►
Description
City of San José, California
Federated City Employees' Retirement Plan Board, November 17, 2022
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda: https://sanjose.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=51&event_id=4706
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
The
meeting
of
the
Federated
city
employees,
retirement
system
to
order
for
the
November
17th
meeting
I'm
going
to
call
the
roll
Vice
chair
Jennings.
Are
you
here
trustee
Chandra
here
trustee
Kelleher
here
trustee
Orr.
C
B
Okay,
trustee
or
absent
trustee
Linder
I'm
here
trustee
avasti
here
and
I-
am
here
trustee,
Horowitz
and.
B
So
we
are
continuing
to
meet
under
the
ground
rules
of
ab361.
All
votes
will
be
roll
call
votes.
If
you
are
not
speaking,
please
be
on
mute
to
cut
background
noise
for
discussion
items.
Each
trustee
will
have
a
turn
to
speak
in
will
call
order
more
than
once
if
desired,
and
the
public
will
also
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
each
item
after
trustees.
B
We
will
take
a
break
today
at
about
the
10
o'clock
hour
and
again
at
about
one
o'clock
to
accommodate
the
Civic
Center
broadcasting
system
board.
Members
are
asked
to
please
stay
on
the
zoom
after
this
meeting
is
over
for
our
regular
committee
meetings
for
ab361
and
for
complete
items,
item
6E
discussion
and
action
regarding
member
Terry,
Williams
appeal
of
ORS
denial
will
be
held
at
time
certain
at
10
A.M.
B
Today
the
board
will
hear
agenda
item
1.1,
a
Emily
Brooks
request
for
service
connected
disability
retirement
in
closed
session,
and
we
will
need
to
wave
sunshine
on
item
6D
discussion
and
action
on
opeb
assumptions.
As
of
June
30th
presented
by
Chiron.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
orders
of
the
day
and
to
wave
sunshine
on
6D
Mr.
C
C
F
C
C
Sorry
in
terms
of
orders
of
the
day,
however,
unless
that
needs
to
be
modified,
we
had
a
request
in
writing
this
morning
from
Member
breaks.
B
A
request:
your
audio,
is
fading
a
little
bit
out
there
Mr
Lederman,
that.
B
Right
so,
in
addition
to
the
orders
of
the
day
and
the
Sunshine
waving
previously
mentioned,
the
closed
session
item
will
is
now
requested
to
be
an
open
session
item
at
a
time
certain
at
9,
00
A.M.
B
So
with
all
of
those
orders
of
the
day
noted
and
the
wave
sunshine
on
6D,
do
we
have
a
motion
to
accept
those
orders
of
the
day?
Some
moved.
That's
a
motion
by
trustee
Linder.
Is
there
a
second
second
as
a
second
by
trustee
Chandra?
Yes,
any
discussion,
any
public
comments,
we
will
have
roll
call
vote,
trustee,
Chandra,
hi,
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher,
aye
trustee
Linder,
aye,
trustee,
avasti,
aye
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
We
will
move
to
the
next
pending
agenda
item
foreign.
B
And
that
is
your
public
comment.
Public
comment
at
this
time.
Any
member
of
the
public
May
comment
on
any
items
not
included
on
the
agenda,
provided
that
the
matter
itself
is
within
the
subject.
Jurisdiction
of
this
board.
Members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
provide
comment
at
this
time
may
do
so
by
raising
your
hand
in
the
Zoom
app
or,
if
joining
by
telephone,
by
pressing
star
nine
on
your
telephone
keyboard
when
addressing
the
board,
please
please
press
star,
6
to
mute
and
unmute.
B
Please
state
your
name
for
the
record,
provide
prior
to
providing
your
comments.
All
speakers
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes.
In
addition,
public
comment
on
items
that
are
listed
on
the
agenda
will
be
taken
at
the
time.
The
agenda
item
is
heard.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
waiting
to
address
the
board.
B
So
hearing
none,
we
will
proceed
to
the
next
agenda
item,
which
is
the
consent
calendar.
Do
we
need
a
motion
to
accept
the
consent
calendar
so
moved?
Okay
and.
B
Second,
was
that
killed
her
seconds
trustee
Kelleher,
so
that
was
a
motion
but
trustee
Chandra.
Second,
by
trustee
Keller
any
discussion,
any
public
comments,
we'll
call
vote,
trustee,
Chandra,
aye
trustee,
kellehart
aye,
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Linder,
aye,
trustee,
avasti,
hi
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
It
passes
unanimously
on
to
the
next
agenda,
item
death
and
survivorship
notification.
We
will
now
observe
a
moment
of
silence
for
those
who
have
served
the
city
and
who
have
passed.
B
Thank
you,
Investments
oral
update
from
the
CIO
I
understand
our
CIO
is
traveling
today,
so
we
have
someone
else
from
the
investment
staff
to
offer
some
words
of
wisdom.
H
You
thank
you
so
much
as
you
loaded,
Sarah
Palani
is
unavailable
today,
so
I'll
be
covering
for
him.
Fortunately,
the
Investments
portion
of
the
agenda
is
very
short.
He
did
want
to
begin
with
some
words
of
thanks
for
trustee
Orr
and
I'll
be
brief
in
reading
these,
and
these
thoughts
certainly
carry
over
for
the
investment
team
at
large,
but
he
writes
on
behalf
of
oras
and
our
beneficiaries.
I
would
like
to
place
on
record
my
heartfelt
thanks
and
deep
appreciation
to
trustee
or
for
her
services
to
our
pension
system.
H
She
has
been
a
trusted
partner
who
cares
deeply
about
the
city
and
his
beneficiaries
and
has
been
most
generous
with
her
advice
and
time
on
numerous
issues,
including
investment
related
matters
further,
as
a
member
of
the
ad
hoc
Committee
of
the
JPC
former
trusteason's
area
of
the
PNF
board
and
she
spent
countless
hours
on
a
performance
review
plan
for
the
CEO
and
CIO,
we
will
miss
her
guidance,
her
incisive
questions
and
her
deep
knowledge
on
investment
related
matters
and
again
just
thanks.
Sincere
thanks
to
trustee
or
for
her
service
and.
H
Aren't
any
other
investment
items,
but
problem
normally
gives
a
performance
update
and
these
these
figures
are
supplied
by
Makita
and
they're.
A
preliminary
percent
returns
in
this
case
fiscal
year
to
date
through
November
15th,
the
FED
pension
returned
1.91
again
fiscal
year
to
date
through
the
15th,
the
healthcare
trust
returned
1.83
and
those
are
estimates
proxied.
H
H
B
Thank
you,
Mr
Quan,
before
I
open
it
to
trustees.
Let
me
Echo
your
your
comments
on
trustee
Orr
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
have
this
elsewhere
in
the
agenda,
but
we
are
presenting
to
her
a
an
official
letter
of
recognition
and
thanks
on
behalf
of
the
board.
She
is
our
second
longest
serving
trustee
and
her
her
wisdom
and
guidance
and
example
to
us.
Younger
members
is
greatly
appreciated.
B
F
Chair
Horowitz
I
think
that's
a
good
idea
to
have
trustees
to
make
any
comments
they
would
like
to
make
and
what
I
suggest
respectfully
is.
If
they
are
updated
by
the
investment
team
is
completed.
F
We
could
go
back
to
the
top
of
the
agenda
where
we
had
stated
the
Commendation
for
trustee
or,
and
we
can
bring
the
Commendation
to
the
screen
and
have
you
as
the
chair
of
the
board,
read
it
and
then
at
that
point
then
take
any
comments
that
anyone
would
like
to
make
on
behalf
and
to
thank
trustee
or
for
her
four
years
with
the
board
was
their
Federated
system.
So.
C
I
B
Yes,
please
proceed
with
your
questions
for
investment
staff.
I
Do
we
numbers
do
we
have
a
sense
of
how
we
did
versus
I
guess
our
like
overall
Blended,
Benchmark
or
versus
peers.
H
I,
don't
have
pure
numbers
relative
to
November
15th,
but
I
can
tell
you
through
through
September
month
and
we're
still
I
I,
believe
it's
a
top
quartile
or
so
performance
relative
to
peers
relative
to
say
the
60
40
Benchmark.
We
came
basically
in
line
with
the
60
40
for
for
the
fiscal
year
to
date
through
the
15th.
Okay,.
J
Interesting
Chandra,
this
is
Laura
from
Makita,
you
know,
I'll,
add
above
median
returns
for
for
the
fiscal
year.
To
date,
the
median
was
down
about
four
percent
and
and
your
plans
return
was
stronger
and
then
we
did
see
positive
returns
in
October
and
November.
So
we
estimated
the
fiscal
year
performance,
which
is
third,
you
know
third
quarter
and
then
the
past
month
and
a
half
is
back
in
positive
territory.
I
Okay
thanks.
Thank
you
both.
B
Any
further
questions
trustee
Chandra,
no
thanks!
Okay!
Thank
you!
Yes,
it's
it's
encouraging
to
see
those
positive
numbers
so,
at
the
suggestion,
the
wise
suggestion
of
Mr
Pena.
Let
us
return
to
ceremonial
item
number
one,
which
is
the
presentation
of
a
commendation
to
Elaine
Orr
for
her
four
years
of
service,
and
if
you
want
to
bring
that
to
the
screen.
B
I'm
not
sure
I'm
going
to
read
the
entire
Commendation,
but
it
does
recognize
her
service
on
the
JPC
on
the
investment
committee
and
her
work,
also
on
the
audit
and
governance
committees
and
four
years
of
of
dutiful
and
Progressive
Service
to
the
board,
and
so
it
is
resolved
by
the
board
of
the
administration
of
the
Federated
city
employees,
retirement
system
of
the
city
of
San
Jose
that
the
board
of
administration
extends
its
thanks
to
trustee
Orr
for
her
dedicated
years
of
service
to
the
board
and
to
the
system
for
adherence
to
high
standards
of
quality
of
this
board
and
for
a
performance
of
valued
service
and
is
presented
this
17th
day
of
November
and
with
the
eye
votes
of
all
members
of
the
board.
B
So
hopefully,
trustee
Orr
will
appreciate
this
brief
note
of
commendation
and
if
any
other
trustees
have
any
words
they
would
like
to
add.
This
is
the
time
to
do
it.
K
I
certainly
have
valued
trustee,
Orr's
contributions
and
her
insights
and
we'll
very
much
miss
her.
I
Yeah
I
I
Echo,
everything
that
has
been
said.
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
her
on
both
the
investment
committee
and
the
JPC,
and
just
a
great
thinker,
framing
issues
very
practical
and
often
helped
me
clarify
what
I
was
thinking
on
on
important
issues.
So
I
greatly
appreciate
her
servicing
contributions.
F
Mr
chair,
it's
hard
to
say
to
put
in
words
I
think
Prabhu
said
a
best
stated
by
our
senior
investment,
obviously
jayquam.
But
of
course
we
had
a
commendation
here.
F
F
She
always
asks
very
practical
questions
and
we,
you
know,
obviously,
are
very
thankful
for
the
four
years
that
she
was
able
to
dedicate
to
the
federal
Federated
Stadium
produce
your
Timing
System,
and
we
wish
you
the
best
in
the
her
future
endeavors
and-
and
we
like
to
publicly
remind
her
that
at
some
point
in
the
future
is
she
would
like
to
come
back.
F
We
will
welcome
her
back
with
open
arms
so
again,
thank
you
so
very
much
for
her
dedication
and
the
work
in
support
of
the
of
the
plan,
and
we
wish
you
the
best.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
sir,
her
shoes
will
be
a
challenge
to
fill,
but
that
is
is
now
the
board's
challenge
to
to
fill
her
seat
on
the
board.
So
with
no
further
comment,
any
public
comments.
Let
us
proceed
to
the
next
agenda
item.
B
Which
is
there
was
no
old
business
nope
and
new
business,
then,
is
an
oral
update
from
our
CEO
Mr
Pena.
Yes,.
F
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
so,
if
you
bear
with
with
me
a
couple
of
issues,
this
is
the
month
of
November,
which
means
we
actually
are
going
through
the
annual
Healthcare
open
enrollment
for
our
retirees.
F
We
actually
send
out
all
the
Open
Enrollment
packets,
late
in
October
the
last
weekend
and
actually
had
the
we
used
to
every
year
have
an
annual
open,
enrollment
visit.
It
was
a
one
day
that
we
had
the
vendors
and
we
actually
invited
the
members
to
join.
We
stopped
that
practice
throughout
the
covet
pandemic,
but
this
is
the
first
time
we
we
went
back
to
it
in
three
years
and
we
actually
had
it
early
in
the
month.
It
was
not
only
very
well
what
we
see,
but
very.
F
And
so
far
through
the
month
again,
which
ends
at
the
end
November
30th,
we
have
received
about
350,
open,
enrollment
change,
request,
forms
and,
and
that's
actually
combined.
It's
not
a
number
that
is
just
for
Federated,
but
it's
combined
for
open
enrollment
for
both
plans
and
we
are
during
the
months,
have
been
averaging
about
a
little
more
than
100
customer
contacts
per
day,
but
about
half
or
more
than
those
are
really
related
to
open,
enrollment
issues
or
questions.
So
it's
been
quite
a
busy
month.
F
So
again
we
want
to
thank
staff
for
making
sure
that
they're
available
to
address
questions
by
the
members,
and
we
want
to
remind
members
that
staff
is
available
and
they
can
go
to
our
website.
They
can
also
contact
in
the
website.
We
have
links
to
reach
out
to
the
various
vendors
and
the
vendors
also
have
presentations
that
are
scheduled
throughout
the
month.
F
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
we
selected
a
senior
supervisor
employee,
which
is
very
big,
Garcia
she's,
actually
already
an
employee
with
the
office,
and
she
was
promoted
to
that
position.
So
she
started
working
with
us
in
2014
and
we
welcome
maribik
to
that
position
and
and
wish
you
the
best
and
Patricia
olag
will
be
back
feeling.
Murray
Vic's,
All
position.
She's
actually
now
works
on
the
front,
but
she's
going
to
be
actually
filling
up
the
staff
specialist
position,
the
American
it
used
to
feel
in
the
past.
F
We
are,
as
you
remember,
from
your
last
meeting.
You
approve
Morty's
retirement,
which
meant
that
at
the
end
of
this
month,
October
28th
it
was
the
last
day.
So
she
is
now
a
happy
retiree,
and
so
we
have
kickoff
recruitment.
For
that
position,
we
will
keep
you
posted.
F
We
actually
have
a
quarterly
meeting
with
the
staff.
I've
been
doing
that
for
almost
10
years
now,
just
to
keep
staff.
A
price
of
you
know
any
news,
whether
it's
plant
related
with
the
boards,
the
public
in
general
and
what's
happening
at
the
office
or
in
the
pension
world,
and
so
our
was
last
November
10th.
F
We
have
the
meeting
in
which
we
discussed
among
many
of
the
things
two
things
one
one
of
the
questions
was:
when
will
the
board
go
back
to
in-person
meetings
and
there
was
not
much
to
say
other
than
we
will
continue
meeting
remotely
until
we're
not
able
to
do
so.
As
you
know,
I
think
General
counselor
has
indicated
that
the
current
Proclamation
actually
ends
February
28th.
F
So
there's
a
chance
that
for
the
March
meetings
or
if
not
April,
we
may
be
going
back
in
person.
But
at
this
point
nothing
is
definitive.
So
we
just
we
certain
we'll
keep.
You
posted
suffice
to
know
that
the
meetings
next
month
and
possibly
in
January,
will
still
be
remotely
and
then
also
we
discuss.
F
We
have
a
hybrid
approach
right
now,
where
we
have
a
staff
coming
twice
a
day
a
week
to
the
to
the
office,
and
we
will
continue
that
approach
for
the
time
being
and
see
how
things
progress
in
terms
of
the
changes
by
the
city
and
covet
and
as
as
we
if
we
do
make,
any
changes
certainly
will
be
keep
Deborah
priced
and,
lastly,
I
wanted
to
remind
everyone
that
the
office
will
be
closed
for
Thanksgiving
holiday,
Thursday
November
24th
on
Friday,
November
25th,
so
I
don't
have
any
other
comments.
F
Other
than
to
remind
you,
two
new
two
public
positions
were
available
for
Federated
trustee,
Chandra
reapply
and
we
need
to
confirm,
but
I
believe
the
interview.
Maybe
at
the
end
of
this
month
we
will
certainly
keep
you
posted
to
trustee
Chandra,
we're
confirmed
with
the
city
clerk
and,
as
you
know,
trustee
Orr
elected,
not
to
reapply
so
that
position
is
vacant
and
we're
working
with
the
city
clerk
to
kick
off
the
recruitment
process
for
that
position.
Mr
chair.
That
concludes
my
comments
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
K
D
Well,
there's
sorry:
this
is
a
council
Chen
if
I
may
care
please.
So
there
are
a
number
of
options,
come
January
for
how
a
member
May
attend
a
meeting.
Virtually
we
provided
a
presentation
on
that
material.
The
last
meeting,
but
under
the
traditional
Brown
act,
rules
which
I
believe
tries
to
Kelleher
is
referring
to
yes
under
the
traditional
Brown
act,
rules
for
teleconferencing,
the
member
must
put
the
address
from
whether
you're
taking
the
meeting
on
remotely
and
allow
members
of
the
public
to
attend
that
location
and
have
that
location
posted
with
the
agenda.
B
And
on
that
line,
if
the
city
or
county
declares
a
health
state
of
emergency,
even
if
the
state
of
emergency
from
the
state
has
been
canceled,
does
that
bias
any
leeway
or
flexibility.
K
No
I
think
just
want
to
confirm
that
and
having
a
just
had
covet
for
the
first
time,
I
am
still
very
sensitive
to
covet
issues.
B
B
B
Okay,
hearing
none
I
think
before
we
get
into
item
6C,
which
would
take
some
time.
Let
us
see
if
we
can
proceed
with
item
I
believe
it
was
1.1
a
and
actually
staff
if
you
could
possibly
for
these
aging
eyes.
If
we
could
enlarge
the
on-screen
agenda
there,
we
go
even
bigger
if
possible,
very
agitized,
oh
fantastic.
B
B
So
we're
now
hearing
agenda,
item
1.1
and
just
to
confirm
that
we
are
doing
this
in
Open
session
at
the
request
of
the
applicant,
and
this
is
a
an
application
for
a
service
connected
disability
retirement
for
Emily
Briggs
Ms
Briggs.
Will
you
identify
Yourself
by
unmuting
yourself
and
turning
on
your
video
to?
Let
us
know
that
you
are
presents
foreign.
C
You
Mr
chairman,
if
I
may,
please
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
Miss
Briggs
good
morning,
I'm
Harvey
leaderman,
the
fiduciary
and
general
counsel
to
the
board.
Would
you
please
confirm
the
message
that
you
sent
to
ORS
staff
this
morning
about
withdrawing
your
request
for
this
matter
to
be
heard
in
the
closed
session.
M
I
did
my
husband
and
I
are
a
bit
confused
about.
What's
the
difference
between
a
close
and
an
open
session
at
first
I
thought
that
a
closed
session
just
is.
M
And
the
closed
session
recorded
as
well
as
the
Open
Session,
are
they
both
recorded.
L
One
of
the
problems
we
have
had
in
the
past
with
closed
sessions
is
that
things
were
discussed
and
staff
was
supposed
to
have
done
things
and
they
have
not,
and
that
has
delayed
the
hearing
of
ability
retirement
case
for
many
years,
and
we
have
a
concern
about
things
not
being
recorded
if,
if,
in
fact,
this
happens
to
be
deferred
again,
which
we
hope
like
heck,
it
is
not.
L
But
in
any
event,
we
would
like
some
recording
of
the
events
so
that,
if
something
comes
up
in
the
future,
we
have
reference
to
what
it
was
that
the
board
decided
and
why
they
decided
it.
And
what?
If
any,
further
actions
need
to
be
taken
by
the
various
parties.
C
Yes,
I
may
Mr
chairman,
please
could
be
applicant
and
her
husband.
C
We
do
not
record
closed
sessions,
but
if
there
is
direction
to
the
staff
to
do
anything
in
furtherance
of
the
Court's
consideration
of
the
application
that
in
that
direction,
would
be
reported
out
in
public
session
when
we'd
come
out
of
the
session,
so
that
there
would
be
a
record
at
that
time
of
any
further
direction
that
the
board
gave
to
staff.
And
you
of
course
could
comment.
C
N
C
Well,
nothing,
nothing
we
can
do
about
2011
at
this
time.
The
question
is
based
upon
the
chair's
explanation.
C
B
B
Okay,
so
it
should
desire
that
this
proceed
in
Open
Session.
Okay,
thank
you.
Any
further
comments:
Council
leaderman!
No!
That's.
C
Hear
item
one
a
one:
I
believe
it
is
on
the
public
agenda
right,
1.1,
a.
B
F
Yeah,
okay,
can
someone
send
that
to
us
and
you
invitation.
F
B
Proceed
with
the
read
not
just
yet
let
us
I
want
to
make
sure
everybody
is
present
and
accounted
for
Ms
Briggs.
Will
you
please
confirm
that
you
received
the
staff
letter
dated
November
4th
2022,
notifying
you
of
this
board
meeting?
L
We
we
wish
to
go
over
more
detail
on
a
number
of
the
the
history
that
the
memo
from
Sandra
Castellano
goes
through,
and
we
also
wish
to
make
comments
on
the
narrative
and
the
assumptions
that
were
made
midi
and
to
the
attorney's
office.
Okay,.
B
Thank
you,
so
please
be
on
mute
if
you're,
not
speaking
to
the
board
directly
I'm
hearing
a
little
bit
of
crosstalk.
Okay.
Thank
you.
The
board
has
access
to
all
the
materials
that
are
in
the
record.
They
were
received
as
attachments
I
hope.
All
trustees
have
had
a
chance
to
review
them,
because
the
application
raises
several
collateral
issues
that
could
consume
a
great
deal
of
time.
We
have
asked
the
parties
to
come
prepared
to
focus
on
the
key
issues
that
will
be
determinative
of
this
application.
B
Mr
leaderman.
Would
you
like
to
address
those
at
this
point.
C
C
I
think,
because
of
the
volume
of
material
and
issues
that
have
raised
that
it
might
be
useful
to
the
board
and
to
the
applicant
and
all
other
participants
if
I
put
up
a
on
the
screen,
a
summary
of
the
findings,
if
I
may
do
that,
does
that
show
up
on
your.
B
C
Better,
absolutely
so,
just
for
purposes
of
focusing
the
board's
attention
and
and
the
participants
attention.
This
is
a
summary
of
the
committee's
findings
of
disability
committee's
findings.
There
are
three
claimed
conditions
that
relate
to
the
disability:
application,
cervical
neck
pain,
carpal
tunnel.
Excuse
me
and
psychological
conditions.
C
The
committee
found
that
first,
the
two
questions
that
need
to
be
addressed
is
the
member
incapacitated
or
serviced,
and,
if
so,
is
her
incapacity
service
connected?
The
committee
found
that,
based
on
the
cervical
neck
pain,
the
member
was
not
incapacitated,
as
required
by
law,
because
the
department
could
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions.
C
That
seems
to
be
contested,
but
that's
what
the
committee
found
based
upon
the
doctor's
work,
restrictions
and
the
department
of
transportations
evidence
that
was
submitted,
that
they
could
accommodate
with
restrictions
and
because
the
committee
found
that
the
member
was
not
incapacitated
from
the
cervical
neck
pain.
C
They
found
that
there
was.
It
was
irrelevant
as
to
whether
or
not
the
matter
the
condition
was
connected
or
caused
by
the
job
or
aggravated
by
the
job.
But
the
committee
went
on
to
find
that
even
if
the
member
had
been
incapacitated
and
not
be
able
to
be
accommodated,
there
was
no
job
causation
or
aggravation
on
the
condition
on
the
carpal
tunnel
syndrome.
Bilateral
funnel.
C
The
committee
found
that
again
because
the
department
could
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions
relating
to
carpal
tunnel
that
the
member
was
not
incapacitated,
as
required
by
law
and
again
that
it
did
not
matter
whether
their
condition
was
service
connected
or
not,
since
she
was
not
incapacitated
and
finally,
the
psychological
conditions
that
were
claimed.
The
committee
did
find
that
the
member
was
incapacitated
and
the
department
could
not
accommodate
the
doctor's
restrictions
that
were
would
have
been
required
to
allow
her
to
go
back
to
work.
C
Having
found
that
she
was
incapacitated,
however,
the
committee
found
that
this
was
a
pre-existing
condition
and
the
job
did
not
cause
or
aggravate
this
condition,
and
therefore
the
committee
recommends
that
the
board
to
deny
the
service-connected
disability
retirement
for
a
member
Emily
Briggs.
So
that's
the
summary
and
questions
that
previously
were
opposed
to
both
staff
and
Ms
Briggs.
For
this
meeting
to
help
Focus
the
conversation
was:
is
there
any
evidence
to
counter
the
the
fact
that
the
department
could
accommodate
both
of
these
first
two
conditions?
C
That
was
the
first
question
and
if
they
could
not
be
accommodated,
is
there
medical
evidence
to
show
that
that
they
were
the
condition
was
actually
caused
by
or
aggravated
by,
the
job
characteristics?
So
that's
the
these
highlighted
orange
boxes
are
really
with
the
board
wishes
to
focus
on
in
determining
whether
there
is
evidence
or
against
these
findings
by
the
committee
and.
B
B
B
Ahead,
okay
and
before
I
introduce
Russia,
Canada
disability
council.
At
this
juncture,
should
we
hear
from
Miss
Stacy
Fisher
representing
the
applicant.
E
Sure
I
can
read
it
into
the
record.
The
applicant's
name
is
Emily
Briggs.
Her
classification
is
senior
analyst
in
the
Department
of
Transportation.
She
does
not
have
an
attorney.
Her
application
is
for
a
service-connected
disability
retirement.
The
body
parts
listed
on
her
application
are
psyche
neck
and
bilateral
upper
extremities.
The
day
disability
retirement
application
was
received
was
119
2006.
Her
current
work
status
is
Service
retirement,
9,
30,
2022,
her
status
at
the
time
of
Separation
was
disability.
Leave
her
status
at
the
time
of
application
was
separated
the
board
medical
advisor
Orthopedic
restrictions
are.
E
She
should
have
the
ability
to
sit
and
stand
at
will.
She
should
have
a
two-minute
break
for
every
10
minutes
of
sustained,
continuous
use
of
her
right
upper
extremity.
She
should
have
an
ergonomically
appropriate
work
area.
She
shouldn't
lift
more
than
10
pounds
on
a
regular
basis
with
her
right
arm.
The
board
medical
advisor
restrictions
for
the
psyche
body
part
are:
she
should
be
restricted
from
work
requiring
above
average
levels
of
energy
motivation,
concentration
or
frustration,
tolerance.
E
B
O
Thank
you
and
I
will
try
to
keep
my
comments
appropriately
brief,
just
as
background
reminders.
Ms
Briggs
was
hired
by
the
city
in
February
1986
and
was
terminated
in
January
2006,
and
her
position
was
that
of
senior
analysts
in
the
Department
of
Transportation.
Now
looking
to
the
neck,
I
think
that
the
dominant
issue
was
that
she
rather
late
developed
neck
pain,
but
it
was
sufficiently
serious
than
in
May
2005.
She
had
to
undergo
significant
neck
surgery.
O
O
That
Miss
Fisher
has
summarized
perhaps
equally
important
for
the
board's
consideration
is
that
one
of
Ms
Briggs
treating
Physicians,
who
treated
her
as
part
of
a
functional
restoration
program
in
2007,
stated
in
in
his
report
of
that
date
that
his
I
apologize
that
his
Dr
Reynolds,
one
of
her
treating
physicians
in
2007,
indicated
that
his
work
restrictions
were
very
nearly
the
same
and
very
nearly
the
same
as
a
quote
as
Dr
doss's
restrictions.
O
So
that's
very
important
and,
and
then
of
equal
importance
is
the
fact
that
the
department
in
a
series
of
memos
indicated
that
it
in
fact
could
have
accommodated
those
work
restrictions.
Therefore,
it
cannot
be
concluded,
and
the
committee
did
not
conclude
that
she
was
incapacitated
with
respect
to
her
neck.
O
As
far
as
service
connection,
the
diagnosis
is
the
Miss
Briggs
had
cervical
disc
bulges
and
also
degenerate
degenerative
disc
disease
and
Dr
Doss
has
I
think
persuasively
argued
the
computer
work,
even
with
its
requirement
of
certain
neck
postures
does
not
contribute
to
those
that
kind
of
cervical
condition
there.
O
We
we
do
note
there
was
the
November
11
2005
incident
with
the
chair
of
the
arm,
but
her
surgeon,
who
did
the
cervical
surgery
in
January
2006,
indicated
that
that
the
minor
November
11th
event
did
not
contribute
to
any
did
not
aggravate
is
the
term
I
should
have
used
her
neck
condition
and
Dr
Doss
also
provided
substantial
citations
to
the
medical
literature
to
the
same
effect.
O
With
respect
to
the
carpal
tunnel
syndrome,
again,
Dr
Doss
provided
permanent
work
restrictions,
Dr
Reynolds
provided
the
same
comment
in
2007.
In
other
words,
his
work
restrictions
were
very
nearly
the
same
as
Dr
dasa's
work
restrictions
and
the
department
could
accommodate
Dr
Dawson's
work
restrictions
now,
assuming
it's
necessary
to
address
the
issue
of
service
connection.
O
Dr
Doss
has
cited
the
current
state
of
the
medical
literature
to
the
effect
that
computer
work,
such
as
that
performed
by
Miss
Briggs
in
her
position
of
senior
analysts,
does
not
contribute
to
the
development
of
carpal
tunnel
syndrome.
So
that's
the
state
of
the
medical
knowledge
very
important
on
the
as
to
service
connection.
O
The
last
issue
raised
by
Miss
Briggs
is
that
of
her
psychological
condition
and
as
Mr
Lederman
summarized,
the
committee
did
conclude
that
Miss
Briggs
was
incapacitated
because
there
was
a
significant
work
restriction
and
the
department
could
not
accommodate
that
work
restriction.
So
that
leads
us
to
the
issue
of
service
connection
and
there
there
is
no
substantial
medical
evidence
or
opinion
in
the
record
linking
her
job
activities
to
the
development
of
her
psychological
incapacity.
O
On
the
contrary,
there
is
a
strong
suggestion
that
her
neck
fusion
surgery
was
unsuccessful,
resulting
in
chronic
pain
and
that
resulted
in
depression
and
in
other
words,
in
her
psychological
condition.
There's
also
a
suggestion
that
her
pre-existing
psychological
issues
that
predated
her
employment,
that
that
as
to
which
the
label
depression
could
properly
be
assigned,
also
added
to
her
chronic
pain
experiences.
O
So
the
pain
increased,
the
depression,
the
depression
also
helped
increase
the
pain,
but
but
in
either
case
the
pain
from
the
failed
surgery
or
the
depression
were
not
work
related
and,
and
there
is
no
contrary,
substantial
medical
evidence
or
opinion
to
the
contrary.
So
it
was
on
those.
It
was
for
those
reasons
that
the
committee
came
to
its
recommendation
to
the
board
that
it
deny
Miss
Craig's
application.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
If
Dr
Das
is
present,
I'm
wondering
if
he
has
anything
to
add
to
your
written
report
for
the
board's
consideration
specifically
on
on
the
issues
posed.
P
You
know
I
I,
think
that
Russia
creta
did
a
very
good
job
of
summarizing
the
issues
that
I
addressed
concerning
the
current
state
of
epidemiologic
literature.
For
this
there
is
no,
you
know,
biologic
plausibility
between
working
on
a
desk
working
on
a
computer
and
developing
cervical
degenerative
disease
or
aggravating
degenerative
this
disease.
P
The
the
next
issues
in
terms
of
carpal
tunnel
syndrome-
and
you
know
the
the
the
medical
literature
strongly
supports
the
real,
a
work-related
relationship
between
assembly
line
work,
which
is
forceful,
repetitive,
gripping
twisting
and
twerking
activities
and
the
development
of
carpal
tunnel
syndrome.
P
And
so
therefore,
the
element
of
force-
and
you
know,
repetition
of
the
repetitions
movement
of
the
wrist,
as
opposed
to
the
fingers,
is
really
kind
of
the
issue
and
that
those
are
the
primary
issues
and
with
respect
to
the
psychological
issues
through
treating
physician,
has
stated
that
we
that
this,
that
the
psychiatric
condition
is
related
as
a
consequence
of
her
neck
condition,
and
there
is
no
biologically
plausible
relationship
between
her
net
condition
and
working
on
a
computer
and
and
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate.
B
That
thank
you,
okay.
Thank
you.
Dr
Das
is
there
a
representative
from
the
Department
of
Transportation,
who
wishes
to
add
anything
to
the
department
memo
dated
March
17
2006
on
the
applicant's
work
status
at
the
time
of
her
application
or
wishes
to
present
any
other
testimony
relevant
to
the
issues
to
be
determined
in
this
hearing
foreign.
N
B
You
is
there
a
return
to
work
coordinator,
president,
who
wishes
to
add
anything
to
their
memo,
dated
April
4th
2010
on
the
accommodations
of
work
restrictions
or
wishes
to
present
any
other
testimony
relevant
to
the
issues
to
be
determined
at
this
hearing.
Q
B
Thank
you,
Mrs
Briggs,
Ms
Briggs.
Would
you
present
your
testimony
in
support
of
the
application
you
can
present
in
any
format
you
wish
I
would
ask
to
do
you
gather
your
thoughts
and
address
the
issues
specifically
that
are
before
the
Board
of
Trustees
at
this
hearing,
so
Ms
Briggs,
my.
A
L
Begin
I
I'd
like
to
comment
on
the
memorandum
dated
November
2
2022
from
Sandra
Castellano
to
the
board.
I
would
like
to
read
from
a
a
number
of
emails
that
she
references
and
a
few
that
she
does
not
in
order
to
provide
the
board
with
some
additional
background
as
to
why
a
lot
of
the
or
well,
because
that
provide
background
for
the
reasons
for
the
a
lot
of
the
delay
which
basically
is
passed
on
to
Dr
Daz
and
the
city
staffs
in
action.
L
So
to
begin,
Emily
noted
that
her
January
9
2007
revisioned,
to
add
the
psych
body,
part
of
the
dis
to
the
disability
retirement
application,
was
prompted
by
conversations
with
City
staff.
She
sent
an
email
to
Karen
Carmichael
on
January
9th
of
2007,
and
it
stated
as
discussed
and
recommended
by
your
office
in
our
telephone
conversation
earlier
today.
Please
consider
this
email,
as
my
formal
request,
to
include
the
psychiatric
component,
depression
of
my
disability
and
my
application
for
disability
retirement.
This
will
be
in
addition
to
my
spinal
carpal
tunnel.
L
Bilateral
tendonitis,
elbows
bilateral
right
hand
and
arthritis
left
hand,
workers
compensation
injuries.
Should
you
have
any
other
information
concerning
my
case,
for
example,
if
the
city
will
reinstate
my
employment,
please
contact
me
by
email
or
phone
at
any
time.
I'm
terribly
confused
with
all
of
the
variety
of
information
I
seem
to
receive
be
receiving
from
the
different
Departments
of
the
city
and
really
do
not
know
what
to
expect
from
any
of
them
or
the
city
as
an
entity.
L
Consequently,
I
myself
did
not
know
what
to
do
on
February
22nd
of
2007
Emily
sent
another
email
to
Karen
Carmichael
that
asked
what
is
the
status
of
my
disability
retirement
application.
As
of
today,
Karen
Carmichael
responded,
I
checked
with
Dr
Das
on
the
status
of
your
case,
and
he
responded
that
he
needs
your
complete
psychiatric
records.
The
report
from
Dr
kurz
that
he
has
only
addresses
the
appropriateness
for
you
to
participate
in
a
pain
management
program.
L
He
needs
medical
information
from
your
treating
psychiatrist
in
your
prior
medical
records
regarding
the
psych
I
apologize
for
not
following
through
with
you,
after
receipt
of
your
email,
to
amend
your
application.
However,
since
Dr
Das
had
referenced
Dr
kurz's
report,
I
thought
he
had
everything
that
he
needed.
Please
submit
the
necessary
reports
as
soon
as
possible.
L
Dr
Das
will
then
review
them
and
we
will
be
able
to
move
forward
with
your
case
the
following
day:
Karen
sent
another
email
or
Emily,
sent
an
email
to
Karen
Carmichael
and
to
Tony
Johnson
at
the
city,
I'm,
sorry,
but
I'm
at
a
loss.
Here,
I,
don't
know
what
reports
you
are
referring
to
or
what
Dr
Das
specifically
needs
from
Dr
kurz.
L
Perhaps
it
would
be
more
expedient
if
the
two
doctors
talk
to
each
other
to
specify
what
one
required
and
what
the
other
could
provide.
Then
Dr
Das
could
report
what
exactly
he
needs
from
the
two
of
us
to
proceed
with
his
next
step.
I
was
referred
to
him
by
Dr
Paul
Reynolds
for
psychological
consults.
Regarding
my
depression.
L
Dr
Das
may
also
want
to
contact
Dr
Reynolds
for
my
psych
eval,
since
he
ordered
the
treatments
for
consultations
and
prescribed
to
me
my
medications,
forgive
me
for
sounding
frustrated,
but
it
is
exactly
how
I
am
feeling
you
have
been
telling
me
for
over
12
months
now
that
you
will
get
my
disability
retirement
process
and
then
not
and
then
will
and
then
not
and
then
maybe
not,
and
then,
perhaps
and
in
between
there
was
even
talk
of
D.O.T
accommodating
my
limitations.
Making
me
think
that
they
were
going
to
take
me
back
as
senior
analyst
last.
L
L
Would
it
be
too
much
to
assume
that
these
dates
are
far-fetched
at
this
point
and
there
will
be
more
deferrals,
Karen
I'm,
not
doing
very
well
right
now,
in
fact,
I'm
not
doing
it.
All
I
spoke
with
Dr
kurz
earlier
this
afternoon.
Who
recommended
me
to
me
twice
not
to
hesitate
to
check
into
emergency
room,
should
I
feel
a
need
to
be
in
a
safe
place.
L
L
For
help,
I
need
a
safe
place
away
from
the
processes,
procedures,
requirements,
deferrals
policies
and
so-called
Services
provided
and
imposed
by
the
city
of
San
Jose.
What
is
really
wrong?
Is
it
me,
or
is
it
just
the
system
or
the
procedures
that
somehow
neglect
to
acknowledge
actual
human
lives
and
beings
they
process?
L
So
tell
me,
besides,
throwing
the
ball
back
into
my
court.
What
are
the
new
dates
for
facing
the
committee
and
the
board
and
for
my
case
P.S,
it
may
also
jog
Dr
das's
memory.
If
you
show
him
the
email
you
forwarded
to
him
that
I
sent
Deborah,
Main
and
David
Wong
sometime
last
year
that
prompted
Dr
Doss
to
contact
my
private
insurance
carrier
to
allow
me
to
seek
my
own
private
psychiatric
consults
or
emergency
psychiatric
treatments.
My
copy
I
copied
you
on
that
email,
remember,
I,
think
I
was
on
an
all-time
low.
L
After
hearing
the
that
dot
had
fired
me,
retroactive
to
January,
12,
2006
and
disability
retirement
decided
to
postpone
my
disability
retirement
hearing,
no
job,
no
workers,
comp,
no
retirement,
just
in
limbo,
with
bill
collectors.
Suddenly
being
the
center
of
my
once
orderly
gratifying
Pleasant
and
heartwarming
life
on
Thursday
March
1
of
2007
Emily
sent
an
email
to
Karen
Carmichael
again
Mr.
C
Chair
and
Mr
Briggs,
if
I
may,
please
Mr
Briggs
the
matters
that
you're
discussing
go
to
the
timeliness
or
lack
of
timeliness
of
consideration.
C
The
issue,
the
issue
before
the
board
is
incapacity
and
service
connection,
the
substance
of
the
application,
not
the
issue
of
delay.
There's
nothing!
The
board
can
do
about
the
passage
of
time
at
this
time,
but
the
board
wishes
to
focus
on
the
specific
issues
relating
to
the
application
for
a
service-connected
disability.
So
respectfully,
if
you
would
be
kind
enough
to
address
these
specific
issues
in
the
application
and
not
the
passage
of
time,
I
believe
it
will
serve
everybody
better
and
certainly
serve
your
interests
better.
C
B
Its
merits
so,
if
you'd
be
kind
enough
to
focus
on
the
merits
of
the
application,
that
would
be
much
appreciated
and
I
speak
for
the
board
if
I
may
Mr
chair.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
Council
leaderman,
Mr
and
Mrs
Briggs.
We
can
certainly
sympathize
with
the
frustrations
of
dealing
with
a
bureaucracy
and
the
delays
that
you
may
have
suffered,
but
as
Council
points
out,
they
are
not
at
issue
at
in
this
current
hearing.
B
What
is
that
issue
is
whether
the
incapacities
could
be
accommodated
by
work,
whether
they
are
job
related
and
whether
or
not
they
have
been
caused
or
aggravated
by
your
employment
with
the
city.
L
B
L
May
thank
you
a
great
deal
of
my
wife's
depression
and
and
her
psych
condition
is
related
to
dealing
with
these
delays
over
time.
It
started
with
her
being
improperly
terminated
from
the
city,
her
harassment,
the
the
city
staff,
pushing
her
to
file
a
disability,
retirement
application
and
then
determining
that,
because
she
had
filed
that
disability
retirement
application
that
she
could
be
terminated
immediately
without
any
any
additional
any
additional
support
or
anything
else.
L
Typically,
when
someone
runs
out
of
sick
leave
and
vacation
time
because
of
an
illness,
they
are
offered
there's
an
offer
that
goes
out
to
other
staff
members
within
the
city
to
donate
vacation
time
sick
leave
time,
whatever
I
I
had
done
it
during
my
22
years
with
the
city,
I
had
done
it
for
other
people.
I
would
have
definitely
donated
time
to
my
wife
and
many
of
the
people
who
worked
for
the
public
works
department.
L
The
transportation
department,
the
finance
department
and
the
police
department
where
she
had
worked
previously
would
have
donated
time
to
her
to
continue
her
service
with
the
city.
Now,
you've
got
all
of
these
comments
about
the
department
being
able
to
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions.
None
of
those
work
restrictions
or
none
of
those
offers
for
her
to
be
accommodated,
were
ever
transmitted
to
Emily.
She
was
never
given
an
opportunity
to
return
to
work.
L
She
wanted
to
return
to
work,
and
some
of
these
some
of
these
emails
that
I
wanted
to
read,
are
contain
comments
from
her
to
City
staff
that
say,
Hey
I
want
to
work,
can
I
return
to
work,
I've
heard
from
you
and
you
you're
kind
of
hinting
at
the
fact
that
maybe
the
Department
of
Transportation
will
bring
me
back
great
I
want
to
come
back.
Why
can't
I
come
back?
L
You
know
give
me
that
offer
the
the
department
may
have
been
able
to
accommodate
it
according
to
three
of
the
memos
that
we
saw
after
the
fact,
during
some
of
these
proceedings,
but
none
of
those
were
ever
offered
to
Emily
in
a
timely
current
manner
when
the
memos
were
written.
L
So
how
in
the
heck,
could
she
how
and
how
can
the
city
state
that
my
wife
could
be
accommodated
when
they
don't
offer
that
accommodation
at
the
time
you
come
back
15
years
later
and
you
tell
us
oh,
we
could
have
accommodated
you
in
2006
or
2008.
This
was
after
she
was
terminated
from
the
city
and
there
was
never
any
offer
to
bring
her
back
to
work
now.
L
The
attorney's
office
and
and
the
committee
conveniently
ignore
the
fact
that
there
was
another
memo
that
was
sent
out.
That
says
that
there
was
no
ability
to
accommodate
Emily
with
the
then
current
work
restrictions.
So
you
know
what
why
doesn't
the
department
mention
that
that
other
memo
that
says
no,
we
can't
accommodate
you,
that's
relevant.
It's
not
irrelevant.
B
Is
that
memo
about
the
accommodation
in
reference
to
which
of
the
three
claimed
conditions.
B
Because
I
believe
the
city
does
acknowledge
that
they
could
not
accommodate
the
incapacitation
due
to
the
site,
condition.
L
It
says
just
this
is
a
December
or
no
in
April
23
2010
Memo
from
Sandra
Castellano
that
states
at
the
time
of
her
separation.
The
department
would
not
have
been
able
to
accommodate
this
restriction
in
her
position
or
in
another
available
senior
analyst
position
in
the
department.
B
Well,
it
could
very
well
have
been
the
site
condition,
which
I
think
is
what
led
immediately
to
determination.
But
if
I
understand
your,
what
you're,
claiming
here,
you're,
not
saying
so
much
that
the
work
led
to
these
conditions.
But
the
the
process
of
applying
for
disability
aggravated
the
condition.
L
Correct
and
and
all
of
the
delays
and
the
flip-flopping
Dr
Das
said
we
need
your
psych
conditions.
We
need
all
of
the
medical
data
from
the
site
conditions.
We
provided
all
of
that
information
to
the
doctor.
The
doctor
said
no
I
I,
don't
have
it
I
need
it
again.
I
don't
have
everything
I
need
the
doctors
duplicated,
what
what
they
provided
to
him.
That
was
provided
to
the
city
both
for
the
workers,
comp
complaints
that
we
had
and
for
this
disability
application.
L
I
believe
that
there's
only
one
doctor
at
the
city
at
the
time
and
that
was
Dr
Das.
So
all
of
this
information
went
to
him
upon
numerous
occasions,
but
there
was
no
timely
review
of
any
of
this
information
and
and
because
we
kept
asking
what's
going
on
what's
going
on,
he
continually
said
well,
I
need
more
information
and
we
kept
sending
that
more
information
and
he
kept
saying
well.
L
I,
don't
have
everything
we
need
to
postpone,
we
need
to
postpone
and
then
he
would
say
well,
no,
we
don't
really
need
the
site
component,
let's
take
it
out,
so
we
take
it
out.
We
went
to
a
board
Committee
hearing
and
the
first
thing
that
he
said
during
the
board.
Committee
hearing
is
well.
I
really
need
the
psych
component
in
this,
so
that
I
can
evaluate
it.
So
we
had
to
add
it
back
in
and
delay
again.
L
We
had
a
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
board
on
in
in
2011
and
in
that
board
we
had
our
attorney
present
and
we
had
Dr
Reynolds
president
to
respond
to
any
of
the
board's
comments
and
to
rebut
all
of
Dr
das's
findings
which
he
did
and
the
board
at
that
meeting
indicated
that
they
wanted
the
city
to
find
the
ime
qme
report
from
Dr
Rapaport
and
provide
that
to
the
board,
and
they
also
wanted
to
give
Dr
Das
time
to
go
back
over
his
findings
and
to
to
prepare
new
findings
or
to
provide
additional
information
related
to
those
findings,
and
nothing
happened
on
that.
L
B
I
I
guess
I'd
I'd
like
to
ask
our
council
at
this
point
to
advise
us
if
the
process
of
applying
for
disability
and
any
delinquencies
thereof
could
be
considered
a
service
connection
or
if
service
connection
only
and
strictly
applies
to
what
has
happened
on
the
job
prior
to
any
injury
or
prior
to
any
termination.
B
It
seems
a
bit
of
a
novel
legal
claim
and
I
guess:
I
I'm
I'm
needing
a
little
bit
of
guidance
here.
C
Mr
chairman,
the
service
connection,
relates
to
the
job
that
the
individual
is
performing
for
the
city.
That's
where
the
issue
of
service
connection
arises,
whether
that
job
that
must
be
performed
by
the
employee
is
somehow
caused
or
aggravated
a
disabling
conditioning
and
capacitating
condition.
The
process
by
which
somebody
applies
for
benefits
or
otherwise
is
not
a
job
and
therefore
cannot
give
rise
to
the
service
connection
that
is
required
by
Statute
to
Grant
a
service-connected
disability.
C
L
It
was,
it
was
the
Federated
Retirement
Board
it.
It
was,
and
let
me
go
back.
L
Correct
the
workers
compensation
claim
was
resolved
in
2010
and
we
had
a
a
scers
Board
review
on
November
17th
of
2011..
That
is
review
in
Sandra
castellano's
memo
to
the
board
where
she
says
that
Emily
and
I
attended
that
meeting
and
that
they
don't
have
any
records
of
what
happened
at
the
meeting.
M
That
it
was
a
known
as
to
why
there
was
no
action
at
that
time,
although
I
did
send
emails,
stating
that
at
that
particular
time
the
Federated
Retirement
Board
asked
me
what
happened
to
the
case
that
I
filed
against
the
city
of
San
Jose
for
wrongful
termination
and
discrimination
and
I
needed
to
get
back
to
them
with
some
documents.
M
And
the
department
heads
helped
me
get
some
of
those
documents,
except
for
one.
M
L
Time,
but
let
me
get
back
into
this
go
ahead,
but
what
I
wanted?
What
what
I
want
to
do
is.
You
know
just
make
a
few
other
comments
on
Ms
castellano's
statement
statements
in
her
Memo
to
the
board
like
she
indicates
that
there
was
a
January
26
13
letter
from
US
asking
retirement
staff,
a
number
of
questions.
We
never
got
an
answer
to
that.
There
was
a
letter
from
the
retirement
staff
to
us
in
2018.
L
She
indicates
that
there
was
no
response
from
us,
but
we
wrote
a
letter
to
Catherine
Schaefer
dated
October
18th
of
2018
and
another
one
on
October
24th
of
2018,
repeating
our
request
for
the
2013
information
outlining
our
frustrations
with
the
process
and
attempting
to
restart
the
disability
hearing
process.
We
didn't
get
any
response
from
those
letters
either.
L
Now
again
my
wife
mentioned
she
in
in
November
of
2020.
She
contacted
Dave
Sykes,
whom
we
worked
with
when
he
was
a
civil
engineer,
one
in
the
Department
of
Public
Works.
So
we
knew
him
personally
and
he
would
like
she
says
he
was
helpful
in
getting
us
going
on
a
little
bit
of
this
and
getting
a
little
bit
more
action
out
of
the
city.
She
mentions
that
the
April
6
21
meeting
was
deferred
well,
it
was
deferred
for
an
MRI,
biopsy
and
surgery
that
Emily
had
on
her
thyroid.
L
There
was
a
memo:
9
19,
2022,
supplemental
report
of
Dr
Das
I,
do
want
to
reiterate
from
the
committee
meeting
that
we
had
just
a
few
weeks
ago
that
that
report
by
Dr
Das
was
entirely
contrived
during
the
committee
meeting.
I
explained
all
of
the
Cherry
Picked
statements
in
Dr
dosta's
report
as
being
unrepresentative
of
Emily's
condition
and
treatment.
B
Briggs,
yes,
I,
think
I
think
we
can
agree
that
the
process
has
been
long
frustrating
and
even
that
it
may
have
contributed
or
aggravated
Ms
Briggs
Mental
Health.
B
So
I
will
ask
if
you
have
anything
to
add
that
directly
addresses
whether
or
not
the
psychological
condition
that
led
to
determination
was
pre-existing
or
caused
or
aggravated
by
by
your
work
at
the
city
and
not
by
the
disability,
application
process
itself.
Well,.
M
The
details
that
my
husband
is
presenting
to
you,
what
you
want
us
to
do
is
basically
address
what
what
the
issues
and
committee
findings
are,
and
unfortunately,
my
case
is
more
complicated
than
that
when
you
say
okay,
my
neck
pain
incapacitated.
No,
because
the
department
could
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions.
The
okay
did
the
department
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions.
No,
they
did
not
accommodate
my
work.
Restrictions,
I
was
incapacitated
and
they
did
not
accommodate
my
work.
Restrictions
Dr
Das
might
have
issued
those
restrictions.
M
My
doctors,
my
my
doctors,
did
set
those
work
restrictions,
so
the
doctor
does
set
those
work
restrictions
and
my
husband
has
been
telling
you
those
in
detail
in
the
past
and
is
presenting
you
the
proof
as
far
as
those
restrictions
go
and
how
are
they
service
connected
and
you
keep
telling
us
that
what
we're
telling
you
is
irrelevant,
but
it
really
isn't
because
these
are
the
issues
and
the
committee
findings.
Unfortunately,.
M
Have
skipped
or
missed
out
on
the
due
diligence
and
they're,
just
basically
saying
yeah,
the
department
could
have
accommodated
the
doctor's
work
restrictions,
but
did
they
really
did?
The
Department
of
Transportation
did
did?
Did
the
Department
of
Transportation
accommodate
the
doctors
work
restrictions?
No,
the
Department
of
Transportation
never
accommodated
the
doctor's
work.
Restrictions
I.
L
I
would
like
to
you
know,
reiterate
something
else
that
we
mentioned
in
the
committee,
that
in
the
interrogatories
for
the
workers
compensation
case
under
oath
Emily,
indicated
that
she
told
her
bosses
that
the
work
areas
that
they
were
providing
to
her
were
not
ergonomic
that
that
they
didn't
meet
the
conditions
that
were
required
for
her
to
be
working,
and
this
aggravated
her
conditions
so
that,
while
the
department
might
say
that
they
could
accommodate
the
doctor's
work
restrictions
back
in
in
the
mid
2000s,
you
know
2006.
M
If
you're
asked
about
service
connection
and
the
medical
causation
of
the
neck
pain
the
carpal
tunnel,
it
when
you're
talking
about
gripping
I'm
gripping
the
mouse,
if
there
is
I,
agree
with
Dr
Daz
when
he
says
there
are
a
lot
of
studies
out
there
that
computing,
it's
a
controversial,
it's
a
controversial
issue
about
Computing,
causing
carpal
tunnel,
but
there
are
also
studies
out
there.
That
says
it
could
cause
carpal
tunnel.
M
However,
in
all
of
those
studies,
there
is
one
common
denominator
that
when
you're
Computing,
especially
if
you're
doing
Computing
more
than
20
hours
a
week,
you
need
to
have
the
right
setup.
When
you're,
Computing
and
mousing,
you
need
to
be
able
to
have
an
ergonomic
workstation,
the
right
post,
posture,
the
right
setup
for
your
Workstation
and
even
the
doctors
that
have
provided
me
with
my
work.
Restrictions
have
set
those.
M
Heads
have
written,
though
written
down
those
particular
accommodations,
including
Dr
Dallas.
Unfortunately,
Dr
Das
never
followed
up
with
my
department
to
ensure
that
my
restrictions
were
accommodated
even
after
I
came
back
from
my
surgeries
from
my
from
well.
Even
before
my
surgeries
I
had
I
had
physical
therapy,
I
had
I
had
Orthopedic
treat
or
I
had
massages
I
had
treatments.
C
Mr
chairman
Mr
chairman
yeah
Jessica,
as
a
reminder,
and
forgive
me,
miss
Briggs.
We
have
a
matter
scheduled
at
10
o'clock
in
three
minutes
for
a
Time
certain
this
matter
is
taking
much
longer
than
I
thought.
We
had
allowed
a
lot
of
foreign.
C
B
Okay,
hopefully
that
is
acceptable
to
Mr
and
Mrs
Briggs.
We
do
have
a
Time
certain
matter
at
10
o'clock
and
I
also
promised
a
break
before
the
10
o'clock
hour.
So
if
we
can
hold
this
matter
where
it
is
for
the
moment
and
when
I
return,
I
would
like
to
ask
either
the
Department
of
Transportation
or
the
return
to
work
coordinator
to
comment
on
when
and
if
the
work
accommodations
were
communicated
to
miss
Briggs
and
if
that
was
done
in
a
timely
manner.
So
that
was
is
the
first
question.
B
C
C
C
B
D
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
Horowitz,
my
name
is
chin.
I
have
a
Veterinary
plan,
Council
I'm,
looking
to
see
in
the
gallery.
If
we
have
Miss
Terry
Williams
I
believe
I
saw
her
presence,
but
I'm
just
checking
to
see
if
she
is
back
at
her
computer
I
am
here:
okay,
I'm
Miss
Williams.
Will
you
be
presenting
with
a
screen
share
and
video.
R
Yes,
I'm
very
Zoom
challenged
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
make
sure
you
guys
can
see
me.
So
if
you
could
advise,
if
you
can
there.
D
Should
be
at
the
bottom
of
your
left,
hand,
screen,
there's
a
microphone
and
then
there's
a
video.
If
you
click
on
the
vid,
there
should
be.
If
you
click
on
the
video,
it
should
turn
it
on.
D
Okay,
video
button
left
there
you
go
okay,
you're
present
with
us,
okay,
so
chair
Horowitz,
for
the
for
this
proceeding,
the
member
and
the
implant
Council
has
agreed
to
the
following
formats.
So
Miss
Williams
will
give
a
presentation
limited
to
15
minutes,
followed
by
a
presentation
from
the
esplan
council
for
15
minutes,
and
we
will
follow
up
with
15
minutes
of
questioning
from
the
board
before
the
board
takes
action
on
this
icon.
Okay,
so
with
that,
I
will
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
Ms
Williams.
Okay,.
B
And
is
Staff
prepared
to
to
operate
those
those
times
and
to
alert
us
when
the
15-minute
limits
are
up.
F
We
can
let
her
know,
I
mean
we'll
keep
track
of
it,
and
so
can
the
attorney
chin
obviously
will
be.
We
certainly
be
considerate
if
she's
finalizing
her
comments.
Obviously
thank
you.
Okay.
Thank.
R
R
The
only
changes
to
my
retirement
allowance
are
from
Cola
cost
of
living
increases.
This
is
not
about
getting
more
retirement
money.
It
is
about
being
able
to
earn
what
I
would
be
earning
if
never
forced
to
take
a
disability.
Retirement
I
have
provided
multiple
attachments
that
you
can
reference
during
my
presentation,
I'm
going
to
try
to
share
this
screen
with
one
right
now.
So
hopefully
that
is
working
if
you
could
just
advise.
We.
D
So
Miss
Williams,
if
you
look
on
her
bottom
ribbon
of
the
zoom
platform,
there
should
be
a
green
button
called
share
screen
in
the
middle.
Do
you
see
that.
D
If
you
click
that,
but
Michelle
share
screen
with
the
audience
here
so.
R
D
R
I
N
N
D
D
R
The
municipal
code
States
as
a
disability,
retiree
I,
am
allowed
to
make
the
same
maximum
compensation
earnable
as
a
current
working,
Public
Safety
radio
dispatcher,
no
extra
pay,
such
a
shift
differential
over
time
or
one-time
special
payments
are
included.
The
amount
that
I'm
allowed
to
earn
with
outside
employment
is
based
on
that
maximum
compensation.
Earnable
amount.
R
R
Since
this
is
their
interpretation,
they
do
not
include
the
five
percent
in
their
calculations
to
determine
how
much
a
disabled
retiree
is
allowed
to
earn
by
not
including
this
five
percent
in
the
calculations.
I
am
not
making
the
maximum
compensation
earnable
of
the
position
from
which
I
retired,
like
the
municode,
allows.
R
R
R
attachment
C,
is
the
definition
of
compensation,
earnable
compensation,
earnable
and
its
definitions
deal
with
what
a
current
employee
in
a
position
is
earning.
This
definition,
along
with
the
other
uni
code,
deals
with
the
calculations
of
how
much
a
disabled
retiree
is
allowed
to
earn
with
employment.
R
My
opinion
differs
from
the
office
of
retirement
service
in
that
compensation
and
compensation.
Earnable
are
two
different
and
distinctive
definitions
which
are
not
interchangeable.
In
this
scenario,
they
are
two
different
words
or
phrases
that
have
separate
municode
sections.
Nowhere
within
the
definition
of
compensation
earnable
does
it
reference
the
other
municode
section
for
the
definition
of
compensation
attachment
K,
which
was
my
second
set
of
documents.
D
I
submitted,
let
me
let
me
back
that
out.
So
these
are
the
original
reply,
materials
that
Ms
Williams
provided
in
response
to
the
planning
council's
initial
exchange
materials
and
Miss
William,
she
said,
exhibit
K.
Is
this
right.
R
A
R
Definition
or
description
in
the
municode
when
the
definition
of
compensation
was
changed
in
2018,
the
definition
of
compensation
earnable
was
not
if
these
two
Unicode
definitions
are
truly
meant
to
be
synonymous.
There
should
have
been
a
modification
to
both
the
definitions
and
any
beauty
code.
Sections
related
to
deductions
for
outside
earnings
researching
this
issue.
I
have
found
that
the
office
of
Retirement
services
are
the
only
people
who
do
not
include
the
non-penchable
raise
as
part
of
Maximum
compensation.
D
R
R
R
R
attachment.
G
is
the
footnote
page
for
the
city
of
Finance
city
of
San
Jose
finance
department
data
set.
It
gives
information
and
descriptions
for
all
the
fields
within
the
data
set
for
compensation.
It
states
the
field
of
base
pay,
consists
of
regular
wages,
paid
time
off,
which
is
vacation.
Sick
Etc,
non-pensionable,
General
wages
and
retroactive
pays.
R
Attachment
H
is
from
transparent,
California
a
well-known
website
that
reports,
government
salaries,
I,
have
attached
2019,
2020
and
2021
information
for
Public
Safety
radio,
dispatcher
full-time
attachment.
I
is
a
state
of
California
website
called
public
pay
website
which
reports
government
compensation
in
California
I
have
provided
the
years
2019
through
2021
for
Public
Safety
radio
dispatcher.
R
F
R
R
R
It
is
also
very
likely
that
the
non-pensionable
race
could
become
pensionable
in
the
future.
I
am
not
the
only
one
that
is
impacted
by
the
non-penchable
Rays
not
being
used
in
calculations
for
outside
earnings.
I
personally
know
of
five
others
and
from
a
public
records
request,
I
found
there
are
potentially
14
retirees
that
could
be
affected.
R
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
listening
to
me.
I
really
hope
that
you
take
all
that.
I've
said
all
the
attachments
and
information
I
provided
and
consider
allowing
the
non-pensionable
raise
to
be
included
in
the
calculations
of
outside
earnings.
I
want
to
reiterate
that
this
isn't
about
getting
more
retirement
money.
It
is
about
making
disability
retirees
whole
by
allowing
them
to
be
able
to
earn
what
they
would
be
earning
had
they
never
been
injured.
Thank
you.
D
If
San,
Jose
retired,
on
service
connected
disability
retirement
in
2006,
that
is
not
in
the
dispute,
and
it's
also
not
in
dispute
that
Ms
Williams
participated
in
gainful
outside
employment
outside
the
city
service,
since
her
retirement
in
2006..
Those
facts
are
Undisputed
and
are
before
the
board
and
are
relevant
for
the
issue
before
the
board.
Now
the
board
has
a
duty
to
administer
its
retirement
plan
pursuant
to
the
strict
compliance
with
the
municipal
code
and
the
municipal
code
contains
a
provision
which
Ms
Williams
has
referenced,
which
is
San
Jose
Municipal
Code,
3.28.1330
B.
D
This
is
known
as
the
disability
retirement
allowance
offset
now
how
this
works
is
that
it
requires
the
plan
to
take
into
account
the
members
outside
earnings
from
gainful
employment.
If
the
member
has
received
a
disability
allowance
and
is
under
the
age
of
55.,
so
with
the
what
it
what
it
requires,
the
the
plan
to
do
is
the
following
calculations.
First,
it
requires
the
plan
to
determine
what
the
ceiling
amount
is.
The
ceiling
amount
that
the
member
may
take
home,
considering
they're
outside
earnings,
which
is
known
as
the
offset
ceiling,
and
so
what
to
do
that?
D
What
you
need
to
do
is
take
the
members
position
that
they
they
formally
held
and
figure
out
what
the
maximum
compensation
rental
vote
is
for
that
position
and
that's
that
serves
as
the
ceiling
and
then
separately
calculate
the
members,
service-connected,
disability
plus
whatever
reported
outside
of
earnings,
then
the
member
has
gained,
add
those
together
and
compare
them.
D
And
if
the
members
combined
outside
earnings,
plus
their
service
connected
disability
retirement,
exceeds
what
a
member
would
receive
in
their
maximum
compensation
in
the
position
formerly
held,
then
the
plan
is
required
to
offset
the
service
connected
sensibility
retirement
benefits
to
a
certain
amount
to
match
that
seal
now.
So
that's
the
calculation
and
disability
offset
that
we
have
here
under
the
municipal
code.
D
There
was
a
period
of
time
where
Miss
Williams
was
receiving
more
than
the
ceiling
amount,
and
because
of
that,
the
plan
had
required
her
to
repay
the
plan
for
the
overage
and
pay
for
the
overpayments
to
her,
and
so
that
may
be
what
she's,
referring
to
as
the
plan
taking
away
her
gainful
employment
money.
D
It
went
on
for
a
number
of
for
a
number
of
months
or
I
forget
exactly
how
long
the
period
was
where
she
had
outside
the
game
for
employment.
That
was
reported,
and
we
had
not
told
her
that
we
were
finally
offset.
So
there
was
a
period
where
we
overpaid
her
and
we
were
seeking
repayments
now.
D
Looking
at
the
municipal
code,
what
matters
for
the
disability
offside
and
what?
What
is
that
issue
here
is
how
do
we
calculate
the
ceiling
now?
So,
if
you
see
here,
it
says
that
the
ceiling
mount
should
not
exceed
the
amount
of
the
benefit.
The
combined
benefit
for
the
member,
the
outside
earnings,
plus
their
service
connecting
disability
shall
not
exceed
the
amount
of
the
maximum
compensation
burnable
in
a
period
by
a
person
holding
the
position
in
which
the
recipient
held
at
the
time
of
retirement.
D
Here,
it's
the
position
of
public
radio
dispatcher,
that's
position
that
we
look
at
and
so
looking
at
that
to
determine
the
maximum
compensation
partnerable.
As
the
board
knows,
it's
a
three-step
process.
So
looking
next
at
the
the
definition
of
compensation
variable
as
to
find
the
lumini
code,
it
refers
to
the
compensation
of
a
number
now
then
going
to
the
definition
of
compensation
for
the
member
compensation
for
the
member.
D
As
stated
incentively
municipal
code,
3.328
0.030.5
subdivision
B
specifically
states
that
the
compensation
shall
not
include
any
non-pensionable
compensation
increase
and
shall
not
include
any
subsequent
increases
to
non-pensional
compensation
due
to
further
increases
to
base
k.
This
is
the
critical
issue
here,
because
Miss
Williams
is
claiming
that
the
5
non-intentional
pay
item
is
included
in
base
pay
and
because
it's
included
in
base
pay.
D
Thank
you,
I
think
this
is
a
fire
drill
in
my
office.
That
I
was
not
aware
of.
I
will
continue
with
my
presentation
until
I
need
to
evacuate.
So
with
with
that.
That's
that's.
Some
of
the
controversial
here
is
that
the
five
percent
non-penchable
increase
that
Ms
Williams
attempts
to
include
in
the
pinch
count.
Relations
for
determining
the
ceiling
enough
of
the
disability
oxide
is
expressly
excluded
from
the
San
Jose.
D
Moreover,
there's
a
number
of
attachments
that
were
provided
with
planned
council's
documents,
which
confirms
that
the
cities
mou
with
the
bargaining
units
for
the
public
radio
dispatchers
also
further
agree
that
the
five
percent
wage
increase
is
non-tensionable
and
should
be
treated
as
such,
because
it's
treated
as
non-pensionable
this
item,
even
though
including
baseball,
cannot
be
used
in
the
definition
of
compensation
conversation
for
the
disability
process.
Calculations
with
that.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
do
you
need
to
leave
us
Council
Chen
too,.
B
Okay
and
remind
me,
the
agreed
procedure
at
this
point
is
for
questions.
D
S
Okay,
I
will
ask
question
trustee
Jennings,
so
foreign
Miss
Williams
brought
up
multiple.
You
know
a
number
of
different
cases
where
it
was
in
the
muni
code
for
company
well
for
base
pay,
and
she
was
talking
about
discrepancies
there.
S
So
Council
Chen,
you
showed
how
this
aspect
is
talking
about
compensation
and
that
it's
non-pensionable.
Can
you
address
those
items
that
Miss
Williams
brought
up
about
the
discrepancies
in
the
municip.
D
D
Okay,
well,
I'll
lead
in
so
there's
no
discrepancy
in
immunity.
The
municode
is
very
clear
that
you,
the
only
types
of
pensionable
compensation,
are
those
in
memory
in
the
immune
code,
and
it
specifically
excludes
the
five
percent
and
non-pensionable
paying
items
now.
Miss
Williams
is
using
base
pay
as
the
measure
for
what
is
pensionable
compensation
and
that's
not
the
right
measure
to
use.
D
There
are
a
number
of
pay
items
that
may
be
paid
out
as
a
matter
of
base
pay,
but
if
they
are
not
considered
compensation
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
a
pension
benefit.
S
I
see
and
just
to
reiterate,
as
the
board
of
Retirement
services
for
Federated,
it
is
not
our
jurisdiction
to
make
changes
to
the
municode.
This
is
not
something
we
can
do
we're
our
responsibility
is
to
follow
it.
S
It
would
be
City
Council
who
would
need
to
make
changes
to
the
municode
or
the
bargaining
units
to
request
that
modification
when
they
bargain
I
mean
that's.
A
possibility,
am
I
correct
in
that
assumption.
Yes,.
R
B
Can
can
you
bring
up
to
the
screen
again
that
portion
of
the
municipal
code
that
specifically
cites
the
words
non-pensionable.
B
D
Let
me
go
actually
to
miss
Williams's
materials
because
I
think
she
has
it
as
well.
That
could
be
some
attachment
piece.
So
this
is
the
definition
of
you
see
here
the
Looney
code
and.
D
D
Community
code
for
compensation-
and
you
see
here
in
subdivision
e
as
a
part
of
the
definition
of
compensation-
it
specifically
says-
compensation
shall
not
include
any
non-pensionable
compensation
increase,
which
represents
a
wage
increase.
This
is
the
the
five
percent
wage
increase
that
Mr
Williams
would
like
to
included
for
radio
dispatchers,
that
is
in
effect
or
on
or
after
January
July
1st
of
2018..
We
are
certainly
past
July
1st
of
2018.,
and
this
compensation
shall
not
be
included.
Any
subsequent
increase
to
non-penchable
compensations
even
further
increases
to
base
pair
again.
B
Ms
Williams,
this
Clause
seems
to
be
determinative
of
of
the
issue.
What
do
you
say
about
the
the
content
of
this
clause?.
R
D
Please
sure
so,
if
you
see
here,
we
we
have
the
definition
of
compensation
and
if
we
go
to
the
definition
of
compensation
permeable,
which
is
actually
Exhibit
C
of
Miss
Williams's
materials,
you
see
here
that
it
uses
the
the
word
compensation
as
a
finite
immune
code.
So
it's
imputed
for
the
previous
definition
we
just
looked
at
for
the
definition.
Conversation
is
within
the
definition
of
compensation
article.
So
it's
a
whittling
down
of
K
items
that
we
come
to
to
a
final
set.
Yeah.
D
Sure
I'm
not
sure
why
this
is
happening.
This
is
the
first
time
ever
where
the
definition
of
compensation
earnable
is
reliant
on
the
definition
of
compensation,
as
you've
seen
here
in
subdivisioning.
R
And
my
position
is
if
that
was
truly
correct,
just
like
the
other
Muni
codes
that
I
presented
in
my
attachment
K,
it
would
specifically
say
to
please
see
the
definition
of
compensation
in
this
municode
section
and
give
the
number
nowhere
in
this
definition.
Does
it
say
that
I
need
to
refer
to
the
definition
of
compensation
compensation.
Earnable
is
a
separate
definition.
B
So
the
nub
of
the
argument
relies
upon
the
idea
that
compensation
earnable
either
does
or
does
not
refer
to
the
definition
of
compensation
elsewhere
in
our
municode,
and
you
are
citing
that
fact,
based
on
the
fact
that
other
sections
of
the
code
specifically
cite
the
the
the
code
number
titles,
when
references
to
other
sections
of
the
code
are
made,
and
here
it
does
not
correct.
S
Curious
so
Miss
Williams
said
that
she
went
on
disability
retirement
in
2006,
I
thought
I
heard
something
that's
correct:
yeah.
R
S
So
during
those
layoffs
there
was
a
rehire
process
over
like
three
years
I'm
just
curious.
Did
you
ever
get
a
request
to
come
back.
R
R
My
retirement
sets
and
at
that
point
I
had
almost
18
years
of
service,
also
I'm,
not
sure
how
familiar
you
guys
are,
but
people
discriminate
against
people
that
state
that
they've
had
a
prior
disability
retirement
and
it
took
me
over
two
years
to
get
a
job,
because
every
time
somebody
found
out
I
had
a
disability
retirement.
My
second
and
third
interviews
were
canceled,
so
I
was
unemployed
for
years.
R
So
by
the
time
I
got
this
job
offer
I
had
already
been
employed
for
a
year
and
I
had
reached
my
probationary
period,
so
I
couldn't
be
fired
without
cause
and
I
had
to
sit
there
and
decide
if
I
wanted
to
take
a
chance
for
the
city.
Laying
me
off
again,
I
mean
I
work
for
them,
part-time,
starting
in
1986
and
I,
got
laid
off
in
2010.
I,
planned
on
beating
a
lifer
for
the
city
and
I
had
to
make
a
decision
at
that
point.
R
If
I
was
willing
to
take
a
chance,
have
my
retirement
plan
change
and
then,
if
I
ever
had
to
get
another
job
deal
with
not
being
able
to
get
another
job,
so
I
turned
down.
Returning
to
that
position,
I
also
had
prior
workers
tell
me
that
if
I
didn't
come
back,
other
people
could
come
back
and
they'd
try
to
encourage
me
not
to
come
back
other
co-workers,
so
I
sat
down
and
I
felt
it
was
in
my
best
interest
to
stick
with
where
I
was
working,
because
I
didn't
have
to
interview
for
another
job
again.
R
S
So
my
question
I
think
the
council
member
Tim
was
I,
mean
I'm.
Sorry
was
foreign
since
back
then,
when
she
went
on
disability,
the
salary
did
not
include
any
non-pensionable,
because
there
wasn't
that,
and
so,
when
she's
compared
to
the
maximum
salary.
Is
that
salary
comparison
updated
on
an
annual
basis?
I
mean
it's
not
based
on
when
she
retired
is.
D
D
Sure,
sorry,
so
the
so
the
disability
offset
requires
that
if
the,
if
the
member
who's
in
receipt
disability
allowance
since
retirement
allowances
from
the
plan,
it
shall
be
reduced
to
account
for
that
outside
of
earnings
if
it
exceeds
the
maximum
amount
of
competition
earned.
But
in
a
period
by
a
person
holding
the
position
that
the
recipient
held
over
time.
D
S
S
So
it
seems
to
me,
given
both
my
employee
perspective,
as
well
as
a
vice
chair
perspective,
that
we
are
providing
an
equitable
comparison
and-
and
in
doing
so
you
know,
even
the
non-pensionable
was
like
seriously-
maybe
not
the
best
move
for
the
city,
but
it
was
something
that
was
passed
and
approved
and,
and
we
all
follow
and
and-
and
so
in
that
case,
you're
kind
of
brought
in
to
follow
that.
S
B
Well,
it
seems
to
me
if
we
can
go
back
Council
Chen
to
the
to
the
definition
in
the
city
code
of
compensation,
earnable
that
if
I'm
not
mistaking
this
case
rests
on
whether
or
not
the
definition
of
compensation.
B
Irritable
refers
to
the
definition
of
compensation
contained
elsewhere
in
the
city
code
or
if
it's
simply
a
a
word
unrelated
to
the
definition
of
compensation
elsewhere
in
the
in
the
city
code,
it
seems
to
me
the
applicant
Ms
Williams
has
presented
some
evidence
to
indicate
that
there
might
not
be
a
connection,
but
also
going
by
the
Plain
meaning
of
the
English
language.
There.
There
is
a
connection,
and
perhaps
we
need
to.
B
We
would
need
to
discern
the
intentions
of
the
authors
of
the
city
code
when
they
wrote
this
trustee
avasti
has
her
hand
raised.
So
please
proceed
yeah.
T
I
would
just
like
to
know
that
you
know
the
one
of
the
issues
with
the
unique
code
is
that
we,
the
defined
terms,
are
not
capitalized
and
probably
that's
the
reason
why
we
are
landing
this
issue
if
compensation
here
is
the
same
as
what
is
being
defined
elsewhere.
But
I
would
just
like
to
point
to
section
3.28.030
which
says
that,
and
it's
not
here
on
the
screen,
but
I
can
see
it
on
my
screen.
G
A
T
Of
compensation
is
the
same
as
what
is
being
defined
as
Fair.
That's.
D
Right
and
in
terms
of
statutory
construction,
when
a
body
of
law
refers
to
or
governs
a
particular
subject
matter
here:
public
pensions
for
the
for
city,
employees
of
San
Jose,
the
the
words
used
throughout
the
statute,
if
it's
to
find
somewhere
that
definition
of
the
statute
applies
wherever
used
within
that
statute,
you
harmonize
the
provisions
together.
You
cannot
have
a
definition
of
compensation
and
then
have
a
plain
meaning
use
of
the
foreign
compensation
Elsewhere
on
computed.
B
B
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
trustees,
or
does
this
follow
a
normal
procedure
where
someone
formulates
a
a
emotion
or
do
we
simply
vote,
yay
or
nay,
on
the
applicant.
D
You
do
or
to
reverse
that
okay.
B
Thank
you
if
there
are
no
other
trustee
questions
or
comments,
would
a
trustee
like
to
formulate
a
a
motion.
S
B
We
have
a
motion
by
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
a
second
by
trustee
Kelleher
and
just
to
confirm
it
is
a
motion
to
accept
the
denial
by
the
by
staff
of
this
application.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
double
negative.
So,
let's
make
sure
we're
voting
on
here.
S
Well,
I
would
like
to
just
throw
out
there
that
I
recognize
Miss,
Williams
frustration
with
the
non-pensionable
and
the
difficulty
that
it
adds
and
complexity
that
it
adds
on
all
departments
within
the
city
and
on
all
new
hires
that
we
bring
in
and
so
I
do
recognize
that,
and
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
negotiate
that
away
or
in
this
case,
for
her
situation.
You
know
change
the
municode,
but
it
is
something
that
is
there
and
it
is
something
we
do
need
to
follow
so
and
speaking.
R
A
R
This
or
when
this
does
become
pensionable
will
I
get
a
return
of
the
4
100
and
whatever
extra
dollars
that
I
paid
for
a
year
where
I
would
have
been
able
to
earn
that.
B
I
think
that
would
depend
on
what
ultimately
would
be
negotiated
between
the
unions
and
the
city
council,
but
we
are
acting
today
on
what
is
contained
in
the
city
code.
At
this
moment,
yeah
I'm
not
sure,
however,.
S
I
would
say
that
at
least
going
forward,
if
that
is
the
case,
and
then
and
if
the
members
choose
to
negotiate
that
at
least
it
would
change
the
amount
that
you
could
make.
You
know,
and
it
would
go
that
way.
But
that's
just
my
uninformed.
B
And
I
will
also
concede
that
there
is
a
hint
of
ambiguity
in
the
city
code,
but
not
sufficient
as
to
as
to
alter
the
facts,
so
I
think
it'd
be
incumbent
upon
the
city
to
make
their
their
code
completely
unambiguous.
On
this
point,
is
there
any
further
trustee
discussion
on
the
motion
before
us?
B
B
You
Vice
chair
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher
you're
on
mute,
trustee,
Kelleher.
K
Sorry
I
was
very
eloquent.
Just
then.
B
I'm
sorry,
what
was
the
vote?
I.
B
To
denial:
okay,
trustee
Linder
hi
and
trustee
avasti.
T
B
I
vote
I
as
well,
so
it
carries
unanimously.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
your
service
to
the
city,
Ms
Williams,
so
I
believe.
At
this
juncture
we
will
return
to
item
1.1,
a
and
hopefully
Mr
Mrs
Briggs
are
are
still
with
us.
B
And
I
believe
when
we
left
I
was
asking
if
either
the
Department
of
Transportation
or
the
return
to
work
coordinator
could
address
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
and
in
a
timely
manner.
It
was
communicated
to
Ms
Briggs.
What
accommodations
could
be
made
for
her
conditions
at
work?
Miss
Mr.
O
B
O
Rusticated
disability
Council
I
was
hoping
I
could
provide
what
I
think
would
be
some
helpful
information
and
assertions
with
respect
to
the
question.
You're
raising,
okay.
O
I
hope
I,
hope,
it'll
turn
out.
That
way.
It
is
intended
to
be
that
I
think
we
all
have
heard
closely
Miss
Briggs
heartfelt
complaint
that
she
was
never
offered
a
modified
duty
position
that
had
that
accommodated
the
work,
permanent
work,
restrictions
that
were
provided
to
her,
but
I
I
think
the
there's
a
really
an
important
point
that
goes
to
the
whole
governance
of
the
city
of
San
Jose,
that's
involved
here.
O
O
First,
there's
the
process
with
the
city,
not
with
the
Retirement
Board
that
led
to
her
termination
from
employment
in
January
2006..
That
was
a
City
action.
That
is
an
action
over
which
the
Retirement
Board
has
no
Authority
or
jurisdiction.
That
is
something
the
city
did,
pursuant
to
whatever
the
applicable
mou
or
Civil
Service
rules
are
there
may
or
may
not
have
been
appeal
rights.
O
My
experience
with
most
sophisticated
jurisdictions,
municipalities
would
indicate
there
are.
There
would
have
been
appeal
rights,
but
those
appeal
rights
are
only
germane
with
respect
to
the
termination
issue,
and
we
also
know-
and
this
Briggs
just
referred
to
it-
she
filed
a
lawsuit
against
the
city,
not
the
Retirement
Board,
the
city,
with
respect
to
wrongful
termination
and
discrimination.
O
In
other
words,
she
had
a
total,
distinct
Avenue
of
recourse
to
address
her
current
complaints
that
she
was
not
that
either
she
was
not
notified
of
accommodations
or
that
the
accommodations
that
were
provided
by
her
Physicians
I'm.
Sorry,
the
work
restrictions
provided
by
her
Physicians
were
not
adequately
accommodated
by
the
department.
O
Those
are
all
events
that
occurred
prior
to
January
2006..
Those
were
all
events
that
that
could
have
been
almost
certainly
addressed
in
administrative
disciplinary
appeal
processes
or
if
there
were
none
applicable,
then
in
her
civil
litigation.
That's
where
all
of
those
issues
could
and
should
have
been
addressed
even
from
a
a
casual
reading
in
the
newspaper.
O
Probably
all
of
us
are
familiar
with
the
enormous
amount
of
litigation
on
wrongful
termination
issues
in
the
private
sector,
as
well
as
the
public
sector,
and
are
also
familiar
with
all
the
litigation
under
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act.
That
is
where
the
issues
Ms
Briggs
is
Raising,
now
could
and
should
have
been
addressed.
O
But
what
is
before
the
retirement
before
the
Federated
board
a
board
that
has
limited
jurisdiction
and
within
its
jurisdiction
it's
deciding
service-connected
disability
retirements.
We
all
know
that.
That's
why
we're
here
today,
but
but-
and
we
also
know
that
one
of
the
two
elements
that
has
to
be
decided
is
in
capacity.
O
We
also
know
that,
with
respect
to
incapacity,
we
have
to
know
whether
the
person
is
incapacitated,
whether
the
person,
the
applicant,
cannot
perform
the
duties
of
his
or
her
position.
What
does
that
mean?
That
means
there
has
to
be
permanent
work
restrictions,
not
temporary
permanent,
and
then
the
department
has
to
evaluate
whether
it
could
have
accommodated
those
permanent
work,
restrictions
in
the
applicant's
job
classification.
O
But
how
are
permanent
work
restrictions,
determined,
they're,
not
permanent
when
a
person
is
still
in
the
middle
of
the
disease
process
or
and
is
still
receiving
treatment
that
could
make
the
individual
better,
because
if
the
individual,
as
part
of
the
same
treatment
for
the
same
disease
process,
improves,
then
work
restrictions
and
might
have
been
appropriate.
Two
months
later,
when
the
con
symptoms
were
greater,
would
not
be
the
ones
appropriate
when
the
person
is
improved.
O
So
the
term
MMI
maximum
medical
improvement
is
a
critical
term
for
our
for
the
processes
for
evaluating
a
service-connected
disability
retirement,
sometimes
MMI
maximum
medical
improvement
is
or
very
close
to
the
date
of
separation
from
the
city
and
Ms
Briggs
case
January
2006,
but
in
her
case
her
conditions,
complicated
with
with
lots
of
symptoms,
lots
of
pain,
symptoms,
lots
of
treatment
extending
well
past
her
termination
date
in
January
2006.
O
O
O
So
right
now,
this
Federated
board,
as
a
board
of
limited
jurisdiction,
is
looking
at
incapacity
which
requires
a
determination
of
Maximum
medical
improvement,
a
a
determination
of
that
at
that
point
of
whether
their
permanent
work
restrictions
or
not,
and
at
that
point
submitting
those
permanent
work
restrictions
to
the
department
to
determine
whether
they
could
have
accommodated
them.
If
they
could
not
accommodate
them,
then
the
person's
incapacitated,
that
is
the
case
with
respect
to
Ms
Briggs,
psychological
condition,
but
with
respect
to
her
neck
and
carpal
tunnel
syndrome.
O
There
is
a
determination
by
the
department
that
they
could
have
accommodated
them,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
those
modific
that
a
modified
job
should
have
been
offered
to
miss
Briggs
because
that
to
assert.
That
implies
a
fundamental
misunderstanding
of
the
two
distinct
and
separate
processes,
namely
that
of
employment
with
the
city,
including
termination
and
separately,
and
apart
from
that,
the
process
of
applying
for
service-connected
disability,
so
I
would
assert
that
it
it.
O
It
is
not
at
all
relevant
to
the
pros
to
the
proceeding
before
you
whether
a
position
was
offered
to
miss
Briggs
that
could
have
accommodated
the
permanent
work
restrictions
that
is
irrelevant
to
what
the
board
has
to
decide
that
was
resolved.
Her
employment
with
the
city
was
resolved
in
an
entirely
separate
and
its
distinct
process
and
proceeding,
including
in
this
case
litigation
I
apologize
for
having
gone
on
so
long,
but
I
think
that
is
an
accurate
description
of
the
situation
and
The
Limited
jurisdiction
of
the
Federated
Retirement
Board.
B
I
liked,
just
one
moment,
I'd
like
if
Council
leaderman
can
once
again
put
up
on
the
screen,
his
Matrix
of
decision
points
and
then
before
turning
it
over
to
Trustees.
For
questions
I'd
like
to
ask
Mr
Mrs
Briggs
to
to
make
any
final
remarks
they
they
would
like
to
present
in
order
for
us
to
consider
their
application.
L
I'd
like
to
to
make
two
comments
on
on
what
Mr
asheda
just
mentioned,
and
then
I
I've
got
a
number
of
other
things
that
I
would
like
to
talk
about
here,
but
first
off
there
was
no
disclosure
about
the
return
to
work
during
the
workers,
compensation
claim
that
was
resolved
in
2010.
So
as
far
as
any
resolution
to
this,
it
was
long
after
these
return
to
work.
Accommodations
related
to
these
work
restrictions
were
were
mentioned
in
these
memos.
L
I
I
still
don't
understand
why
we
would
not
have
received
anything
from
the
city
related
to
this,
because,
again,
the
claim
against
the
city
for
wrongful
termination
wasn't
resolved
until
2010,
so
you're
talking
it
and
it
even
after
the
2010,
where
the
April
memo
says
that
the
city
could
not
meet
the
restrictions
so
again,
I,
don't
know
why
why
we
didn't
get
anything
there?
L
L
L
O
M
Well,
it
was
changed
in
2011
as
the
municipal
code,
a
non-sworn
Personnel
is
allowed
at
least
I
believe
eight
months.
Temporary
disability
leave
with
85
percent
pay
prior
to
that
I
believe
it
was
12
months
with
85
pay.
When
I
was
going
through
my
surgeries
and
my
doctor's
appointments
and
my
medical
issues
and
ran
out
of
my
sick
leave
and
vacation
leave.
M
M
M
B
B
B
Do
need
to
come
to
resolution
today
on
the
issues
before
us.
I
would
ask
both
Mr
okada
and
and
the
applicant
to
Simply
refrain
from
discussing
this.
This
settled
lawsuit.
It
is
not
an
issue
here.
B
I
think
the
issues
to
be
addressed
are
whether
or
not
the
the
psych
condition
which
the
city
has
admitted
cannot
be
accommodated,
whether
that
is
something
that
was
either
caused
or
aggravated
by
your
employment
and
whether
there
is
evidence
that
the
cervical
neck,
pain
or
bilateral
carpal
tunnel
are
are
issues
that
could
not
be
accommodated
by
the
city,
regardless
of
when
information
about
that
was
conveyed.
So
we
we
need
to
deal
with
the
issues
before
us
today.
B
So
I
would
like
the
the
Briggs
to
to
make
any
final
comments,
and
then
the
trustees
will
will
need
some
time
to
ask
their
questions.
B
Further
discussion
of
the
process
of
how
we
got
here
is
is
not
going
to
illuminate
our
decision.
B
L
I
want
to
continue
here
if
I
may,
based
on
Miss
castellano's
memo.
She
mentions
the
800
000
number
that
we
talked
about
during
the
committee
meeting,
that,
based
on
a
three
percent
Cola
from
2006
to
January
22
foreign
2022
Emily,
should
be
due.
Approximately
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
disability
retirement
benefits.
Much
of
this,
but
not
all,
would
probably
be
reimbursed
to
Standard
Insurance.
L
So
we
indicated
to
the
committee
that
we
weren't
interested
in
this
disbursement,
but
we
only
wanted
and
the
app
the
application
of
a
three
percent
Cola
from
2006
disability
application
date
to
payments
that
would
have
been
made
from
her
65th
birthday,
which
was
January
of
this
year.
The
fact
that
we
were
fortunate
to
have
some
creative
financing
the
standard
insurance
coverage
in
a
second
income
all
of
these
years
is
the
only
reason
that
there
was
no
major
Financial
impact
to
our
family
during
this
passage
of
time.
L
To
say
that
there
is
no
Prejudice
ignores
over
16
years
of
ongoing
frustration
with
this
entire
process,
and
it
also
ignores
the
fact
that
we
can
no
longer
call
upon
our
attorney
and
or
our
medical
providers
for
representation
in
this
case
because,
as
they
have
either
left
the
Bay,
Area
retired
or
passed
on.
So
the
passage
of
time
has
impacted
us
dramatically
with
respect
to
these
hearings.
L
Now,
with
respect
to
the
other
memo
item
3A,
the
committee
fails
to
reference
the
1992
OSHA
injury
report
that
the
medical
exam
found
that
Emily's
right
shoulder
right.
Neck
area
had
suffered
a
compensable
work-related
injury
and
noted
that
there
were
some
permanent
residuals.
We
also
failed
to
note
that
a
letter
from
csj's
Deborah
Maine
states
that
the
city
is
offering
an
open,
Future
medical
award
to
the
cervical
spine
and
right
upper
extremity
as
occasional
care
would
appear
appropriate.
L
The
committee
also
fails
to
reference
the
OSHA
injury
report
that
triggered
the
2004
neck
pain.
They
just
basically
say
that
it's
it's
all
biological,
but
while
Emily
returned
to
work
during
August,
2005
and
attempted
to
abide
by
her
work
restrictions,
the
demands
on
a
budget
analyst
and
her
commitment
to
the
Department
of
Transportation
compelled
her
to
try
to
do
more.
She
pushed
herself
too
far
and
was
off
to
work
again
off
of
work
again.
L
Since
her,
then
current
position
demanded
more
She
was
transferred
to
a
non-ergonomic
workstation
in
the
One-Stop
shop
area
of
the
city
hall
Lobby.
She
was
unable
to
continue
working
in
this
environment.
She
took
additional
time
off
and
that
resulted
in
her
exhausting
her
sick
leave
vacation
time
and
she
was
terminated
note.
She
was
not
offered
an
opportunity
to
have
sick
leave
donations
from
other
employees,
including
her
many
friends
and
acquaintances
in
the
Departments
of
Finance
Public.
L
And
all
of
that
other
stuff,
the
committee
again
fails
to
note
that
the
pain
complaints
are
related
to
the
psych
components
of
this
disability,
application,
which
is
related
to
her
unlawful
termination
from
work
and
their
inability
to
return
to
work
at
San
Jose
item
three
B1
the
committee
concludes
Emily
was
not
incapacitated
because
the
department
could
have
accommodated
her
work
restrictions.
They
do
not
indicate
what
position
she
could
have
held
and
failed
to
note
that
no
offer
of
re-employment
was
ever
extended
if,
if
they
had,
she
would
have
been
happy
to
return
to
work.
L
L
So
we
see
the
committee
has
ignored
the
ime
qme
reports
as
to
the
cause
of
Emily's
injuries
makes
a
wild
assumption
without
any
proof
that
it
is
her
genes
that
caused
her
neck
condition.
There
are
no
members
of
Emily's
Family
who
suffer
from
any
cervical
conditions.
This
conclusion
of
the
committee
is
totally
unfounded.
Das
is
referencing
recent
studies,
some
from
2022
that
indicate
there's
no
relationship
to
Emily's
injuries
and
her
work.
The
work
environment
in
2022
is
very
much
different
from
the
work
environment
from
the
late
80s
90s
and
early
2000s.
L
L
The
committee
references
in
4A
Emily's
carpal
tunnel
issues
prior
to
being
hired
in
1986.
Emily
had
two
children
in
the
early
1980s
and,
as
we
noted
during
the
committee's
meetings,
pregnant
women
are
prone
to
swelling
many
pregnant
women
experience
carpal
tunnel
syndrums
during
pregnancy,
and
the
less
fortunate
continue
to
experience
these
symptoms.
For
years
after
their
pregnancy,
Emily
underwent
the
surgery
and
her
doctor
indicated
that
the
condition
was
completely
resolved.
L
The
additional
surveys
were
related
to
her
work-related
injuries,
as
confirmed
by
the
ime
qme
reports.
The
2004
and
2005
surgeries
were
not
successful
and
additional
surgery
was
recommended
and
performed
for
B2
again.
The
committee
does
not
reference
The
Memo
from
Sandra
Castellano.
They
also
don't
explain
why
no
offer
of
re-employment
was
tendered.
They
also
reference
her
neck
condition
again,
but
not
her
carpal
tunnel
condition.
An
item
4C
thus
may
may
1322
report
again
references
current
medical
evidence
and
states
that
1.5
out
of
every
1000
women
have
carpal
tunnel
for
unknown
reasons.
L
He
does
not
take
into
consideration
the
lack
of
ergonomic,
typewriter
and
computer
stations
in
use
at
the
city
from
1986
to
the
early
2000s,
and
wildly
assumes
that
Emily
is
one
of
those
1.5
women
with
some
unknown
Affliction
that
causes
carpal
tunnel.
No
one
else
in
her
family
is
Carpal
tunnel.
So
it's
not
in
her
genes
5A
the
committee
references
Emily's
hospitalization
for
suicide
threats.
L
This
incident
occurred
before
Emily's
employment
with
the
city
and
was
related
to
her
husband's
multiple
Affairs
and
her
Filipino
Heritage,
which
prohibits
divorce
Emily
resolved
that
cultural
conflict
divorced
her
husband
and
resumed
a
happy
and
productive
life
prior
to
coming
to
work
for
the
city.
The
committee
also
references
a
2000
report
from
Dr
Kerr's
note,
2006
report
from
Dr
kurz,
noting
Emily's
depression
and
suicidal
thoughts.
B
With
all
due
respect,
I'm
not
sure
it
helps
your
case.
To
reiterate
all
of
these
points,
the
basic
Point
I
I
understand
is
that
the
process
of
applying
for
disability
has
exacerbated
and
aggravated
her
psychological
condition.
We
we
are
are
not
benefiting.
B
At
some
point,
you
you
have
to
permit
the
the
trustees
to
to
ask
their
questions
and
to
deliberate
on
on
your
application,
and
one
needs
to
consider
whether
or
not
you're,
adding
new
information
that
will
be
helpful
to
the
trustees
or
simply
reiterating
what
is
already
in
the
public
record.
B
So
with
that
said,
do
you
have
any
final
comments
you
would
like
to
make
before
we
proceed
with
the
trustee
questions.
A
B
M
Mr
Horowitz
I
I,
don't
think
that
you're
really
listening
to
us
as
far
as
the
psyche
was
there
a
pre-existing
condition?
Yes,
there
was.
It
was
if
you
re.
If
you
have
read
the
OEM
presented
by
my
psychiatrist,
it
says
right
there
very
specifically
that
it
that
I
was
traumatized
by
my
divorce
prior
to
working
for
the
city
and
it
was
resolved
and
I
was
a
high
functioning
employee
of
the
city.
Afterwards,
in
fact,
almost
all
of
my
evaluations
were
above
average
or
exceptional.
M
M
L
L
The
the
committee
seems
to
disregard
all
of
Emily's
psychologists
reports
and
and
her
medical
professionals
reports
stating
that
there's
no
background
to
some
some
one-line
sentences
or
or
to
some
other
things
in
there.
Dr
Daz
has
had
Dr
kurz's
reports
and
and
all
of
these
other
reports
for
a
very
very
long
time
and
he
was
supposed
to
have
reviewed
them
for
all
of
the
various
different
hearings.
Prior
to
this
question
is:
if
he
had
concerns
about
there
not
being
background
information
or
additional
information.
L
Why
didn't
he
bring
it
up
back
then,
and
why
is
that
a
reason
for
denying
the
fact
that
these
are
service
related
issues
and
just
blowing
them
off?
The
committee
cast
out
on
Dr
Weiss's
evaluation
with
any,
without
any
supporting
evidence
that
the
doc
that
the
doctor's
evaluations
and
conclusions
are
incorrect,
that
they
are
tending
to
continue
to
focus
on
the
cervical
neck
injury
as
the
sole
source
of
Emily's
site
condition.
They
don't
mention
any
of
the
other
carpal
tunnel
or
the
the
cumulative
stress
injuries
that
she
has
it's
strictly
the
neck.
L
Well,
it's
not
strictly
the
neck.
It's
all
of
the
various
things
combined
that
have
resulted
in
her
being
unable
to
work.
So
the
committee
is
assuming
that
it
is
plausible
and
reasonable
that
Emily's
psychiatric
symptoms
are
pre-existing,
while
ignoring
all
of
the
expert
psychological
reports
on
the
cause
of
Emily's
symptoms.
They
just
you
know,
throw
in
the
report
they're,
assuming
it's
plausible
and
reasonable.
There
there's
no
backup,
there's
no,
nothing
from
the
committee
that
says
yeah
we've.
We
have
determined
this
based
on
something
factual.
It's
all
assumptions
so.
J
L
Will
thank
you
there's
just
a
very
little
bit
more
so
there's
numerous
references
in
the
reports
as
the
reasons
for
Emily's
psychological
depression.
Many
of
these
were
related
to
the
board
during
the
closed
session
in
2011,
when
Dr
Reynolds
was
able
to
refute
all
of
the
negative
assumptions
presented
by
Dr
Das
and
his
reports.
Unfortunately,
for
us,
Dr
Reynolds
is
not
available
to
offers
in
sight
because
of
the
long
delays.
L
We
feel
that
Dr
rapaport's
ime
qme
report
that
the
city
attorney's
office
required
would
be
invaluable
in
confirming
Emily's
complaint
for
this
service-related
disability,
but,
unfortunately,
the
city
attorney's
office
didn't
provide
it
to
us.
They
didn't
keep
it
I,
don't
know
why?
Because
there's
a
city
document
retention
guidelines
regarding
these
kinds
of
things
and
they
should
have
retained
it.
M
B
Now
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
the
trustees
to
ask
what
questions
they
have
I'd
like
to
remind
the
trustees
that,
in
our
considerations,
it
is
the
applicant
who
Bears
the
burden
of
persuasion
and
not
the
office
of
Retirement
Services,
and
if
Council
Lederman
can
restate
what
issues
we
are
to
consider
and
and
and
what
which
ones
to
exclude.
So
what
is
the
nature
of
our
deliberations
today?
Council
leaderman.
C
The
determination
of
a
service-connected
disability
turns
on
the
boards
making
a
a
decision
based
upon
relevant
and
reliable
medical
evidence
of
the
condition
and
whether
it's
incapacitating
or
service
connected,
as,
as
you
mentioned,
Mr
chair,
the
burden
is
on
the
applicant
to
present
sufficient
medical
evidence
to
establish
both
that
she
was
incapacitated
from
performing
her
job
duties
and
could
not
be
accommodated.
C
C
The
issues
that
are
on
this
chart
and
are
highlighted
in
Orange
are
the
key:
are
the
ones
that
the
Board
needs
to
focus
on,
whether
any
of
her
three
conditions
caused
or
to
be
incapacitated
and
could
not
in
that
capacity
could
not
be
accommodated
by
the
department
and
that,
in
fact,
any
of
them
led
to
an
incapacity
and
could
not
be
accommodated
that
they
were
there's
a
real
and
measurable
causation
by
the
job
she
was
asked
to
perform
or
aggravation
of
the
condition
by
the
job.
C
C
The
committee
has
cited
to
other
reports
in
the
review
of
those
reports
by
your
board
medical
advisor,
Dr
Doss,
and
so
it's
up
to
the
board
to
weigh
the
medical
evidence
for
for
its
reliability
and
make
a
determination
on
these
questions
that
appear
on
this
chart.
B
And
for
my
edification
whether
or
not
the
first
two
conditions
could
be
accommodated,
is
it
not
moot
because
the
final
site
condition
could
not
be
accommodated.
B
Very
good
trustees,
we've
heard
quite
a
bit
of
testimony.
Are
there
any
questions
from
trustees.
T
I
have
a
question:
what
was
the
reason
for
termination?
Was
it
because
the
department
could
not
accommodate,
and
if,
if
that
is
relevant
for
this
proceeding.
B
Mr
Lederman.
Do
you
want
to
comment
first,
if
that's
relevant.
U
Q
Russ,
if
that's
something
you
would
like
me
to
comment
on
I
I
can
please
okay,
so
based
on
the
records
Miss
Briggs
was
voluntarily
separated.
Q
After
after
her
disability
and
integration
expired,
she
was
sent
a
notice
from
the
city
indicating
that
she
had
exhausted
all
of
her
available
time
and
that
she
would
be
considered
to
have
voluntarily
resigned
from
the
city
as
of
January
12th
of
2006.
Unless
she
supplied
the
city
with
additional
information.
The
city
did
not
receive
any
additional
information
from
Miss
Briggs
and
therefore
she
was
sent
a
final
letter
informing
her
of
her
Separation
on
January
23rd
of
2000.
M
That's
incorrect.
There
was
a
December
3
doctors
that
was
the
December
doctors
letter
that
said
that
I
needed
to
be
reevaluated
for
a
carpal
tunnel
syndrome,
surgery
which
was
later
on
performed
in
May
of
2007..
M
That
was
sent
to
my
then
supervisor,
Stephanie
delgin,
that
was
sent
to
her
in
December.
O
A
M
Just
I
was
just
sent
a
letter
in
an
envelope
of
standard
envelope
with,
with
that
says,
city
of
San
Jose,
with
no
name
who
it
came
from
and
because
of
the
holidays.
We
never
really
opened
it
until
after
January
12th
when
we
opened
it
was
already
after
January,
12th
and
I
begged
Stephanie.
M
For
me
to
come
back
to
work
and
explain
to
her
and
I
told
her
that
there
was
a
a
doctor's
letter
there.
That
said
that
I
needed
to
be
reevaluated
for
another
carpal
tunnel
surgery
and
she
said
no
I
couldn't
come
back
because
I
applied
for
a
disability,
retirement
and
I
said
well.
I
didn't
do
that
out
of
my
own
volition
that
Diane
milowicki
forced
me
to
do
that.
B
If
you
please
it's,
it
sounds
like
your.
Your
specific
description
of
the
steps
leading
up
determination
are
as
you
described,
but
if
you
wish
to
reiterate.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
we
said
that
the
city
would
consider
Miss,
Briggs
voluntarily
resigned
pursuant
to
our
process
and
the
the
language
in
place
at
that
time.
If
the
city
had
did
not
hear
from
her
by
a
certain
time
period
which
Miss
Briggs
has
indicated,
she
did
not
respond
to
the
City
by
so
the
city
then
moved
forward
indicating
that
we
would
be
volunt,
considering
her
voluntarily
separated
based
on
our
previous
Communications
to
her
understood.
B
B
You
any
other
trustees
have
questions
they
would
like
to
to
pose
either
to
staff
or
any
of
the
attorneys
or
to
Mr
Mrs
Briggs.
B
Well,
this
is
a
complicated
case.
I
think
it's.
The
case
has
been
aggravated
by
the
fact
that
it's
been
a
long
drawn
out
interactions
between
the
applicant
and
the
city
and
the
office
of
retirement
system.
M
Mr
chairman
could
I
just
one
last
thing:
on
the
on
the
pre-existing
condition
on
job
causation
and
aggravation
and
the
psychological
Factor.
There
was
an
oem
that
did
from
a
psych
evaluation
that
basically
Apparition
10
on
pre-existing
condition
and
90
on
drug
causation
and
aggravation
that
should
be
your
files.
B
I'm
not
certain
what
that
report
is
referring
to.
Can
staff
well.
O
The
same
general
Point
applies.
If,
given
the
complexity
of
the
file,
there
was
really
impossible
to
know
which
memos
would
be
relevant,
but
in
general,
if
the
board
had
before
it
Dr
curse's
memo,
whichever
one
miss
Briggs
is
referring
to
I.
Do
not
think
the
board
would
be
impressed
by
the
amount
of
analysis
that
was
present.
O
O
I,
unfortunately,
do
not
know
the
there
there's
quite
a
few
reports
from
Dr
Kerr,
so
I
assume,
but
do
not
know
that
the
one
she's
referencing
since
she
hasn't
indicated
a
date
is
in
the
Records
before
the
board.
But
there
are
numerous
reports
from
Dr
curse,
k-I-r-z
that
are
in
the
record
before
the
board.
M
M
O
B
O
Well,
I,
don't
think
pointing
I
can
easily
the
amount
of
information
or
data
on
page
8
of
my
memo
is
not
substantial
and
I
can
easily
summarize
it
verbally
and
and
and
what
you
might
want
to
be
directed
to
is
to
Dr
Kurtz's
April,
27
2007.
M
No,
that's
a
different
one.
That's
when
he
was
recommending
me
for
that's
when
he
was
trying
to
that's
when
he
was
recommending
me
for
a
for
the
restoration
program
of
pain,
management
and
restoration
program.
Well,.
M
We
also
I
apologize,
but
we
also
have
tons
of
paperwork
in
front
of
us.
That's
why.
B
M
You're
absolutely
right,
I
agree
with
you,
but
one
of
the
things
is
that
we
don't
really
open
our
mail
every
day.
You.
B
Right,
if
you
have
a
report,
you're
right,
if
you
have
a
report
from
a
medical
doctor
stating
that
90
percent
of
your
disability
was
caused
by
your
work,
who
is
work
related
that
seems
highly
relevant
frankly
more
relevant
than
most
of
the
testimony
you've
given
today,
I'm,
not
sure
we
can
make
a
judgment
today
now
without
any
clear
understanding
of
that
particular
report.
O
If,
if
I
may,
first
Joshua
Kurtz
was
a
psychologist,
he's
not
a
medical
doctor,
I
know
that
may
not
alter
your
consideration.
Okay
and
also
in
many
reports
percentages
are
given
and,
of
course,
as
Mr
Lederman
indicated,
it's
up
to
the
board
to
determine
the
weight.
I
would
Advocate
the
reports
that
are
opinions
only
without
any
supporting
explanations.
C
C
Although
the
applicant
had
sufficient
notice
of
this
meeting
and
of
the
committee's
findings
on
which
their
recommendations
are
based,
the
burden
is
on
the
applicant
to
bring
forward
that
evidence
does
not
appear
to
have
been
brought
forward,
for
whatever
reason,
I'm
not
sure,
but
it
does
not
appear
to
be
in
the
record,
and
you
know,
citing
or
characterizing,
what's
in
a
non-existent
before,
it
does
not
promote
the
words
ability
to
making
a
determination
about
the
fiction.
C
Not
at
this
point
fictional
report
that
is
not
before
you
so
I
think
that
just
needs
to
be
put
aside
as
not
having
been
presented
to
the
board.
B
Thank
you,
Council
and
yes,
reminding
us
that
the
burden
again
is
on
the
applicant
to
bring
forward
that
evidence
that
might
be
determinative
for
trustee
consideration.
Are
there
any
other
trustee
questions
or
comments.
B
I
think
this
is
a
complex
and
complicated
case,
but
I
think
the
as
we
stated,
the
burden
of
of
proof,
as
it
were,
is
on
the
applicant
to
show
the
connection
of
these
of
these
injuries
or
these
limitations
to
work
not
to
the
process
of
app
of
applying
for
disability,
which
sounds
like
it
was
very
painful
and
drawn
out,
but
to
the
work
itself
and
based
on
that
I'm
having
difficulty
seeing
the
work
and
service
connectedness
of
these
particular
items,
I
think
there
is
probably
some
evidence
that
certainly
carpal
tunnel
might
be
work
related,
but
some
evidence
is
not
conclusive
to
me
and
we
need
more
conclusive
evidence
that
there's
a
medical
connection
between.
S
And
can
I
ask
Council
Letterman
the
motion
that
is
at
hand
with
us.
K
This
is
trustee
Kelleher
and
first
off
Mrs,
Briggs
and
Mr
Briggs.
I
am
sorry
for
the
pain
that
you've
gone
through.
Mrs
Briggs
I'm
admire
your
courage
in
dealing
with
some
of
the
psychological
issues
that
you've
suffered,
but
unfortunately
I'm
going
to
have
to
second
the
motion
to
deny
the
staff
disability.
B
B
Okay,
Mr
Beekman,
please
please
share
your
comments.
Hi.
V
Claire
Beekman
here
this
is
my
first
time
attending
this
sort
of
meeting
I'm
kind
of
a
beginner
at
these
things,
but
I
I
do
have
an
honest
way
to
want
to
work,
and
you
know
I
want
to
be
good
about
it.
The
process,
what
I
I
attend
a
lot
of
City
Council
meetings
about
a
good
feature
of
open
accountability
was
a
feature
of
Technology
practices.
What
I
noticed
from
what
I
could
gather
to?
V
In
my
mind
the
metacarpal
ideas
are
very
much
related
to
a
work,
condition
and,
and
should
be
very
much
noted,
and
that
because
of
her
own,
the
woman's
own
slight
disorganization
and
how
to
present
her
case,
I
hope,
you're,
not
holding
that
against
her
and
I'm
afraid
afraid.
V
You
are
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
way
to
ask
for
a
continuance
process
to
this
item
to
for
their
their
side
to
build
up
the
the
necessary
papers
needed
to
to
to
reorganize
a
new
proceeding
to
to
understand
what
she's
been
going
through.
I
mean
but
she's
had
problems
on
a
personal
level,
but
metacarpal
disease
is
a
concept
that
really
is
common
within
working,
and
it
should
be
really
noted
here
and
it's
not,
it
seems
like
you're
you're,
penalizing
her
for
being
a
bit
disorganized.
V
B
Well,
thank
you.
Mr
Beekman
I'm,
not
sure
you're,
aware
of
the
rather
voluminous
file
that
the
trustees
have
at
their
disposal
on
this
matter,
which
does
address
the
medical
information
related
to
carpal
tunnel
and
its
relation
to
work
of
the
type
that
Miss
Briggs
performed.
So
this
is
has
been
under
consideration,
whether
or
not
as
whether
or
not
it
has
been
extensively
discussed
in
today's
hearing.
B
B
B
Thank
you,
Vice
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher,
unfortunately
I.
Thank
you
trustee
Linder.
B
Thank
you
and
trustee
avasti.
B
Thank
you
and
I
also
sympathize
and
with
the
applicant
and
I
sympathize
with
their
ordeal
in
the
application
process,
but
I
must
vote
I
as
well.
So
thank
you
all
who
participated,
and
that
concludes
this
agenda
item.
I
Christy
Horowitz
I
should
let
you
know
that
I
do
have
a
hard
stop
at
12
30
and
if
there
are
I,
don't
think
I'm
needed
for
Quorum,
but
I
may
be
required
for
some
other
items.
So
you
may
want
to
shuffle
around
the
agenda
if
necessary,.
B
Yes,
that's
true,
that
is
true,
and
also
for
the
JPC
or
no.
E
B
It
possible
then,
to
at
this
juncture,
suspend
the
the
normal
agenda
and
move
into
the
IC
agenda
for
a
few
moments.
B
C
A
I
So
I
would
like
to
call
to
order
the
Federated
investment
committee
meeting
for
November,
2022
and
I.
Don't
have
the
agenda
ahead
in
front
of
me?
I
believe
there
is
are
minutes
to
approve
well.
I
D
Here
we
go,
so
can
you
excuse
me,
please
take
roll.
I
Yes,
thank
you.
So
first
meeting
call
to
order
and
I'll
take
roll
call,
trustee
Horowitz
present
trustee
or
we
know
is
not
present
and
I'm
present.
We
do
have
a
quorum
with
that
I'd
like
to
move
to
the
consent
calendar
and
see
if
I
can
get
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
special
investment
committee
meeting
in
October
2022.,
so
moved.
Thank
you
I'll.
Second,
that
and
we'll
move
to
a
roll
call
vote.
Trustee,
Horowitz,
I,
I
vote.
I
minutes
have
passed,
consent
calendar.
I
Can
you
please
keep
thank
you.
So?
Yes,
new
business
discussion
and
action
on
factual
finding
for
the
continued
use
of
teleconferencing
procedures
under
assembly,
Bill
361
Council
Chen.
Would
you
mind
taking
us
through
this
sure.
D
As
the
back
material
support
provided
to
this
committee
support,
there
are
two
factual
findings
that
have
adopted
by
majority
vote
will
allow
the
committee
to
meet
virtually
for
the
next
30
days.
One
the
governor's
Proclamation
due
to
the
state
of
emergency
and
covid-19,
continues
to
be
in
place
and
two.
The
city
council
continues
to
recommend
social
distancing
in
City
facilities.
I
Thank
you.
Do
I,
have
a
motion
to
continue
meeting
virtually
under
ab361
I.
I
Thank
you,
trustee
Horace,
I,
second,
and
with
that
I
will
move
to
roll
call,
trustee
Horowitz
all
right,
I
vote
I,
so
the
motion
carries.
We
will
continue
to
meet
under
ab361's
abbreviated,
teleconferencing
procedures.
Thank
you.
There
are
no
proposed
agenda
items,
I.
Believe
that's
a
question,
not
a
quote,
not
a
comment,
any
public
comments
and
with
that
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
taking
the
time
to
do
this
now.
B
Thank
you.
It's
been
a
long
meeting,
I
wonder
if
we
might
take
another
five
minute
break
before
we
get
into
item
6C
I
know
we're
all
looking
forward
to
chiron's
presentation.
B
So
if
we
can
take
it's
11
54,
if
we
can,
let's
start
again
at
12
up
noon,
we'll
see
you
at
12.
we're
in
recess.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
And
excited
to
hear
item
6C
discussion
on
preliminary
results
of
the
Actuarial
evaluation
presented
by
Chiron,
so
Mr
Bill,
Hallmark
I.
Believe
you
have
the
floor.
U
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
me
get
my
presentation
up.
So
hopefully
you
are
seeing
my
screen.
We
recognize
the
the
board
has
had
a
long
meeting
so
far.
We
will
make
this
brief.
Our
schedule
we
are
presenting
the
preliminary
valuation
results.
There's
no
action
required
by
the
board.
Here
we
will
be
back
in
December
with
more
detail
and
at
that
point
the
board
would
take
action.
We
will
following
this
presentation.
We
also
will
be
reviewing
the
opeb
assumptions
and
we
do
have
bird
action
on
that
item.
U
So
the
preliminary
results.
We
have
updated
information
for
you
before,
reflecting
the
assets
that
these
results
also
reflect
changes
in
the
Census
Data
through
June
30th
2022.
U
The
liabilities
which
are
represented
by
the
bars
in
this
chart
are
slightly
higher
than
what
we
showed
before,
but
it,
but
just
slightly
so
it
didn't
really
affect
the
funded
status,
which
has
gone
to
57
percent
on
both
an
Actuarial,
a
smooth
Actuarial
value
of
assets
in
the
market,
value
of
assets,
the
chart
on
the
right
breaks
down
the
numbers
between
tier
one
and
tier
two
here
we're
showing
our
preliminary
contribution
rates
for
the
system
as
a
whole.
U
There's
a
theme
here
on
the
left,
we're
showing
contribution
rates
and
on
right,
the
dollar
amounts
and
in
general,
except
for
the
split
between
interest
and
principle
on
the
ual.
The
rates
are
going
down
slightly
as
a
percentage
of
payroll,
but
the
on
the
right
hand
side
you
can
see.
The
dollar
amounts
are
going
up,
the
the
normal
costs,
the
City
NC
down
there
at
the
bottom.
That's
the
cost
of
the
additional
accrual
of
benefits.
During
the
year.
U
U
When
we
look
at
membership
accounts,
the
the
pattern
we've
looked
at
is
prior
to
2009.
There
were
about
4
000,
active
members
fairly
steadily,
with
two
thousand.
After
2009,
there
was
a
significant
drop
in
active
membership
that
starting
around
2013
14
15
started
increasing
again,
we've
been
increasing
since
then,
but
we're
still
not
quite
back
up
to
the
4
000..
In
the
meantime,
we've
had
many
more
retirees
or
active
members.
W
Retired,
great
plus
family
So,
today
we're
kind
of
proposing
some
minor
changes
in
those
so
going
from
35
to
32
for
retiree
only
for
20
to
26
percent
from
retiree
plus
spouse
and
the
retired
plus
family,
going
from
45
to
42,
fairly
modest
changes.
But
it's
being
more
consistent
with
the
kind
of
five-year
average
that
we're
seeing
in
the
First
Column
and
the
Medicare
eligible
is
tracking
right.
Along
with
what
has
been
historically
so
we're
proposing
to
leave
those
alone.
U
Foreign,
so
we
have
an
assumption
about
expenses
that
we
set
on
a
per
member
basis
and
back
in
2020
there
was
a
change
in
how
the
expenses
were
allocated
between
the
different
plans,
and
so
there
was
a
significant
increase
at
that
time.
U
W
U
And
then
the
last
one,
when
I
said
we
were
going
to
just
cover
the
ones
where
we're
recommending
a
change,
we're
not
recommending
a
change
to
the
discount
rate
or
expected
return
on
assets,
but
wanted
to
touch
it.
It's
the
same
story.
We
ran
into
on
the
pension
plan
where
there's
been
a
significant
change
in
Capital
Market
assumptions,
we're
suggesting
that
we
leave
the
discount
rate
at
six
percent
this
year
and
we
review
it
every
year.
U
T
U
So
one
of
the
pieces
we
built
in
here
was
we
changed
the
price
inflation
assumption
for
the
pension
plan
from
Two
and
a
quarter
to
two
and
a
half,
and
that's
also
a
component
of
our
health
care
Trend
rates.
So
we
put
that
increase
into
the
healthcare
Trend
rates
as
well.
D
U
This
is
the
the
detail
on
how
the
model
works,
and
so
here's
the
the
short-term
trends
for
non-medicare
eligible
and
Medicare
eligible
declines
to
this
long
run
initial
long-run
trend
of
4.97
but
then
gets
limited
to
GDP
growth,
which
ends
up
shooting
one
percent
off
of
that.
So
it's
just
under
four
percent.
D
Okay,
so
on
your
decision
point
slide
when
you
reference
to
the
gets
in
health
Trend
model
you're,
referring
to
all
the
numbers
that
are
reflected
in
the
appendix
yes.
A
U
C
B
My
own
inclination
as
last
month
is
that
the
price
inflation
probably
is
going
to
come
out
higher
than
2.5
percent,
but
I
will
certainly
entertain
a
motion
from
any
trustees
to
either
recommend
all
to
accept
all
of
the
recommendations
or
to
make
any
changes
that
they
wish.
So
it
was.
Would
any
trustee
like
to
formulate
emotion
here.
B
Thank
you
that
was
trustee
Linder.
Is
there
a
second
for
that
motion?
Sure
trusty
Keller
will
slow
motion
well.
Secondly,
we
have
a
second
from
trustee
Kelleher
to
accept
all
recommendations
as
proposed
by
Chiron.
Is
there
any
further
trusty
discussion?
B
Hearing
none,
we
will
move
to
roll
call
vote
trustee
Chandra
if
you
are
still
with
us,
yep
I
vote,
I,
very
good
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher
aye
trustee
Linder,
hi
trustee
avasti
hi
and
I
vote
I
as
well,
so
the
assumptions
and
recommendations
passed
unanimously.
F
Chair
Horowitz
and
off
Dave
Cheryl
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
Welcome
good
to
see
you
thank.
X
You
so
much
hi
everybody,
Cheryl
Parkman
office
of
employee
relations,
I'm
here
today
to
present
a
municipal
code,
change
related
to
the
tier
2
survivorship,
clarifications
that
were
given
to
us
in
Siegel's
previous
audit
of
the
the
Federated
city
employees,
Actuarial
evaluation.
This
board
may
remember
that
at
the
beginning
of
2022,
Siegel
performed
an
audit
of
chiron's
Actuarial
evaluations
and
had
a
couple
of
recommendations
that
the
city
needed
to
clarify
in
our
municipal
code.
X
In
order
for
us
to
really
provide
a
robust,
you
know
benefit
to
our
tier
two
employees
I'm
here
today,
with
those
municipal
code
changes
to
sections
3.28,
1470
and
1480..
Now
the
board
may
recall
that
the
city
does
bring
municipal
code
changes
every
so
often
so
that
you
can
provide
comment
on
them
or
have
your
board's
Council
provide
comment
on
them
to
ensure
that
the
administration
of
these
benefits
is
is
clear
for
everyone.
X
So
what
we've
brought
today
is
is
two
changes,
one
to
ensure
that
it's
clear
in
the
municipal
code
under
1470
that,
if
you're,
a
tier
two
member,
you
needed
to
have
credit
for
five
years
of
service
in
the
in
the
system
and
to
be
eligible
for
retirement
to
receive
a
survivorship
benefit
if
there's
a
death
before
retirement
and
then
in
1480
we're
making
a
change
so
that
it
is
clear
that
the
tier
2
survivorship
benefit
is
based
off
an
accrual
formula
of
two
percent
per
year
versus
2.5
percent
per
year.
X
So
this
is
all
in
the
the
Federated
memo
and
ordinance
that
is
attached
to
your
packet
and
I
can
tell
you
that
this
has
also
been
approved
by
the
Federated
bargaining
units,
so
I'm
here
to
take
any
questions
on
the
memo
or
the
ordinance
and
if
it
pleases
the
board
today,
you
know
to
give
us
just
the
Authority
for
your
your
Council
to
provide
us
directly
with
any
comments
they
may
have.
So
we
can
move
forward
to
city
council
with
these
changes.
Thank
you.
G
D
Sure
so
there
are
two
issues
as
Miss
Parkman
had
mentioned
that
these,
the
this
clarification
ordinance
seeks
to
do
one
is
to
make
clear
that
a
tier
two
member
must
have
be
have
five
years
of
service
plus
be
eligible
for
retirement
for
the
benefit
to
be
available.
Now
that
is
a
clarification
in
the
in
this
ordinance,
I
mean
they
made
it
clear.
There
was
an
ambiguity
in
terms
of
how
to
interpret
it,
but
the
city
has
since
cleared
that
up.
So
we
thank
the
city
for
their
clarification
on
that.
D
In
terms
of
the
second
issue,
the
about
seeking
to
be
rectified
with
this
clarification
ordinance
is
that
they're
changing
the
benefit
calculation
from
2.5
to
2.
Now
the
prior
version
of
the
statute
provided
for
2.5
and
as
I
read
the
ordinance
it
does
not
retroactively,
go
back
to
make
that
change,
and
so,
for
whatever
period
of
time
from
the
time
the
original
ordinance
existed
to
this
amendment,
we
will
need
to
administer
it
at
2.5
percent
and
we'll
apply
whatever
changes.
The
city
council
will
agree
to
enact
going
forward
prospectively.
D
This
is
because
the
statute
specifically
says
2.5
percent,
that
that's
the
language
and
what
we
must
administer.
It
I
understand
that
this
was
a
drafting
error
from
the
from
the
city's
perspective
that
they
had
not
corrected
for
a
number
of
years
until
we
raised
it
with
them,
and
so,
unless
the
statute
or
I'm
sorry,
the
municipal
code
is
written
to
you
retroactively,
go
back
and
provide
the
two
percent.
For
that
period
of
time,
we
are
under
a
fiduciary
duty
to
administer
the
the
code
section
as
written
for
whatever
period
of
time.
That's
not
that's.
X
The
perfect
example
of
a
comment
where
we
can
change
the
municipal
code
language
before
we
take
it
to
council
to
make
sure
that
it
is
retroactively
implemented.
This
was
part
of
our
alternative
pension
reform
framework,
where
we
never
intended
for
it
to
be
anything
other
than
the
the
tier
2
accrual
formula.
So
we
will
take
that
comment
back
and
as
we're
we're
taking
it
to
city
council
we'll
make
sure
that
it
is
retroactively
implemented.
X
That
is,
that
is
the
understanding
that
we
have
and
that
we
gave
the
bargaining
units
that
it
would
be
anything
from
the
implementation
of
the
ordinance
which
was
June
20
17
to
the
Future.
So
thank
you,
Council
Chen,
for
that.
For
that
note
sure.
B
Okay,
thank
you
trustee
Keller
did
you
have
a
question.
B
X
Well,
it
appears
that
a
comments
made
by
by
Council
Chen
are
sufficient
for
us
to
move
forward
to
city
council,
because
it
will
clarify
that
this
is
retroactive
and
absent.
Any
other
comments
from
the
board.
We
have
what
we
need
in
order
to
move
forward
unless
Council
leaderman
also
has
comments
that
he
would
like
to
provide
in
order
for
us
to
to
make
any
other
necessary
changes
that
will
help
with
the
administration
of
the
municipal
code.
B
And
it
appears
he
does
so
Council
leaderman.
C
Yeah
just
or
clarification
about
the
clarification
arguments,
the
When
Miss
Parkman,
when
you
talk
about
making
it
retroactive
to
2017,
is
that
going
to
then
be
an
instruction
in
the
community
code
that
we
have
to
go
back
and
adjust
benefits
that
have
been
granted
to
survivors
under
their
language
in
the
statute
today
since
2017,
in
other
words,
five
or
six
years
of
possibly
correcting
and
adjusting
and
lowering
people's
benefits
that
are
already
in
Pay
status.
It.
D
So
my
understanding,
from
speaking
with
our
benefit
staff,
is
that
the
plan
has
been
administering
this
at
the
two
percent
rate,
even
though
the
statute
has
always
provided
for
2.5
percent
rate,
and
so
this
would
bring
in
line
that
practice
to
what
the
statue
currently
says,
because
there
would.
There
have
been
an
email
exchange
when
there
was
confusion
about
this
and
that's
how
the
the
board,
not
the
board.
The
plan
has
been
administering
it.
So.
X
X
And
I
don't
actually
believe
that
there
was
anyone
in
this
particular
circumstance
in
tier
two,
so
if
they
needed
to
administer
it
at
the
time
they
would
have.
This
is
what's
on
our
fact
sheets
and
what
the
office
of
Retirement
Services
understood.
It's
really,
you
know
getting
the
the
actuaries
on
the
same
page
as
the
city
and
office
of
Retirement
services,
so,
in
addition
to
it
being
administered
I
actually
think
they
were
zero
people
that
were
impacted
by
this
at
the
time.
Thank.
B
If
there's
any
public
comment
on
this
issue,
we
can
hear
it
now
and
hearing
none
will
proceed
to
item
6G.
Thank.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair
I'll
make
it
quick
what
you
have
before
you
is
the
actual
cortex
Third
Amendment
with
Federated.
As
you
know,
cortex
change
ownership
last
year,
but
we
have
continued
engaging
cortex
in
some
work
most
recently.
Besides
the
work
with
the
JPC
days,
the
biannual
self-assessments,
which
all
of
you
by
now
have
received
an
email
from
cortex
that
we're
going
to
be
discussing
at
your
next
board
meeting
about
the
animals
biannual
self-assessment
of
of
you.
C
F
Yes,
audio
board
is
performing
and
if
there
any
perceives
changes
that
trustees
are
considering,
so
this
recommendation
is
to
amend
the
contract
to
add
another
calendar
year
for
those
services
with
cortex
for
calendar
year
2023
for
an
additional
amount
of
thirty
thousand
dollars,
that's
just
specifically
to
Federate
it
and
then
not
not
to
exceed
amount
of
130,
because
today
the
the
agreements
have
add
up
to
about
a
hundred
thousand.
So
thirty
thousand
more
is
430..
F
I
think
this
is
a
worthwhile
recommendation
and
I
recommend
the
approval
by
your
board
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
Pena.
Are
there
any
questions
from
trustees.
I
Chair
Harwood
says
my
last
act
before
I
I
turned
into
a
pumpkin.
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
I've
worked
closely
with
cortex
in
two
different
contexts:
I
think
they
do
great
work
and
I'd
love
to
continue
enjoying
the
relationship
with
them.
So
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
on
the
floor.
Okay,.
B
Thank
you
for
that
motion.
Is
there
a
second
to
that
motion.
B
B
Hearing
none
will
have.
We
will
call
vote
trustee
Chandra,
while
you're
with
us
aye
Vice,
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher,
aye,
Dusty,
Linder,
hi,
trustee
avasti
aye
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
The
motion
passes
6h
we're
really
getting
up
in
the
alphabet.
Today,
discussion,
action
on
scheduled
board
and
standing
committee
meetings:
Mr
Pioneer.
Will
you
present.
F
On
this
yeah
I
mean,
is
it
straightforward?
You
had
the
member
before
you.
This
is
just
a
recommendation
for
the
schedule
board,
meetings
and
committee
meetings
for
2023.
Your
board
meetings
are
the
third
Thursday
of
every
month,
with
the
exception
of
the
month
of
July
and
you're
standing
committees
for
the
most
part
are
Avery
on
a
partly
basis.
Some
of
them
happened
after
the
Federated
board
meeting
some
others
after
the
police
and
fire
department
meeting.
F
B
B
Was
the
second
by
trustee
lender?
Is
there
any
discussion
from
trustees?
Any
public
comments
we'll
have
a
roll
call
vote
trustee.
Chandra?
Are
you
still
with
us?
B
Okay,
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye
trustee
Kelleher
aye
trustee
Linder,
aye
trustee,
avasti
I,
believe
that
was
an
I
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
So
it
passes
the
committee
meetings
are
set.
B
So
every
year
we
nominate
multiple
candidates
for
chair,
and
vice
chair
and
I
would
invite
anyone
to
to
put
forward
their
name.
It's
an
exciting
and
time
to
be
in
one
of
these
positions
and
I
believe
we
only
need
a
single
nomination.
This
is
not
something
like
a
motion
where
we
need
a
first
and
a
second.
If
that
is
correct,
that's
correct,
I.
K
Would
nominate
chairman
Horowitz
for
chair
and
vice
chair
Jennings
for
the
vice
chair,
wow.
A
B
We
are
there
any
other
nominations.
I
certainly
would
like
to
hear
it.
I
would
like
to
comment
on
this,
and
that
is
my
attendance
up
to
now
has
been
almost
perfect,
but
in
this
coming
year,
I
do
expect
more
absences
by
myself,
so
there'll
be
more
Reliance
on
the
vice
chair
to
conduct,
meetings
and
I
do
know.
Vice
chair
Jennings
is
already
the
most
over
committed
trustee
with
more
committee
assignments
than
any
other,
so
I
I.
B
You
should
bear
this
in
mind.
Trustee
Jennings,
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
any
any
comment
on
your
willingness
to
serve,
and
but
I
would
expect
that
whoever
is
the
vice
chair
will
be
chairing
a
number
of
meetings
this
coming
year.
S
Well,
my
only
concern
is
once
we
have
to
start
getting
in
person
and
if
it
gets
spread
out
over
multiple
things
that
that
will
be
concerning.
For
me,
though,
it
sounds
like
we
still
have
the
option
of
putting
out
our
address,
but
it
might
be
harder
if
we're
all
in
person
and
unremote.
K
I
have
a
question
for
that,
because
I
know
that
there's
the
emergency
dispensation
but
I
thought
that
under
the
brown
act,
as
long
as
we
put
our
address
in
we'd,
be
fine
is
that
true,
Council
leaderman.
A
D
Under,
the
traditional
Brown
act,
rules
of
posting,
your
address
that
there
is
no
limit.
But
if.
B
B
Or
withdraw
your
nomination
I
see,
so
no
further
action
is
required
at
this
time.
Correct
all
right.
So
let
us
proceed
to
J
discussion
and
action
on
committee
assignments
and
I.
Believe
here
is
that
we
with
the
the
the
departure
of
trustee
or
we
have
a
an
opening
on
the
IC.
The
investment
committee.
G
B
I
would
like
to
propose
and
return
the
favor
to
trustee
Kelleher
to
place
him
on
the
IC
committee.
If
he
would
be
willing
to
accept
that
assignment.
On
behalf.
B
And
I
believe
we
do
require
action
here.
So
if
we
can
formulate
a
motion
to.
S
A
motion
to
have
trustee
Kelleher,
be
on
the
on
the
investment
committee.
B
So
we
have
a
motion
from
Vice
chair
Jennings
to
Place
trustee
Keller
on
the
IC.
Do
we
have
a
second
I'll.
B
You
we
have
a
second
from
trustee
Linder,
any
further
discussion,
any
public
comments.
We
will
now
have
a
vote.
Vice
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
trustee,
Kelleher.
B
Well,
we
could
outvote
you
so
that's
true,
trustee
lender
and
trustee
avasti.
T
B
And
I
vote
I
as
well
by
unanimous
acclimation.
You,
sir,
are
on
the
IC.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
the
board
and
now
we're
up
to
K
at
long
last.
I
believe
Council
chin
has
something
to
share
with
us
on
this
matter.
So.
D
K
G
B
From
trustee
lender
any
further
trustee
discussion,
any
public
comment:
we
will
vote
Vice,
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
Rusty,
Kelleher,
aye,
trustee
Linder,
aye,
Mr,
Steve,
Austin,
aye
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
At
passage
unanimously
now
move
forward
to
committee
reports,
the
investment
committee
chair,
Chandra,
is
absence,
but
I
don't
believe
we
have
anything
as
the
only
other
Committee
Member
I.
Don't
think
we
have
anything
to
report
governance
committee,
I
believe
that's
chair,
Jennings.
B
Nothing
to
report
here,
audit
committee,
chair
Kelleher,
nothing
to
report.
Okay,
are
we
needing
to
take
any
action
here
on
these
accept.
B
Okay,
so
would
seven
three
that's
the
order
committee.
So,
oh,
we
do
have
discussion,
G,
f
and
g.
We
do
have
discussion
in
action
on
the
committee
recommendations
from
Grant
Thornton
and
we
have
the
independent
Auditors
report
and
required
Communications
chair
kelleherd.
Would
you
like
to
present
on
this
I.
K
May
defer
to
to
Roberto
that's.
F
Quite
a
right
trustee
get
her,
so
Grand
turton
actually
presented
the
their
findings
of
their
Financial
audit
for
June
30th
2022.
That's
what
in
essence
at
before
you.
It's
two
things
is
the
actual
report
which
the
bottom
line
is
is
qualify
is
an
unqualified
opinion,
which
is
mean
a
clean
opinion
that
the
financial
statements
are
presented
fairly
and
then
also
before
you.
You
have
the
actual
annual,
comprehensive
financial
report
for
your
reference,
and
so
I
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
mention
a
couple
of
things.
F
The
first
one
is
to
for
the
work
and
the
partnership.
Over
the
last
five
seven
years
there
have
been
a
great
partner.
They
have
done
an
excellent
job.
This
is
the
last
Financial
Audi
they're
going
to
be
conducting
and
staff
is
going
to
be
going
in
the
next
three
months.
We
will
keep
you
posted.
F
We
will
be
going
out
for
our
request
for
proposal
for
new
Auditors
Grant
Thornton,
obviously
will
be
invited
to
rebate
for
this
job,
and
I
also
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
publicly
give
kudos
to
the
staff
for
a
great
job.
The
office
has
been
receiving
the
highest
certification
by
the
government
of
of
of
officers
of
financial
reporting
over
the
last
20
or
so
years
for
the
financial
reports
just
like
the
city
has,
and
that's
really
a
joint
effort
by
the
whole
staff.
F
Obviously,
it
wouldn't
be
completed
with
the
support
for
all
the
different
areas
from
benefits
to
Administration,
I.T,
accounting
and
Investments.
But
you
know
the
main
effort
is
actually
led
by
the
account
hunting
group
and
the
benjitor
for
who
is
their
Audi
manager.
So
again,
congratulations
to
the
staff
and
thank
you
for
a
great
job.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
I
would
recommend
you
know
actually
approval
by
the
boards
and
as
required
for
Action
I
think
is
7g
and
seven
I'm,
sorry,
seven,
three
f
and
g.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
B
Okay,
you
can
do
a
single
motion.
We
can
do
every
single
motion.
Okay.
Well,
having
heard
that,
is
there
someone
who
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
accept
both
f
and
g
slow
motion
by
trustee
Kelleher?
We
have
a
motion
from
trustee
Kelleher.
Do
we
have
a
second
a.
B
Have
a
second
from
Vice
chair
Jennings,
any
further
trusty
discussion,
any
public
comment
on
these
issues.
If
not,
we
will
have
a
roll
call
vote.
Vice,
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
trustee
Kelleher,
aye
trustee
Linder,
aye
trustee
avasti,
aye
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
It
passes
7.4
joint
Personnel
committee.
B
If
we
could
scroll
up,
we
did
have.
We
are
scheduled
now
to
have
meetings
monthly.
B
So
that's
the
oral
update
that
would
be
from
the
chair
and
we
did
elect
a
new
chair
and
vice
at
the
committee
remind
me
Julie
who,
who
'd
it
be
like
chair.
B
A
rug,
okay,
yeah
he's
not
here
to
report,
so
I
reported
him
his
place,
okay
and
that
will
continue
for
all
of
2023.,
Education
and
Training
I.
Believe
you
all
have
the
cortex
report
of
seminars
and
programs.
Are
there
any
proposed
agenda
items
hearing
none
I
adjourn
this
meeting,
but
please
stand
by
for
our
various
committee
meetings.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
All
for
participating.