helpful
um
in
terms
of
um
uh
in
terms
of
just
some
quick
thoughts.
I
have
on
um
language,
because
my
instinct
again,
as
I
said
at
the
start,
is
that
we
should
be
establishing
a
standard
that
we
can
then
so
that,
like
this
hearing
is,
is
frankly
difficult.
E
um
I
think,
like
this
hearing
and
working
session
process
has
been,
has
been
difficult
because
of
the
way
that
it's
intertwined
with
individuals
lives
and
also
we're
trying
to
do
it
on
a
policy
basis,
but
I
think
if
we
could
just
have
a
standard
and
the
council
kind
of
was
like
that's
what
we're
doing
then
in
the
future.
When
these
came
up,
um
we
could
just
it
would
be
much
easier
for
everybody
involved.
E
E
E
I
am
very
sympathetic
to
the
idea
that
we
have
a
culture
saturated
in
gun,
violence
right
now
and
that
that's
a
really
scary
aspect
of
what
um
what
our
officers
face
and
that
the
you
know
the
the
idea
that
that's
maybe
part
of
the
line
it
seems
to
me
like
that's
operating
here
in
all
of
these
cases
and
that
being
able
to
say
that
whatever
additional
thing
we're
providing
is
something
that
the
council
provides
when
people
are
are
shot
in
the
line
of
duty.
Might
um
it
might
make
a
cleaner
precedent
for
the
future?
E
This
is
financial
paperwork
right
totally
different
from
the
point
about
reevaluation
which,
like
like
I
agree
with
counselor
george,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
be
constantly
pulling
people
um
up
for
a
mental
health
re-evaluation,
um
but
uh
but
I
I
wonder
if
we
could
be
like
91a
still
applies,
accept
that
um
and
lift
the
cap
substantially,
so
not
completely
eliminate
it,
but
do
something
like
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
or
like
something.
That's
basically
like,
because
there
is
some
point
I
think
at
which
it
would
be
awkward
for
the
city.
E
If
somebody
was
earning
like
a
certain
like
a
certain
sort
of
amount
of
money,
and
then
we
were
also
paying
them,
this
whole
thing.
I
just
think
that
there
is
a.
um
I
have
some
kind
of
fiduciary
disquiet
about
that,
um
and
I
also
I
also
you
know
think
that
um
it
isn't
ideal
that
the
way
that
our
police
compensation
is
structured
is
in
a
way
that
um
that
you
know
incentivizes
the
uh
heavy
pursuit
of
overtime
and
details
which
then
are
part
of
what
what
is
making
this
um
less
remunerative.
E
But
I
just
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
keep
the
financial
oversight
but
significantly
raise
the
cap
without
eliminating
it
and
then
say
you
know,
this
is
for
officers
who
get
shot
at
in
the
line
of
duty
and
kind
of
make
that.
But
that's
that's
just
me.
You
know
thinking
on
the
fly
here
in
response
to
some
of
what's
been
said,
um
so
just
offer
it.
Madam
chair
and
the
spirit
of
suggestion.
But
um
those
are
my
comments
about
sort
of
things
I
would
want
to
see
and
uh
and
some
thoughts
thanks.
E
Cap,
oh,
no,
what
you
would
do
is
you
would
just
you
would
leave
91a
applying,
but
you
would
just
say
you
would
just
say
accept
that
where
it
says
15
000
we're
substituting
the
number
100.,
so
it'd
basically
be
like
you'd
like
you'd
make
the
same
mechanism
apply,
but
you
would
just
say
like
for
these.
We
have
a
much
higher
cap,
but
you
wouldn't,
but
you
wouldn't
eliminate
the
cap
completely
and
what's
nice
about.
E
A
A
C
B
A
A
B
A
E
E
A
Well,
I
think
it's
also,
you
know
just
doing
some
back
of
the
envelope
math
it's
allowing
the
person
to
at
least
make
more
than
minimum
wage
right,
the
15
an
hour
fight
that
a
lot
of
people
are
fighting
for.
If
you
work
for
40
hours
a
week
at
15
an
hour,
that's
a
grocery
store
or
something
like
that.
You
would
make
28
000.
A
A
um
So
so
I
understand
that-
and
I
do
it
does
certainly
comfort
me-
that
there
there's
a
talk
about
us
within
our
own
standards
about
how
we
could
have
a
balanced
uh
approach
and
look
at
that.
um
So
um
I'll
go
to
larry
and
then
I'll
see
what
my
colleagues
that
are
left
think
about
the
then
just
raising
the
cap,
so
uh
larry.
L
C
I
think
that
the
idea
of
raising
the
cap
is
an
interesting
point.
I
do
want
to
note-
um
and
I
think
larry
may
have
alluded
to
this
or
or
marty
around
the
there's,
a
lot
of
forced
over
time
when
it
comes
to
police
officers
is
not
simply
just
accepting
and
taking
details,
uh
there's
quite
a
bit
of
forced
overtime.
C
So
I
think
that
the
the
conversation
around
um
lifting
the
cap
is
certainly
an
interesting
one,
and
I
think
uh
one
that
is
worth
further
discussion,
especially
looking
at
some
of
these
other
documents
that
we've
requested,
and
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
is.
Hopefully
we
can
square
that
away
by
the
end
of
this
week,
both
collecting
that
information
uh
tim.
If
that's
something
that
you
can
share
with
us
um
by
the
end
of
the
week
and
then
having
a
sort
of
a
follow-up.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
that'll
be
very
helpful
um
to
allow
for
us
to
move,
as
I
think,
as
physically
responsible
and
as
judicious
as
possible
and
as
fast
as
possible
and
balancing
all
those
different
perspectives.
um
So
with
that,
unless
anyone
has
any
concluding
remarks,
any
other
questions
I
said
that
I
see
the
lead
sponsor
is
fine.
Counselor,
bach
you're,
fine,
counselor,
janie.