Please proceed. 231 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
As best I can determine -- Councilwoman, as best as I can determine, all of the changes pretty much revolve around of the document that was handed out.
In response to Councilman Cohen, letter (d), "The language or such other generally accepted valuation methodology as may be approved and adopted from time to time by the Board." I would ask that that would be stricken. In letter (e), there was a word that was incorrect. The word "assets" on the fourth line of the Section (e), the word "assets" should be stricken. It should be replaced by "fund basis." In 131.4 letter (a), in response to Councilman Cohen, the phrase "provided, however, that all disbursements made pursuant to this section shall be consistent with all federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations," that should be stricken. There should then be a period at the end of the previous 232 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 sentence that ends with "Pension Adjustment Fund." Councilman Cohen pointed out a grammatical error in letter (b), the fourth line, in the word "therefore," the letter e should be taken off the word "therefore." (So that it reads "therefor.") Now, those are the only proposed amendments to the larger document called "Proposed Amendment to Bill No. 990001" dated January 27, 1999.
Yes, yes, Madame Chair, as best I can figure out, they're all on --
And I would think that anybody wanting a clean bill could probably have one. It's only that one page that would have to be retyped by the time the other witnesses complete their testimony.
I would certainly hope so. There are three strike-outs and the changing of a word.
Is there a 233 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 secretary around?
May I ask that Councilman Nutter respond to that question I raised about if the Pension Board votes a nickel.
I didn't want to confuse that with the earlier conversation.
In response to that -- you have mentioned that to me on a couple of occasions. In response to that, what I would propose is that on , as a part of that Section (b) that starts with the 30-day requirement for reporting and then goes into 18 consecutive months with no distribution and the Board having to explain why, if you go over into , what I would propose is this change: "The Council expressly reserves the right to provide new language at any time by ordinance for enhanced benefit distributions from the Pension Adjust Fund. If the Board fails to provide for any distributions, new language, or if 234 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 deemed by Council an inadequate, during any period of consecutive months." 4 That was sitting at the table here or 5 actually a little earlier. It was my attempt to 6 try to respond to the inadequate distribution 7 issue, and you're saying that there could be some 8 insultingly low amount even though they have a 9 large amount in the Pension Adjustment Fund and 10 that they would technically be in compliance. 11 I want to reserve the right for City 12 Council to make some further determination as to 13 whether or not it's an appropriate amount. That 14 language is consistent, Councilman with the. . . 15 with the language that goes to what the purpose of 16 the Pension Adjustment Fund is, which it starts 17 down at the bottom of : 18 "The purpose of the Pension Adjustment Fund is for the distribution of benefits as determined by the Board for retirees, beneficiaries, or survivors." This is the important phrase: "The Board shall make timely, regular, and sufficient distributions from the Pension Fund in order to maximize the benefits of retirees, beneficiaries 235 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 or survivors." The whole concept of this fund is to make distributions of benefit to the retirees, and that the Board in its decision-making process should try to maximize any distribution that they make to the retirees, beneficiaries, and survivors. That should certainly be their goal. If they have another reason for not maximizing at a particular point in time, they should tell us. Maybe they want two years of buildup and they have a plan to two years of buildup because they want to make an even larger distribution in a subsequent year. We should be able to get that information, they should be able to explain all the time why they are doing what they're doing or why they're not doing something. So in the de minimus distribution we should be able to make an evaluation of whether we think it is de minimus. If we believe it is, we should be able to take the legislative action to correct it.
I think that deals with the problem I raised. It seems like a satisfactory solution. 236 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Councilman, would you like to have that included as --
I would, again, just like the opportunity always. No lawyer ever accepts anyone verbally.
I would like to see it but it sounds as if it beats the problem I thought existed.
Okay. I think there are others who wish to testify. I want to take this language down the hall and get it included in the document.
Yes, is being worked on now and what I just discussed with Councilman Cohen is on , and I'll seek to have that included as a part of the document that comes back to us shortly.
Right, thank 237 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 you.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Nutter? (No further questions.)
Thank you, Councilman. I understand we have other witnesses who would like to testify. Would you please come to the table, gentlemen. (More witnesses come forward.)
Gentlemen, please identify yourselves for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Bob Eddis, Recording Secretary, Lodge 5. 238 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Okay, Madame Chairwoman, Members of Council, I don't think I'm -- perhaps I am belaboring the obvious when I state that we're facing an extremely complex, very important issue. We've all agreed on that. The unions, together with Councilwoman Blackwell and other cosponsors, had a bill 9 introduce in late September to initiate a cost-of-living adjustment for our retired city employees. A great deal of work was generated in December and again in January. Members of this Council who are sitting in this room, and many times as tempers flared, stated that the bill was so complex, they did not have sufficient information, they weren't sure of what exactly bill said, and they were extremely concerned about that. Now, that was in the bill 19 that had been distributed three or four months previously, and we acknowledge that. But the unions were also accused of railroading that bill through, shoving it down people's throats. That's a bill that had been in existence for four full months. Now, today, after spending a full day 239 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Thursday and a full day Sunday and being promised amendments to the bill first thing Monday, and the amendments were offered ten minutes after 10:30. At 5:30 they didn't exist. All day yesterday, they didn't exist. At 5:30 last night -- and I might have gotten one of the early -- a copy of the amendments comes through. This morning, at 12:30, we're handed a second copy. A few minutes ago, we heard during testimony amendments were offered in every other sentence. Some of the problems that we've heard today -- and nobody's sure exactly at this point exactly what bill have before us, we heard two different smoothing methods defined, two different start dates, there were probably three different time periods for review. The unions who were accused of excluding survivors are now looking at a bill that intentionally excludes the family members of City employees who are killed in the line of duty. There's no provision for them in there when they don't meet the age or the time of service requirements. And, unfortunately, employees don't get to pick when they're going to be asked to 240 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 sacrifice their lives. So right now, as a group, we admit the complexity and the confusion, and we're probably less sharp than a lot of the Councilmembers, but it's impossible for us to have any input in a bill 7 that not only has nobody in this room read, nobody in this room has even seen yet. And we certainly hope that the same folks that accused of us railroading something aren't intending to vote out of this committee or out of Council today a bill that nobody's read, that nobody's seen, that nobody's had a chance to study. That would be sending entirely the wrong message to the citizens of this city and retirees. To vote something like that out today would be nothing less than an outrage and a fraud. The way we read the bill in its initial form, which was about four hours ago, and it's changed four or five times since, is that it created a very cleverly worded mirage. And if there's one thing that's worse than telling people who come before you, "No, go away," it's telling them that you're going to grant their request and then you keep them standing their forever with 241 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 their hand out and their hand empty. It does no good to include cost-of-living provision in a bill when the conditions of that cost-of-living provisions will never or very seldom be met. It would be much better not even to include it. It does no good to say we'll give a cost-of-living provision and then set all of these conditions and parameters to make sure that such never took effect. That would be a fraud, a deception, and that would be far crueler than just telling people no at the outset. And yet, in its initial form or in one of its forms, it's our position that that's exactly what this bill would do.
But in an effort to keep the confusion going, every time a question was asked, a verbal amendment was offered. We've had enough verbal amendments here to have an entirely new piece of legislation. And now we're out copying them. If we remember, the first set took over 48 hours, and now we're able to produce them in a matter of minutes. In fairness, I'm sure that the Mayor's staff is generating them quicker than Councilman Nutter can read them, and that may be why he's bumbling through some of the 242 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 answers to the questions. The fact remains that this is a serious issue. Some members of this Council have requested just a week to go over what's left of it. We think that members who said that it four months was an insufficient time cannot, in good faith, sit before us, our members and the citizens and say that three hours is more than sufficient. We would join with those members who asked for at least a week to go over this and make sure we all know. And if we're still voting against it, fine. If we're voting for it, fine. Everybody in this room has to know exactly what the hell they are voting for, pro or con because you don't want to make a very serious mistake on something this important. That's all we're asking and I'll defer to any of my colleagues.
Mr. Yost, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Les Yost, I'm from the Firefighters Union. 243 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 I'm not sure that Bill 990001 allows enough leeway with regard to cost of livings. Just like Rich Costello just testified, the amounts that we've heard, and we've heard them from the Pension Board's actuary, would give very few and very small cost-of-living increases in a ten-year period. One of the years, the amount to be split would have been 0.1. We would have gotten 0.05 of 1 percent. That year, the amount of money that was earned on that Pension Fund on smoothing system that's used was 10.1. So we would have gotten that 0.05. Council should pass a bill that's going to provide a realistic and a reasonable yearly cost-of-living increase to our retired members, to our widows, to our survivors, to the orphans that are out there, to the families of members that were killed in the line of duty the same. We're asking you to take a look at Councilman Nutter's bill and amend it to do those things that are required, that we're asking you to do for us. Thank you.
Anyone else to testify at the table? 244 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
My name is Tom Cronin District Council 47. I think a delay -- and I think we're all together on this. We would support a delay because there is a lot of confusion. The only thing that we clearly see is, we see the lump-sum bonuses. That's clear; it's been clear witness after witness. The cost of living, there's a great deal of confusion, we think, out there about the cost of living, whether we would get a cost of living or not. I think the unions have been very clear in that they wanted to see a cost of living after the lump-sum bonuses. However, Council President, with all the different language that we've heard, some of which we've seen, some of which we haven't seen, we can't in good faith completely trust that; we need to see it down in black and white so that we can evaluate what's going on. As labor leaders, you never sign a contract, and we were able to see that during the SEPTA negotiations when everybody thought they had a signed, sealed agreement. And then there was a 245 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 serious question that came up about different parts of that contract. And all, I think, that we're saying is we want to see it down in black and white, we want to have an opportunity to look at it, and we want a realistic cost of living for our members that we can agree on. We don't want to be able to say to our individual members, Listen, we have two lump-sum bonuses, and there's a cost of living that you'll probably never see. That's not going to work for us. The other language in the bill I think that Bobby has pointed out to us at least raises a number of questions in our minds that we need a little time to talk about. But I honestly feel now that I don't quite understand what the rush is. It feels like we're on a train here, and that all we want to say is that we want to slow down that train so that we have an opportunity to study this because when you look at our combined membership from all these unions, we're talking about an awful lot of people that have a stake in this in the City of Philadelphia. I don't want to see us work out -- 246 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Excuse me. You said Bobby has some concerns. Can you be a little more specific? What are the concerns?
Well, I mean, I think those concerns can be listed for you, but let me finish what I was going to say. I just think if we leave here now with the feeling that we have, there's an awful lot of bitterness. There's no need for us to have a continued war on this if we can get it resolved with just taking a little bit more time. That's my only point. You know, earlier on, we heard from the Administration that these are things -- that these pension increases or negotiations should take place during labor negotiations. Council President, after you've seen what you've seen going through with us, do you honestly think that these could have taken place, the issue of pension during labor negotiations? This is where it has to be taken care of. Labor negotiations, it's an impossibility, and this is why it's an impossibility because it's so complicated, so difficult to muddle through. 247 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Thank you.
I'd like to make a point. Realistically, we heard all the testimony. We heard the Monday, we head the testimony today from Councilman O'Neill. And the point is realistically, are members going to get anything at 10? Realistically, no. And my point is to fight for the 9 percent. This bill -- I don't want to go back to my members and say, you know, we supported this bill and we come up with we got you a lump-sum and we tell 'em we got a cost-of-living adjustment which you'll never reach. And I think the testimony we had today -- and I didn't see anybody really dispute that, that we won't get any adjustment. At 9 percent, it will be minimum at best, if we get something at 9 percent. So we're asking, I mean, just to be treated fairly in this sense, and I don't see the reason why we have to rush this. That's all I have to say. (Brief interruption.) 248 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Madame Chair, there was a few things that you had asked. I just wanted to know if you wanted me to raise those questions again.
Thank you. Originally when we came in with the bill, the first bill that was, we knew that it was getting to take a lot of discussion in order for there to be a mechanism that everyone can live with. Obviously, that's proved to be true from us sitting here today. We're going through the bill, without boring you with rhetoric, with a comparison since 12:30 between the first bill we had and the second bill we had, and in an effort I believe that everyone's truly here trying to do the right thing, but our concern is --
Mr. Eddis, I don't mean to interrupt you but, you know, with the first bill, I'll be very honest with you, I don't know that Council ever had a briefing on 249 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 that. I don't know that the labor leaders were included in on the briefing. How many briefings have we had on this particular bill? And how many hours have we spent together addressing this bill? We did not do that with the first bill, did we?
We're not objecting to that, Madame Chair, that's not the issue.
Oh, okay, but we have spent a great deal of time discussing this and dealing with the concerns; whereas nobody ever got together on the first bill. I don't know that anybody ever really discussed that with me. Councilman DiCicco.
I believe it was December the 16th, if my memory serves me correctly, that we asked for that extension. I believe it was December the 16th, if memory serves me correctly, that we asked for a recall so that we could discuss the bill, and we were flat-out denied that opportunity. So I don't understand. I think we should get past that and talk about this bill, which I think on the 13th, we had a caucus about 250 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 this bill on the 13th. And, again, those issues we can never get an extension which we asked for. And I'm being -- myself and several others are constantly being accused of not giving enough time.
I just don't understand this City Council. I've been a member for years, and I've never seen a process like 10 the one that seems to be evolving here. If we're 11 just puppeteers for the Mayor, let's say so 12 publicly. Let's say when the Mayor calls up, 13 people kneel before him and do what he wants. 14 We have all kinds of involved 15 complexities in this bill, and I'm prepared to 16 discuss and stay here and talk from now on through 17 the night because there is absolutely no reason 18 for rushing this bill through. 19 What are we trying to tell these workers of Philadelphia, that we don't care about you at all? The Mayor wants us to do something and, by God, we're going to do it? Then they don't need us. People ought to turn us out of office if all we're doing is doing what the Mayor wants. 251 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 We've got to do what we think is our duty towards the retirees. That's where this thing is. I can't understand. We don't even have a Council meeting for a week yet. What kind of nonsense is this to talk about a vote tonight?
It's been moved and seconded that this matter be tabled. We will have a roll call vote.
To table this. 252 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Table it? (Councilman O'Neill speaks inaudibly off mike.)
. . . so that it has a date certain on it for when we would -- (Councilman Cohen speaks inaudibly off mike.)
Well, could I suggest no later than a week from today?
No, we don't. I'm just asking that it not appear that we just want to put this thing off but that we have a time frame in mind. It that does not affect the reporting out of this bill at the next available session.
Fine. Madame Chair, would you accept that amendment to --
The question 253 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 is, shall this bill be tabled until Wednesday -- I don't know what date it is -- at o'clock. What 4 date is that? 5
Councilman Longstreth? 254 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Councilwoman Verna, no. 255 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 The nays are and the ayes are 5. The motion fails. Mr. Eddis, please continue.
One of our areas of 6 concern, as we said, is some of the wording 7 interpreting between both. One of the words that 8 was changed today, I understand, but it's one that 9 has great bearing. It's changing from the word "fund basis" to "assets."
That's on . I understand that it's possibly a typographical error, but I know in the past that when there was different things that we had written, it wasn't viewed in the same way, and I think it changes the flavor in regards to the actual funding. The determination can change. I know the assets will continue to grow and there's no guarantee that the fund basis will. I believe that's another issue that we have to be able to discuss. I believe also in the area, like we said, in regards to the wording in the intent of 256 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 the bill, I believe was to be able to ensure that survivors of members who either died or were killed in the line of duty would be included. However, the way the one section's written, it really doesn't spell that out. Some of the wording in the bill today in regards to taking out in the area if there was any distributions. I know that issue's been addressed but it's also been a concern because of the fact that if there is as much as a dollar, which I know wouldn't be the case, but because of us looking at the possibility that that could happen, we want that be able to looked at. We know the understanding in regards to the methodology in regards to the adjusted market value. We had sat down the other day and discussed that, and I believe that there was an agreement in regards to that. And I believe that I today that the changes with it have had an effect. I believe, without going on to any great extent, that there is just certain issues as a result of trying to do the best that we all possibly can by reviewing the document we have in 257 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 front of us. We would be remissed (sic) if we would let anything go through that could possibly hold us up. As the Councilwoman explained earlier, there's certain dates in here where we go from 7 months, 6, 18 months. There may be need for all 8 that, but I don't necessarily agree with the way 9 it's being presented in the structure. And that's 10 why our original recommendation was that we felt 11 that this type of issue has to be addressed, this 12 has to able to withstand the test of time. Believe me, I have no intention to digress, and we appreciate the time and the effort that Councilmembers have spent on this. They've obviously shown us a great concern in the same way that we do. We don't believe there's any good or bad here. We believe that there's everybody trying to come to a same common goal. And in order to get to that common goal, we have to understand what it is that we need, does it address it, do we have the questions answered along the area? The other day, I was held up to the fact that our writing said that we had asked 258 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 between 1 and 6 percent. We gave that out as a little brief to try to help somebody out, and we explained that we take responsibility for that, even though intent was from 0 to when we 6 testified. But when I sit here and see difference between the fund basis and the assets just being dismissed, for a lack of a better term, then it has a great bearing. And I think the that these are part of the complex issues that could possibly be resolved as a result of everyone taking the time, going back through this, without rushing. What we're trying to do here is, at today 12:30 today, we were given a document to compare to what we had from last night. We're trying to check it at the same time we're hearing testimony. Well, there may be people in this room that are that talented, but I can't sit here and tell you that we can for something this important. We felt from the very beginning that there needed to be a mechanism to be able to review, to ensure that once it goes, that it works for all. I don't believe that it's anyone's intent to put in some -- 259 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Well, weren't they very minor changes that were made in the amendments that you received this morning?
The amendments we received this morning actually, Madame Chair, was received this afternoon, not for the sake of --
Well, this afternoon. I mean, they were inconsequential really.
Well, some of the issues that are still in the bill, I don't believe that they're all inconsequential, and I believe --
No, I'm saying the form was the same, was it not?
Yes, except for the amendments that Councilman Nutter made while sitting at the table recently, addressing that there had been some words that weren't meant the way that they were supposed to be. And what I'm saying is that's going 260 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 along the process, trying to review it and trying to read it and trying to compare it, to make sure that the bill actually says what everyone wants it to say. I believe the point in regards to the funding, which seems to be, for lack of an argument, the only major point of contention that needs to be clarified prior to the bill going any further. We had different testimony from different Council people on the floor today in regards to what the funding level was, where were we, how does it stand? I just believe that as a result of getting this information and then being able to digress it and review the document would better serve everyone sitting here and outside of these walls that's going to be affected as a result of this.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, Councilman Nutter.
Are you in a position at this point in time to address some of the concerns as expressed by Mr. Eddis? 261 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Yeah. I think if we look at the pink version of the bill. . .
Yes, certainly it is true that there were some changes made from last night into this morning. I think, as the Chair stated, all of those were rather immaterial changes but no substantive changes -- although you do point out that there was this one issue about assets.
The word "assets"? If you look on in the pink version of the bill, this is at a time when the bill was dealing with 81 percent funded and 19 percent unfunded.
If you read the definition of the bill, you will find that the problem with the amendment that came in today is that the bracket should have gone as far as the word "assets." That word was in the original version of the bill. There is no fundamental change. The section had to be changed because we've now gone to a date certain for creation of the Pension Adjustment Fund. And so what should have happened in the amendments that you received either last night or today is that the bracket should have gone from the phrase "unfunded accrued actuarial liability as determined by the Board's actuary of the Municipal Retirement System is greater than (19 17 percent) of the total assets of the retirement 18 system assets." And the bracket should have 19 closed there. It did not. But that is the same phraseology that came out of the pink version, the original version of the bill. There is no switching of terms. That term now is not relevant when you take out the rest of the language in front of it. That was the problem. 263 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Mr. Nutter, I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I'm just trying to say we spent many, many hours studying this part of the bill.
As everyone in this building has. We were then given another amendment to show that there have been other changes.
There's been additional changes over and about the ones made here.
So now we see that there is changing in a word between "assets" and "fund basis."
Because "assets" should have been bracketed, and it wasn't.
I understand that. But what I'm saying is, when we're looking at a piece of paper and trying to make a comparison when we were told that this was going to be the issue of discussing, my concern was, how did it get to the point? I was sitting right back there with the 264 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 actuary. How did it get to the point where it was changed to "assets"? What I'm saying is exactly what I'm pointing out that in order for us to --
Mr. Eddis, what I'm trying to explain to you is that it was not changed to "assets." "Assets" was always in the bill; it's in the pink. The pink version of the bill is the bill as it was introduced. If you read that definition, it includes the word "assets."
I'm saying that changing the word "assets" to "fund basis" changes the meaning. I understand the difference between assets and fund basis.
Right. And "fund basis" is a defined term in the bill.
And "fund basis" is now a defined term in the amendments that are being put forward. 265 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
I understand that. My point of concern is, going through the bill, seeing issues that are coming up and being able to try to identify them. The original question was that, as Mr. Cronin stated, that I had certain concerns.
Right. Can you tell me what your concern is about this change?
Can you tell me what your certain is about this particular error that was made?
The determination in regards to overall, we know that the fund basis is able to be changed such as the assets can go up; yet the fund basis can come down. If mortality can affect it, there's a lot of different issues that can affect it.
We can have our fund basis decreased while at the same time the assets are increased. I think everybody agrees on that.
What's your definition of -- why don't you play out that 266 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 scenario.
Okay. You have the first wording saying it's based on assets. The assets of the fund currently, for the sake of argument, we're still in Section (e), 131.3, on .
For a point of reference. You have your assets the way it's listed here. It shows you that there's going to be disbursements based on what the asset level is of the fund.
, letter (e), at the top, where the word was replaced between "fund basis" and "assets."
Letter (e). 267 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
What I'm saying is, you asked me to explain the difference -- correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked me to explain the difference between assets, my definition of "assets" and "fund basis" and what effect it would have on the overall performance.
I'm saying, reading this today when we first got it, seeing that the disbursement was going to be based on what the asset of the fund was, so as long as the fixed --
See, that -- I'm sorry, but that's where you're confusing me because there's nothing in this section talks about disbursements.
Okay. The determination -- assets of the retirement system as determined by the Board's actuary using the adjusted value of assets valuation method are less than the fund 268 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 basis established as of July 1, 1999.
Okay, there's going to be a determination made as a result of that, which then would --
Okay, so we're not playing semantics on words, I would rather finish the definition of the one to say that if the assets -- if the disbursement is based on the assets, the chances of the assets going down are literally impossible. If it's based on the fund basis, that stands a possibility that the fund basis could go down. We had said from the very beginning that we never wanted there to be any disbursements of funds if the level didn't stay at where it should be, as determined by a fixed date.
We totally agree with the fixed-date, thought it was excellent. 269 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
But what I'm saying is, to change it from determining it to the assets to the fund basis definitely has an impact.
Okay. I guess -- but all we're saying here is that you have to compare fund basis to fund basis at two points in time.
I have no argument with that, I have no argument with that. The determination was that we're saying that there has been various changes which have led to a point where we have to be able to look at it to make sure other than in a manner where we're rushing through. Our concern is that if we rush something through right now, it's not going to be the right way. We've spent a lot of time, we've met over the last few week weeks. And I think --
You yourself have admitted today that there were certain adjustments that needed to be made to this.
Absolutely, right. 270 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 That's why went through it section by section, line by line. Now having heard that, though, what I'm still trying to understand is, what is your concern about the error that was made which does involve putting a bracket in the wrong place? But you know when you read the entire sentence the Board has to compare the fund basis of some future point in time back to what the fund basis was on July 1, 1999 for the establishment of the fund. I mean, you can only compare fund basis to fund basis.
As a result of us sitting here today, we know that we believe it's the intent of Council that any City employee that either died or was killed in the line of duty, their spouses -- we'll use William Faulkner as an example.
Right. 271 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
We see in the wording that there's a possibility. What we're saying is the same way that I understand the benefit of the doubt that the changes had to take place here today. By us reviewing both documents in the manner for which we are today.