When we had the other document for a week, five days, whatever, to review, how do we know -- I'm using this as an example -- that there's not something else in here that we're rushing through?
I understand, I gotcha, right. Let me separate these two discussions then.
Are you saying that you don't have any problem with correcting this particular error. Your issue -- or how this is being calculated. Your issue is more about that this one 272 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 was caught today and that there might be other things that have not been caught that could have an impact? Is that the real issue?
So the issue is not about whether the fund basis should be used or not; the issue is that this may have been a problem and there could be other things.
I believe that we should use the fund basis. I'm in agreement with that.
All right, great. Now, what are some of your other concerns?
Excuse me one second. When you went through the amendments from the time we started today, I believe you made four changes prior to going to the sunset clause. I'm saying, without going back through and reiterating what it was that you said, what Councilman Cohen pointed out, what Councilwoman 273 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Blackwell pointed out, I'm saying that I believe that it is the same possibility that there may be other issues in this bill that have a similar problem.
You're asking me to go over it and I can reiterate the difference between -- the explanation between the review process. The review process, from my understanding, the way it breaks down, there's a review six months after, there's a review in one area months. That if 13 there's no disbursement of funds, which was 14 something that was thrown, what I'm saying is -- 15 and I'm not trying to belabor this -- is we now 16 are discussing how it should be so easy for us to 17 digest all of these technical amendments that were 18 made. Yet, with the other issues that we've had, we been able to say a lot of people didn't understand these problems. So I'm saying we listed some of the areas of concern we have such as in the first section with the survivor, some of the other questions in regards to when the credits are going to be applied. Is it July 1999 that the fund 274 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 starts with credits being applied in the year 2000? Or does the credits get applied in 1999 as a result of -- I'm sorry, from July of '98 to June of '99? I know that's a possibility. You said there could be an amendment made by other Council people as a result of them bringing that issue up today, but what I'm saying is, going right through the bill, there seems to be certain issues that were conflicting in regards to dates that were --
Going -- I don't want to go back to the old section because this has already been amended from the one I originally had today.
What section are you speaking about specifically? What has already been amended?
What I'm saying is on 2, on the amendment that we worked on last night, it seemed that there was conflicting information in regards to whether it was 1999 or the year 275 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 2000.
Yes, sir. And I know that some of these issues have been addressed.
We know that there had to be a need for adjustments or amendments to be made from last night to tonight.
What I'm saying is, after I listed three of those, which you're saying to me has been addressed as a result of us sitting here, trying to take notes, and I didn't leave the whole day -- you saw me, I sat in the front, trying to pay attention, we're trying to do this right.
We want to make sure that 276 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 everything I wrote, number one, was right, that the comparison I have is right, and that we see that the bill is able to do what it is we want it to do. In one section there in regards to that you took out on also, your third amendment, "All disbursements made pursuant to this section 9 shall be consistent with all federal laws, ordinances, ordinances and regulations," that's easy.
That's basic understanding. Something's taken out in the process of a bill.
Going into the question in regards to any distributions. Without being repetitive, you added an amendment, and just to see how well my memory is, I put "or if deemed by Council an inadequate amount."
Right, that's what 277 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 I --
Okay, we know we have words turned around. And if for some reason I'm reading that to say, "if deemed by Council an adequate amount." I'm just saying that I believe.
If deemed by Council an inadequate distribution. That's to address Councilman Cohen's concern that the Board, trying to come into technical compliance, will give some piddly amount of money, we would want to know about that and we would be able to respond to it.
Exactly. And that was in regards to your discussion that addressed -- originally said for any distribution. Now, any distribution has been cleaned up to show any distribution that isn't deemed to be adequate.
What I'm saying is I believe that the same complexity that had existed before, we would all be better served if we 278 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 brought these issues, we know what they are, we see them, we have time to read them in a setting that enables us to being sure that the bill says for everyone what it is they want it to say. We know we have a dispute and a discussion in regards to the level between and 8 10. We believe that we need explanation in 9 regards to that as to where we're going to stand.
The one question is, according to the bill today, if a person is 60 prior to July 1999. I heard today the testimony and I really didn't see it anywhere in there particularly spelled out that they would receive the thousand dollars in both years. If somebody was to turn 60 in the next calendar year, would that entitle them to the second disbursement? And has that issue been addressed?
I don't think that issue has been addressed other than it's been acknowledged that it is the same exact language in the previous bill. To the best of my recollection, there was no testimony about that the at that time, nor was that question raised 279 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 back in December.
The language from the previous bill was: "Each retired employee has been separated for at least years and is 60 7 years of age or older shall receive two lump-sum 8 payments plus and additional 100 for each full 9 year that the retired employee has been separated 10 as of the effective date of this ordinance."
The previous bill 13 set a date by which you had meet that test.
Mr. Nutter, when you refer back to December, not to correct you, but we were told to forget that bill. That bill's over, let's just deal --
I understand that. I'm just trying to give you a sense of --
What I'm just trying to say is now that we're looking at it the same way when I sat here in December being questioned over what my interpretation was in regard to (unintelligible), my explanation to you is, I need to know what your interpretation is in regards to 280 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 what the flavor of the bill is. If it's between that off-year, does that then qualify a member, if it's a survivor of somebody who died or was killed in the line of duty --
-- does that then address that issue? I believe that the other changes are insignificant but still one that deserves the time necessary to be able to ensure that it's the proper bill. That's all.
Right. All I can say to you is that I believe my response earlier today was, there is an effective date by which a person becomes eligible. For the moment, there's been no change in that effective date, nor has there been, I don't think, a direct resolution of the if you turn 60 by July 1st, 2000, whether you qualify for what would then be the second lump sum; although for that person, it would be the first and only. I don't think that has been resolved. There is no -- there was no proposed amendment to respond to the question that was asked earlier. 281 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 And so, lacking that, the only interpretation is that everyone has to meet the July 1, 1999 criteria in order to be eligible.
Okay. Like I say, I believe that they are the points that we had. I use this term frequently without digressing, one of the issues that was thrown to us was us not taking into consideration our survivors. And I believe that since that issue was brought to the table, that still has not yet been resolved.
I just believe that the overall intent of the bill that we all have sitting in this room isn't completely reflected the way the bill reads now.
Madame Chair, the requested amendments -- or the requested composed amendments -- 282 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 (Interruption.)
Madame Chair, there was a request that the proposed amendments and any amendment to the amendments that have been given out earlier be made and that they be made in writing. They are now available.
Thank you. They are being distributed. I would ask that all members please come to the chambers.
And what we've done is shaded and by striking, Madame Chair, all of the -- (Interruption.)
Excuse me, gentlemen. Councilman Nutter, please proceed.
I was just trying to explain, Madame Chair, that where there are any changes, members will find on the new document, which is entitled "Proposed Amendment to Bill No. 24 990001," dated 1/27/99, Version 2, in that document, you will find strike marks -- 283 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 (Interruption.)
Councilman, I'm sorry. The noise level is much too high. Everybody's having their own little caucuses, and we can't hear you. I think we have to have respect for each other here.
Madame Chair, there would be more respect if Councilmembers respected that this is City Council and permitted to hold discussions to study the bill. I think what we're going through is the most disgraceful episode. That's the reason --
Councilman Cohen, I think there was a motion regarding that, and the motion was denied by a voice vote, so I would now ask that Councilman Nutter please proceed with what he was talking about the amendments.
Thank you, Madame 284 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Chair. Hopefully by now, the amendments have been distributed. The changes that were discussed when I was at the table are all in a shaded, or what is called "red-lined," so that the members can see that the changes are on and on . Those are the only proposed -- I'm sorry. And then the required changes are made in comparable sections on and .
So everyone now has what we would consider a "clean" copy?
Do you accept his answer as one you would have given if you had been listening? 285 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Precisely. This is what we are -- someone asked for a clean bill; this is now the clean bill. Councilman Nutter, anything else you want to add to that?
No, Madame Chair. I'll respond to any questions that anyone has. (Councilman Cohen speaks inaudibly off mike.)
No. We are giving you the opportunity to check it. It was just distributed. And the Councilman was trying to explain exactly what is being -- 286 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
But when he talks, we can't read. I'm unable, despite, I think, I have many abilities, but the one I've not been able to achieve is --
Councilman Nutter, maybe we could walk through this, please. Let's get to , if you will, . Now, Councilman Nutter, would you please --
But we have no time to read anything or discuss anything.
Councilman Nutter, would you please get to and explain, please, exactly what is being deleted.
Yes, Madame President. Madame President, language is being stricken at the request of Councilman Cohen on , in letter (d), at the end of the sentence. In the shaded block, the language is "or such other generally accepted valuation methodology as may be approved and documented from time to time by the Board." That language is proposed in the new set of amendments to be 287 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 deleted.
The next one is letter (e), same page. The word "assets," which stricken earlier was not. The word "fund basis" was left out; it has now been included, it's in the shaded block. In Section 134 --
Well, that was not an amendment I had anything to do with.
The President was just asking me for my. . . 288 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
I just wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to read it.
Madame Chair, I just want to make it clear for the record that I have no understanding of what "fund basis" means.
Councilman, if I can refer to you on that "fund basis" is a defined term in the bill. We had discussion about that earlier today.
And it's defined where? 'Cause there are three definitions I see on that same page.
On , Councilman, there's a section called "Definitions."
Those are for other 289 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 terms to be defined that are relevant to 131.4, Councilman. But the question you asked me was about fund basis, and that is defined on in the middle of the page.
And is there a definition of "the actuarial funding level"? The definition of "fund basis" begins with the "actuarial fund level." Is that anywhere defined? 'Cause I don't know what an actuarial funding level is so I would defer to Councilman Kenney and ask him whether he -- (Councilman Kenney responds off mike).
Councilman, my recollection is that this -- I thought that this only took place after midnight, Councilman Cohen.
The term "actuarial funding level," I don't believe, is a particular term of art. It is the level that the actuary decides based on valuation as to what the funding level is of the Pension Fund. You will recall the discussions about 70 percent, 72 percent, 81 290 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 percent. That is the actuarial funding level. It's the level of funds that we have as compared to the level of liability that we have.
You mean the funding level is the opposite of the unfunded liability?
You're very good, Councilman. Councilman, I do have one to give you credit for. In Section 131.4, on the same page, , in the middle of the page, you asked that the phrase "provided, however, that all disbursement made pursuant to this section shall be consistent with all federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations." That is in the shaded block, that is being stricken.
It accepts the amendment. 291 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Councilman, in recognition of your 60-plus years of English grammatical expertise, we have stricken the e in the word "therefore."
Thank you. I very much appreciate it, and you'll probably get a letter from the English Association of America congratulating and thanking you.
You're welcome. On , at the top of the page, which is a continuation of letter (b) from , Councilman, this is responding to two issues that you raised. This sentence reads: "The Council expressly reserves the right to provide at any time that is (new language) by ordinance for enhanced benefit distributions from the Pension Adjustment Fund. If the Board fails to provide for any distributions or if deemed by Council an inadequate distribution (new language) during any period of 18 consecutive months."
I think that's a 292 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 very good amendment.
Councilman Nutter, isn't there another on that page?
Yes, I apologize. In letter (c), this is the section that was created to try to deal with and put Council in a position to take some action. "Council reserves the right to make any amendments to the authorizations, directives, or provisions of this ordinance or to take any other action in order to correct this circumstance or any other circumstance as the Council deems proper." This is in the section that deals with the possibility and the great concern expressed about lack of credits going into the Pension Adjustment Fund, even if the Pension Fund return exceeds 10 percent but there are no credits in the Pension Adjustment Fund. That is the -- Madame Chair, those are all of the amendments. The same changes have been made in the appropriate sections. 293 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
On Pages and 7. 4 All of the sections read exactly the same. 5 Madame Chair, I would ask at this time 6 if we are able to move into a public meeting, I'd like to move these amendments.
Yes. If the sergeant-at-arms would be good enough, if you'd give each to the Councilmembers, to the members of the press, to the members of the labor organizations that are here. (Councilman Cohen's amendments are distributed.)
Does everyone have a copy of Councilman Cohen's amendment? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
(Off mike -- stenographer could only hear fragments of the testimony.) 294 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to state. . . The same matter on what I heard with witnesses who were just up talking about extending the survivor provision to include the survivors and those who may not reach 60. . . benefits because this bill. . . the reaction of this Council that we can't do it if the Mayor doesn't agree to it, I'll wait until we get to final passage on that also after I find out what the Mayor's position is on it. Thank you.
And the bill 14 could always be amended, Councilman, on the second-reading and final-passage calendar.
I'm still trying to figure out what the rush is on this.
Are we talking about at amendment that Councilman Cohen just put forward?
We're going to be able to, though, right? 295 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
When we get into a public meeting. But I would like to ask that the representative of the union -- Mr. Eddis is his name? -- whether this fairly represents a proposal. Does this language result in the purpose of the amendment, which is to lower the ceiling or the floor from 10 to 9-1/2 percent? I would like you to read it and make sure, because we're dealing with technical language. And under the time constraints, I'm not certain whether I've prepared the amendment fully accurately. If I could ask that he come to the table and after he looks at it and expresses his view and bring with him whoever else, Mr. Kent too. I'm not asking for testimony on this; I'm only asking, does that express the proposal which is to lower the 10 percent to 9-1/2 percent? I'm asking whether the language does that. I'd like to hear just as to its technical accuracy.
Thank you, Councilman 296 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Cohen. I believe the question was in regards if this basically depicts exactly what it is that we wanted to say, and I would say that that's absolutely correct, sir. Thank you .
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madame President. And I apologize if the question is not directly related to Councilman Cohen's, but something occurred to me that I wanted to know if I could get clarification at this point. There's been some discussion over survivors and people who may have been left out. And my understanding is that the concern is if you have a person whose husband, for example, wife had been out nine years and passed away suddenly of a headquarter, and that individual was 55 years of age, that they would not be in the current mix in this bill for benefits, for increases in benefits? Is that basically the concern? 297 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Fine. In the original Blackwell bill, was that individual covered, that same 55-year-old woman whose husband passed away with nine years separation, was she still covered, that you remember?
The intent of the original bill was to give anyone that was killed or died in the line of duty that benefit, yes.
But even -- but was the language in the Blackwell bill that you recall, the specific language to do that?
Councilman DiCicco, did you want to ask something, or was that just a private --
Should the Council decide to include those individuals, the survivors or beneficiaries of the individuals who may have been killed in the line of duty, could we do that after today?
Only if the Mayor 298 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 approves.
Well, I said if the Council were to make that proposal, amendment, what have you, would we be able to do that as a Council? And I don't care if the Mayor wants it or not because that is something I personally would want to see.
Okay, for the record, whether the Mayor likes it or not, I would vote for that.
I think it's very important that the wording reads "died or killed in the line of duty" because of the fact that there's been a lot of technicalities --
The reason I'm saying that is because that's part of the discussion we had earlier in regards to the exactness of it because there's a whole new procedure, I know, within the Police Department of how you carry. If the person has a heart attack, in the old days, if they were chasing someone and had a headquarter, they 299 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 weren't covered. Bobby Smith, in 1980, was not covered. It was amended, so now, when we're saying in regards to the exact wording, I believe the wording of that is added in there should be die or be killed, any City employee.
So that we would be able to do that. So I can cut the strings that the Mayor's been pulling and vote for that according to what some are people saying.
I'm getting tired of this being accused because I don't agree with some members of Council, that I only do things that the Mayor wants. I have a right as an elected official to make my own decision. You can think and imply or assume that I am at the behest of the Mayor, but these are something that Councilperson DiCicco from the 1st Councilmatic is deciding to do. This is wearing much too thin for about seven weeks with me.
Yes, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 300 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Recognizing what Mr. Eddis says, it seems there is a sentiment to do something about that particular situation. Mr. Eddis used a particular phrase. In my conversation with Mr. Herkness, he used a slightly different phrase. And I'm not trying to pit the two against each other. All of us, I think, want the get the right phraseology. Mr. Herkness told me over the rail that we should look to use language that talks about a service-connected death. I'm not sure which one is correct. I at least, though, would like to get Mr. Herkness from the Pension Fund to come up to the table so that we can get the correct language.
I don't believe we want to use "service-connected death" because the City controls that entirely, and we have members that come down with -- there was just an article in the paper two Sundays ago where one of our members came down with a lung disease, died a few months 301 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 after coming down with it, on the fire ground, taken from the fire ground to the hospital and then died a couple months later, two and a half months later. It was definitely traceable back right to that fire.
Is this the story -- I believe there was a columnist who wrote a column, and the son or the nephew or someone is trying the get rectified through the Fire Department?
Okay, I understand. And from that standpoint, you're taking the position that that death, even though it didn't happen that day at a fire, came as a direct result of some action that that person was doing while they were at work.
That member never went back to work, was hospitalized for about nine months, and died maybe a month after that.
Okay. Mr. Herkness, in view of that and what you hear is the sentiment around the chamber, is there terminology that we can use to cover not only that person but 302 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 also the person who is literally, you know, killed on a day at work or is chasing somebody somewhere or has an incident in the Fire Department any other branch of the municipal workforce?
Councilman, there's a benefit when there's a death when an active employee dies, the employee either has an ordinary death -- meaning for any particular reason.