►
Description
City of San José, California
Federated City Employees' Retirement Plan Board of April 15, 2021
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.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=856810&GUID=C2903CEC-2E1E-46F9-85B6-8E5B6CB69A5B
A
A
A
A
B
B
Present,
thank
you
trustee
chandra,
good
president.
Thank
you
trustee
jennings
present.
Thank
you
trustee
kelleher.
B
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I'm
here
so
that
makes
six
of
us
thing
on.
The
agenda
is
closed
session,
so
we
will
be
moving
into
closed
session
and
we
anticipate
coming
out
at
around
eight
or
I'm
sorry,
nine
o'clock.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
move
into
closed
session.
Just
a
reminder,
staff
isn't
able
to
put
the
trustees
in
the
closed
session
room
the
night
before
so
we'll
just
wait
as
they
move
us
in
one
at
a
time.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
Yeah
we
are
returning
to
open
session.
Thank
you.
Everyone
else
for
your
patience.
While
we
were
there,
let's
orders
of
the
day,
are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda?
I
don't
show
any.
I
don't
show
any
sunshine
exceptions.
B
Are
we
ready
to
move
forward,
I'm
planning
on
a
break
at
5,
just
after
5b,
which
is
the
oral
update
from
the
city
council
liaison
to
the
board
and
just
before
we
jump
into
the
the
discussion
sessions
on
disability
retirement
rupert?
Does
that
sound
about.
C
Good,
whatever
your
pleasure
is
sure,
okay.
B
C
B
Very
good
all
right.
Let's
move
on
then
to
item
one,
the
consent
calendar.
Today's
consent
calendar
includes
approval
of
service,
retirements,
approval
of
a
deferred
vested
approval
of
board
minutes
approval
of
return
contributions,
acceptance
of
communication
information
reports,
approval
of
travel
conference
attendance.
B
E
B
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
good
any
discussion.
B
E
A
B
B
B
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
We
really
have
no
agenda
items
to
discuss
today,
but
I
did
promise
the
board
last
month,
so
the
board
approved
the
healthcare
trust
allocation
and
we
said
we
would
implement
on
the
board
suggestion
that
we
will
actually
pace
the
allocation
to
fixed
income,
and
so
I'm
going
to
ask
senior
investment
officer,
jay
kwon,
to
discuss
implementation
of
the
healthcare
trust
allocation
with
the
board
now,
but
just
before
he
gets
to
that.
F
I
just
wanted
to
share
some
performance
numbers
and
as
always,
these
are
unaudited
numbers,
and
for
the
month
of
march
the
pension
plan
returned
1.05
percent
and
as
of
the
day
before
and
that's
the
last
available
date
was
actually
april.
13Th
our
fiscal
year
to
date,
performance
for
the
pension
plan
was
22.35,
and
so
again
these
are
unaudited
numbers,
and
you
know
the
numbers
are
looking
good
compared
to
our
discount
rate,
but,
as
always,
anything
could
happen
between
now
and
june.
F
F
Good
morning,
if
we
could
open
up
the
attachment.
F
F
Sorry,
linda
michelle
did
you
need
me
to
share
the
screen.
It's
just
one
page.
If
you
could
throw
that
up.
F
Okay,
I,
if
you
don't
mind
enabling
I
think
I'm
a
participant
in
this
particular.
E
F
Okay,
sorry
about
the
little
hiccup
at
the
last
board
meeting
you
all
selected,
a
new
allocation
for
the
healthcare
trust
and
as
part
of
that
discussion,
as
probably
noted,
there
was
an
agreement
to
implement
the
new
allocation
incrementally
and
I
I
believe
it
was
laura's
suggestion
from
makita
who
made
the
eminently
reasonable
suggestion
to
leg
into
the
new
changes.
And
so
that's
that's.
What
we've
put
up
here
on
the
screen.
F
F
F
So
next
to
the
target
weights,
there's
a
column,
labeled
ctd,
that's
contribution
to
duration,
and
that's
just
the
duration
of
the
index
weighted
by
our
our
target
target
weight
to
that
particular
asset
class.
So
that's
how
we're
measuring
for
a
particular
allocation
so
for
a
particular
column.
We're
measuring
the
duration
at
the
plan
level,
and
so
that's
summed
at
the
bottom
there,
where
you
can
see
the
weighted
duration
from
fixed
income
for
our
current
target
weight
is
very
low.
F
It's
0.07
years,
and
so
the
subsequent
columns
here
are
just
the
incremental
steps
we're
going
to
take
to
leg
into
our
ultimate
target
allocation
on
the
far
right
and
that's
the
mix
a
that
was
approved
at
the
prior
meeting,
the
first
column.
So
at
the
end
of
may
we're
penciling
in
that
we
make
the
the
changes
across
the
equity
and
real
estate,
exposures
and
partial
changes
across
fixed
income
all
right.
F
So
you
can
see,
then
the
result
of
that
with
regards
to
duration
in
the
ctd
column,
for
may
we're
adding
about
0.6
years
to
the
plan,
the
next
tranche
in
july.
F
So,
two
months
after
we're
going
to
make
an
additional
set
of
changes
across
fixed
income,
the
the
net
result
of
that
is
again
an
increase,
so
an
another
incremental
step
and
the
duration
of
the
plan
of
about
point
six
years,
and
so
we
tried
to
kind
of
evenly
leg
into
the
overall
changes
in
duration,
and
we
finish
and
at
the
end
of
september
legging
into
the
rest
of
the
fixed
income
changes.
And
so
that's
you
know
a
little
less
than
the
prior
changes,
but
kind
of
within
the
margin
of
error
there.
F
So
three
steps
each
one
a
couple
months
apart
and
ultimately,
at
the
end
of
september,
we're
getting
to
the
mix
a
target,
and
hopefully
this
isn't
a.
You
know
we're
trying
to
make
this
very
straightforward
and
transparent.
F
B
Any
questions
from
board
members.
D
I
guess
I
have
one,
it
might
be
kind
of
lame,
but
why
why
are
we
adding
years?
I
don't
quite
get
that.
F
Yeah,
so
that
is
well
that's
a
good
question.
F
The
the
basic
change
that
was
approved
at
the
prior
board
meeting
was
to
go
from
our
target
weights
in
that
very
first
column
to
the
last
column
mix
a
and
so
the
move
from
the
target
to
mix
a
is
that's
kind
of
noted
in
the
far
right
columns
called
total
changes
right
and
the
total
changes
you
can
see
that
we're
taking
we're
taking
a
fair
bit
of
money
out
of
that
short
term,
ig
bonds
bucket
and
moving
it
into
ig
bonds
and
long-term
government
bonds.
F
So
the
net
effect
of
that
is
we're
taking
money
out
of
a
short
duration
index
that
that
t-bill,
those
are
basically
three-month
cash-like
bills.
We're
taking
a
lot
of
money
out
of
that
particular
strategy
and
putting
it
into
something
that
has
a
longer
weighted
average
maturity.
And
that's
so
that's
the
ag
u.s
ag
line,
as
well
as
the
u.s
long
treasury
line.
F
So
those
are
instruments
that
you
know
have
mature
weighted
average
maturities
much
further
out
than
cash
kind
of
in
the
case
of
the
long
treasuries
decades,
plus
right
and
so
the
net
effect
of
the
change
from
target
to
mix
a
which
was
approved
at
the
last
board
meeting
is
an
extension
and
duration
right,
an
increase
in
duration
of
the
plan,
and
so
the
discussion
was
well.
That
seems
like
a
at
the
prior
board
meeting.
F
There
was
some
discussion
around
the
fact
that,
well
that
that
seems
like
a
rather
large
move
to
make
in
one
one
step,
and
so
here
what
we
did
was
split,
that
step
into
three
pieces
separated
a
couple
months
out.
Each
piece.
B
D
F
Yes,
so
this
is,
this
is
all
in
the
context
of
strategic
asset
allocation
right
and
so
again.
At
the
last
meeting,
we
discussed
the
fact
that
the
the
strategic
asset
allocation
for
this
particular
for
this
particular
healthcare
trust,
actually
hadn't
been
changed,
yeah
at
the
last
cycle
and
so
yeah.
This
is
a
multi-year
exposure,
hopefully,
hopefully.
B
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
mr
kwon
and
mr
prob,
mr
palani,
for
the
update
anything
else
under.
D
D
Question
for
cio
palani:
do
you
have
an
estimate
what
our
current
funded
ratio
might.
C
Yeah
prabhu,
you
would
like
me
to
take
that
please,
yes,
so,
on
the
last
valuation
trustee
horowitz,
the
the
funding
ratio
from
an
actuarial
standpoint
was
just
at
about
50
percent
on
a
market
value
basis
is
actually
about
50
right
on
the
line.
Now,
of
course,
the,
as
probably
indicated
the
year-to-day
fiscal
year
returns
are
outstanding
and
despite
what
he
said
that
he
may
not
know
what
will
happen
until
june
30th,
she
has
a
pretty
good
idea.
C
He
want
to
make
sure
anything
that
happens
happens
after
july,
1st,
so
borderline
is
the
the
funding
ratio
is
in
the
50.
The
area.
D
C
That's
correct
because,
as
you
know,
the
funding
ratio
is
impacted
not
just
by
the
rate
of
returns,
but
also
other
type
of
decisions,
actual
decisions
that
your
board
make
and,
as
you
recall,
and
on
your
last
valuation,
you
were
elected
to
decrease
the
expected
rate
of
return,
and
that
is
by
itself
the
largest
impact
to
the
funding
ratio.
So
any
gains
that
we
may
have
been
able
to
record
in
any
other
kind
of
actuarial
gain
and
losses
were
mitigated
by
the
decreases
at
some
rate
return.
B
Okay,
mr
palani
anything
else
under
oral
update.
B
C
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
I
I
I
was
trying
to
let
you
know
that
councilmember
davis
is
actually
not
feeling
well
today,
so
she's,
nothing
in
the
meeting.
So
just
just
a
heads
up
when
we
get
to
the
next
item.
I
have
a
few
comments.
If
you
bear
with
me,
the
first
one
is
that
april
is
the
month
where
staff
the
office
actually
calculates
and
apply
the
cost
of
living
adjustment
for
federated
retirees,
so
they
will
be
paid
and
show
up
in
their
paycheck
for
this
month.
C
At
the
end
of
the
month
april
30th,
we
staff
also
issue
all
the
415
letters
to
those
members
that
are
impacted
by
four
or
fifteen
international
code
limits
indicating
what
adjustment
they
will
find
in
their
paycheck
for
april
2021.
C
They
went
out
earlier
as
well,
so
they
should
have
received
them
by
now.
C
We
also
want
to
let
you
know
that
we
are
in
the
final
selection
phase
for
the
senior
benefit
analyst
and
the
benefit
analyst
positions,
so
we
expect
to
make
offers
this
month
for
those
two
positions
you
may
be
called,
and
we
have
an
item
for
the
further
in
this
agenda.
Having
to
do
with
a
board
medical
advisor
that
we
issue
a
request
for
proposal
and
it
actually
closes
today
at
this
point
about
10
a.m.
In
the
morning
we
have
not
received
any
bids.
C
We
did
receive
an
intent
to
beat
earlier
in
the
process,
but
we
haven't
received
any
beats
yet
so
certainly
we
will
let
you
know
after
the
close
of
business
today,
I
will
be
following
up
with
an
email,
if
not
friday,
maybe
monday,
the
city
council
is
actually
going
to
have
a
study
session,
which
is
a
public
meeting
on
a
friday
april,
23rd
from
9
a.m,
to
12
12
p.m.
C
On
a
pension
obligation
bond
the
pension
obligation
bond
is
a
recommendation
that
is
coming
out
of
the
retirement
solutions,
working
group
that
was
commissioned
by
the
mayor
a
couple
of
years
ago,
and
so
again
my
email
would
just
provide
you
with
the
agenda
and
the
actual
presentation
and
will
encourage
you
to
to
attend
the
meeting
as
public.
If
you
would
like
to
so
that
you
can
share
the
information.
C
I
think
the
goal
by
the
city
is
to
eventually
go
back
to
the
city
council
to
ask
then,
after
the
study
session,
whether
they
would
like
to
pursue
the
process
of
actually
issuing
a
pension
obligation
bond
and
the
reason
I
I
will
recommend
you
attend
this
study
session.
C
If
you
have,
the
time
is
because
if
the
city
does
become
interested
and
serious
about
this
process,
they're
going
to
be
some
decisions
that
the
board
is
going
to
have
to
make,
and
you
know,
there's
going
to
have
to
be
a
a
joint
effort
between
the
city
and
the
boards
on
this
process.
So,
if
you're
not
able
to
attend
the
meeting,
that
will
be
fine.
You
can
always
actually
then
go
to
the
city
website
and
watch
the
presentation.
C
C
I
think
I
shared
with
you
that
last
year
our
benefits
manager
actually
was
out
on
the
on
fmla
leave
and
just
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
she
actually
have
presented
her
resignation,
which
becomes
effective
today
and
so
after
the
the
end
of
business
they
day,
I
will
be
reaching
out
to
our
contact
at
the
mayor's
office
because,
along
with
the
benefits
manager,
there's
a
couple
of
the
positions
based
on
the
budget
that
we
would
like
to
unfreeze
so
that
we
can
kick
off
a
search
process.
C
That
concludes
my
update,
mr
chair.
I'm
happy,
oh
by
the
way
and
the
news
quality
newsletter,
which
I
believe
you
had
a
copy
on.
Your
agenda
was
mailed
out
to
all
members
this
week
and
either
most
of
them
you
have
received
and
should
be
receiving
them
shortly,
and
so
that
concludes
my
update.
Mr
chair,
I'm
happy
to
address
any
questions.
C
B
Thank
you
very
much
any
questions
comments
for
mr
pena.
B
I
wish
you
luck
in
getting
your
vacancies
unfrozen
and
filled
quickly.
Thank
you.
B
All
right,
so
it's
10
15
we've
been
at
it
for
almost
two
hours.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
take
a
let's
take
a
five
minute
break
10
21.,
please
be
back
by
then
and
we'll
get
going
with
5c.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
A
B
C
Yes,
yes,
I
will,
mr
in
fact
I'll
do
most
of
the
speaking
of
this
issue.
It's
really
straightforward.
I
think
the
the
one
where
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
more
discussion
is
going
to
be
the
next
one.
C
During
my
update,
I
share
with
you
that
the
rfp
for
borah
medical
advisors
closest
today
and
we
had
not
received
any
bids
and
in
fact
we
just
received
one
in
10.,
linda
or
michelle,
I
think,
is
the
first
one
summary
of
process:
can
you
bring
it
up
on
the
screen
for
a
second?
If
you
can,
I
wanted
to
make
reference.
I
think
that
the
my
only
goal
with
the
discussion
this
morning
is
yeah.
Can
you
bring
it
up
a
little
bit?
Please.
C
Okay,
there
you
go
so
I
want
to
key
in
or
just
step
four.
This
is
sort
of
like
in
a
nutshell,
the
summary
of
the
disability
process
and,
and
what
we
are
doing
with
the
rfp
is-
is
requesting
a
proposal
for
the
services
related
to
state
number.
Four.
C
Now
the
the
borough
medical
advisor
has
been
served
by
dr
truman
over
the
last
few
years,
but
I
I
wanted
to
just
give
the
board
or
share
with
the
board
an
understanding
of
the
implications
of
not
having
a
successful
rfp
for
these
services.
C
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
many
other
jurisdictions
or
peers
of
us
across
the
state
do
not
have
a
biomedical
advisor
and
actually
rely
more
heavily
on
the
independent
medical
evaluation,
which
is
step
number
three,
that
particular
report
when
making
disability
decisions.
Okay-
and
the
reason
I
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
is
because
I
think
I
mentioned
this
before.
I
was
very
concerned
that
we
were
not
going
to
be
successful
on
the
rfp
and
and
the
reason
for
the
the
reason
for
my
concern
was.
C
We
have
actually
issued
this
rfp
before
and
only
received
one
beat
a
few
years
back
and
we
just
kind
of
give
you
some
background
views.
The
reason
why
you're
bored
police
on
fire
has
always
have
a
broad
medical
advisories,
because,
as
part
of
the
city
structure,
they
actually
had
a
a
doctor.
They
actually
had
a
sort
of
like
a
small
medical.
C
I
don't
want
to
call
a
medical
group,
but
they
did
have
a
position
for
many
many
years
and
this
doctor
actually
evaluated
in
most
cases
in
british
community
that
were
being
hired
by
safety,
which
is
police
and
fire,
and
so
this
doctor,
not
only
was
he
or
she
aware
of
of
the
retirement
disability
requirements
and
the
evidence
required
for
medica
for
making
decisions
by
the
board
and
issuing
the
report,
but
they
actually
work
with
both
boards
for
many
many
years.
C
That
position
was
actually
deleted
by
the
city
a
few
years
back
and
when
we
lost
the
doctor,
we
issued
an
rfp
and
and
actually
received
just
one
bid
by
someone
that
provides
similar
services
to
other
plants
across
the
state.
This
person
actually
worked
with
us
for
just
over
a
month
and
he
resigned.
We
were
just
lucky
that
at
the
same
time,
dr
twoman
was
retiring,
which
dr
truman
happens
to
be
the
actual
city
doctor
that
held
that
position
before
dr
das,
which
was
the
last
doctor.
C
That's
why
he's
well
aware
of
of
the
retirement
requirements
and
the
law
and
the
municipal
code,
and
so
she
was
able
to
function
and
provide
those
services
to
the
board.
Unfortunately,
her
contract
actually
ends
on
june
16,
2021
and
she's
actually
retiring
now,
which
happens
to
be
the
day
before
your
meeting
in
june,
and
so
we
were
then
required
to
issue
this
rfp
button.
Here
is
unhappy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
we
are
not
successful,
my
recommendation
is
for
both
boarding
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
working.
C
We
we
still
today
do
receive
independent
medical
evaluations
and
reports.
The
board
medical
advisor
actually
takes
those
reports,
along
with
any
other
kind
of
medical
evidence
and
then
issues
their
report
and
review
for
the
board.
If
we
don't
have
that
step
anymore
number,
four,
then
what
that
means
to
you
is
that
your
board
will
be
relying
on
the
independent
medical
report
for
the
disability
decisions.
That's
really
the
bottom
line
of
this
presentation,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
with
you
this
morning.
C
Also,
we
have
ross
rukeda,
who
is
your
disability,
council
and
dr
truman,
who
is
actually
your
current
board
of
medical
advisors?
C
They
certainly
can
comment
if
you
have
any
questions
about
this
particular
item
they're,
obviously
here
this
morning,
because
we
do
have
your
second
phase
of
the
disability
training
and
each
one
of
them
have
a
short
presentation
to
share
with
you
for
that
training.
But
with
that,
mr
chair,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
bore
me
out.
B
C
We
will
yes,
that's
a
very
good
question.
We
intend
to
come
back
to
you
boar,
I
don't
know
yet,
but
it
will
be
the
main
meeting
or
the
june
meeting,
but
we
will
want
to
make
sure
that
both
boards
are
clear
on
this
and-
and
you
know,
if
emotion
needs
to
be
made,
then
we
will
ask
for
that
motion
to
be
made
so
that
we
are
clear.
C
I
should
also
mention
that,
in
the
event
that
we
have
to
delete
this
step,
four
we're
probably
going
to
be
a
little
more
specific
on
our
requests
of
the
independent
medical
examiner
right,
the
ime,
so
that
your
board
has
a
the
ability
to
address
answer
the
questions
that
need
to
be
addressed
so
that
you
can
make
a
disability
decision.
C
You
certainly
you
know
when
we
when
we
get
to
the
next
item
and
we
have
either
your
council
speaking
or
his
presentation.
Oh
dr
truman
feel
free
to
answer.
You
know
more
appointed
questions
on
this
ime,
but
by
by
all
means
the
ime
report
is
not
going
to
be
the
same
report
as
you
get
for
the
board.
Medical
advisory
is
a
different
kind
of
report,
but
nevertheless
we
will
make
we
make
sure
to
ask
the
questions
that
need
to
be
answered.
C
Yet
you
can
make
an
informed
decision
and
I
think
I
want
to
leave
you
with
the
thought
that
this
is
really
more
of
the
standard
approach
by
our
peers.
They
don't
really
have
usually
a
border
medical
advisors.
They
do
rely
on.
You
know
many
medical
evidence,
but
but
you
know
more
specifically,
the
independent
medical
examiner,
which
is
the
whole
point
of
the
definition
of
the
review
right,
is
an
independent
medical
examination.
D
And
just
so
that
I'm
clear
because
I'm
not
as
familiar
I've
just
forgotten,
so
let's
say
I
get
injured.
I
go
see
my
doctors,
I
have
my
specialists,
submit
paperwork
to
the
ors
and
then
for
the
ime.
What
what
is
that,
like
a
selected
list
of
providers?
Is
that
what's
that
resource?
Just
if
you
could
elaborate.
C
Yes,
so
so
we,
you
may
recall
a
couple
of
months
back.
We
came
before
you
and
to
extend
the
contracts
for
mid
link
and
exam
works.
D
D
D
Roberta,
yes,
I'm
just
do
you
know
why
we're
not
getting
anyone
applying?
Are
we
not
paying
enough?
Is
it
just
such
a
specialized
thing?
I
mean
what
what
is.
C
Very
it
is
very
specialized,
as
I
mentioned,
I
think
my
goal
with
indicating
that
this
was
an
actual
position
with
the
city
was
to
sort
of
provide
a
background
to
the
board
that
I
think
the
the
the
main
only
reason
we
had
the
boring
medical
advisor
is
because
the
city
had
that
position.
You
you,
I
don't
know
if
you
know
who
dr
das
was,
but
he
did
that
for
about
12
years.
D
D
C
So
but
as
I
mentioned
many
of
our
peers,
they
don't
have
this
step.
They
just
rely
on
the
independent
medical
examiner.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
pay.
It
really
has
to
do
with
two
things.
You,
you
really
as
a
doctor
have
to
have
a
very
distinct
knowledge.
We
were
just
so
lucky
that
dr
das,
and
before
him,
dr
truman,
who
did
the
work
back
in
the
90s,
have
knowledge
of
the
imaginable
code
and
the
and
the
retirement
disability
guidelines
or
requirements
to
make
a
decision
by
the
boards.
C
So
that's
the
first
one.
The
second
one
is:
let's
face
it.
It
is
a
lot
of
work
and-
and
you
know,
doctors,
they
work
for
they
work
for
a
long
long
time,
and
this
is
not
something
that
many
of
them
are
really
looking
to
do
during
the
retirement.
C
We
were
just
lucky
again
that
dr
truman
showed
up,
and
you
know
I
suspect
that
she,
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
her,
but
she
enjoyed
the
work
and-
and
she
definitely
had
the
the
the
skill
sets,
so
she
wanted
to
make
sure
that
she
can
offer
that
to
the
board.
But
again,
that's
why
in
the
past
we
only
have
one
bit
a
few
years
back
and
this
year
we
have
easy
digipenny,
it's
just
a
very
specific
skill
set
that
is
required.
B
Apologies,
no
problem
all
right
well,
as
you
jump
into
mr
pena
5d.
I'd
like
to
note
that
if
memory
serves
me
correct
when
I
joined
hr
hr
department
in
85,
dr
tiermann
was
a
medical
doctor
at
that
time
and
I'm
wondering
if
she's
going
to
really
retire
or
she's,
going
to
change
her
mind
and
stay
with
us.
B
C
Thank
you
and
that's
marty
or
linda
to
bring
the
rose
presentation.
Let
me
kick
it
off,
mr
shea,
if
you
may
so,
you
may
recall,
as
I
think,
as
trustee
or
just
indicated,
and
that's
you
know
our
fault,
we
do
have
an
onboarding
process.
C
We
don't
spend
a
lot
of
time
with
disability
and
and-
and
you
are
very
vocal
and
clear-
you
bore
that
you
needed
some
training
in
this
area,
and
so
we
actually
had
a
apologies.
We
actually
had
the
first
session
of
disability
training
a
four
year
back
in
january
of
2021
and
back
then
we
promised
we
were
gonna,
come
back
with
a
more
detail
and
in
the
second
phase
of
this
training,
which
is
before
you
today,
and
so
the
training
is
sort
of
divided
in
two
areas.
C
The
first
one
is
a
presentation
by
your
disability
counsel,
ross
ricketta
on
on
the
disability,
retirement
from
a
lawyer's
perspective,
the
legal
requirements
and
implications,
and
the
second
part
of
the
today's
presentation
is
by
dr
cheerman
on
the
on
the
medical
side
of
the
equation
for
the
disability
process.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
ross
for
his
presentation.
Good
morning,
ross
welcome.
G
Hi,
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
before
everyone
today.
G
I
I
hope
if
we
have
training
in
the
future,
we'll
all
be
able
to
get
together,
but
I'll
do
my
best
to
make
this
an
informative
presentation,
as,
as
you
probably
already
know,
all
too
well
among
your
many
complicated
fiduciary
challenges
as
a
board
member
is
to
consider
the
disability
applications
that
come
before
you
so
today
I
want
to
go
over
some
of
the
legal
parameters
that
hopefully
will
provide
some
guidelines
and
or
tools
and
or
just
limitations
to
your
consideration
process.
G
G
The
other
category
of
disabilities,
as
you
already
probably
well
know,
is
a
service-connected
disability
and,
and
that
would
encompass
an
applicant
who
again
is
is
disabled
through
a
disease
or
an
injury
such
that
they
can't
perform
their
job
anymore
and
that
disease
or
injury
is
connected
to
the
job
and
I'll
describe
a
little
towards
the
end.
G
What
the
legal
standard
is
for
that
connection
between
the
disability
and
the
job,
but
the
important
part
for
me
and
to
tell
you,
is
that
the
municipal
code
has
definitions.
It
has
a
definition
on
disability,
slashing
capacity
and
a
definition
on
service
connection,
and
those
are
the
ones
that
I
want
to
go
through
today.
G
Point
by
point,
because
those
will
help
give
you
the
guidelines
and
the
parameters
for
when
you
evaluate
applications
coming
before
you
and
and
for
your
later.
Reference
attached
to
the
end
of
these
slides
are
the
relevant
municipal
code
provisions.
A
G
Setting
forth
the
definition
of
disability
and
the
other
setting
forth
the
definition
of
service
connection,
so
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
as
you've
probably
heard
from
your
general
counsel
and
your
who's.
Also,
your
fiduciary
counsel
that
you
have
a
number
of
fiduciary
duties
as
a
board
member.
G
G
That
really
form
the
framework
for
your
consideration
of
any
kind
of
application,
and
one
point
that
I
want
to
mention
at
the
beginning,
even
before
I
dive
into
the
specific
requirements
of
the
municipal
code,
is,
is
to
remind
you
that,
with
respect
to
each
application
coming
before
you,
it
is
the
applicant
who
bears
the
burden
of
persuading
you
about
any
about
whether
or
not
the
applicant
has
met
the
requirements
in
the
municipal
code.
G
G
It's
the
obligation
of
the
applicant
and
and
kind
of
a
corollary
of
that
is
that
that
to
fulfill
your
your
fiduciary
obligations
and
to
apply
the
relevant
presid
provisions
of
the
municipal
code,
it's
you
can't
give
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
to
the
applicant
now
that
sounds
easy
to
say,
but
I
certainly
find
in
my
own
experience
and
I've
been
dealing
with
disability
applications
for
public
sector
retirement
plans
for
30
years
and
often
you
you
will
deal
or
arise
applications
where
the
facts
are
very,
very
sympathetic
where
some
really
very
bad
disease
or
very
bad
injury
has
afflicted
the
applicant
and
all
of
our
human
compassion
leans
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
G
So
we
we
have
kind
of
an
internal
motivation
to
give
the
applicant
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
but
unfortunately,
under
the
structure
of
the
municipal
code
and
by
the
way,
this
is
similar
to
all
other
california
public
retirement
plans
and
probably
somewhat
similar
to
all
of
them
throughout
the
nation.
G
G
D
G
Well,
depending
on
what
the
state
of
the
evidence
is
medical
evidence
before
you
get
to
that
stage,
so
so
just
some
some
scenarios
scenario
one.
The
applicant
has
not
provided
any
evidence
on
incapacity
unlikely,
but
that
could
happen.
Then,
unfortunately
they
lose
or
more
common
scenario.
G
Two
the
applicant
has
lots
of
information
showing
they're
really
hurt
and
they
can't
do
the
job
anymore,
but
the
evidence
connecting
employment
in
the
context
where
they're
applying
for
service
connected
disability,
which,
as
you
know,
is
the
most
common
application,
but
so
so
they've
shown
incapacity
or
met
their
burden
of
persuasion
by
putting
forth
lots
of
medical
evidence
on
incapacity.
G
But
then
the
next
issue
is
whether
their
employment
contributed
to
their
incapacity
and
if
as
to
that,
they
have
no
evidence,
then,
unfortunately,
their
application
has
to
be
denied,
and-
and
in
that
scenario
it
is
very
obvious-
they
haven't
met
their
burden
of
proof
because
they
haven't
provided
any
medical
evidence.
But
what
about
the
harder
ones
that
you
often
encounter?
G
And
let's
stick
to
service
connection,
because
that's
normally
the
the
much
more
difficult
issue
that
will
come
before
you?
They
have
some
medical
evidence
on
their
side
and
there's
medical
evidence,
contrary
to
them.
Let's
say
post
june
16th
when
dr
tiermann
is
no
longer
assisting
the
board
and
we
only
have
or
we
have
the
independent
medical
examiner
who's
issued.
A
report
and
you'll
have
that
report
and
you'll
have
other
reports
and
that's
when
and
I'll
go
into
that
a
little
bit
later.
G
D
No,
that's
fine,
but
if
it's
not
service
related,
it
still
could
be
a
disability
and
then
they
could
get.
They
could
still
retire
based
on
a
disability
but
not
get
the
service
connected.
Disability.
G
Right,
yes,
exactly
right,
so
so
now
we're
diving
into
the
oh
and
and
by
the
way,
one
important
element
that
that
I
should
that
I
should
mention.
Obviously
the
san
jose
municipal
code
governs.
G
There
are
other
reports
that
are
ames
agreed
medical
examiners,
but,
and
those
reports
are
often
lengthy,
they
often
go
through
all
the
medical
records,
but
they
will
have
conclusions
that
are
premised
on
the
legal
terms
that
are
relevant
to
evaluating
workers.
Compensation
claims
based
on
provisions
in
the
california
labor
code
that
address
the
workers
compensation
system,
but
those
legal
terms
are
not
applicable
to
us.
G
So
the
municipal
code
definition
refers
to
disability,
but
it
equates
that
to
incapacity
for
the
performance
of
duty
and
both
of
those
are
equated
to
incapacitated
for
the
performance
of
duty.
The
main
point
for
me
is
that
there's
a
blurring,
perhaps
helpful
between
the
concept
of
disability
and
incapacity,
as
those
terms
are
used
in
the
municipal
code.
G
So
I
normally
would
think
well.
Disability
is
is
sort
of
a
lesser
term,
and
only
a
really
big
bad
disability
would
result
in
pinning
the
ta
using
the
label
incapacity
and
that
what
I
just
said
might
be
true
for
some
systems.
It's
not
true
for
the
municipal
code.
So
when
we
refer
to
disability,
we're
also
referring
to
incapacity.
G
I,
in
my
comments
today
will
use
the
term
incapacity
because
I
think
that
gets
or
highlights
where
we're
really
heading
when
we're
doing
this
analysis
of
the
disease
or
injury
afflicting
an
applicant,
and
one
thing
that
will
that
I'll
mention
now
and
it
probably
won't
seem
too
surprising,
but
we'll
come
back
to
it
a
little
later
when
it'll
seem
a
little
more
surprising
and
that's
that
we
have
that
we
need
a
date
as
to
which
we
determine
incapacity,
so
all
the
medical
records
they'll
either
be
prior
to
that
date.
G
Some
of
them
will
be
subsequent
to
that
date,
but
be
referring
back
to
that
date
and
offering
opinions
with
respect
to
that
date
and
that's
the
date
when
we
determine
whether
the
individual
is
incapacitated
or
not.
Well,
what
date
is
that
normally
normally
not
always,
but
normally
it's
the
date,
the
applicant
separated
from
city
employment.
G
So
that's
the
date
as
to
which
we
are
trying
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
individual
the
applicant
was
incapacitated
and
if
other
dates
are
relevant,
that'll
be
noted
in
in
the
workup
of
the
application.
So
you
know
you
won't
be
left
in
the
lurch.
Let's
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
what
are
some
of
the
elements
of
this
so-called
incapacity?
G
Well,
the
incapacity
or
disability
has
to
be
of
a
permanent
duration
or
a
duration
that
is
extended
and
uncertain,
so
so
many
diseases
or
many
injuries.
G
You
can
imagine
like
the
loss
of
a
leg,
unfortunately,
well
that's
by
and
large
permanent.
That
and
prosthesis
usually
aren't
adequate
substitutes,
other
conditions,
some
psychiatric
conditions,
some
diseases
they
look
like
they're
gonna
go
on
for
a
while.
Maybe
it's
not
clear,
they're
permanent,
but
it
is
clear,
they're
going
to
go
on
for
a
while.
G
If
that's
the
case,
then
this
element,
this
requirement
has
been
satisfied
and
obviously
you're
going
to
look
to
your
the
the
medical
information
to
to
determine
that
issue.
That's
one
of
the
questions
that,
for
example,
will
be
asked
of
the
ime
and
the
imei
in
his
or
her
written
report
will
address
it
and
and
perhaps
just
to
state
the
obvious
or
or
at
least
one
one
subset
under
this.
Well,
what
if
there's
some
reasonable
treatment
options
out
there
that
the
applicant
hasn't
tried
them
yet
is?
G
Is
that
disability
permanent
or
extended
well
under
relevant
case
law?
The
answer
is
no.
If
you
haven't
exhausted
reasonable
treatment
options,
then
you
can't
tell
if
your
disability
is
permanent
or
not
because
if
you
tried
those
reasonable
treatment
options,
they
may
succeed
and
they
may
make
you
better.
G
So
that's
a
question
that
is
one
for
the
doctors
and
it's
one
that
will
be
asked
and
they
and
including
the
ime
and
you'll,
have
information
on
that,
and
and
just
a
sub
note
on
that,
you
might
wonder
well
what
is
a
reasonable
treatment
option
and
as
treatment
options
as
medical
science
expands
and
treatment
options
expand.
That's
a
difficult
question,
but
one
thing:
that's
clear
surgery
you
don't
have
to.
If
you
don't
want
to
undergo
surgery,
you
don't
have
to
that,
isn't
considered
under
the
case
law,
a
reasonable
treatment
option.
G
So
so,
if
you
decide
not
to
undergo
surgery,
then
that
would
not
be
a
reason
to
to
conclude
that
your
disability
is
not
permanent.
Unfortunately,
I
said
that
with
way
too
many
negatives
I
apologize,
it's
just
not
undergoing
surgery
won't
be
held
against
you.
Well,
that's
two
negatives.
So
what
else?
Well,
obviously,
the
next
one
is
the
one
we
probably
should
have
thought
would
have
come
first,
so
you
have
to
be
incapacitated
as
a
result
of
injury
or
disease.
G
Well,
that's
no
surprise,
but
that
is
a
requirement
and
notice
what
that
means.
By
and
large
that
means
you
have
to
have
a
diagnosis
that
identifies
the
injury
or
identifies
the
disease,
and
you
also
might
think
that
was
obvious.
Of
course,
there
be
a
diagnosis
but,
as
you
have
may
have
already
seen
in
various
medical
reports
or
records
a
lot
of
times,
the
examining
physician,
including
the
treating
physician,
is
not
sure
and
they'll
put
things
that
are
more
like
symptoms
than
diagnosis,
so
they'll
say
a
lumbar
strain
or
sprain.
G
Well,
that
really
doesn't
tell
you
what
the
actual
condition
is:
that's
more
a
symptom
but
and
and
and
that
that
lack
of
course
can
be
remedied
as
time
goes
on
and
as
there's
more
as
maybe
they're
more
lab
tests,
maybe
there's
more
imaging
studies,
so
a
situation
where
the
diagnosis
was
initially
not
clear
that
with
time
and
more
information,
the
diagnosis
may
become
more
clear
and
then
of
course,
you're
going
to
see
situations
where
physicians
differ.
G
One
physician
says
the
diagnosis
is
x
and
another
physician
says
no,
no,
no
it's
not
x
x
is
is,
is
doesn't
account
for
this
or
the
other
symptom
or
or
lab
result,
and
instead
the
appropriate
diagnosis.
Is
this
other
and
and
but
the
final
analysis
we
need
a
diagnosis
and
then
you
can
see
at
the
bottom
another
important
requirement
so
that
disease
or
injury
has
to
occur.
G
While
the
applicant
was
an
employee
of
the
city,
but
there's
there
is
so
sometimes
that's
very
obvious.
The
disease
is
first
diagnosed
when,
when
the
applicant
is
an
employee
or
the
injury
occurs,
while
the
applicant
is
an
employee,
but
there
is
another
important
sort
of
subset.
That
often
often
is
the
case.
G
So
for
many
applicants
they
may
enter
city
service
with
in
a
condition
that
already
exists.
So
if
they'd
had
an
mri
on
the
day,
they
were
hired
the
it
would
have
been
obvious.
They
had
significant
arthritis
in
their
knee
from
some
prior
injury,
or
it
may
be
obvious
on
the
mri
that
they
have
degenerative
disc
disease
in
in
various
parts
of
their
spine.
G
Cases
that
we,
dr
tiernon
and
I
have
seen
in
san
jose
and
cases
elsewhere,
it's
obvious
that
situation
exists
that
and
often
people
will
enter
city
employment,
particularly
if
they're
entering
at
a
a
later
age,
where
they
don't
have
any
symptoms,
but
they
do
have
the
condition
and
that's
where
this
category
of
aggravation
will
come
in
and
you'll
hear
that
very
often,
if
some,
even
though
an
applicant
already
has
the
condition
before
they
were
hired.
G
You
know
the
incident
that
permanently
worsened
the
condition
occurred
while
the
applicant
was
an
employee
and
by
the
way,
just
a
a
a
little
note
on
non-service-connected
disabilities,
if
the
almost
by
definition,
remember
it's
non-service.
G
So
something
happened
off
the
job
not
connected
with
the
job.
Maybe
the
applicant
was
at
home
repairing
his
or
her
roof
and
fell
off
the
roof
and
suffered
serious
injuries.
G
Well,
that's
not
connected
to
the
job,
but
it
could
result
in
the
individual
being
incapacitated,
no
longer
able
to
perform
the
duties
of
the
job
if
the
applicant
fell
off
the
roof.
While
the
applicant
was
an
employee,
then
that
would
satisfy
this
condition
with
respect
to
a
non-service
connected
disability.
G
G
There's
two
big
steps
that
have
to
be
demonstrated
to
you
and
the
first
step
is
that
whatever
is
afflicting
the
applicant,
the
disease,
the
injury,
the
broken
back,
the
congestive
heart
failure,
the
ptsd,
that
those
conditions
have
to
result
in
work
restrictions
and
basically
permanent
work
restrictions
who
determines
work
restrictions
in
the
past.
It's
it's.
G
The
final
analysis
on
that
has
been
done
by
dr
tiermann.
In
a
situation
where
we
have
imes,
the
ime
physician
will
be
requested
to
answer
this
question
and
tell
you
what
work
restrictions
are
appropriate
and
by
the
way,
just
to
point
out
again
in
the
workers
compensation
reports
that
often
will
be
part
of
the
medical
file
on
any
given
application.
G
The
they'll
contain
percentages
of
impairment
and
again
those
really
are
a
function
of
workers,
comp
rules,
procedures,
guidelines,
regulations
that
don't
have
anything
to
do
with
us,
so
step
one
their
work,
restrictions
and,
by
the
way,
sometimes
that's
a
naughty
issue
that
there
may
be
disagreements
among
physicians
about
what
the
appropriate
work
restrictions
will
be
and
with
the
ime
potentially
disagreeing,
including
fewer
work.
Restrictions
than
perhaps
the
treating
physician
that'll
be
another
factual
issue.
G
Perhaps
that
you
will
have
to
resolve
that
doesn't
happen
that
often,
but
obviously
it's
a
difficult
one
whenever
it
does
arise.
But
let's
assume
that
there
are
a
set
of
work
restrictions.
Well,
what
happens
next?
What's
done
with
those
those
are
transmitted
to
the
applicant's
department
and
the
department
then
determines
whether
the
applicant
could
continue
to
work
in
his
or
her
position.
G
Notwithstanding
those
work,
restrictions
or
if
they
couldn't
do
the
job
entirely
with
those
work
restrictions,
then
whether
the
department
could
accommodate
you
know,
make
some
changes
and-
and
let's
go
to
the
next
slide-
and
that
makes
me
have
to
mention
to
you
just
briefly
something
about
civil
service
system.
You're,
perhaps
very
familiar
with
civil
service
system
concepts.
But
if
you're,
not
most
public.
G
So
so
a
fine
point
on
this
is
that
even
if
the
department
itself
cannot
accommodate
an
applicant
in
the
position
that
applicant
had
with
the
department,
if
another
department
has
that
same
as
a
different
position,
but
it's
in
the
same
job
class.
So
it's
basically
the
same
duties,
but
perhaps
it
has
different
physical
requirements.
G
Then,
if
that
job
is
offered
to
the
individual
and
is
made
available
to
the
individual,
then
the
conclusion
would
be
the
individual
is
not
disabled
or
incapacitated.
Just
in
the
same
way
that
if
the
department
says
yes,
we
can
accommodate
those
work
restrictions,
then
the
individual
is
not
incapacitated
and
the
application
can't
be
granted
cannot
be
granted.
G
Now,
let's
jump
to
the
next
slide,
and
that
is
merely
a
reminder
that
that
the
municipal
code
definition
does
incorporate
common
sense
that
the
medical
evidence
that
you're
to
base
your
decision
on
needs
to
be
competent
and,
as
you
see
more
and
more
of
these
you'll
come
to
see
that
that
they're
all
different
types
of
medical
reports
and
they
have
all
different
types
of
of
quality-
that
some
have
a
lot
of
logic
and
reasoning
on
either
incapacity
or
service
connection.
G
G
Now,
let's
jump
to
the
last
requirement
and
it's
in
some
sense
the
hardest,
but
the
easiest
to
summarize
so
so
if
we
could
jump
to
the
next
slide,
this
is
service
requirement,
a
connection
and
based
on
california
supreme
court
precedent.
G
The
actual
question
on
service
connection
is
the
following:
did
the
applicant's
employment
with
the
city
contribute
in
a
real
and
measurable
way
to
the
applicant's
incapacity?
That's
the
question:
we'll
ask
the
physicians,
that's
the
question
ultimately,
for
you
to
resolve
and
notice
it
uses
those
words
real
and
measurable,
and
I
don't
think
any
of
them.
Any
of
us
would
think
those
are
the
most
precise
quest
terms
that
could
be
used,
but
unfortunately,
under
california's
supreme
court
precedent.
G
Those
are
the
terms
we
have
to
use
and
with
real
meaning,
actual
and
concrete,
not
speculative,
immeasurable
means
verifiable
and
having
a
basis
and
medical
factor
and
reasonable
medical
inference
and
by
the
way
that
question
the
key
question
that
did
did
the
applicant's
employment
in
san
jose
contributed
in
a
real
measurable
way
to
his
or
her
incapacity
has
also
an
aggravation
element
because
often
there's
a
pre-existing
condition.
G
So
the
service
connection
question
the
64
question
in
an
aggravation
context
would
be:
did
the
applicant's
employment
with
the
city
of
san
jose
aggravate,
in
other
words,
permanently
worsen
in
a
real
and
measurable
way?
The
applicants
in
capacity
similar
question
but
modified
to
the
aggravation
situation.
G
So,
let's
go
to
slide
nine
we're
in
the
home
stretch
now
and
unfortunately,
these
are
just
words
but
often
you're
going
to
be
presented
with
situations,
particularly
in
diseases
or
conditions,
degenerative,
disc
disease,
heart
disease,
where
there's
a
multitude
of
work
and
non-work
factors
with
the
non-work
factors,
including
genetic
indications,
issues
of
just
getting
older,
and
the
points
to
remember
is
that
the
work
factors
you
know
when
you're
trying
to
compare
and
weigh
on
some
invisible
weighing
mechanism
work
factors
from
non-work
factors.
G
G
It
satisfies
the
real
and
measurable
standard
now
you're
going
to
find
some
tough
ones
where
something
someone
doesn't
have
any
symptoms
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
something
that,
I
think
all
of
us
would
say,
was
a
minor
work
event
occurs
and
then
the
symptoms
occur
well,
you're
going
to
have
to
decide
and
again
with
the
help
of
the
medical
records
and
the
report
of
the
ime,
whether
that
work
event
could
be
deemed
to
aggravate
the
condition
or
merely
reveal
it.
In
other
words,
that
condition
was
just
waiting
to
happen.
G
It
wouldn't
have
taken
a
big
deal.
It
could
have
happened
off
the
job
on
the
job,
but
it
cannot
in
a
fair
sense,
be
seen
as
this
event
as
a
real
contributor,
because
the
work
event
was
minor.
The
condition
was
just
waiting
to
happen.
You'll
find
those
because
a
lot
of
diseases
just
progress
on
their
own
as
dr
timmerman
will
discuss
and
and
really
have
no
relationship
to
anything
else,
including
work
now
just
jumping
to
the
last
second
last
slide.
This
is
to
remind
you,
the
obvious
medical
knowledge
changes.
G
So
when
the
physically
active
twin
comes
before
you
with
an
application,
then
and
says
well,
it
was
the
job
that
did
it
and
by
the
way,
I'm
assuming
no
at
most
only
a
minor
event
on
the
job.
Well,
the
fact
that
the
sedentary
twin
also
would
get
it
suggests
that
what
happened
on
the
job
did
wasn't
a
real
contributor
to
the
back
problem
so
just
to
on
the
next
slide
the
last
slide.
This
is
a
difficult
standard
to
apply.
G
The
real
and
measurable
standard
is
difficult,
but
the
burden
rests
on
the
applicant
and
as
the
final
takeaway.
Ultimately,
you
have
the
discretion
on
this
issue
and
the
other
issues
that
I've
talked
about.
It's
a
discretion
which
you
must
exercise
reasonably,
but
it
is
discretion
that
you
possess
and
that's
all
I.
C
Have
thank
you
ross
for
the
presentation,
any
other
questions
or
comments
by
the
board
before
we
go
to
dr
cheerlead.
D
I
have
one
I'm
just
it
might
just
be
a
one-off
scenario,
but
I
know
I
work
in
parks,
rec
and
neighborhood
services,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
people
who
do
work
out
in
you
know:
maintenance
people
gardeners
all
those
kind
of
people,
and
so
they
do
some
heavy
lifting
and
there
are
times-
and
these
are
work
comp
issues.
D
You
know
where
they're
out
there
and
they've
strained
their
back
or
whatever
they
can't
do
the
work
anymore
and
so
they're
looking
or
they're
just
recovering,
and
they
look
for
office
work
or
things
like
that,
and
we
had
a
particular
person
who
couldn't
do
the
work
anymore
and
that
job
class
the
person
was
in
was
a
gardener.
D
That
person
came
to
the
floor
and
could
do
office,
work
and
and,
in
the
meantime,
did
a
very
good
job
and
managed
to
become
you
know,
applied
and
got
a
different
job
classification.
D
Now,
as
far
as
I
know,
that
person
never
applied
for
disability,
retirement
or
any
of
the
other
stuff,
but
that
person
did
go
to
a
different
job
classification
like
an
office
specialist
and
did
a
very
good
job.
So.
D
C
C
Speak
we'll
be
here
for
a
long
time.
So,
first
and
foremost,
the
number
one
issue
julie,
that's
the
kind
of
employee
that
we
want
to
see
right.
You
even
said
they
didn't
even
apply
for
disability
because
they
wanted
to
work.
Ideally,
that's
how
team
will
work
out
in
a
situation
where
we
will
get
a
disability
application.
C
Your
boy
will
have
to
find
this
member
disabled
because
he
is
not
able
to
do
the
work
within
his
job
classification.
Now
they
may
still
want
to
continue
working
and
agree
to
do.
Stat,
specialist
work,
that's
beyond
the
point,
and
then
they
will
not
be
getting
the
disability
retirement
because
they're
still
working,
but
if
they
say
I
don't,
I
cannot
do
any
other
kind
of
work.
Then
they're
going
to
get
a
disability,
that's
the
sure
explanation
of
it,
but
that's
how
it
will
work
out.
C
G
No
say
just
two
little
sub
points
to
that:
first,
if
the
gardening
position,
if
they
could
provide
if
they
had
a
modified
duty
position
that
was
permanent
and
then
in
the
you
know,
in
other
words,
could
accommodate
the
work
restrictions,
then
that
then
there
was
a
job
for
that
individual
and
if
the
individual
applied,
we,
the
application
would
have
to
be
denied
but
jumping
to
your
scenario.
G
If
they
had,
if
they
were
doing
office,
work
and
actually
applied,
took
the
exam
or
whatever
met
the
minimum
qualifications
and
were
appointed
to
that
position.
Then
that
now
is
the
position.
Gardner
is
out
of
the
picture.
So
so
it's
only
if
they're
incapacitated
from
the
performance
of
duty
of
the
or.
C
C
All
right,
thank
you
for
the
question
trustee
jennings
dr
truman
u-turn.
I
know
you've
been
looking
forward
to
this
presentation.
You
have
two
more
months
to
work
with
the
board,
but
you
know
I
get
the
impression
for
the
board
that
if
you
decide
to
change
your
mind,
we
wouldn't
we
wouldn't
be
upset
about
it
anyway.
Dr
truman,
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Try
to
keep
this
briefer
than
I
thought
it
would
be
originally
because
russ
actually
addressed
a
lot
of
those
points
that
I
have
in
my
presentation.
From
a
medical
standpoint.
E
So
what
you
want
from
a
medical
consultant,
whether
it's
someone
like
me
or
an
independent
medical
examiner,
is
to
answer
two
questions:
incapacity
that's
defined,
as
are
there
objective
measures
of
incapacity
and
if
yes,
what
are
those
work
restrictions,
as
russ
has
said?
If
there's
no
work
restrictions,
then
there's
no
disability
causation
doesn't
matter,
but
if
there
are
work
restrictions
we
need
to
consider
causation.
E
These
are
challenging
because
a
lot
of
times
records
are
not
always
complete
and
sometimes
they're
missing.
The
ime
usually
belongs
to
like
exam
works,
which
you
asked
about,
which
are
a
panel
of
physicians.
It's
not
their
full-time
job,
they're,
usually
orthopedists,
who
are
treating,
have
busy
practices
and
use
this
as
supplemental
income
and
99.9
of
the
reports
that
they
write
are
workers,
compensation
reports
and
they
follow
different
rules.
E
The
other
thing
with
these
big
groups
is
that
the
medical
records
are
often
reviewed
by
a
medical
assistant,
and
that
means
that
she
or
he
writes
the
medical
review
portion
of
the
report.
She
is
the
one
or
he
is
the
one
who
is
taking
up
what
they
think
is
pertinent
information,
and
the
reason
why
I
think
this
is
important
is
that
the
ime
may
miss
discrepancies
in
the
medical
history.
E
For
example,
they
might
miss
that
someone
had
an
injury
that
he
reported
30
days
later
and
didn't
seek
medical
treatment
60
days
later
until
60
days
later,
that's
very
pertinent.
If
you
have
a
significant
injury,
you
would
expect
that
they
would
report
it
right
away
or
at
the
very
least,
see
a
doctor
within
the
first
couple
of
days.
If
it's
significant
next
slide.
E
So
what
is
incapacity?
This
is
from
a
medical
standpoint
and
not
a
legal
standpoint.
It's
the
marked
loss
for
deviation
in
physiologic,
psychological
function
or
anatomic
structure
in
the
body.
It's
used
to
determine
work
restrictions
now
from
a
medical
standpoint.
It
consists
of
three
factors:
one
is
risk,
second,
is
capacity,
and
the
third
is
tolerance.
Next
slide.
E
E
Capacity,
this
is
the
patient's
current
ability.
What
should
it
ideally
mean?
It
should
include
what
their
strength
is,
what
their
flexibility
is,
and
what
is
their
endurance
also,
which
was
touched
upon?
The
board
must
agree
that
the
employee
has
reached
maximum
medical
improvement
before
disability
job
restrictions
are
approved
next
slide.
E
Mmi
is
what
we
call
it:
it's
where
an
employee
reaches
the
state
where
his
or
her
condition
cannot
be
improved
any
further
or
when
a
treatment
plateau
in
a
person's
healing
process
is
reached.
It's
once
this
is
reached.
The
treating
physician
is
saying
no
other
reasonable
treatment
can
be
done
to
help
this
patient
and
the
work
restrictions
are
now
permanent.
E
So
what
you
have
to
look
at
is
did
the
consultant
answer
the
questions
of
need
for
in
type
of
work
restrictions
based
on
objective
findings,
number
one:
did
they
discuss
with
their
risk
of
the
substantial
harm
to
the
employee
or
did
the
employee
just
say?
Look
it
hurts
when
I
do
this,
I
can't
stand
more
than
15
minutes.
I
can't
walk
more
than
20
minutes.
E
Was
the
patient
able
to
do
the
essential
functions
for
the
job
based
on
ability,
not
what
the
employee
states
that
he
or
she
can
can
or
cannot
do
and
again
the
last
one
is
there's
substantial
harm
and
is
there
evidence
of
loss
of
function?
Then
there
is
impairment
and
the
work
restrictions
are
indicated
to
take
something
simple.
E
They
stay
they're
unable
to
perform
the
job,
but
when
they
do
a
physical
exam,
the
physician
there's
really
no
objective
or
very
little
objective
evidence
of
loss
of
function.
The
employee
says
I
really
can't
do
it
because
it
hurts
or
I
get
tired.
Unfortunately,
fatigue
and
pain
are
real,
but
they're,
not
measurable.
E
E
So
if
the
medical
reports
and
the
ime
give
work
restrictions
based
only
on
subjective
complaints
without
meaningful
objective
findings
to
cooperate,
then
the
medical
restrictions
are
based
slowly
on
the
employee's
report
of
impairment.
And
that
means
we
don't
need
a
doctor.
You
can
just
bring
them
up
and
said:
what
can
you
do?
What
can't
you
do,
because
that's
what
the
doctor
is
essentially
doing
if
the
medical
consultant,
however,
believes
that
there
still
may
be
valid
work
restrictions,
then
the
consulting
physician
says.
E
The
board
of
disability
committees
should
ask
questions,
and
I
can
tell
you,
the
disability
committee
always
does
until
they
understand
why
these
work
restrictions
are
should
be
in
place
next
slide.
E
E
Again,
accidents
are
easy:
someone
falls
breaks,
their
leg,
cause
and
effect.
Illness
or
cumulative
trauma
is
much
harder.
The
doctor
must
determine
if
there's
a
real
and
measurable
risk
if
the
disease
is
characteristic
of
and
peculiar
to
a
particular
occupation.
Now
some
of
these
are
easy.
Coal
miners
get
silicosis,
it's
part
of
the
job
cumulative
trauma.
Injuries
are
much
harder
to
ascertain
most
of
the
times
when
they
biopsy
tendons
of
people
who
have
cumulative
trauma
they're
normal
they're,
not
even
swollen.
There
is
no
anatomical
thing
you
can
point
to.
E
E
E
Did
the
doctor
cite
available
epidemiologic
evidence
for
causal
relationship
and
did
the
doctor
really
attempt
to
assess
the
evidence
of
exposure
or
again
did
they
totally
rely
on
the
employee
to
give
them
the
assessment
of
their
exposure
and
I'll
give
a
very
quick
example
of
one
patient
who
bamboozled
me
not
on
purpose?
It
was
because
of
my
misconceptions.
E
E
A
lot
of
the
epidemiological
studies
are
done
like
in
gardeners.
They
have
a
lot
of
back
pain
and
the
original
study
said
wow.
Look
at
that.
60
of
gardeners
have
back
pain,
they
have
a
really
high
prevalence.
It
must
be
due
to
work,
but
then
someone
went
out
and
compared
gardeners
to
the
general
population.
There
was
no
difference
same
amount
of
back
pain.
E
Other
factors
to
consider
russ,
I
think,
really
did
this
well,
so
I
really
won't
go
into.
It
is
aggravation
versus
exacerbation
and
again
you
have
to
be
careful,
because
so
many
people
and
it
starts
earlier
than
we
think
now
there
are
studies
that
have
shown
that
degenerative
disc
disease
can
begin
as
early
as
eight
to
ten
years
old,
so
it
it
is
a
disease
that
sort
of
happens
throughout
life
and
progresses
throughout
life.
E
E
However,
that
does
not
mean
objective
aggravation,
it
can
mean
that
a
causal
relation
has
been
erroneously
assumed
from
a
mirrorly
sequential
one
and
russ
touched
on
that
that
degenerative
disc
disease
is
a
continuum,
and
you
can
look
at
some
x-rays
of
people
where
the
back
looks
like
hell
and
any
of
you
who've
had
an
mri
have
said.
Oh
the
doctor
said
I
had
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah,
but
we
don't
know
if
that's
the
pain,
generator
or
not.
E
There's
a
problem
with
temporality
and
again
russ
touched
on
this.
A
woman
walking
up
the
stairs
felt
pain
in
her
right
knee
stated.
Never
had
this
pain
before
no
injury
didn't
twist.
Her
knee
didn't
trip
x-ray
shows
me.
Osteoarthritis
is
walking
upstairs
the
root
cause
of
her
pain
or
is
the
underlying
pain
due
to
osteoarthritis?
E
E
So
when
the
first
episode
of
back
pain,
shoulder
pain,
knee
pain,
etc
occurs
with
normal
activity
at
work
or
minimal
drama
at
work,
the
workers,
compensation,
doctors
and
a
lot
of
the
ime
doctors
will
assume
that
it
was
tended
to
be
work
compensable,
even
if
they
understand
on
a
lot
of
levels,
it
was
not
actually
caused
by
the
work.
Exposure
next
slide.
E
E
This
is
the
same
thing
my
hands
go
numb
when
I
type
on
the
keyboard.
Therefore,
the
keyboard
is
for
causing
my
carpal
tunnel.
Actual
studies
have
shown
insufficient
evidence
between
typing
and
carpal
tunnel
syndrome,
despite
over
since
the
70s
over
50
years
of
trying
to
prove
it.
Do
we
grant
service
connection
next
slide?
E
I'm
just
going
to
do
very
quickly
about
mental
illness
causation.
It's
essentially
the
same,
but
one
of
the
things.
Some
of
the
things
that
are
very
different
about
mental
illness
is
that
we
cannot
just
take
the
reports
of
the
treating
physician,
professional
standards
and
ethics
codes,
prevent
treating
clinicians
to
deal
with
forensic
issues
such
as
sorry
such
as
causation,
and
this
is
both
for
psychiatric
and
psychological
association,
and
that's
because
trust
is
so
important
in
forensic
psychiatric
evaluations.
If
you
don't
trust
the
doctor
who's
saying,
I
don't
think
it
causes
it
work.
E
The
modern
standards
for
mental
illness
diagnosis
must
comply
with
the
standards,
the
american
psychiatric
association
and
not
deviate
from
the
manual
of
mental
disorders
and
the
valuations
need
to
include
general
medical
records,
mental
health
history,
employment
records.
These
past
records
are
critical
and
often
we
cannot
get
employment
records.
It's
very,
very
difficult.
E
E
So
an
acclaim
must
be
grounded
incredible
and
reliable
scientific
findings
that
the
specific
claim
and
there's
a
significant
risk
factor
for
the
diagnosis
and
is
a
reason
for
impairment,
and
there
is
no
scientific,
validated
method
for
diagnosing
specific
mental
illness.
It's
a
constellation
of
symptoms,
there's
no
mri
pet
scan
blood
test,
etc.
That
can
tell
you
your
mentally
ill
and
what
your
exact
diagnosis
is
next
slide.
E
You
need
to
evaluate
for
personality
disorders,
because
that
causes
a
lot
of
conflict
within
the
workplace
and
when
evaluating
impairment,
you
should
use
established
analysis
and
not
use
an
evaluator's
impression
or
clinical
experience
next
slide,
just
in
general,
medical
consultant
or
ine
needs
to
review
each
case
in
detail,
taking
on
all
the
elements
that
we
say
before
and
use
medical
evidence,
including
the
medical
literature,
to
give
recent
opinions
on
impairment
and
causation
and
now
jay
and
roberto.
E
B
B
So
you
know,
as
I
listen
to
the
information,
it's
certainly
complex,
but
still
seems
intuitive.
As
you
say,
it
makes
sense
and
at
the
same
time
I
know
that.
B
So
there's
something
missing:
there's
something
we're
not
making
the
same.
We're
not
evaluating
them
the
same
way,
and
so
is
that
something
we
want
to
try
to
address
head
on
right
now
or
is
that
something?
Mr
pena?
You
were
thinking
about
a
a
another
step
in
the
training
we
did
something
last
year.
We're
doing
this
today.
Is
there
because
at
some
point
we
need
to
get
at
that
yeah?
Why
are
we
doing
that?
Why
is
that
happening?.
C
Yeah
we
would
like
to
understand
that
as
well.
Well,
I
think
part
of
it.
Let
me
just
say
two
things.
First,
one
is.
This
is
a
very
difficult
subject
and
I
think
to
the
board's
point:
we
you
didn't
have
a
lot
of
training.
C
Your
prior
board
really
have
two
members,
if
you
recall
that
have
a
lot
of
disability
knowledge
and
used
to
be
your
former
chair
from
matt
wash
and
also
the
former
director
for
the
retirement
office,
so
I
think
in
the
past
the
board
rely
heavily
on
on
their
understanding
and
background.
C
Obviously,
both
of
them
are
gone,
and
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
are
providing
this
training.
The
first
phase
was
in
january,
and
this
is
the
second
one
is
because
of
the
request
by
all
of
you
that
you
needed
training,
because
you
didn't
feel
that
you
have
the
the
information
and
the
tools
said
to
make
informed
decisions.
C
So
I
think
that
was
that's
one
of
the
reasons
for
the
difference
of
opinion
between
you
board
and
staff,
the
second
one.
They
were
very
difficult
cases.
They
were
very
difficult
and
challenging
cases,
so
I
think
it
could
have
gone
either
way.
I
can
tell
you
that
my
approach
to
these
to
this
situation
is
truthful.
C
I
think
that
the
training
should
be
a
never-ending
annual
reminder
of
what
disability
is
the
second
one.
Really.
I
thought
it
may
be
a
good
idea
for
you
board
to
start
thinking
about
perhaps
considering
creating
your
own
disability
committee
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is
because
once
we
provide
the
training
number,
one
trustees
will
be
better
informed
and
educated
to
actually
make
decisions
on
disabilities,
but
number
two.
C
Having
said
that,
let
me
just
make
a
couple
of
comments
about
working
with
dr
truman
and
what
I
have
learned
over
the
last
few
years.
I've
been
obviously
in
the
industry
for
25
years
and
working
disability
for
many
years,
making
decisions,
recommendations
to
the
boards,
and
I
have
learned
two
things
working
with
dr
truma,
the
first
one
I
have
to
say
she's,
absolutely
right,
there's
a
huge
distinction
between
workers
come
and
and
retirement
for
you
know
the
municipal
code
or
the
state
in
california
in
terms
of
disability
retirement.
C
C
That's
where
you
hear
the
expression
is
at
37,
disabled
or
51
is
because
they
actually
assign
percentages.
In
your
case,
you
have
to
make
a
decision
whether
or
not
the
person
is
disabled.
The
second
one
is
that
I
have
learned
with
information
provided
by
the
treatment
that,
where
many
many
years
and
in
the
past
there
was
an
understanding
that
actual
physical
work
impacted
disabilities.
C
Case
studies
and
information
in
the
medical
science
to
support
that
that
that
sort
of
knowledge
and
the
treatment
feel
free
to
make
sure
that
you
make
this
explanation
better
than
I
do
medically
that
that
is
not
as
much
of
the
case
as
we
thought,
and
that
was
the
example
that
the
council
required
provided
on
the
study
of
the
twins
that
one
of
the
twins
was
sedentary.
C
I
mean
they
don't
make
any
much
physical
work
and
the
other
one
did
and
they
both
developed
the
same
back
problem,
and
so
that's
just
a
classic
example
right.
So
so
members
tend
to
think
because
something
her
by
the
way.
My
back
has
been
bothering
me
for
the
last
eight
years
since
I
joined
the
office.
But
you
know
I
don't
think
it's
the
job,
so
we
have
come
to
learn
that
it's
not
as
much
the
actual
physical
activity
as
it
is
in
many
instances.
C
You
know
if
a
situation
of
that
may
have
been
developed
because
of
family
history,
so
I
don't
know
how
well
you
can
explain
that
go
to
treatment,
but
that's
something
that
I
have
come
to
learn
just
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
That
I
think,
is
really
a
challenge
for
anyone
when
they're
making
a
decision.
So
in
summary,
trey
castellano.
C
The
winners
to,
of
course,
make
sure
that
we
provide
some
sort
of
an
update
on
the
disability
training
every
year,
not
to
mention
obviously,
that
these
presentations
are
are
available
to
you
going
forward
and
we'll
make
them
part
of
the
the
policies
and
procedures
that
we
have
in
in
the
application
confluence
so
that
you
can
refer
to
it
whenever
you
have
to
so
I
I
know
it
was
a
winded
and
long
answer
to
your
question,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you
heard
what
my
thoughts
were
on
the
matter.
D
Well,
I
also
think
that
one
of
the
items
that
russ
provided
was
an
applicant
is
not
to
be
given
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
that
that
is
fiduciary
responsibility
and
so
because
I
remember
that
it
wasn't
unanimous
because
I
did
vote
not
to
go
forward
and-
and
usually
I
tend
to
be
more
sensitive
in
these
issues
but
and
it,
but
I
didn't
totally
know
all
this
at
the
time.
So
I
wasn't
as
knowledgeable
in
the
facts,
but
I
think
it
tends.
D
I
think
we
tend
to
have
that
sensitivity
to
people
and
we've
we
acted
more
on.
In
my
opinion,
we
acted
more
on
that
versus
some
of
the
guidelines
and
what
the
rules
are
so
you
know,
and-
and
so
yes
having
this
document
is
good.
If
we
have
a
separate,
I
you
know
it's
really
up
to
the
board
members.
If
they
want
to
have
another
committee,
you
know
where
we
go
forward.
D
I
I
suggest,
if
we
do
that,
since
we're
all
still
kind
of
new,
I
mean
that
you
know
we
have
maybe
russ
set
in
at
times.
You
know,
as
legal
counsel
just
to
you
know,
steer
the
boat
a
little
to
make
sure
we're
not
going
off.
C
Yeah
just
so
to
address
that
issue,
trustee
jennings,
if,
if
you're
bored
in
the
putting
together
a
disability
committee,
you'll
have
ros
will
be
the
disability
committee
attorney
and
staff
obviously
will
be
sitting
know
the
meetings,
just
as
we
do
with
police
on
fire
and
provide
answer,
questions
and
provide
input.
C
C
Then
dude,
when
we
have
our
agenda
review
meetings
chair
castle
channel,
that
particular
item
could
be
requested
and
the
staff
will
bring
it
forward
and
we'll
do
whatever
you
know,
we'll
probably
provide
some
ideas
to
how
that
process
work
in
police
and
fire,
although
you
don't
have
to
follow
the
same
procedure
just
so
as
a
as
a
base
guideline
for
for
the
for
the
committee
work.
G
C
You
do
have
a
vacancy
right
now,
so
you
know
obviously
there's
going
to
be
some
more
decisions
that
you're
going
to
have
to
make
in
terms
of
committee
participation.
So
you
will
want
to
make
sure
that
your
your
board
is
is
complete
and
you
do
have
that
public
member
position
feel
before
you
start
thinking
about
creating
any
of
the
committees.
C
B
I'm
definitely
open
to
the
discussion
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
how
much
we
need
to
wait
for
that
vacancy,
because
we've
had
discussions
about
it,
it
could
be
vacant
until
the
term
expires
and
we
get
the
new
person
we
don't.
B
As
far
as
I
know,
we
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question
yet,
but
also,
I
wasn't
sure
about
where,
if
we
initiate
that
conversation
through
the
board
through
a
governance
committee
and
maybe
yeah,
maybe
we
need
to
talk
about
it
offline,
but
if,
if
for
the
sake
of
the
other
board
members,
if
you
already
know
what
that
process
would
or
should
look
like,
then
I
want
them
to
be
as
up
to
speed
about
it
as
me
to
not
not
just
you
and
I
having
a
conversation
through
a
gender
review.
B
D
Hi
I'll
just
share
a
couple
of
thoughts
to
say
thank
you
for
these
documents
and
the
presentations
they
are
detailed,
but
it's
really
thorough
and
very
helpful.
You
know
when
we're
faced
with
the
disability
assessment-
I'm
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion,
I'm
rather
agnostic
at
the
moment,
but
I
get
I
I
guess.
I'm
leaning
towards
the
fact
that
having
us
all
involved,
as
we
have
been
isn't,
is
there's
an
advantage
in
that
we
keep
this
topic
top
of
mind
at
the
front.
D
We
know
that
we're
getting
a
little
deeper
and
learning
a
bit
faster.
My
sense
is
if
it
goes
to
a
committee,
if
indeed
we
go
down
that
route,
it
will
sort
of
get.
You
know
delegated
away,
which
again
six
of
one
half
a
dozen
the
other,
but
for
now
I'd
I'd
have
a
preference
to
stay
engaged
so
that
I
understand
the
the
nuances
and
try
to
try
to.
You
know
add
value
to
that.
To
that
discussion.
B
C
Thank
you
so
a
comment
to
that
trusty
or
thank
you
for
those
comments
that
that
makes
sense.
The
board
will
still
be
involved.
The
committee
of
the
board
would
just
take
over
the
the
word
by
the
committee
by
staff,
and
so
the
committee
will
still
it's
like
investment
committee.
C
They
will
make
president
they
will
make
recommendations
to
the
board
and
and
just
like
the
staff
committee
today,
the
id
will
come
before
you
board
for
discussion
either
on
consent,
in
which
case
it's
a
consent
item
and
your
board
can
approve
it
and
if
there's
no
recommendation,
oh,
if
there
is
a
a
a
recommendation
of
no
approving,
then
it
will
be
a
discussion
item.
So
your
football
will
still
be
engaged
in
the
discussion
and
the
decision-making.
D
I
I
just
wanted
to
to
thank
both
dr
chairman
and
council
ricketta
for
these
comprehensive
presentations
it.
I
think
it
gives
us
a
lot
more
information
than
we
had
before
and
echoing
what
trustee
jennings
said,
I
think
a
big
source
of
well.
It
was
a
revelation
to
me
to
learn
that
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
does
not
go
to
the
applicant,
and
I
think,
had
we
known
that
some
of
our
earlier
votes
what
it
may
have
gone
another.
D
D
D
If
we're
not
going
to
do
a
separate
committee
and
set
that
up,
then
what
we
should
do
is
before
these
come
forward
to
the
board.
We
take
russ's
presentation
and
take
a
few
of
those
major
caveats
and
put
it
on
one
sheet.
Okay,
and
we
put
that
in
front
of
everybody,
so
we
just
remind
each
other
again.
This
is
these:
are
the
guidelines
guys?
This
is
what
we
got
to
do
and
then
he
should
be
there
when
we're
reviewing
just
to
keep
us
on
task
with
that,
so
we're
following
what
it
is.
C
If
I
made
czech
casino,
I
think
you
indicated,
but
you
know
I-
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
board
have
the
full
support.
I
think
you're
suggesting
maybe
to
bring
an
item
back
for
discussion
to
a
future
board
meeting,
whether
it's
the
main
meeting
or
june,
to
consider
whether
or
not
to
establish
a
committee
and
and
staff
to
prepare
some
work
that
would
allow
the
you
know
providing
some
basic
guidelines
as
to
how
that
committee
will
work.
C
If
that's
what
you
bore
preference
is
all
you
we
will
need
will
be
direction
from
your
board
to
do
that,
and
if
your
board
is
pretty
clear
that
that's
not
something
that
you
want
to
entertain,
then
let
us
know,
and
that
would
be
fine,
but
yes
to
trustee
jenny's
comments.
Obviously
we'll
have
disability
counsel
available
for
all
the
board
meetings.
Again,
the
difference
is
if
there
is
a
recommendation
on
consent,
he
won't
be
available
because
we
would
be
expected
to
be
approved
on
consent.
C
B
My
my
inclination
is
I'm
checking
with
the
board
now
is
to
yes
provide
direction
to
staff,
to
bring
back
enough
a
future
agenda
item
to
discuss
what
the
world
would
look
like
with
the
disability
committee,
new
disability
committee,
without
a
our
own
medical
medical
opinion
dealing
only
with
the
ime
yeah.
B
Let's
take
a
look
at
that,
so
I
mean
and
and
also
trustee
jennings
mentioned,
mr
akeda's
information-
and
I
I
agree
his
stuff
was
great
and
item
5c
does
include
a
attachment
for
with
guidelines,
and
I
I
didn't
reconcile.
If
most
of
it
is
there
already
that's
great
and
if
not
then
perhaps
that's
a
a
place
to
codify
the
information
I'm
guessing
most
of
it
was
quoted
from
the
muni
code,
so
in
some
form
we
were
already
working
with
it.
B
But
does
anyone
have
any
objection
to
providing
direction
to
staff,
to
bring
back
a
future
item
to
discuss
the
disability
committee?
The
potential
of
a
disability
committee.
B
C
B
Yeah,
I
agree
all
right.
Let's
go
on
to
item
six
on
the
agenda
committees,
reports,
recommendations,
6.1
is
investment
committee.
We
did
not
have
a
recent
meeting.
Next
meeting
is
on
later
this
month
april.
20Th
trustee
chandra
is
not
here
trustee
or
is
there
anything
to
say
under
10a
61a
again
we
haven't
had
a
meeting.
I
know.
B
D
This,
yes
yeah.
We
already
discussed
our
last
meeting
at
the
previous
full
board
meeting.
So
there's
nothing
to
report
here.
B
Very
good,
thank
you.
6.3
is
the
audit
committee
same
story,
I
believe,
is
that
correct
trustee
kelleher
yeah
the
only
update.
B
Okay,
yeah
very
good.
Thank
you
for
that
with
an
update
and
for
the
work
with
grant
thornton
6-4
joint
personnel
committee
last
meeting
was
november.
10Th
no
new
meetings,
anything
any
comments,
trustee
or.
D
At
this
stage,
we
won't
have
anything
to
report
until
the
jpc,
reconnects-
okay,
yes,
that.
C
B
Very
good,
thank
you
item
seven
education
and
training.
We
have
the
7a
as
the
cortex
report,
calipers
virtual
trusty
round
table
may
10.
Sackers
virtual
annual
spring
conference
is
c
and
d
is
the
calpers
virtual
advanced
principal's
training
in
june
any
future
agenda
items,
okay,
moving
forward
any
public
or
retiree
comments.