|
Excerpts from Ways and Means Committee meeting minutes Teamsters 580 retiree health insurance Committee meeting minutes are here on the City website
|
|
|
10/24/2014 |
Internal Auditor Reports Charges to Teamster 580 Retirees for Healthcare Coverage
Ms. Estee, spoke about her experience regarding the retirees healthcare premiums. Stating she had retired from the City in 2005 and subsequently received a memo, stating her health benefits had changed and now retained the same benefits as active employees. One group of retirees were split in half, half were allowed to keep benefits they received at retirement. The retirees were only to 1% of income cap limit was in the previously contract and now there the HR department is stating there is no cap in place. She informed the Committee that others have expressed concern to her regarding issues with the Medicare supplemental insurance; some retirees have to pay Medicare premiums that change at will while others do not have to pay the premiums at all. Ms. Estee stated Human Resources make changes without negotiations, and in 2010 changes to the healthcare plan was made that backdated to 2004 without a satisfactory explanation. Additionally, HR has told the retirees they “follow active employees insurance” but the word “follow” is not in the contract. She cited previously the year a person retired used to establish their benefits, now benefits change at will.
Ms. Hartsuff stated that after retiring she had been paying for insurance, then HR stopped taking insurance from her check; and later was sent an email that said HR would continue to take money from her check for insurance with no explanation.
Mr. Parker commented on in 2010 how benefit changes were back dated to 2004. Mr. Parker believes in the 2007-2012 agreement language limited retiree cost to 1% of their pension annual cap that language has now been throw out without an explanation as to why. If there is no cap and retirees are made to pay it will eat up their entire check.
Ms. Meade read the explanation given to Ms. Estee as to why the 2004 date was selected. Ms. Meade feels the explanation is still unclear, and expressed further concern that Teamsters are constantly told that they don’t represent retirees.
Mr. DeLine explained that he was approached by retirees with concerns to the nature of retirement benefits. Contracts and Ordinances were cited in the report; a survey of questions was sent to the Union and concerned City Departments. Human Resources failed to respond on three different occasions. Now the turnover in leadership within HR, and there is still no response. At this point it is beyond something the Internal Auditor can do, a legal opinion is needed for the rational of HR’s decisions. An external audit that would reach out to individuals regarding benefits could prove beneficial.
Councilmember Wood requested to have the HR Director present to answer questions from the Council Internal Auditor at the next meeting, recommending a letter be sent from the Committee Chair requesting the Interim HR Director attend. She noted the need to be cautious of a legal opinion because the Interim HR Director and City Attorney are the same individual.
Councilmember Quinney expressed the need to further pursue the issues related to Teamster 580 Retirees for their healthcare coverage given the blatant disregard for the Internal Auditor and private citizens to find answers regarding changes to their benefits.
Ms. Bennett urged Committee members to hear the side from Administration. Councilmember Wood retorted that Administration and HR were notified and asked several times and they have shown a blatant disregard thus far.
Councilmember Houghton expressed frustration on behalf of the retirees.
|
|
11/14/2014 |
Discussion/Action Charges to Teamster 580 Retirees for Healthcare Coverage Mr. DeLine explained that retired teamsters meant with him following a Employees Retirement System Board Meeting and based on their request started an investigation which review of contract. This included all contracts and changes at his disposal; additionally a questionnaire was sent to the Teamsters and the Human Resources Department for follow-up answers. After repeated tries with the pervious HR Director was unsuccessful in getting the information needed to complete his report. At the appointment of the Interim HR Director request were also made and at this time the request for answers was not fulfilled.
Mr. Parker stated that the retired Teamsters were just seeking answers as to why recent changes had taken place with regards to payments for healthcare. There used to be a 1% pension cap on premium payments by retirees for their benefits; so far no explanation has been offered as a reason for the changes.
Ms. McIntyre responded that she had not received the Internal Auditor questionnaire nor any received e-mails from Mr. DeLine. Ms. McIntyre had communications with Lynne Meade regarding her request to mark the new agreement with the changes or concerns the Union has. A marked up agreement from Ms. Meade has not been submitted to Law and currently they could not discuss the matter because it was under negotiations.
Councilmember Wood sought clarification on if the agreement had been ratified. Ms. McIntyre stated it had not yet been ratified because concerns that the retirees raised regarding changes to their health benefits have not been resolved.
Councilmember Wood stated that was not corrected, Teamsters 580 along with the Administration negotiated a contract that was ratified by the Union and brought to Council for their approval. That contract was approved by Council. It is now the job of the HR and the Union to formalize the contract from bullet points to language within the contract, not to renegotiate the contract.
Ms. McIntyre informed the Committee and the public that because she recently became the Interim Human Resources Director she did not have a record of previous concerns the retirees had therefor cannot address them at this point; she would prefer to move forward from this point. Negotiations are still ongoing and it would be improper to discuss changes at this point.
Mr. Parker gave his opinion that there was a document signed by city officials and an outside law firm from an agreement reached on May 12, 2014. It was his understanding this agreement had been reached and the union is not currently in negotiations.
Ms. McIntyre stated that the draft is a tentative agreement. Mr. Parker spoke concerning the ratification of the contract. The tentative agreement is a document that will be provided for approval; is currently with Ms. Meade for review and not resubmitted for approval at this point. Mr. Parker stated that Ms. Meade’s notes have been provided as of this date. Ms. McIntyre stated she would review the notes provided and move forward incorporating those points into the agreement.
Mr. Parker conveyed concerns there were no mark ups on the draft that was provided in May 2014. The changes discussed in May 2014 were not included into the updated tentative contract.
Ms. McIntyre informed the Committee and the public that as long as she was serving as Interim HR Director that all future negotiation documents, changes and related commentary would be provided to the advocates for the retired teamsters. She commits to working with the Union to resolving these and future issues.
Councilmember Wood clarified that in the interim, retirees are paying costs for healthcare, and requested documentation at the next Committee Meeting on December 12, 2014 on how many other contracts have been ratified that do not have official documents.
Councilmembers Quinney and Houghton agreed with Councilmember Wood that an agreement needs to be met to make the retirees whole again as soon as possible.
Ms. Hartsaff expressed concerns about how her contract for health benefits had been ratified upon her retirement until she was issued a check which HR told her was from health benefits that would no longer be taken from her pension. Shortly after that exchange she received notification she would be responsible for health benefit charges until she died.
Ms. Estee informed the Committee that the Teamsters 580 have been told they are legally unable to represent the retirees. (see information submitted at meeting) Ms. Estee requested that retirees have some voice in the negotiation process, because legally the Union cannot represent them.
Councilmember Wood reassured the retirees that Council would continue to notify them anytime that charges to their healthcare were going to be discussed at Committee; continuing that retirees will have a voice with Council.
Councilmember Quinney sought clarification what the retirees expected from the Committee in the future if they have no legal representation. Ms. Estee replied that they are seeking answers and some voice about the issue.
Councilmember Wood requested that Ms. Mead and Ms. McIntyre schedule a meeting by Tuesday of next week so that they will have time to work on the issues before it comes back to Committee. Both parties are to be prepared to with a solution at the December 12th meeting of Committee.
Ms. McIntyre assured the Committee that explanations and resolutions will be forthcoming, the administration intends to work with the retirees regardless of representation.
|
|
12/12/2014 |
Discussion / Action Charges to Teamster 580 Retirees for Healthcare Coverage Ms. McIntyre informed the Committee that the Retired Teamsters 580 and Human Resources will be meeting January 7, 2015 to discuss Retirees Healthcare and the language in the approved contract; with a tentative meeting January 13, 2015 for any final details that need to be addressed. The disagreement in the contract stems from discrepancies in a document that is being reviewed to reach a common goal. The goal at the next meeting on January 7, 2015 is to address the healthcare issues.
Ms. Meade told the Committee at the meeting with Ms. McIntyre on December 11, 2014 it was decided the 2007-2012 agreement document, although unsigned, was the ratified tentative agreement. It is her understanding that it is the contract the City has been operating under.
Ms. McIntyre informed that Human Resources is working with the retired teamsters to establish a baseline so an agreement can be reached as to where to go from this junction; establishing which agreement the City has been operating under. Coming to an agreement is a priority; both Human Resources and the retired Teamsters are working to come to an understanding before further information is released. Ms. McIntyre hopes an agreement can be reached; if not she feels it is important to know where each side stands before continuing with negotiations.
Councilmember Wood asked if a moratorium on fees retirees are currently paying has been discussed in the interim of reaching an agreement on their payments for healthcare. Ms. McIntyre stated that a moratorium had not been discussed or approached yet. She added that an understanding of each side’s goals was about three (3) weeks away taking into consideration the upcoming holidays. Councilmember Wood requested information about how many other union contracts have been approved by Council but have not had the language written into ratified Collective Bargaining Agreements. Ms. McIntyre confirmed there are only three (3) contracts approved by Council that still need to have the ratified language placed into the Collective Bargaining Agreements.
Ms. Estee brought with her but did not submit or distribute the governing document regarding her retirement contract from 2005. Her belief was that a new contract should not affect her because a contract was established when she retired addressing benefits and fees. Ms. Estee sent a claim form to the City Attorney in September 2014 requesting a refund of approximately $3000 for the overage she has been charged for healthcare premiums; she intended to submit another on December 12, 2014 because to date she had not heard back about the claim. Ms. Estee expressed concerns that she retired under an older plan that was not subject to caps or premiums, but has been tied to endless contract changes since spring 2013. Ms. McIntyre stated she would look into the claim that had been submitted.
Councilmember Wood informed the public the Committee will put together a report, listing dates of upcoming meetings between Human Resources and the retired Teamsters 580 for the 2015 Ways and Means Committee Chairperson. She assured the retired Teamsters if the 2015 Chair chooses not to pursue the issue she will continue to seek answers for them. Councilmember Wood asked that in the future, language should already be incorporated into any Collective Bargaining Agreement before Council is presented the document to vote on. Councilmember Wood offered the Council Conference room to present the findings of the January 2015 meetings to any retirees.
|
|
2/4/2015 |
TEAMSTERS 580 RETIREES FOR HEALTHCARE COVERAGE Councilmember Brown Clarke acknowledged the retirees present and assured them that the Committee would progress so that they could make their previously scheduled meeting with the Law department/HR.
Councilmember Wood restated to the Committee that where it was left in 2014 was to have teamsters in to the Committee meetings, and hear how closer they were to resolving. The retirees and Law/HR have had two meetings since the last 2014 committee meeting.
Ms. McIntyre confirmed the group has met twice, made progress, but have not necessarily resolved issues dealing with retirees, and the approach was to look at it as a whole. The last signed contract was 2007. The Union 580 representatives, including Irene Cahill, Karen Heslip, Dave Vincent met with Jack Roberts and Elizabeth Mays (HR Labor specialist). Law is asking what are the issues as they see them, they want to hear from the union as what they see their position is, and how they think the document should read, based on previous signed documents. Once the union presents it as it should read, and HR/Law believes will take to administration.
Councilmember Brown Clarke referenced an email from Ms. Meade regarding a timeline. Ms. McIntyre stated she has asked for supporting documents for those positions, and the City cannot make those changes but administration can consider. The conversation with administration has not occurred. Councilmember Wood stated her understanding that there should be a resolution for the retirees by the end of February. Ms. McIntyre stated that the groups will understand where they are at that point, but if the union and the administration are in disagreement that timeline won’t occur. At least by the end of the month they should know where things stand.
Councilmember Brown Clarke state that in a document from Sue Graham dated August 19, there was a reference clarifying February 20 as the swing date. Letter cites an oversight, but never says what it was. Ms. McIntyre stated that is one of the things we are seeking.
Mr. DeLine clarified that some employees are paying out of pocket expenses, and he asked that the City get that piece resolved as quick as possible, and then referenced a copy of a signed tentative agreement that would have their contribution capped at 1%. These documents are available, and out of all the issues being discussed that one being put to the forefront. Ms. McIntyre confirmed the priority, and assured the Committee that she has designated HR and Law to make sure there are no interruptions.
Ms. Meade spoke about a 2010 working document, however it was never signed by the Mayor or the City representative Sue Graham, so even though authored by Sue Graham, Law is having issues with it since it wasn’t signed. The document was a “bullet point” document and there are issues with that and it should have never been presented for ratification. Documents need to be detailed.
Ms. Estee spoke in opposition with how things were going, and no headway on the issues. There are signed contracts from 1985-2007 and she is concerned that they are renegotiating a new contract. The City is incorrectly implementing the benefits, outgoing base plan, some overcharging since 2011. The key is for the City or the Union to look for something to show up in the contract that connects retirees to level. An example would be a tie-bar date with what links them to retirees, there is nothing of the 2004 tie-bar date. Ms. Estee did email questions, but there appears to be a delay.
Councilmember Brown Clarke asked if there was a precedence set with other retirees. Ms. McIntyre stated the issue is the difficulty with the contracts. Ms. McIntyre could not speak specifically because she was not part of the negotiating teams, and has not gone to administration. Councilmember Brown Clarke asked if there is a template to use. Ms. McIntyre confirmed no, but staff is trying to move forward in those directions.
Ms. Estee again stated her concern that Teamsters 580 cannot legally represent the retirees, so unless the retirees hire an outside attorney, they have no representation in the process.
Councilmember Brown Clarke proposed that the Committee on Ways and Means meet on February 25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. to address this topic to meet the proposed deadlines of the end of February.
Ms. Estee informed the Committee that she had submitted a FOIA request to get names and addresses of retirees to update them on this issue, however was refused. Councilmember Wood confirmed she too asked and was denied. A request was also submitted that if the Committee wrote a letter, if finance would mail it out since they can not release the names and addresses but have them. No answer was provided. Ms. Bennett stated that that could not be done, and it was outside the realm of what is allowed.
City Attorney McIntyre left the meeting at 9:41 a.m.
Mr. Maloney asked why other retirees are not being notified. Ms. Bennett stated she had consulted with law. Councilmember Brown Clarke asked Ms. Estee if she had other ways to communication with the retirees.
Councilmember Quinney left the meeting at 9:43 a.m.
Councilmember Wood confirmed that on the Retirement board when workshops are done on health care, that Board notifies retirees, and therefore if it is outside the realm, how is the Retirement Board doing it. Ms. Bennett stated that is related to their retirement, this is health care. Councilmember Wood asked Council Staff to contact City Attorney McIntyre to research how the Committee can communicate with the retirees.
|
|
2/25/2015 |
TEAMSTERS 580 RETIREES FOR HEALTHCARE COVERAGE Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Argueos if she has been participating in the meetings with the City Attorney and the retirees. Ms. Argueos confirmed she had not, but was informed by City Attorney McIntyre that the meetings have concluded, and Law has gotten the information to move forward. Ms. McIntyre plans to inform City Council by or on Friday, March 6, 2015. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if the proposed memo would be a full resolution to resolve this issue. Ms. Argueos could not speak to it, because she stated she was not aware of the contents of memo, she is only aware that the meetings have concluded, and whatever came about from those meetings will be in memo.
Council Member Wood stated for the record her extreme disappointment with the City Attorney and HR Director, specifically because this Committee on Ways & Means was set for resolution with the retirees, and she is not at the meeting to report. Council Member Wood then asked Ms. Meade what the resolution was from the meetings.
Ms. Meade update the Committee and all present that upon conclusion of the meetings, they had gone through the entire labor agreement with CPT, however did not go through the supervisory contract. The retirees health care coverage was laid out, such as the retirees that are spelled out at no cost, or under 1% pension, or with 125/225 cap, they have been over paying because they were not negotiated with any changes in that.
Council Member Wood asked Ms. Meade if there were any discussions as part of her meeting with Law is as to when this resolution was going to the Administration, and then where does she seeing it going from there. These retirees have been paying an absorbent amount for months, has the Union and Law discussed stopping their payments that they have been making until this is resolved. Ms. Meade stated she was informed that Law was taking the same red line document to the administration, and do the same thing with them that was done with the Union. Council Member Brown Clarke encouraged a quick resolution, and to move forward from this point. Ms. Meade acknowledged all the work done by the Law Department, and the professional process that they followed, and stated her belief that Ms. McIntyre will not drag her feet on the resolution and do her due diligence. It was noted that the Supervisory Contract will be a mirror image.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Meade her opinion on if the memo that Ms. Argueos stated would be released on Friday March 6th will reflect what she herself had just stated. Ms. Meade confirmed her opinion was that the document that was agreed upon is what it will reflect and stated if it was not, it would go to court.
Ms. Estee asked Ms. Meade if the people who left before 2013 were addressed, if the Marcoby memo of 2010 was addressed, and if all retirees follow the active retirees, lastly if all that was addressed in the 2013-2016 contract. Ms. Meade clarified that the language in that contract and what pertains to retirees is placed into an appendix, if that does not affect anyone currently in the building, and language that affects current employees stays in the body of the contract, how and why she could not say. Ms. Estee asked if HR should base their implement of health care on the current contracts. Ms. Meade agreed with the HR Director in the fact that if it hasn’t been in negotiation or placed in a negotiation and agreed by both parties, it doesn’t exist. Ms. Estee asked Ms. Meade if she believed that the City Attorney agreed that every retiree that left at a staggered time frame, those benefits are different. Ms. Meade stated she was not sure, but certain people left because of a retiree incentive, every retiree leaves with their own agreement with City. Ms. Estee clarified that main issue that the retirees follow active employees for health care. It was asked of Ms. Meade if they found any contract from day one, with written language, that says retirees follow active employees, and is there a date certain. Ms. Meade stated no.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Meade, for the retirees where there is no language specifically in print, where to they fall. Ms. Meade confirmed that what they leave with is what is being offered to them. It may be $0, might be up to 1% with a cap, because sometimes there are retiree incentives.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Meade her perception on what the memo from Law on March 6th, would say, if it reflects her discussions with Law. Ms. Meade stated it should reflect, and she anticipates that language in the current contract will reflect what current retirees are getting or gotten, and should reflect the same language they left with. Council Member Wood asked if Ms. Meade believed the memo would resolve the retiree issues. Ms. Meade confirmed again she hoped it would.
Ms. Eno stated she did appreciate all the work that was being done, and hoped that the resolution would help the retirees get the money back they have paid out so far, and asked if Law is bargaining in good faith, if the retirees then can expect that their checks coming out this week, would not have money taken out. Ms. Meade stated that during a dispute no money should be taken out until resolved. The attorney office was given this issue and is trying to sort out fact from fiction.
Council Member Brown Clarke directed Ms. Argueos to contact City Attorney McIntyre and asked to see that even barring the memo due out from their office on Friday March 6th, there should be a stay or hold on health care before 30 days. Ms. Argueos stated she would forward the message.
Mr. Maloney asked if Council Staff had contacted the Law Department on an opinion on how to obtain retiree contact information. Ms. Brown Clarke stated that she was informed that at resolution it will be sent to all parties, and there couldn’t be any notification given to all retirees that could be affected. Council Member Brown Clarke then asked Ms. Argueos to confirm that once resolved the City will contact everyone affected.
Ms. Estee summarized her understanding that the City Attorney/HR will send a memo of her findings, by Friday, March 6th, and it will be forward to her, however Ms. Meade is unclear if it will address the new contract or if it will include old issues, and if it does indeed happen, will there be another meeting in March. Council Member Brown Clarke stated that if things move, the Committee can again plan a special meeting. If the memo says what is hoped it says, their process will continue. If does not address items, then there will another Committee on Ways & Means meeting. Anything sent to Council will be reviewed by the City Council Internal Auditor. Council Member Brown Clarke asked the Ms. Argueos inform City Attorney that if the letter cannot be delivered to Council by Friday, March 6th that she should contact Council Member Brown Clarke. Council Member Wood added that Ms. Argueos should also inform Ms. McIntyre that if the issue is not resolved by the end of March, then HR should stop taking health care out of the retirees checks until it is resolved.
|
|
3/18/2015 |
HR Memo on Retiree Healthcare Clarification Council Member Brown Clarke informed the Committee and the group present that there was an expected memo from the City Attorney on March 6th that never arrived, and in turn a meeting with herself and Ms. McIntyre City Attorney was scheduled for Monday, March 16th, however it was canceled and rescheduled by Ms. McIntyre’s office for March 19th.
Ms. Argueos confirmed there was no additional information.
Ms. Estee presented a copy of a draft agreement with her understanding of what items should be addressed.
Ms. Meade confirmed that information in the collective bargaining language matched what TA agreed upon, letters of understanding, and historical purposes.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked if Ms. Meade could update the group on what happened 30 days ago at the meeting with UAW and the Attorney’s office. Ms. Meade stated they finalized what the current retiree language is going to be in the new document, the historical language would be moved to the appendix. Each retiree when leaving the City, signs an agreement with the City, and the city needs to be bound to that agreement. The City Attorney office is working on making it understandable. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if the pending memo Council is waiting on will outline it. Ms. Meade could not speak to what that memo will say however, hoped for clarification, why it changed in 8/2014, and doumentation on why things occurred in 2010. The last communication was that once the document was final the Law Department was taking it to the Administration. There has not been any communications since that meeting, and Ms. Meade expected communications March 18, 2015.
Ms. Estee gave a claim to Council Member Brown Clarke to submit to the Law Department on her behalf.
Mr. DeLine asked if any of the retirees present had copies of signed agreements, and if so if they could provide him with copies. Council Member Wood encouraged Mr. DeLine to speak to Karen Williams in the retirement office.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Meade if the document will have tie-bar connects, or will be a stand-alone. Ms. Meade showed an example of an appendix and detailed historical data.
Council Member Wood asked the Council Member Brown Clarke inform the City Attorney during their meeting that the retirees have been advised to supply their claims to Council, and they will be referred to Ways & Means. It was also asked that the City Attorney provide an update on the status of “stopping additional payments”. The Committee decided to meet again on Monday, March 23, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. create a resolution to address payments to be stopped from retirees until the issues are resolved.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. DeLine to draft a resolution requesting payments will be stopped for the effected 580 Retirees, and work with Ms. Meade on the exact time frame.
Council Member Brown Clarke encouraged communications to all retirees to update them on the status. Council Member Wood once the resolution is passed a letter can be included. Ms. Estee stated that the retirees and union could not find any language that tied current employees and retirees, and the City needs to show the union there is a tie bar.
Council Member Brown Clarke acknowledged the public, and stated the Committee’s commitment to resolve.
|
|
4/1/2015 |
HR Memo on Retiree Healthcare Clarification Councilmember Brown Clarke explained that she had received a letter that was sent via email dated March 25, 2015 from Ms. McIntyre as Interim Director of the Human Resource Department.
Ms. McIntyre clarified that Law was asked to move things forward to address the retiree portion paid on healthcare since those deductions were still be deducted from their retirement checks. The major change was in 2011, when it was inconsistent with their language and the CDA. Prior to that point there was not a cost to the retirees. In August 2011 there charge to some who previous weren’t charged and increase in the amount to those who were charged. In August 2014 the cost of health care was being addressed in a three tier approach, depending on what the retiree chose. The changes to types of insurance that effect active employees and now those changes are for retirees also. That information as to what had happened was submitted to Administration. Not all retirees had an increase because it depended on what coverage the retirees chose. Each reimbursement is specific to which option you picked. Whatever the cost was for active employees retirees would not paid more than that. If vendor is charging more for retiree health coverage, the City has chosen to cover that cost difference, which was approved by the Mayor. To provide details and reimbursements, each needs to be reviewed case by case. The HR department is targeting the April date of the next pension check for reimbursements.
Ms. McIntyre stated that in reviewing the issue, it appeared the contracts did not have the language “retirees follow actives”, however their insurance coverage and kinds of insurance is same as actives, and same cost no increase, in some situation that is what took place. There is a smaller group, that should never incur any cost ever, and HR/Law will follow up in a memo. This change will provide for the consistency. The retirees will never pay more than the actives pay, and if insurance company charges more for retirees, the City covers the difference. Ms. McIntyre went on to clarify that while meeting with the unions it was clear that they protect the current employees who are the future retirees, so these changes not only impact the current retirees but future retirees. It was confirmed, based on the request by Council, they have addressed the Teamsters 580 request, and are still working on determining what effects in other union contracts, and other issues that have been brought to their attention.
Ms. Cahill stated that the Teamsters 580 Supervisory has not been addressed yet. Ms. McIntyre confirmed that the focus has been on Teamsters 580 first. Any questions regarding 580 Supervisory cannot be addressed until they have done a thorough review.
Ms. Estee asked for the attachment that is mentioned in the March 25, 2015 letter, if taxes will be taken out of the refunds, where the 2004 tie-bar date was, and disputed differences between some groups having to pay and some don’t.
Ms. Meade referenced the March 25, 2015 memo, stating the word “cost” has never been used in any agreements, and questioned why now. The union has always used “health care” to make sure the retirees were offered health care. The 1% of pension language is now, and what is the approach the City is taking now. With belief that there would not be any changes in the retiree health care language, keeping 1% pension with dollar annual maximum.
Councilmember Brown Clarke assured everyone present the March 25, 2015 letter was just a draft. Ms. McIntyre clarified that it was not draft, but was final and was sent out March 31, 2015. The letter is vague because every situation is different. To add details would confuse the situation. The letter went out to any retiree that was paying more money than what was required from any active employee. Not every group took that same issue, the other issues should not be that it was tie-barred, it will be addressed. The City will go from last executed contract, unless an agreement is brought forth signed by both parties. They understand they still need to also finalize the supervisors, and a lot of moving parts. HR is currently looking at other unions, but they focused on Teamsters 580 first. When reviewing the other unions, if there is a need for a change, they will make a recommendation. As far as cost, the retirees follow the active, that all-encompassing, it cannot be deviated you cannot lessen. As far as caps, there were issues with agreement on that, but determined that it was never implemented, which was higher, and we have always followed 125/225/325 so that does not change.
Councilmember Brown Clarke noted she did not realize the letter had gone out, and asked if the attachments were all personal information applicable to the recipient. Ms. McIntyre confirmed. A retiree present asked if the Committee was going to pursue a resolution to stop all payroll deductions until the issues are resolved. Ms. McIntyre informed the retirees that there are no deductions beyond what they are required to pay, and they will notice that in the next pension check.
Councilmember Wood presented an example for incorrect payment, stating that if someone over paid they would get reimbursed, and if the research shows someone underpaid them would have to pay. Ms. McIntyre confirmed, and stated that is why each situation is being reviewed. It would be recommended that they not go back for payments, but correct for the future. In the future it is known that retirees will follow actives with the new rates.
Mr. DeLine asked if the retirees follow the actives, and the active price is $700, but the retiree cap is 125/225/325, will the retiree now start paying $700. Ms. McIntyre stated the will honor the cap for the period of the agreement. The tentative agreement had the 1% and 325 caps, and that is where the initial 2011 change was. The tentative agreement in 2014 did not have that same language in there.
Ms. McIntyre asked all the retirees present to leave their contact information with Councilmember Brown Clarke and she will forward to her. This will allow her office to schedule individual meetings with everyone preset to discuss their personal issues.
Ms. Meade asked Ms. McIntyre what the last execute agreement was they were working off. Ms. McIntyre stated 2003-2007, and only changes supported by the tentative agreement signed by both parties. If there is something they desire that is what negotiating is for.
Ms. McIntyre left the meeting.
Councilmember Brown Clarke asked the retirees present to meet with the HR Department, and then contact her to update her on the meetings. She apologized because she too believed the letter she presented at the beginning of the meeting was a draft and she was not informed it was final and that it was going to be mailed out on March 31, 2015.
Mr. Maloney asked when the Internal Auditor was going to get answers to his questions from six months earlier. Councilmember Wood requested Mr. DeLine continue pursing getting his questions answered.
Ms. Meade asked that the Committee still pursue all deductions be ceased until this is resolved. Ms. Meade then voiced a concern about the comment made by Ms. McIntyre that stated HR reviewed back to the 2003-2007 contract since that was not the contract the City and union was negotiating off. Ms. Meade informed the group that the active Teamsters have to follow State mandate, however retirees are not in that group, and the Union never anticipates that the retirees would be regulated by state mandate, and the State is leaving retirees out of that.
Ms. Lipski asked if the letter presented at the beginning of the meeting went to every retiree or just the ones that are getting refunds, and also who was going to double check the figures. Councilmember Browne Clarke could not confirm who received the letters, and asked Mr. DeLine to address the confirmation of the figures that are given to the retirees.
Mr. LaMay acknowledged the Committee for the progress over the last four months.
Councilmember Wood requested the Council Internal Auditor audit the Teamsters 580 retiree benefit costs back to 2010. There should be an overall analysis performed, and if there is an issue with obtaining the information, the Committee can issue a subpoena for HR to provide the information.
Councilmember Brown Clarke confirmed the item would be on the agenda for April 15. At that time there should be an updated from Ms. Meade on her discussions with the rest of the union representatives, along with an update from Law on the communications and findings from the one on one meeting’s Ms. McIntyre offered.
Councilmember Wood asked staff to supply the City Attorney with all Committee sign in sheets where retirees were present.
|
|
4/22/2015 |
Retiree Healthcare Updates Councilmember Brown Clarke referenced questions that had been asked of Ms. McIntyre that as of yet were not answered as of the time of meeting, however noting Ms. McIntyre replied stating she was out of town and would reply once she returned. Mr. Kulhanek was asked when she would be back, and he stated the week of April 27, 2015.
Councilmember Brown Clarke opened the meeting up for questions.
Councilmember Wood asked how long the Committee was going to let the topic continued to go unanswered, considering Ms. McIntyre had stated to the Committee that she was going to contact the retirees and meet with them individually. This subject has been a topic of discussion since 2014, and the Committee and retirees are no closer to a resolution then when it started.
Councilmember Brown Clarke informed the group that an email was sent on April 21, 2015 asking for clarification on the April 30th deadline, which was the date Ms. McIntyre gave for any reimbursement, and the retirees’ checks would be corrects. Included in the email was a time line holding everyone accountable to what they had stated at earlier meetings. It was confirmed that since Ms. McIntyre was gone no one was informed who in her absence was working on this item.
Councilmember Wood stated that the City Council has the ability to subpoena and if the Committee has a list of questions to subpoena Ms. McIntyre to answer.
Councilmember Brown Clarke offered to hold a special Committee meeting on April 29, 2015 at 8:15 a.m. for the purpose of dealing with the issues and any updates from Ms. McIntyre, or whoever is taking the lead on the answers. Councilmember Delgado requested Ms. McIntyre be present, and Councilmember Wood added that a memo be sent by Councilmember Brown Clarke should be answered at that time, and placed on record at that time.
Councilmember Brown Clarke confirmed her willingness to share the letter which was in chronological order of events and requests, however she stated it would be released in conjunction with Ms. McIntyre’s response.
Mr. Kulhanek could not release an opinion at the time if the memo from Councilmember Brown Clarke should be released at this time, under attorney/client communication. Councilmember Wood noted it was given to Ms. McIntyre as HR, not City Attorney. Mr. DeLine asked if his email to Ms. McIntyre was included.
Councilmember Delgado asked that the memo be released at the April 29th meeting even if there are no answers. Councilmember Brown Clarke asked Mr. Kulhanek if anyone was acting in the HR role while Ms. McIntyre was absent. Mr. Kulhanek noted his understanding it was Sue Graham. Councilmember Brown Clarke asked that staff follow-up Ms. Graham requesting she follow up with her, and if Ms. McIntyre is not back by April 29th, it is the Committee’s desire that it is Ms. Graham issue to deal with. Councilmember Brown Clarke was informed that someone was already working on the topic and if so, then Ms. Graham needs to talk to them and get at least the status.
Mr. Maloney affirmed that at an earlier meeting the HR Director stated they would contact the retirees and figure out how much reimbursement they will be paying, and other issues with fees.
Councilmember Brown Clarke agreed that there were approximately 95 records that were to be pulled in the beginning of the process to determine the benefits applied when that person retired, and the uniqueness to each one.
Ms. Estee stated the City Attorney memo which noted the April 30 deadline only affects the PHO plan retirees. Ms. Estee wants the process to start with Mr. DeLine’s questions. Ms. Estee also noted her belief that Human Resources is in conflict of interest with labor relations, and if there are issues they can’t have Law review them because City Attorney is Interim Director for HR and that is also a conflict of interest.
Ms. Meade stated that there are two issues. They were given a document concerning the UAW Agreement stating the “me to” clause to Law and Law decided to go with the 2003-2007 and added the tentative agreement with that. Under their document the eligible retirees are covered by the same kind of insurance as active members. The kind of insurance plans offered have State mandated hard cap, with the retirees paying the same premium share as active employees, with 1% cap of pension payment or 125/225/325 annually whichever is less. If the Union accepts the language as written, this means those that chose base plan or option 1 plan, this is what this language goes into. If they chose option 2 plan, they will pay the same as active employees, and this was not what was negotiate.
Councilmember Wood noted that the Committee has continually been told that when a retiree leaves, they received papers. At the last Retirement Board meeting she asked Karen Williams from the City’s retirement office, and they were informed there is nothing given to them other than information concerning retirement allowance and those that would receive their allowance in case of death and that Karen directs them to Human Resources for their insurance and how to get signed up. The Council needs to look at adopting an ordinance that requires Human Resources, upon leaving employment from the City, supply a document to the employee as to what they should expect for their retirement. If there are changes in the contract that would affect it, the ordinance would require HR to contact the retirees with those changes.
Councilmember Brown Clarke noted there are two issues at hand, one is to resolve the issues of the current retirees; making them whole from what they paid, and what they will pay; second issues is to look at the future to make sure they are not doing this again. Councilmember Delgado noted the Financial Health Team has Council looking at legacy costs, and to look back what each is doing, however with all the unanswered questions, how can Council continue to look at those costs.
Councilmember Wood stated her interest in researching forms and brochures on leaving employment and adopting an ordinance that would require Human Resource provide the information. Ms. Meade added that there needs to be a connection between the Retirement Office and Human Resources.
Ms. Estee referenced a 2010 inter-office memo from Mark Kobe, and stated she has asked him to come to the committee meetings and give the committee update.
Councilmember Brown Clarke recapped the three (3) items that will be topics at the May 6, 2015 regular Committee meeting, 1) individual clarification for the 97 retirees; 2) information on the reimbursement of overpayment, any refund not taxed, since they were already taxed once; 3) create a better process. This would include what Council can do to put on web, what is given upon retiring, and once have information what is the process. There should be a deadline in place that has been negotiated, ratified and approved by Council in written form.
|
|
4/29/2015 |
Retiree Healthcare Updates Ms. McIntyre noted that the Department review the Committee’s sign in sheets submitted by Council staff and determined there were nine retirees in attendance at those meetings that would be invited to meet with HR to discuss their benefit issues. Ms. McIntyre noted the names that HR Department had either made contact with, those that where multiple messages left with no response, and one person that was not able to be reached due to no voicemail. It was determined that all the others on the sign in sheets were either non-retirees, or non-580 members.
Ms. McIntyre stated that by the end of this April period, those that will receive a reimbursement for overpayment should receive a check, and they will see any updates to their deduction. The proposed deadline for all of retirees is the end of May. The 2004 retirees are still being researched, and she will be providing a position on that, and then it will be taken to Administration for their approval.
The HR Department is also looking at all other groups, some issues are complaint driven, so this topic is not being pushed aside and they are trying to determine a completed answer, however it was noted that it might not make everyone happy. Ms McIntyre confirmed that anyone the HR Department attempted to reach and have not heard from, they will continue to make attempts to contact.
Ms. McIntyre and Ms. Meade confirmed the Collective Bargaining Agreement has been sent and received by the Union, with a deadline to review and return to the City is May 11, 2015. It was noted that when Teamsters 580 merged with 243, that the union will send out communications.
Ms. McIntyre assured the Committee that the Department will continue to reach out to the members, continue reviewing the other unions CBA, and confirmed that from this point forward, if there is any changes, she will speak to that, and reach out to Council to let them know. The information will come in a form of finalized research. Ms. McIntyre noted that even though there is an understanding she is aware that the Committee is addressing the issue; it still remains an Administrative issue, so she will be taking all findings to Administration (Mayor). There is a hope that there will be information by the end of May.
Mr. Maloney asked specifics about his situation, and what he information he was given during his phone interview with Human Resources. Ms. McIntyre stated that he could set up an appointment to look at the plans, and there will be someone on site during the open enrollment period.
Councilmember Wood asked Ms. McIntyre if a retiree chose a plan during open enrollment, and then the final decision on the cost for this retiree group was determined to be less, would they be allowed to change their plan. Mc. McIntyre noted that the HR Department is trying to get something out before end of enrollment to avoid that situation however those retirees will have an extension period also for any options. So if they sign up in open enrollment, HR will get back to them. The providers also know the City is working on this
Ms. Estee stated she is also helping other union groups to help with the “1% cap” group, and those over the age of 65. Ms. McIntyre stated the best advice Ms. Estee could give them is that they personally call the HR Department with their information and discuss it with the staff.
Ms. Estee confirmed she did receive a phone call from HR about her plan, and was informed she could set up an appointment, but stated she did not need an appointment, she stated she will stay with the plan and pay the rate. Ms. Estee stated her opinion that the original complaint to the Internal Auditor is still outstanding, and the “1% cap” needs to be addressed. Councilmember Brown Clarke stated the “1% cap” is unique and has been resolved. Ms. Meade confirmed it based on information agreed on with Ms. McIntyre, other than language clarifications that does not change it but clarifies things. Ms. McIntyre confirmed that once Ms. Meade provides comments by May 11th it will be finalized. If there is a member in that group that feels they are affected, they need to be told to call and make an appointment with the HR Department. It is best to get information from them, since they are the administrator.
Councilmember Wood asked if the refunds will be taxed, since they deduction amounts were already taxed, and therefore should not be taxed twice. Ms. McIntyre noted she would be following up with Mr. Endsley in Finance to make sure it is noted before the refunds are done.
Mr. Maloney, Ms. Meade and Ms. Estee briefly discussed Mr. Maloney situation. Mr. Maloney concluded by asking Ms. Meade if she believed the plans were negotiated properly, and she confirmed. Councilmember Brown Clarke encouraged Mr. Maloney to make an appointment with the HR Department to discuss his specific situation.
Councilmember Brown Clarke noted that the May 6, 2015 Committee meeting the only discussion on retiree benefits will be a review of the process and creating a new process so these types of situations do not happen in the future.
|
|
5/6/2015 |
DISCUSSION – Best Practices for the Exit Interview/Process for Retirees Councilmember Brown Clarke made it clear to everyone present that the discussion on the agenda was on the process for retirees and consistency for the future. Councilmember Wood stated that another issue that needs to be provided for the Committee was the report that was given to Administration and signed off on for the 1% plan. Councilmember Brown Clarke asked Ms. Bennett if she was aware of the language and report on the 1% cap opinion, and where to the documents go after they are signed off from Administration. Ms. Bennett stated they should be filed in Law, HR and if the Mayor signed of, his office. Mr. Kulhanek arrived, and Councilmember Brown Clarke asked for his opinion on the status since Ms. McIntyre stated she had written something and sent it to Administration. Mr. Kulhanek confirmed he was not involved, and when asked if he could get the opinion or call Ms. McIntyre. Mr. Kulhanek answered that he did not know where to look, and he could not contact Ms. McIntyre. Ms. Bennett stated she could go to the Mayor’s office to search for a copy.
Councilmember Wood asked the retirees present if they had received their appointments with HR to discuss their benefits, and if they could provide feedback. Ms. Andrews stated she had an appointment in person, and was provided a handout, which she presented to the Committee on open enrollment, new rates. Ms. Andrews noted when she retired she paid nothing, and now she is.
Ms. Doerr noted her check has changed, and she used to not pay anything and now pays $5.80. Ms. Doerr was informed her June check will include the reimbursement from August to current.
Mr. Maloney noted that the information he received he receives every year, and sometimes does not look at it unless he is changing. There are no explanations from options to options.
Councilmember Brown Clarke reminded the retirees that Ms. McIntyre had noted that their deadline was extended for clarification, even though it appears that the open enrollment information that was sent to retirees does not give those details. Councilmember Wood agreed, noting that the retirees would have time thru June because it doesn’t go into effect until July 1, 2015.
Ms. Bennett returned and stated that there was no one in the Mayor’s office that could provide the information at this time.
Councilmember Brown Clarke asked Mr. Kulhanek to locate the signed document in question, and forward to the Committee, and it should also be published and uploaded. Mr. Kulhanek was also asked to review the example exit interview paperwork in the packet and work with Karen Williams in our retirement offices.
Councilmember Delgado asked that someone from the Human Resource Department attend the Committee meetings in the future.
Mr. Kulhanek reminded the Committee that they cannot tell the Administration what forms to use, and Councilmember Wood agreed, however noted that if Council adopted an ordinance with these requirements, they could be placed in form.
Councilmember Delgado asked that the Administration present a training to Council on what happens when someone retirees, and Ms. Bennett noted that it needs to be dealt with Human Resources because benefits change yearly, retirees can opt in or out and they sign documents of those elections.
Councilmember Wood noted that the Retirement Board has software they are implementing for employees to review information on what they may receive when retiring, with a goal to be online by August. Ms. Bennett clarified that it all depends on the software vendor, but insurance is still handled by HR Department.
Councilmember Brown Clarke stated that the Human Resource Department will be invited to the Committee meeting on May 20th.
Council member Wood asked Ms. Meade if she has ever seen the document City Attorney referenced at earlier meetings regarding the 1% that was approved by the Administration. Ms. Meade stated no. Ms. Andrews asked if that document could be emailed to the retirees that are present. Councilmember Brown Clarke stated once it is signed it is public knowledge.
Ms. Estee asked Ms. Meade if even though she has not seen the document, if she knew what was in it. Ms. Meade stated she knew what was proposed, and assumed that is what Administration saw and what they approved.
Mr. DeLine noted for the Committee and the record he has not received answers to his questions either, or his request for an audit. Councilmember Brown Clarke listed the items still outstanding, including Mr. DeLine request for information, what it looks like upon a retiree existing, the 1% document, Mr. DeLine’s matrix request and sitting down with an HR staff to review the process, and invite an HR staff to the next meeting to answer questions.
Ms. Hartsuff noted that the check stubs have changed now to reflect details on the insurance amount.
Ms. Bennett noted that once an employee signs up for Medicare, the benefits do change, and the City is informed of that enrollment.
Councilmember Wood stated to the members present that comments stating “following actives” you have the same choice of insurance but based on the discussion not paying the same amount due to the cap.
Councilmember Brown Clarke asked Law to tell the Committee at the next meeting what they can and cannot use of the template in the packet.
|
|
5/20/2015 |
DISCUSSION – Best Practices for the Exit Interview/Process Council Member Brown Clarke stated to City Attorney McIntyre that the Committee was looking for the letter of clarification on the group with the 1% cap, along with a copy of the letter she stated was submitted to the Administration. The Law department was also asked at the last Committee meeting to review an example of the exit interview process from another municipality.
Ms. McIntyre reminded the Committee that at the last meeting she attended she updated them on the retirees were being reviewed, and there currently was no memo in draft form addressing the 1%. There was a separate group that was being reviewed, that she refers to as “Denise Estee group” still is looking at, and then she will provide recommendations to the administration. Ms. McIntyre noted she had stated at the earlier meeting, she hopes to make every effort to complete before open enrollment concludes, if the changes affect in making their decision, the City can do another open enrollment for them. April pension withdrawal has been adjusted. The issue with “tie-barring” has not been addressed and sent to administration. Council Member Wood asked for a copy of that recommendation when it is done, and Ms. McIntyre agreed. Ms. McIntyre noted she did not recall ever receiving any requests for copies of the recommendations, but can provide.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. McIntyre to speak to what is the separation of service agreements with the City, what is the protocol, and what does an employee physically take away. Also what can be done electronically to answer their questions on their own when they leave. The City needs to be proactive.
Ms. McIntyre noted that she appreciated the questions, and currently within her short time in the HR Director role, there have been a lot of opportunities. The Department has working towards something, but she noted there are multiple areas such as retirees, employees who leave with no notice, employees who leave with notice, employees who transfer from union to non-union, etc. The department will work in the future with IT Department and the providers on options. Ms. McIntyre noted she had not seen the samples that were referenced. Council Member Brown Clarke provided Ms. McIntyre with the same from Pittsburgh.
Mr. DeLine stated he was still waiting on information he requested, which include a copy of the benefits table that shows the time they retire and the amount deducted, and rates. Ms. McIntyre stated she would email Lisa Thelen and Jim Campbell in the HR Department as soon as she left to ask them to provide. Mr. DeLine also noted his original request from April, 2015 which requested the following:
Ms. McIntyre apologized but did not recall the request, and also if the request included the rates, those were not available on April 1st to provide to him.
Ms. Estee asked to summarize her opinion of what was occurring including the City’s acknowledgement of the rate adjustments and the refunds being made in May with pension checks, the 1 % cap not included in new rates, still not sure why the group was separated in 2010, and she is still waiting for 2004 tie bar date.
|
|
6/10/2015 |
DISCUSSION – Best Practices for the Exit Interview/Process The Committee discussed the lack of a copy of a memo that was a legal recommendation to the administration regarding reimbursement for Teamsters 580. This was a memo that City Attorney McIntyre stated was produced on the 1% determination, sent to the Administration and also addressed overpayment, and rectifying health care issues. The Committee has been asking for a coy. Mr. Kulhanek stated if it was a formal opinion, done in a certain way, if it is not a formal opinion, they are saved and circulated in other ways. Mr. Kulhanek stated he did not have any knowledge of the mentioned document.
Mr. Kulhanek admitted to being present in May when the same “Best Practices” were circulated, however did not believe it was Legal related, but HR related, and therefore had no information. Council Member Wood asked that Mr. Kulhanek review the same from a legal perspective, and report back on if there is anything that the City of Lansing should be asking or dealing with.
Mr. DeLine confirmed again he will be placing a request to HR to receive information prior to his July 7th appointment with them.
Council Member Wood asked that “Presentation of the Memo for the 1% Cap for Teamsters 580” be placed on the agenda for June 17th, 2015.
Council Member Brown Clarke removed “Best Practices” from the June 17th agenda and placed on the July 1, 2015 agenda.
|
|
6/24/2015 |
Presentation on the Memo for the 1% Cap for Teamsters 580 Council Member Brown Clarke explained to all present that the Council Staff received a voicemail at 7:48 a.m. this morning from City Attorney McIntyre that stated the Committee members would have the memo hand delivered to the Council office today, marked confidential and are not able to share beyond the Committee. Mr. Kulhanek was asked if he received the same information, and if he could fill in some blanks. Council Member Brown Clarke continued by stating that the entire time this topic has been discussed it has all been transparent, and the Committee was never told that this information was confidential, so she asked Mr. Kulhanek why is it confidential and why does the Committee not have it yet. Mr. Kulhanek admitted he did not have any information, did not know about any of it until it was just shared by Council Member Brown Clarke.
Council Member Wood stated to Mr. Kulhanek that as a Council Member and V.P. of the Committee on Ways and Means, she expects to see the memo by end of business day today, and will not accept under any premise that it is confidential. This has been discussed repeatedly in this Committee and they have never gone into Executive Session due to the nature of material discussed. Council Member Wood noted she will be releasing the memo to anyone who has come to the meetings, and if the memo is not before Committee by end of day, she will ask the Committee Chairperson to hold special meeting to subpoena City Attorney McIntyre to be at that Special Meeting with the memo. Council Member Wood noted her impatience in continuing to wait. Mr. Kulhanek stated he would relay the message.
Council Member Brown Clarke concurred with Council Member Wood, noting that the Committee never received notification as it relates to anything remotely that there was any other news that the memo would not be presented. This is a memo referenced at a public meeting by Ms. McIntyre and explained in detail by her. The Committee asked to see the written memo to further clarify the 1% for retirees. At past meetings the Committee was told that the memo was in draft, and then told it was finalized and delivered to the Mayor and then it was signed off by Mayor and filed. The Committee only asked for a copy of the memo, they did not generate the memo.
Council Member Wood added that at the last meeting Ms. McIntyre attended, and when asked about the memo, she stated she was unaware that the Committee wanted a physical copy of it. She did not say she could not release it to them. She instead stated she had another meeting to attend so left the meeting and stated she would make sure they got the memo.
Ms. Estee asked how to find out if there is a special meeting scheduled. Council Member Brown Clarke stated they would be updated.
Ms. Estee asked that at that special meeting, if the Committee could also ask for the status of the memo on the “tie-bar” decision. Council Member Brown Clarke noted the deadline they were given was July 1st. It was then relayed to Mr. Kulhanek that he should be forwarding the two requests to Ms. McIntyre that the Committee wants the earlier discussed memo by end of day, and the second item is the memo on the “tie-bar” decision no later than July 1st. Mr. Kulhanek is asked to emphasize that the Committee did not set the deadlines, the deadlines were the dates agreed upon with Ms. McIntyre. The Committee is holding her accountable. The retirees asked for clarification on the amounts that they were all reimbursed or supposed to be reimbursed in their checks. The Committee confirmed that Mr. DeLine, Council Internal Auditor, has a scheduled meeting with HR on July 7th to review their spreadsheets.
Council Member Wood clarified to Mr. Kulhanek, that since the Committee is looking at the potential of subpoenaing the City Attorney, this would be a conflict of interest, therefore the Committee expects the Committee Chairperson to be notified of an outside attorney that will help Council render assistance in obtaining the subpoena. That name should be given to Council Member Brown Clarke as soon as possible.
|
|
7/22/2015 |
Council Internal Auditor Findings Report On July 7th HR Meeting City Attorney Letter Dated June 24, 2015 Mr. DeLine reviewed his memo and corrected the initial date of the memo to “July” 16, 2015. Details included the time line that began 13 months ago, requests to the HR Director with no response, and then the Committee of Ways and Means becoming involved. On June 24, 2015 HR Director submitted a document to the Committee, and on July 7th, 2015 Internal Auditor met with HR for research. Verification was made that any corrections have been made and refunds have been issued. The accumulative amount paid out was $65,075.64. The results from the report are that things are happening on a consistent basis, and Mr. DeLine is satisfied the system that is in place and the recommendation of the June 24th memo offers good research. Mr. DeLine stated his opinion that the June 24th , 2015 City Attorney memo be made available. Council Member Wood asked Ms. Bennett and Mr. DeLine to confirm the account number the refunds were taken out of, based on the account number in Mr. DeLine’s report noted the “Retiree Benefit Account”. Ms. Bennett stated she would confirm, however believed that the funds are placed in a liability account and then transferred into the fringe benefit account. If the account it will be reclassified. Council Member Wood asked the Mr. DeLine correct his report to reflect the findings.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. DeLine if the retirees were offered time to review their insurance after the issues were resolved and Mr. DeLine confirmed a letter sent to retirees on May 1st. There was no confirmation that a letter was sent to retirees that would explain why they were getting the refund, and Mr. DeLine would not comment on a recommendation.
Council Member Delgado asked Mr. DeLine what he does when there are findings that are not systematic or something irregular is identified. Mr. DeLine stated his audit was not random, it was a judgement call and that he chose retirees that were not known from previous discussion, and did nine (9) spot checks and one needed a correction. Council Member Delgado then asked about Mr. DeLines recommendation the June 24th memo be redacted and released. Mr. DeLine reiterated his belief that the report was thorough, it did reflect information that is now in place and it added a lot of validity to the system that is being put in place.
Council Member Brown Clarke stated that the Committee will work with the City Attorney Office to find out who is responsible for redacting information because it is important that the information be provided to the retirees and some of the documents are public comments, and discussed at Committee meetings. Mr. Kulhanek stated an attorney with the Law Department is responsible for redacting the sensitive information, and he would relay the request to Ms. McIntyre.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WOOD TO REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE CREATE A DOCUMENT BASED ON THE JUNE 24, 2015 CITY ATTORNEY MEMO THAT HAS REDACTED ANY SENSITIVE INFORMATION AND PRESENT IT TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 5TH, SO THAT IT CAN BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, OR THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN BE PRESENT AT THE AUGUST 5, 2015 MEETING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION WITH THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS TO GO THRU THE SENSTIVE DOCUMENTS WITH THE COMMITTEE.
Council Member Brown Clarke stated to all present that the questions that have been asked and now have been addressed in the body of the City Attorney Memo dated June 24, 2015. The Committee is restricted to discuss what is in the memo. Council Member Delgado asked if there is an alternative the Committee could suggest if they don’t’ get a memo, such as a FOIA. Council Member Brown Clarke stated the memo is confidential and not FOIA-able. Once the sensitive information is taken out, the body and balance of the document should be ok for public. The retirees do have all the documents attached and referenced in the memo, but not in the format that was put together, in the sequential order Law used to make their decision.
Council Member Wood clarified that if the document is not provided to the Committee, the Committee would bring in the City Attorney to go into closed session and review the issues and decide what the Committee does from there.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. Kulhanek where there is anything that would prohibit a Council Member from releasing the document. Mr. Kulhanek noted the Ethics Ordinance has a confidentiality clause in it so it would be a violation of the Ethics Ordinance. There might also be general policies given for all public officials, and some policies are to keep some things confidential.
Council Member Delgado asked Mr. Kulhanek what time frame they needed to produce the document. Mr. Kulhanek confirmed it depended on the documents, the complexity, and since he hasn’t seen the document could not speak to it. Council Member Brown Clarke acknowledged the next meeting date is August 5th, and therefore the deadline is on or before. Mr. Kulhanek asked for clarification since there was no resolution, and asked if the request was going to the floor of full Council. Council Member Wood answered by stating Council Members and Committees can ask, and this is a Committee request.
MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
Public comment Mr. Maloney asked Mr. DeLine what change was made in the PHP plan that he mention. Mr. DeLine stated he would confirm if it was option 1 or option 2, and report back in his updated memo. Mr. Maloney also asked if the Committee was satisfied with the decision. Council Member Brown Clarke noted that the Committee had asked for a formal determination grid that they are using consistently, and based on supporting documents and off those documents is consistent looking at every retiree. The actual dollar amount each retiree pays is beyond the Committee’s scope. What the Committee is looking at is a collective process, and not at individuals. Mr. Maloney asked the Committee, based on the information, if they were satisfied with it and how it affected his rates. Council Member Brown Clarke noted that every decision has supporting documentation and based on that documentation they are satisfied. The retirees need to look at the documentation and see if they are satisfied. Council Member Wood asked Mr. DeLine if the memo meet the concerns that were originally brought to him, and if he believed those issues have been answered. Mr. DeLine agreed from the audit stand point and consistency. He did admit there were other questions beyond his scope.
Ms. Meade spoke in frustration with the memo being confidential and disappointment because they were determination of their decision making. Council Member Brown Clarke agreed that some of the attachments to the confidential memo are public however it is also evident that there are some confidential items in the memo. Council Member Brown Clarke reiterated that the Committee can only ask and make recommendations as the scope of this Committee. The next step would be what their communication plan is.
Ms. Estee stated her opinion that the memo did not resolved the inconsistencies.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. DeLine to confirm that no taxes were taken out of the refund checks. Ms. Bennett stated she would also check, but noted that it might be subject to tax if the contributions from the pay check were pre-tax dollars.
|
|
8/5/2015 |
UPDATE - City Attorney Letter Dated June 24, 2015 Mr. Kulhanek noted there was no update or no redacted letter. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if Ms. McIntyre was in the building. Council Member Wood asked Mr. Kulhanek if he had reported the Committee request and motion from the last meeting, which was a redacted June 24, 2015 memo of anything confidential or her attendance to go into executive closed session. Mr. Kulhanek confirmed he did report the request to Ms. McIntyre of their request with the deadline of August 5th. There was no response. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if the request for the “tie-bar” clarification was relayed also, and Mr. Kulhanek confirmed. Council Member Brown Clarke asked then what the process is to subpoena Ms. McIntyre and seek outside counsel due to conflict of interest. Mr. Kulhanek informed her that the power for outside counsel was in the hands of the full Council not the Committee under a majority vote. Mr. Kulhanek admitted he has not seen or issued a subpoena for this type of situation in the past so not fully aware of the process to move forward. Council Member Delgado questioned the other Committee members on if they wished to draft a resolution for seeking outside counsel to issue a subpoena for action at the next Committee meeting. This would allow either the City Attorney to attend that meeting, provide the requested documentation and if not then the resolution can be approved and referred to Council for adoption August 24th. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Kulhanek asked for clarification on what the Committee wants to subpoena. Council Member Wood replied, the City Attorney McIntyre. The confidential document is provided, however the Committee has requested her attendance, and she has not attended or responded, so to get her to attend and be present they want to subpoena her. Council Member Brown Clarke added that the outcome if she attends is she could provide the redacted document or the discussion of what aspects are confidential so the Committee can work collaboratively to redact and release that redacted document. Committee also agreed with Ms. McIntyre that July 1 was her deadline for info on the tie-bar clarification. These two items are what she brought to the Committee attention of documents that were in existence, and Committee did not know about them, so then asked for copies. Mr. Kulhanek reminded the Committee that they are subpoenaing a person for an anticipated result, and can’t guarantee the outcome. Council Member Wood acknowledged his statement however reiterated that the City Attorney is forcing this action since they cannot do their work until this is first addressed. Council Member Delgado acknowledged for all present that the Committee needs to seek outside counsel or the City Attorney at least needs to provide counsel. It is concerning that residents and retirees continue to come to the meetings, however someone that works for the City does not show up and is disrespectful.
The consensus of the Committee is to have resolution prepared for the next Committee meeting on August 19th, with adoption at Council on August 24th. Council Member Brown Clarke added that if Ms. McIntyre attends then the action would not need to be taken. Council Member Brown Clarke then apologized to the public present on lack of information.
|
|
8/19/2015 |
UPDATE - City Attorney Letter Dated June 24, 2015 Council Member Brown Clarke noted that the letter was stamped confidential. Council Member Delgado requested a closed session. Council Member Brown Clarke noted the Committee had already requested a redacted memo and told what is confidential. Ms. McIntyre confirmed she did not have a redacted memo, and the request to attend this meeting came to her this past Monday or submit a redacted document. Council Member Brown Clarke acknowledged Council Member Delgado request for closed session, but asked Ms. McIntyre if she had any redacted document to present so they wouldn’t need to go into closed session. Ms. McIntyre stated no.
Ms. Estee noted her opinion that the retirees do not consider this issue resolved, but a partial refund does not make them whole. Prior to the meeting she had delivered a letter to the Mayor, and stated her frustration with his public comments that his item is “trivial”, and he has had 5 years to resolve. Ms. Estee concluded by thanking the Committee and Mr. DeLine.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. McIntyre if the Committee went into closed session would she be able to address their questions and discuss the memo, or would it be a waste of time. Ms. McIntyre stated it was not up to her to go into closed session it was the Committee decision. Ms. McIntyre noted her attendance at meetings and at the direction of the Mayor. The department focused on two groups, and several retirees have received reimbursements. Council Member Brown Clarke informed Ms. McIntyre that the Committee wants clarification on the memo because some parts are confidential and privileged, and the Committee wants to give the balance to the public as requested. Council Member Brown Clarke then asked again if Committee went into closed session would she answer the questions, and Ms. McIntyre stated the Committee can go into closed session.
Roll call vote to go into closed session at 10:47 a.m. Unanimously passed 3-0.
Committee meeting called back to order at 11:21 a.m.
Council Member Brown Clarke noted for the public there was a conversation and consensus in closed session.
Ms. McIntyre informed the group that she had informed the Committee of the nature of the documents and understood the Committees’ interest therefore will compromise and draft a memo for specific public distribution for the retirees to have something in writing for the future. She also stated that she has committed to provide this document will be a separate document from the attorney/client by September 16th. She will try to get beforehand to the Committee Chairperson, and then if she so deems appropriate could set a special meeting.
Ms. McIntyre went on to state there is a separate group noted, which viewed as a tie- bar memo. There is no such memo drafted to Mayor or Council. She will look at this issue to resolve. This is administrative issue, if not already done, so they will write letter to the Mayor, who is the responsible party. Ms. McIntyre could not provide a certain time on that memo. The memo will help those reimbursed, going forward the tie bar memo is being reviewed. Once the Mayor signs off it will be sent, however if the Mayor says no, she will draft a second memo for distribution. The Department will continue to check items off the list.
Council Member Brown Clarke acknowledge the productive closed session which allowed the Committee and Ms. McIntyre the ability to get clarification, and a consensus of the committee for good conversion. The Committee hopes moving forward towards collaboration.
|
|
9/17/2015 |
UPDATE - City Attorney Letter Dated June 24, 2015 (9/16/2015 Meeting) Ms. McIntyre began by stating she was updating the Committee based on a request to modify the memo to the Teamster 243 regarding retiree health care issues that was submitted to the Mayor in June. The Committee asked her at earlier meetings if the memo could be disseminated. There were some concerns because it was a confidential document and Ways and Means had asked for redactions or to be rewritten. Ms. McIntyre repeated earlier meetings stated it was an administrative matter and the Mayor would have to approve the redactions, and he did. The requested memo was mailed to the retirees on September 14, 2015. There were no exhibits attached, however if they want the exhibits they can ask for them. The Committee then received a copy of the memo, asked for a few minutes to read it, and asked if any of the retirees present had received the memo. The retirees stated no, therefore Council staff left the room to make copies of the memo to distribute to the retirees.
Council Member Wood asked Ms. McIntyre what was confidential about the exhibits. Ms. McIntyre stated there is one or two of them that they had concerns with, and she could provide an explanation. Council Member Delgado asked if it would be helpful to plan to go into closed session at the next Ways and Means Committee Meeting and have a conversation on what was not being released and the reasons why. Ms. McIntyre stated she would be willing depending on her schedule. Council Member Brown Clarke provided Ms. McIntyre with the next meeting date and time of Wednesday, October 7, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m., and asked that her administrative staff let Council Staff know.
Ms. Estee noted it was hard to comment on the memo since she just received it, but again stated the memo should include the March 1% cap decision, and why this cap went away for some employees. Council Member Brown Clarke stated to Ms. Estee that hopefully once all the retirees receive the memo in the mail, there will be clarification. Council Member Wood asked Ms. McIntyre if the retirees present could go to HR or Law on their way out of the building to get copies of the exhibits. Ms. McIntyre stated they could not be provided today, but they could make provisions for obtaining them today. They can provide their contact information to HR or Law and it can be mailed out to them, and if they want it emailed it can be done that way also.
Ms. Estee added that the 2004 tie-bar decision would be nice to have before December, because in January, the Committee on Ways and Means will have new members.
Mr. Maloney asked if the information would address the tie-bar item. Council Member Brown Clarke stated that Ms. McIntyre is still finalizing the language for that memo of clarification. Ms. McIntyre added to the conversation stating that months ago it was decided that these are two separate issues. Some decisions were already made, the reimbursements, and then ultimately the Mayor will determine the outcome on the other topic. Ms. McIntyre did indicate that they will not forget about the other issues, but direction comes from the Mayor, and once that has been given they will do their review. The presented memo today was in response to if a retiree did receive a refund. The 2004 retiree and beyond is the tie-bar issue.
Ms. Estee wanted it noted again that the tie-bar decision impacts the 1% cap retirees.
|
|
10/7/2015 |
OTHER Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated she did not put a title on this topic and the agenda as an item because the committee was not sure of the updates or progress made. Councilmember Brown-Clarke mentioned to Mr. Abood that the committee has a lot of questions and are frustrated with the progress. Councilmember Wood stated one of the things she expected today was a document asked of the City Attorney Ms. McIntyre to produce showing what had been redacted from the memo and exhibits and if we could go into a closed session. Councilmember Wood stated that the committee did not want to go line by line between the two documents to figure out what was taken out and why, and that they did not have that information today and there is nothing that came to the committee for the redacted document. Mr. Abood asked which memos the committee were referring to. Councilmember Wood stated the teamster 580 memos that went to the mayor and given to council as confidential information and then the memo that went to the retirees for them to see the determinations. Councilmember Wood stated that the committee was told it could not give out the original memo because it was privileged and confidential information. Mr. Abood asked if the committee wanted a copy of this. Councilmember Wood stated what the committee wants is a one page document telling them what the City Attorney redacted from the original to the retirees memo and the same for the exhibits memo, what exactly was changed from the confidential memo to the one given to the retirees. Councilmember Wood continued that when the committee went over the original memo, they saw about one paragraph that could potentially be confidential but did not see anything in the exhibits that was confidential but were told there were redactions from those.
Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated the committee received the confidential memo, and the redacted version is missing some important information that tells what the explanations are and that the committee needs something that explains why and the retirees want the same.
Councilmember Delgado stated it is important because when we have constituents asking questions on what is going on with the memos and about the information, we cannot answer the questions because we have a confidential source that we cannot not speak about, and further mentioned he would like an opportunity to have a closed session with City Attorney Ms. McIntyre to discuss this confidential information and collaborate together, being responsible and compliant to constituents.
Mr. Abood stated that he has not been a part of this process and repeated that what the committee is looking for is a one page explanation of the redaction of the two memos. Councilmember Brown-Clarke replied correct. Councilmember Wood added in getting the documentation and going into closed session. Councilmember Wood stated the documents were brought to the committee as confidential but needs to be explained so we can understand why this is being labeled as privileged but again it is having that discussion. The committee can go thru both line by line but it would be easier for the City Attorney to go thru to documents with us. Councilmember Delgado mentioned that it was asked of the City Attorney at the last meeting but she was not fully prepared.
Mr. Abood asked if the City Attorney was fully aware of what the committee is looking for. Councilmember Brown-Clarke replied yes but this was follow-up. Councilmember Wood stated she would personally like to know why the memos are not here today. Mr. DeLine added that Memo A had a lot of exhibits that did not survive into Memo B, and would like to know which exhibits were withheld and why they were withheld.
Mr. Abood repeated stating there were a Teamster 580 original privileged document and the other memo with exhibits that were redacted. Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated she would like the opportunity to have it in writing and go into the closed session and discuss the memos so the committee can ask questions in the closed session about the memo. Councilmember Wood stated something that has come up since the last meeting Sept. 14 was the committee was told the letters went out to the retiree’s which had redacted memos and if they wanted the exhibits to ask for them. Councilmember Wood stated she is still getting information from retirees who have not received the letter and is not sure why this is has happened and that for those that have or have not received letter have not received the packet. Councilmember Wood stated she received an e-mail with the packet and sent it out because she assumed it was not confidential so she sent it to Denise from Lynne. Councilmember Wood would like to know how we are following up when some have e-mail and some don’t when they have made requests for the exhibits and some people are not receiving these yet, when there is an anticipation of receiving these things and some are not receiving the packet of exhibits that were redacted. Mr. Abood repeated the question of packets of redacted exhibits not being received. Councilmember Wood replied yes.
Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated when the committee had their meeting a few weeks ago, those letters had been mailed on Monday and there is reference to the supporting documents in the letter and if you wanted those documents you would have to make a request and those request have been made and those people have not received those supporting documents. Councilmember Brown-Clarke also stated that some people physically went down to HR and were told they were not prepared and they will make copies and deliver those to them.
Mr. Abood replied yes, we told people we would not be able to provide copies that same day and repeated the question of some that have received the letters, some have not received the supporting documents. Councilmember Delgado asked if there a discussion of some people did receive the exhibits and Councilmember Wood replied no that was the letter. Councilmember Delgado then mentioned that he had been told the documents sent were poorly copied and postage due when receiving the letter, and that there needs to be some checks on this process.
Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked Mr. Abood to read back what notes he had so far about this discussion. Mr. Abood stated 1. Teamster 580 memos. 2. Memo to retirees, why redacted - One page explanation memo. 3. Sept. 14 letters that went out to retirees and letters not well put together and postage due. Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked Mr. Abood to email the notes he had taken to the committee and council staff, that way the committee knows we are all on the same page.
Ms. Meade explained that she went down to HR after the last meeting with the understanding to go there to get emailed the information or called to pick it up, but was not expecting to get information that day. Ms. Meade left a message with Cheryl Jackson but was referred to someone else. Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked if HR took her information and Ms. Meade replied no. Ms. Meade stated she assumed Ms. Jackson knew who she was because Ms. Meade knew Ms. Jackson Ms. Meade stated she later got an e-mail from Ms. McIntyre asking why she went down to HR because we were not going to have the information you need yet and to come to the City Attorney office. Ms. Meade stated she thought the instructions were clear when leaving the meeting to go to HR. Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked Ms. Meade what instructions did she give you on the protocol of receiving the documents and was Ms. Meade to email her and ask. Ms. Meade stated she thought she was clear on what she was inquiring about. Councilmember Delgado stated that his understanding was people were to go to the City Attorney office because memos were produced in her role as City Attorney not HR Director. Councilmember Brown Clarke stated her understanding was people to ask either HR or City Attorney office. Ms. Meade stated she finally did get the documents that were not confidential. Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked how did you receive them and Ms. Meade stated she got them thru e-mail. Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated the exhibits were sent by Ms. McIntyre to Ms. Wood, Ms. Meade, Nicole Malson, and Cheryl Jackson but not the chair of Ways and Means nor Councilmember Delgado and this is not acceptable. Ms. Meade asked if the committee would like for her to hold off on her interpretation of the exhibits she did receive. Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated the committee is at a disadvantage of who has what information, if so would have more thoughtful discussion and so the committee should table this discussion.
Councilmember Brown-Clarke asked what is the protocol on what to do with that information and if the e-mail can be forwarded it on. Councilmember Wood stated she was unsure because it has Ms. Meade’s name in it. Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated there is an assumption that this can be forwarded on and what is the process of distributing the exhibits and memos.
Mr. Abood repeated that the committee is asking what the process of distribution of the memos and exhibits are, including distribution by e-mail or paper copies. The Committee replied yes. Councilmember Delgado asked was this because there was a conversation about these documents being available electronically and it would be forwarded out and sent to all or just the committee. Councilmember Brown-Clarke stated the question was that not everyone has electronic capacity, that we would have multiple formats. Councilmember Wood added we would like for them to not pay the cost of mailing when being sent to them.
|
|
10/21/2015 |
Other City Attorney Tie-Bar Information Availability Council Member Brown Clarke asked if there were any updates, and Ms. McIntyre stated that there were no updates, and based on the last meeting of the Committee any follow up questions need to be directed to the Mayor. The administrative aspect the tie –bar was assigned by Mayor. As soon as there is something to provide they will provide that info, current information has not gone to the Mayor. There is hope that there is a review in the near future. Ms. McIntyre concluded by stating it is still a priority. Council Member Wood reminded Ms. McIntyre that when the Committee asked for the June memo to be redacted and submitted to the Committee they also asked for a list of the redacted items, and offered to go into closed session. Ms. McIntyre could not provide a memo with a list, however stated she could explain what was removed. The difference in the information was that there were comments about law suits against the City, and certain info fell under Attorney/Client. Anything removed was under Attorney/Client, and her role is to protect the City interest in case there is a law suit and future negotiations. Council Member Wood stated her interest in a memo noting line by line stating “I took this out, and my rational was..”. with the exhibits. Ms. McIntyre stated she could produce that and would provide that to the Committee, and she did add that a lot of information was public record, there is a limited amount redacted, and will provide this committee that information. Ms. McIntyre offered to hand deliver the memo by the end of next week. In further review, Ms. McIntyre stated she would try to make sure draft is not a lot of legal ease.
Ms. Estee distributed notes, and asked the City Attorney to set a date in November or December to resolve the issue before new Committee members in 2016. Ms. Estee concluded her opinion that the “1% issues” is not resolved and the “2004 issue” is not resolved.
Ms. McIntyre informed the Committee she sent an email to the union representatives about the retirees, and if they were representing them. Ms. Meade stated she never got an email however had just received a copy from Ms. Cahill at this meeting. Ms. McIntyre asked Ms. Meade to answer the question on if the union was representing the retirees, and Ms. Meade stated she would not respond until the Attorney requested date of October 27th after she speaks to her legal counsel. Initially they were told by the City HR department when they filed a grievance that they could not represent them because they are not active. Ms. McIntyre emphasized the importance of the answer of that question so that the City knows who is representing them to follow proper protocol. Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Meade if she could respond to Law by October 27th, and Ms. Meade stated she will talk to her counsel.
Council Member Wood asked if Ms. Meade could file the request with HR again, since she was denied before Ms. McIntyre was HR Director. Ms. McIntyre stated she will look at it and go from there. The Union can take steps if they disagree with HR determination.
|
|
11/4/2015 |
PENDING City Attorney Tie-Bar Information Availability- Status Update Council Member Brown Clarke noted to Mr. Abood that at the last meetings Ms. McIntyre had stated the memo on this topic was not written but when it was it would be submitted to the Administration, and once it was signed off on, she could supply it to the Council, therefore was this in process yet. Mr. Abood stated his belief that all inquiries like this have to go to the Administration, and therefore he has no updates from the City Attorney office.
Ms. Estee noted her frustration and asked for the City Attorney to be invited to the last meeting before December 31, 2015 so this topic can be resolved before the end of the year and before the new Committee members begin in January 2016. Ms. Estee noted again that the retirees have not and are not currently represented by the Union.
Council Member Brown Clarke noted that at the last Committee meeting Ms. McIntyre asked Ms. Meade if the Union would be representing the retirees, and now she asked Mr. Abood if there was an update or response to that question. Mr. Abood did not have an answer. Council Member Delgado asked Mr. Abood to investigate that and report back to the Committee at the next meeting.
Council Member Brown Clarke outline the outstanding requests needed for the Committee, which included a follow up with Ms. Meade on her response, and if she didn’t when she would be, and 2nd item is if the Administration speaks to the tie-bar item the Committee we cannot address until they are notified.
Redacted List from Law to Committee Update (10/30 deadline) Council Member Brown Clarke recapped the request from the last meeting, and Ms. McIntyre willingness to provide a list and her choosing of the deadline date. Mr. Abood noted that all requests must go thru the Administration. Council Member Delgado noted the Committee is asking a legal question on how the City Attorney came to the conclusion of what things were redacted from a memo; however Mr. Abood refers again to inquiring with Administration. Council Member Delgado asked Mr. Abood to clarify for the Committee how the inquiry went from Law to Administration. Mr. Abood stated he would refer the inquiries onto the City Attorney.
|
|
11/18/2015 |
Pending Redacted List from Law to Committee Update (10/30 deadline) Council Member Brown Clarke reiterated what Mr. Abood had informed her before the meeting regarding this topic. That was that Ms. McIntyre intended to attend but was unable, but she did confirm she will go into closed session at the next meeting to address the items. Council Member Brown Clarke then updated Ms. Bennett on what the topic was. Council Member Wood made note that the closed session is understood, however would still like to see the memo listing the items even if it had to be returned to law in closed session. Ms. Bennett stated she would relay the conversation.
Ms. Estee asked the Committee to invite Ms. McIntyre to a Committee meeting before the end of the calendar year to ask for clarification on the status of the “tie-bar” memo with Administration. Ms. Bennett asked for clarification on this memo, and Council Members informed her that Ms. McIntyre would know.
|
|
12/2/2015 |
CLOSED SESSION Redacted list from Law to Committee Update MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WOOD TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 10:30 A.M. ROLL CALL 3-0.
Meeting called to order at 10:56 a.m.
Council Member Brown Clarke noted that the Committee’s questions were answered. The only outstanding topic from the City Attorney office now is the status of the Tie-Bar.
|
|
3/2/2016 |
Tie Bar Memo Update Mr. Dotson reported that he has been searching for the memo, but the City Attorney’s Office has been unable to disclose anything other than a memo from last year that was the subject of a FOIA request. He suggested checking with the City Attorney to see if it is something she might be familiar with. He asked why the Committee thought the Mayor received it.
Councilmember Wood replied that there had been an email from the City Attorney stating she had completed the Tie Bar memo and had given it to the Mayor for review and approval before it could be submitted to the City Council. She noted that there were two memos done, one on retiree health care and then the City Attorney’s email. Mr. Dotson asked if Councilmember Wood could forward him a copy of the email and then he would provide an update to the committee members by email.
Councilmember Brown Clarke noted that the City Attorney had been the one to draft the memo.
Mr. Dotson asked if this would resolve the issue with the retiree benefit elections. Councilmember Wood replied that the issue was not resolved; retirees had not been given the opportunity as they had been told they would to change their healthcare benefits once the memo came out determining what their true costs would be.
Ms. Bennett stated that she would look into that issue.
|
|
4/6/2016 |
Discussion – Tie Bar Memo Council Member Brown Clarke asked Mr. Abood for an update. Mr. Abood confirmed he had been speaking to Council Member Wood about an email dated January 7th from former City Attorney McIntyre about the topic and also had received a claim from Denise Estee dated April 1, 2016. Mr. Abood referenced the June 24, 2015 memo from the City Attorney office and its recommendations. Council Member Brown Clarke noted to Mr. Abood that in August or September of 2015 Ms. McIntyre stated there was a tie bar memo that stated how the retiree health care was tie-barred and also stated she sent it to the Mayor and, informed the Committee she was waiting on the Mayor to approve before she could give to the Committee. This topic is the second issue with the retirees, which was also reflected in the email from January sent to Mr. Abood from Council Member Wood. Mr. Abood acknowledged he had never discussed this issue with Ms. McIntyre. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if he had asked the Mayor for the memo yet, and Mr. Abood stated he had not, but is working with Ms. Riley in HR to review this. Council Member Brown Clarke clarified for Mr. Abood that Ms. McIntyre was past that step of review with HR and Ms. McIntyre had stated this as the Attorney. Mr. Abood was asked to meet with the Mayor’s office and ask where the memo is, then take that memo to Ms. Riley and determine what else needs to be done because until he has that memo in his hand there is nothing to talk about. Mr. Abood stated he would ask the Administration for clarification on when the memo was received from the City Attorney.
Council Staff was directed to provide the past Ways and Means minutes from 2015 to Mr. Abood. An update is expected from the City Attorney at the April 20th Committee meeting.
Discussion – Health Care Re-Selection Option Council Member Brown Clarke updated Mr. Abood on the 2015 information that was provided to the Committee and the retirees by Ms. McIntyre representing the HR Department which stated that since her offices were in the process of clarification on health insurance for the retirees and it was open enrollment time, Ms. McIntyre informed the retirees that if the was no resolution by the time open enrollment ended, the retirees could sign up for insurance, and if the clarification changed things they could make changes to their benefit. This has never happened, and therefore the Committee wants an update and an update provided to the retirees. The retirees now need the HR department assistance in making those changes. Mr. Abood stated he would have to check with HR. Council Staff was directed to provide Committee minutes to Mr. Abood.
Ms. Estee reminded the Committee that in in 2010 the Mayor and Jerry Ambrose came up with the new policy, and predated it 6 years, effective February 20, 2004 that all retires are tied to all active employees.
Ms. Bennett reminded the Committee that there is open enrollment every year, and Council Member Brown Clarke reminded Ms. Bennett the Committee was aware of that, but the issue was not the annual open enrollment, but the clarification and its effect on the choices they made while they waited for the clarification. Mr. Abood asked for clarification on if it was limited to 2015, and Council Member Brown Clarke confirmed everything prior was addressed.
Mr. Abood then asked Ms. Estee if there were other claims from her, and she confirmed there were multiple claims filed and no response on any.
|
|
5/4/2016 |
Update on Tie-Bar Memo Status Mr. Abood acknowledges that the claims that have been presented are in process with Human Resources. Mr. Abood admitted he had spoken to the Administration on the Committee inquiry into where the memo was. Currently his role is to pass the claims to HR to make the determination and if a policy needs to be made the Administration needs to do that. Law will become involved if they are asked for a determination. Council Member Brown Clarke reminded Mr. Abood that Ms. McIntyre the former City Attorney and Interim HR Director had already gone thru the process so the determination should have already been made by Law and HR and now with the Administration. Mr. Abood was then asked if he was able to access Ms. McIntyre computer to find the missing Tie Bar memo. Mr. Abood admitted he was able to review the computer but was not at liberty to indicate that such a document exists.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. Abood if he had asked the Administration a second time for the memo. Mr. Abood stated he had follow up with a second request, and told them that HR is reviewing the claims and the Administration will have a policy decision to make. The Administration did not inform him that they that they found the memo and they did not say they would look for the memo, Mr. Abood noted that is not where the discussion went. Council Member Wood then asked Mr. Abood if there was a memo. Mr. Abood stated his belief that there could be several documents regarding this issue. Council Member Wood reminded Mr. Abood that the memo they are looking for was written after June 2015, and asked if there was one dated after that. Mr. Abood stated he did not know, and he had areas as City Attorney he could not breach. Council Member Brown Clarke asked what he would breach by communication with Council. Mr. Abood clarified that some ways an Attorney communicates is labeled “not FOIA able, not for release, work product.” When it is labeled as such it gets to a point where it cannot be acknowledge. Council Member Brown Clarke reminded Mr. Abood of times in the past where a document was labeled “privileged and confidential” and Committee went into closed session to discuss. Mr. Abood noted that “privilege” could be held by Administration not by the legislative branch. Until the Administration releases what is privileged it is not available. Council Member Wood then reminded Mr. Abood that there are minutes from the public meeting of the Committee on Ways and Means where Ms. McIntyre stated there was a draft memo and it was going to the Mayor and she couldn’t release it until it was signed off, so does the Committee need to bring in the Mayor. Mr. Abood stated that a memo of this nature could have a privilege of the Administration to release or not release. Mr. Abood concluded that the memo may exist or may not exist.
Council Member Houghton asked if the Committee knows what the memo would have said and Council Member Brown Clarke noted it should have said information that anchored and operationalized Ms. McIntyre decision as HR Director and City Attorney on the Tie-Bar and the CBA. Council Member Houghton asked if Law could just draft a letter now, since it appears the Committee will never see or know if the memo ever existed. Council Member Brown Clarke asked Mr. Abood what guidance the Committee was supposed to give to the retirees at this point. Mr. Abood referred to the Charter and stated it is clear that CBA is an administration function, and the designated bargaining unit for the Mayor is the HR department. Claims that are coming in are being addressed by HR, and the Administration is going to have to make a policy determination. He has had this discussion with the Administration. Council Member Wood asked how long the Committee has to ask the retirees to wait since this was started during the time HR and Law Director was the same person and there was the intention of bringing closure to it. Council understands the Charter on contracts, however Council signs off on those contracts, so Council is also responsible for upholding the decisions. Mr. Abood stated his goal of resolving in weeks not months. . . .
Ms. Estee spoke in opposition to the Tie-Bar memo topic being placed back with Human Resources because that is where the discrepancies and issues started. Ms. Estee also outlined the 1% group time line and pointed out to the Committee it is “Open Enrollment” and the fee sheet references state mandated taxes.
|
|
5/25/2016 |
Update on Tie Bar Memo Mr. Abood acknowledged his receipt of several claims and has forwarded those claims to HR. HR has done some investigation and now has asked the City Attorney for legal advice and seeks outside legal counsel. Mr. Abood has asked HR for specific questions and factual background. Once that information is provided, Law can make a determination if it needs to go to outside counsel. HR has indicated they believe that they need a labor and benefits specialist to review them. Council President Brown Clarke informed Mr. Abood that when Ms. McIntyre, former City Attorney and Interim HR Director, reviewed the topic she indicated she had worked with the current staff, so he was asked if he had spoken to those staff members. Mr. Abood admitted that in HR they do have Sue Graham who is a labor specialist and an attorney, but did not confirm if he has spoken with any other staff. He has requested that Ms. Graham provide him with her files on the topic, back up, evidence and the City position on retirees following actives. Mr. Abood stated he would have a determination within the next week if it will go to outside counsel and if in house will make that determination within 2 weeks. Council Member Wood asked an earlier question for Mr. Abood if he had located the original memo on Ms. McIntyre City computer, and Mr. Abood stated he could still not answer that question.
Ms. Estee reminded Mr. Abood of the urgency because the open enrollment ends May 31st, and what if the retiree is unable to pick a plan because there is no decision that has been made. Ms. Estee also wanted the Committee to know that she has submitted a request to HR Director Mary Riley on this open enrollment issue and has received no response. The first letter was sent April 20th, 2016 on her personnel issue, with no response and then an email 2 weeks ago with no response asking for a decision by the end of the month because of the open enrollment time that could change a retiree’s decision. Council President Brown Clarke asked Mr. Abood for a letter assuring the retirees that if the decision is made after the open enrollment deadline they can reopen it so retirees can make an adjustment if they have to. Mr. Abood confirmed he understood the request.
Mr. Maloney asked if the retirees after 2010, whose contract stated they were protected by 1%, appear to have gone away. Mr. Abood informed Mr. Maloney he would provide him with information on that, and Council Member Wood confirmed he was still protected by the 1%. Ms. Meade informed the Committee that the 1% of pension benefit doesn’t specify what plan/rule it follows, so it isn’t clear what plan the retirees would get. The contract stated they would never get charged more than 1% then their pension benefit. Ms. Meade stated she too reached out to Mary Riley to discuss. The concern stated by Ms. Meade was that the Union has always been told they do not represent the retirees, however the Union does believe that they represent the language of the contracts, therefore the language needs to be changed to protect the retirees. Council Staff acknowledged the Ms. Riley was invited to this meeting with no confirmation however. Council Member Wood Carol asked Mr. Abood to address the issue that there is no written collective bargaining agreement. It is not a negotiation but a change in written text. Mr. Abood admitted that Ms. McIntyre had created a protocol that when an agreement was decided, it was written up and finalized, and so there are tentative agreements out there, and he has been talking to HR to formalize. The Committee acknowledged that Ms. Riley needs to attend the next meeting to have input in the discussion on this topic. Ms. Estee reminded the group that the 2004 tie bar is a written contract, so this should be handled. Mr. Abood reiterated that if he determination there is need for outside counsel he will inform Council within a week, and also will provide information on notification status of the health care open enrollment option for open window if need be.
|
|
6/1/2016 |
Update on Tie Bar Memo Mr. Abood acknowledged that he had received information from Ms. Graham from HR on May 31, 2016 at 4pm and so was going to begin the review of the factual background to make a determination if the item should be addressed in house or outside counsel. Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. Riley is she had any information, and she stated the only information she was aware of was already provided to Mr. Abood by Ms. Graham.
Council Member Wood pointed out that the deadline for open enrollment was May 31, 2016 so the Tie Bar memo decision will impact those retirees, will there be another open enrollment. Ms. Thelen confirmed if there is a significant change in health care in the amount, they can offer open enrollment for those affected retirees. They will look the option based on the legal opinion, and if things stay the same there will be no open enroll, if there is a significant change or change in health care, they will do a 30 day notice and give them 2-3 weeks to make a decision.
Council Member Wood referenced the May 25th minutes where Mr. Abood had stated it would take him just a week to make the determination on outside counsel, so since no decision was presented, how long will the Committee wait. Mr. Abood repeated that he had just gotten the information on May 31st, so not sure how long it will take. Council Member Brown Clarke also asked if the information provided to him included how the memo was crafted.
Ms. Estee spoke in opposition to information being provided by Ms. Graham because her belief that 100% of that source was the problem, and who made up the theory, and create the current issue which was forced upon the retirees. Ms. Estee referenced a letter of August 2010 from Ms. Graham, noting that Law should be researching the written contract. Council Member Brown Clarke asked Mr. Abood to present his review of the topic at the next meeting in two weeks on June 15, 2016.
|
|
8/17/2016 |
Update on Tie-Bar Memo Status Mr. Smiertka confirmed he had met with Ms. Estee and Ms. Meade on August 16th where they went over the details and the history of the issues. The step is to meet with the Administration with the plans to report back to the Committee at the next meeting.
Council Member Wood reminded the group that they also need to make sure if there were changes needed or refunds, that process needs to be determined also. Mr. Smiertka noted he would meet with Finance to see the economic ramifications.
Ms. Estee acknowledged the meeting with Mr. Smiertka and provided him with additional information that she did not have at her meeting with him on August 16th. This was a list of names from February 2004 – May, 2014 where she believed was a 10 year period where the City has not given the retirees the correct plan or charged correctly. The document reflected group 580 retirees that were impacted. Ms. Estee believed the list contained up to 90 names. Mr. Smiertka accepted the documents. Ms. Meade also acknowledged Mr. Smiertka participation in a meeting.
Council Member Wood informed Mr. Smiertka of another issue where contracts are being ratified, however they are not modifying the ordinances based on those contracts, some going back 3-4 years. She is recommending to Council that they no longer approve a contract until it is writing. Mr. Smiertka asked for clarification on the concern if it was there are no contracts or not converted into ordinance. Council Member Wood informed Mr. Smiertka that currently all Council sees is a document with bullet points on it, must return the document, and they never see them converted into the contract. Mr. Smiertka made it known he was not aware of this process, and acknowledged there are two issues; there needs to be a signed contract, and two the collective bargaining agreement appears to supersede the ordinance, those should be converted into ordinance.
Ms. Meade noted that if both sides agree to changes, they should be in the contract, in writing and signed off by both sides. Council Member Brown Clarke added that those signed documents should also be made available on line to all members anytime they need to see their contracts. Ms. Meade did clarify that the process now is there are no longer bullet point documents, but the proposals have the exact language for contract so nothing is vague.
Council Member Brown Clarke clarified that the next meeting is not in two weeks, but September 7th, at which point this item will appear on the agenda again.
Ms. Estee informed the group that from February, 2007 to January, 2011 there was a contract but not signed, and so the question is, was that legally binding. Mr. Smiertka noted that it would depend on the facts, and once they start acting on it, it becomes valid. Ms. Estee added there was a contract 2007 to January, 2012 that has nothing in written material either.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked that at the table there should not be people who are not part of the decision, and that the proposals should be approved by Law before presented to Council so that after Council approves they are not informed that Law did not sign off on it. Ms. Estee asked that HR be responsible for the record keeping, and Mr. Smiertka stated that can also be added in the ordinance.
Ms. Estee asked that it be noted that on April 20, 2016 she sent a letter to Ms. Riley, HR Director, and has no response, and also has emailed her with no response. There was also a FOIA request sent to Mr. Dotson, with the original dates of April 22, 2016 and April 28th, 2016. These were resent July 25, 2016, but no response yet other than acknowledgement of receiving her email. Mr. Smiertka confirmed that the log is now on the Attorney web page, and the topic of unanswered FOIA’s or denied without approval from Council President are topics on his staff meeting agenda for Monday, August 22, 2016.
|
|
9/7/2016 |
Update on Tie-Bar Memo Mr. Smiertka stated that his office did a review on the Tie-Bar issue, and it appears based on the language in other contracts it is consistent. Based on this review and of the collective bargaining contracts that read retirees follow the active. Under the interpretation of the contract, his opinion was that the language is clear that it does follow active employees, so the retiree health care will change from time to time to mirror what active employees are paying. Mr. Smiertka noted that other interpretations assume that the retirees follow what the actives were at the time of retirement. The City Attorney office reviewed twelve different plans where the language was found, and in nine of those plans, the City made the decision that retirees follow the active employees. Mr. Smiertka did note that in three plans which were FOP and Fire, the interpretation is different. The City decision for the Teamster 580 is that the retirees follow the current actives both by the insurances offer and the cost of the plans.
The next steps Mr. Smiertka would be would to meet with Finance, the Human Resources Director and Labor Relations, and then give their findings to Mayor. He did reiterate that currently their decision is based on the legality of the collective bargain contract; he could not speak to whether it was fair or not, but whether it was reasonable to interpret based on the language and the decision in 2010. Unless the Administration changes its position on this, that will be the determination.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked why three Union Contracts were different, and Mr. Smiertka acknowledged that to his knowledge that it was part of the collective bargaining and was determined that the retirees would continue to paid the same amount once they retired.
Council Member Wood informed the group that the Employee Retirement Board asked Karen Williams who deals with employees as they retire what are they told when leaving the employment of the City. It was explained the retiree is told that these are the benefits they will receive.
Mr. Smiertka noted again he will be meeting with the Administration to confirm his determination.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked if there will be a clarifying memo to make sure people know what was determined. Mr. Smiertka confirmed he would need to confirm this with Finance and Administration before he is able to product a memo.
Ms. Estee spoke in opposition of the determination that retirees to follow active. She explained that language only applied to the insurance plans offer by the City to the retirees not the cost of the plan. Ms. Estee went on to reference the 2010 contract, and questioned why 50 of the 150 were pulled out to follow actives. The UAW was given an opportunity to retire by a certain date and retain their health care benefits with no change in 2014, but Teamsters were not. Another reference she made was to the Actuary Report for the ERS system, where it stated that prior to 2/1/2010 City pays 100% benefits.
Ms. Estee asked Mr. Smiertka if the Mayor will be under any obligation to provide the decision in memo out of his office, in addition she noted for the record she still has no responses on her FOIA requests, and submitted another claim to Mr. Smiertka.
Mr. Smiertka made a correction to his earlier statement on retirees “follow” actives, the actual language is that “eligible retirees shall”, not “follow”.
Council Member Wood asked Mr. Smiertka if 50 people in a 150 group can have their benefits changed and whether or not is it discriminatory. Mr. Smiertka stated he was not part of those discussions so he was not sure what the logic was. In collective bargaining there is give and take process. Council Member Wood asked if be information could be provided that would tell how many retired under the contract, and how many paying for healthcare benefits and how many are not paying and why. Council Member Brown Clarke added that the information is needed to help clarify the determining factors that made changes to 50 retires healthcare plans verse those that are not paying. Mr. Smiertka suggested it could have been the retirement date; it was after 2/20/2004.
Ms. Meade explained that the Mark Kobe memo has is referred was never given to the Union, and asked Mr. Smiertka how a unilateral decision can be made that effects anyone prior to that date be made. Mr. Smiertka stated he would continue to analysis, because his job is to look at what is there and come up with an opinion.
Ms. Meade asked Mr. Smiertka for the opportunity to be at the table when he holds his discussions with the Human Resources and Finance.
Ms. Andrews asked if a Council Member could sit in on the meetings, and Mr. Smiertka acknowledge that would never happen.
Ms. Estee spoke in opposition to the process, how the retirees were affected.
Mr. Smiertka informed the Committee that he is not sure on the timeline when he will meet with the Administration, but hopes to be able to report back at the October 5, 2016 meeting.
Council Member Houghton asked Mr. Smiertka to ask for clarification on the protocol for the determination of the 50 retirees who upon retirement were not charged for healthcare and then after 2010 were. Also for clarification on retirees, how many retired under the plan, why the 2/20/2004 date was selected, and how can they go retroactive.
Ms. Andrews informed Mr. Smiertka that she is too is not paying the same amount either, and has had to switch coverages.
Ms. Estee asked Mr. Smiertka if he could address the State mandated caps, because the 2011 retirees are not subject to the State mandated caps, but the administration never brought anything to Council.
Ms. Meade asked to be part of the meeting with Finance and the Administration.
|
|
10/5/2016 |
Tie – Bar Memo Mr. Abood assured the Committee that Mr. Smiertka had finished the review of issue, and is currently authoring a memo or opinion for the administration to present shortly. The document will include advisory guidance. The administration will review then consult with HR and then they will create a plan of action that will be implemented. The Committee inquired on a time line for distribution to the Committee, Council and retirees. Mr. Abood acknowledged the retirees deserve an answer on this, and ideally the Committee and the retirees should know as soon as the decision is made. Law also recognizes things do not happen that fluidly. The process and notifications, Mr. Abood noted, are out of the realms of the City Attorney office, but this is a priority. Council Member Wood supported a special meeting of the Committee before the end of the calendar year to resolve.
Ms. Estee noted she was frustrated Mr. Smiertka was not in attendance and reiterated her questions from earlier meetings, which included why only part of 580 was effected, why only 6 years, where is the 2004 dates, and why the mandated caps. Ms. Estee reminded Mr. Abood and the Committee of a letter she sent to Mr. Smiertka on September 23, 2016. She continued to inform the Committee again on outstanding FOIA requests with no response or denial. Those were emailed to Mr. Dotson in the City Attorney Office.
Mr. Engle gave his employment history with the City, experiences since retirement with his benefits costs, and spoke in frustration on the lack of transparency, the outstanding claim form and loss of damages from 2014. His original request was sent in September 18, 2014, and again April, 2016. Mr. Abood received an additional copy at this meeting. Mr. Engle concluded that if this was not resolved he was promising to go to the prosecuting attorney office to file charges of misconduct by the City. Mr. Engle asked when things were changed, because he was not able to find any actions by Council, stating the City needs to fulfill the contracts.
The Committee asked that Mr. Abood provide Council staff with an update on the three (3) FOIA requests made by Ms. Estee, along with the status of the claim by Mr. Engle. The request was given a deadline of the same date as this meeting, 10/5/2016.
Ms. Fressetto spoke in opposition to the City being a good steward to the City employees.
Ms. McCallum asked for explanations on cost differences in the insurance for retirees, families and two people.
Council Member Brown Clarke requested Council staff to invite Ms. Riley, HR Director and Ms. Williams, the Retirement Specialist to be invited to the next meeting.
Council Member Brown Clarke recapped the committee requests to Mr. Abood, which were the FOIA requests by Ms. Estee (4/22 & 4/28; 5/1, resubmitted 7/2016 and 9/2016) along with the status on Mr. Engle’s.
Ms. Meade stated that the City needs to agree and stick with the agreement.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Council staff to invite Ms. Riley, HR Director to the next meeting to provide an overview of the practices taken when an employee retires.
Lastly, she reminded Mr. Abood that the Committee has the information on the Tie Bar Memo, however a decision needs to be done and in written form, on the table and to the retirees, to act accordingly. The information on the decision needs to be provided with the rationale on the decision.
|
|
10/19/2016 |
Presentation - Employee Exit Process for Retirees (HR & Retirement) Council Member Brown Clarke opened the item by stating the Committee invited the HR Director and the Retiree Representative to provide them with an understanding of what the process it looks like now, what the retirees going thru the exit process see, what are they given, and any other documents. Council Member Wood asked where the HR representative was. Council Staff confirmed both Ms. Riley was invited and Ms. Williams. Ms. Thelen from HR was supposed to be present. Ms. Bennett stated that retirement falls under her Finance Department therefore she would be presenting on the process for the retirees. Ms. Bennett then also confirmed that when an employee begins the process of thinking of retiring they speak to Ms. Williams so she can start the estimate process, then they will meet with her a few times more before they leave. In those meetings they receive paperwork on what the defined benefit is which also outlines and explains the multiplier. Ms. Williams will also go over the paperwork, timeline and the options. When they get to the formal paperwork, Ms. Williams has the estimates in paper form and they take those with them. Ms. Bennett stated that paperwork includes the options on retirement, pension, collection and benefits. The office will also offer references to financial advisors and tax consultants. Included in the paperwork the retirees are given an application, frequently asked questions, information on life insurance, health care, open enrollment, Medicare coordination and social security pension. Ms. Bennett assured the Committee that the employees then sign off that they have the documents. Ms. Bennett did clarify that all the documents also refer the employee to their appropriate bargaining agreement.
Council Member Brown Clarke inquired to the status of the current signed contracts on the website. Ms. Bennett stated they are on the City internal website. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if the retirees can access the contracts once they leave to see if their options, coverage and agencies change. Ms. Bennett stated they are not on the website but the retirees can contact the HR Department for questions and copies. Council Member Wood pointed out that the CBA is not current for some units on the intranet, and asked that it be researched for accuracy and up to date information. Council Member Brown Clarke asked if when the retirees are notified of open enrollment if they also tell them of any contract changes that would affect them since they are tied to the contract of active employees. Ms. Bennett admitted didn’t know the language of the letter. She did add it does lay out the options, but she was not aware if it provides any explanation on changes in coverage, cost or carriers. Ms. Bennett stated she would find out those answers.
Ms. Estee admitted she had gone on line to research contracts and there were no current ones there, and she wanted the Committee to know her open enrollment letter is generic.
Council Member Wood asked for a list of all contracts Council has approved, and ones that have been signed.
Council Member Brown Clarke asked Ms. O’Berry to provide a legal opinion on when the contract comes to Council should it be in final form with no typo’s or pending issues, and that if anything gets changed after Council ratifies it should it come back to Council. Ms. O’Berry stated her first response would be yes, it would need to be an amendment. Ms. Bennett stated that Council sees a tentative agreement, then the language is worked out. If they delay, they run into issues with retro-active pay. She stated that some of the language is not substantive. Council Member Wood recalled a time when after Council ratified a contract, within 30 days the employees had it. Now it appears to be years.
Council Member Brown Clarke added to Ms. O’Berry list for opinion if once Council approves it can the language be changed because it would change the meaning, therefore her choice would be that Council never see it to vote the language is final. Is it the legal opinion that it can follow that process, or does it need to be done then 30 days later it is final. The legal opinion should be done on what is the process and protocol on the problematic language, and does it need to be highlighted so Council is made aware. The 30 day process should be reviewed and if that 30 days is not met what is the default and liability. The City Attorney opinion should address what it looks like post ratification and the liability.
Council Member Wood again asked for an updated list on the current contracts. She also asked Council Member Brown Clarke to invite the presidents from each union to an upcoming meeting.
Ms. Bennett stated there is a mutual concern with the process and HR and the City Attorney office is working on a process to mitigate this.
Council Member Brown Clarke finalized by statin the ratified copy should be the final version.
Ms. Estee asked it be noted that she had sent a letter to Ms. Riley in HR and never received a response. She also acknowledged that she had contacted HR two weeks ago about over charging on health insurance, which she did not get a reply either. This information she stated was also sent to the Committee on Ways and Means. Lastly Ms. Estee provided the Committee with documents she was given by Ms. Meade who had to leave this meeting. Ms. Estee stated Ms. Meade had informed her the documents were dropped off anonymously at the Union Hall.
|
| 11/16/2016 |
Discussion/Action: Tie Bar Memo Update Mr. Smiertka stated that the review involved a claim from Ms. Estee that address the years 2003-2007 retiree benefits and collective bargaining. This claim involved a language concern. Mr. Smiertka confirmed his office analyzed it he had met with Ms. Estee, Ms. Meade and is continuing to receive information and continued research. Part of his analyze included meeting with City staff including labor representatives and finance representatives. Mr. Smiertka did note that since this began there has been cases decided by the court of appeals, and Supreme Court cases. In conclusion Mr. Smiertka hopes to have his answers to the claim within 30 days., and the Committee will receive a copy of the results and answers. Council Member Wood asked Mr. Smiertka to have discussions with HR on clarifying the process and provide information to retirees when they walk out the door, in addition develop a policy that HR and the Retirement Office has to follow in the future. Council Member Brown Clarke also asked for the assurance the signed contracts will be uploaded and available for reference for the retirees, and make them a searchable document. Mr. Smiertka confirmed it could be possible and set up similar to the muni-code program for the ordinances. There was a meeting scheduled with HR he will follow up on. Ms. Estee spoke on her past claims and reiterated the need for an answer within 30 days. Ms. Estee then submitted another claim to Mr. Smiertka and spoke about the recent open enrollment changes and potential for increases for options in the plans. Ms. Estee referenced the need for details on the contract to address her belief she was discriminated against along with 49 other retirees in her group who had their benefits changed. Ms. Meade had questions on the Committee minutes from 11/1/2016 and was told to submit those questions to the Committee since those minutes were not approved at this meeting. Council Member Wood reminded Mr. Smiertka of a letter from Clark Hill on behalf of their Retirement Board regarding issues with the current out of compliance practice with the ordinance. The Retirement Board is no getting support from the HR Department. Mr. Smiertka confirmed he saw the letter from Clark Hill and will make sure get things done.
|
| 6/6/2017 |
OTHER Ms. Estee referred the Committee to the FHT Legacy report of May 11, 2016 and presented pages from the document to them. She then noted her opinion that in regards to the health care issue and Teamster retiree benefit summary, that information given to the consultant was incorrect and inaccurate. Ms. Meade added that in the report the retirees that paid for their health care, their dollar amount maximum was incorrect in the report. They should be $125, $225 and $325, but they are not noted that way in this study. Ms. Bennett attempted to explain that the information was actuarial information, and they have to disclose their governing document, and the reports disclose that. The previous reports were general, and by the current actuary they did speak and agreed upon assumptions going forward. Council Member Washington asked how they came up with the 2004 figure. Ms. Bennett noted it is current City policy that the date in which a retiree retires, follows active employees. Council Member Wood asked for a copy of that contract that states that, from Ms. Bennett. Ms. Meade added to the conversation that back to 1982 the contracts say it follows actives, and addresses the “plan” but it never made mention on the monetary value. Her opinion was that in 2010 there was a unilateral change and they decided to retro back to 2004 and no agreement with Union was made what so ever. Ms. Estee then outlined her second topic of discussion, the 2004 tie-bar. Ms. Estee went through the timeline for Council Member Washington that was spent with the Retirement Board in 2014 who could not assist them, then onto the Council Internal Auditor who referred them to the Committee on Ways and Means in 2014. Ms. Estee spent 2015-2016 in Committee meetings asking for their assistance in having the City Attorney determine and provide information on retiree health care. Ms. Estee concluded that in the end of 2016 she expected a written report, but was advised as the Committee was that there was no memo from Ms. McIntyre the previous City Attorney in 2015-2016 that spoke to this. At this time Ms. Estee was asking to be a continual reoccurring topic of discussion on the Committee agenda until her issues are addressed. Council Member Washington asked for a timeline on the process, and also times to review a document that Ms. Estee presented to the Committee. Mr. Abood asked who Ms. Meade was representing. Ms. Meade answered that she was representing language in the contract, and Ms. Estee stated to Mr. Abood she was a present as a retiree and understands that Unions do not represent retirees. Council Member Washington informed Council Staff to add the requested topic to the upcoming agendas.
|
| 6/20/2017 |
Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage Ms. Estee submitted written comments for the record and recited them (attached). Council Member Washington acknowledged the letter and reiterated from the last meeting that Council Member Wood was working on an update. Council Member Wood was not able to provide an update at this time, but stated she would have it at the next meeting and will provide files of information for the Committee. Mr. Engle spoke in opposition to the work done thus far by the City. He also confirmed he had sent letters in the past to the City Attorney and has never heard a response. Mr. Engle concluded with his opinion that what was happening was illegal and wanted Council to investigate Council Member Washington admitted she too was perplexed with the lack of information that has extend for multiple years, and agreed it needed to be resolved by end of this calendar year. She then apologized for the delay and frustration, asking the retirees to be patient. Mr. Abood informed the Committee that he had spoken to City Attorney Smiertka and was asked to tell them that Law is doing is ongoing. Mr. Abood admitted also to receiving requests from Mr. Engle and Ms. Estee, and in the midst of his review and research for his memo, there was a change in direction and that is when Mr. Smiertka became City Attorney. The Law office is researching the law and there are some attorneys in that office that have concerns, and the law does not support the memo by Ms. McIntyre that Ms. Estee refers to. In addition he noted that Mr. Smiertka does not support the memo by Ms. McIntyre, and therefore Ms. Estee claims have been denied and any other claims that overlap with Ms. Estee claim will receive the same answer. Council Member Washington asked for one final opinion and documents. Mr. Abood stated that the City Attorney never plans to create a formal City Attorney opinion, but a memo is done from Law that backs up the statements, Mr. Abood offered to ask Mr. Smiertka for it. Council Member Washington asked it to be submitted by July 11th. Mr. Abood could not guarantee that, therefore they were also offered the first Committee meeting in August, August 15th . Ms. Estee spoke again, asking not for a memo from Law about the law is, but wanted to know where the 2004 tie-bar language is and what is the significance of the tie-bar is, why was it done in 2010 and pre-dated to 2004 and lastly she asked why they took a group of retirees and split them in regards to their benefits. Council Member Wood stated she had asked for a copy of the language from Ms. Bennett, and Ms. Bennett stated the language is available on the City Intranet in the CBA, and it is an attorney matter, not something in her duties. Mr. Abood asked if the Committee was asking for the CBA from 2004, and Council Member Wood confirmed. Mr. Engle asked the Committee to look into the law at the time the contract was signed. Ms. Meade provided a history on the information she was provided but was not a participant in, but her opinion was that Mr. Colby, Ms. Thelen, Mr. Ambrose was at the table at which Mr. Colby then did a memo. Ms. Brownlee spoke as retiree and spoke in support of the frustration by retirees on what she believed is a breach of contract. Council Member Wood clarified that originally there were two situations, and the one in regards to the overcharges was resolved and those retirees were repaid. Mr. Abood asked for clarification that there are two things the City Attorney office does know, they know what the contract language says and what the law is, and that is what they will make their City Attorney opinion on at this point. Ms. McCallum, as a spouse of a retiree, spoke in opposition to what has occurred so far with the retiree benefits.
|
| 7/11/2017 |
Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage
Council Member Washington referenced the binders of information that each Committee member had which included information compiled by Council Member Wood. Council Member Wood pointed to pages 1-47 which were the minutes from past meeting, and then later in the document under Attachment B was the 2010 memo from Mark Colby, former City employee. Lastly she referred the Committee to the letter from Ms. McIntyre dated November 23, 2015. Council Member Washington admitted she was not sure of what all the materials were in the binder when presented with it last week, and what significance each item had, but now with the understanding would review the binder over the next couple weeks. Ms. Cahill representing Ms. Meade with Teamsters introduced herself stating Ms. Meade was meeting Ms. Riley on a Segal Waters presentation. Council Member Washington stated to the group that she had spoken to City Attorney Smiertka in the past about what the City Council Committee on Ways and Means can do with this situation, and was told the Committee has nothing they can do, and there is nothing anyone can do unless they hire an attorney. Council Member Wood then referred the Committee to the memo by Ms. McIntyre from 2015. Council Member Washington stated she was informed by Mr. Smiertka that he met with Ms. Estee because her situation was different. Ms. Estee acknowledged she met with him, however stated her role at the meetings is the spokesperson for other. Council Member Wood informed the Committee that there were two issues, one being those being overcharged, and that was resolved. The other issue was this certain group of retirees that Ms. Estee states she represents. The concern they have is with their rates, the benefits they left the City with and what they have now, and the dates those items were changed. During a review of the Mark Colby memo, Council Member Dunbar asked if the contract he spoke about from 2007-2012 speaks about going back to 2004, and the consensus of the Committee and public was that it did not. Ms. Estee noted that anything that states retirees follow active is a concern, because there is no tie- bar in Teamsters until 2014. Susan noted that all health care premium changes occur in February and that could explain why Mr. Colby wrote the memo in March. Ms. Estee went onto explain the situation of the group she represents in relationship to increases, co-pays, and questioned Mr. Colby’s authority at the time he wrote the memo. Ms. Womboldt spoke in opposition to the delay of answers for the retirees, and lack of presence by Mr. Smiertka or Mr. Abood at this meeting. Ms. Estee added to her earlier statements that her opinion was that prior to 2010, with the collective bargaining retirees got to maintain their benefits and in 2010 they dropped that practice. It was asked who the City Labor Specialist was, and it was confirmed Mr. Abood. Council Member Washington asked Council staff and Mr. Waddell to invite and make sure Mr. Smiertka and Mr. Abood are present at the August 1st meeting. The Committee again reviewed the 2010 Mark Colby memo, and Council Member Dunbar pointed out it stated retiring 2004 and after. Ms. Estee stated she retired in 2005 and for the first 5 years she was okay, but then when this memo came out in 2010 there was not warning it was coming, and she believes that going back 6 years to 2004 is illegal. Council Member Dunbar asked what the remedy was she was looking for. Ms. Estee asked for a refund since they have taken over $7,000 from her pensions, and also to admit their error. Mr. Maloney explained his situation, where his plans changed and affected his cost also, which should have been under the 1% cap. Council Member Dunbar noted that in Mr. Maloney case it would require the health insurance company to be involved to figure out his discrepancies. It was stated by Council Member Dunbar for clarity that it appeared Mr. Maloney was affected because for 6 years he paid what he thought, and the coverage didn’t change, but the City eliminated the 1% cap and changed the price. Council Member Dunbar asked Mr. Maloney what remedy he was seeking, and he stated he should have been left on the plan he had when he retired with no changes. Since he retired prior to 2014, when the tie-bar was added to the contract he should not have changed. Ms. Estee provided an example of where Susan retired in 2001, and she retired in 2005 under the same Teamsters, however Susan has benefits with no charge, and she pays. She ended by stating it appears a random 50 retirees were affected. Council Member Wood noted to the Committee that in the past the Committee on Ways and Means has asked if retirees are given a form to sign when they leave that outlines their benefits and they were told they were not. Ms. Estee added to her remedy request that she would like the legal document that shows in her contract of 2003-2007 that there was a topic of tie-bar. Council Member Washington asked if there were any other bargaining units affected by this, and Council Member Wood stated she had not heard of any other complaints. Ms. Denise read and submitted her comments in writing. (Attached) Council Member Wood asked Mr. Brewer to review the binder and document any questions he may have. Council Member Washington noted to the group that in her discussions she has been told that Ms. McIntyre opinion from 2015 does not matter because she is no longer the City Attorney. The next meeting will occur on Tuesday, August 1st, and again Council Staff and Law were asked to invite Mr. Abood and Mr. Smiertka. Mr. Harry asked when the 2016 Actuarial Reports will be out. Council Member Wood stated confirmed the Retirement Board hasn’t even seen them, and they are usually a year behind. Council Staff provided the City website link to where the public could find the information the Committee was reviewing in the binder.
|
| 8/12/2017 |
Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage
Council Member Washington opened up the discussion referring the Committee and law to the binders distributed at the last meeting and asked for resolution before year end. Mr. Smiertka distributed a written document outline his findings. These findings he stated were based on the in last 2 years the courts have spoken on this issue from the US Supreme Court to Circuit Court. The question brought before him was if there was claim of vesting under personnel policies prior to the CBA and if there were grounds for a claim under the CBA of 2004-2007, which he determined there was not. The CBA is a contract, and Law must apply contract principals, and unless they find entitlements, it dies at termination of the CBA. The CBA terminated in 2007 in an actual document. Everything has potential pending the specifics of each contract. The other question Law was asked to address was if a claim is vested under policies if it is before the claimant became part of the agreement. And reasons on page 4 of the documents. The legal contract principles in light of Tackett and its progeny also support the conclusion that the continuing thread of CBA benefits was allowed to be broken by the union. The 2003-2007 CBA was terminated by the Union and not extended. This resulted in health care benefits for retirees being further limited by new CBA provisions. Council Member Washington admitted that since the letter was just presented the Committee would need to read the letter and digest the information. Copies were supplied to the retirees present. Council Member Washington asked if the laws had changed since Ms. McIntyre was City Attorney, and Mr. Smiertka answered yes and it has been clarified. If a contract is specific then it occurs, if a contract is silent it terminates. The City position is that the retiree is the same as an active today. Ms. Estee asked the City Attorney to address the complaint which started in 2010, still asked for the 2004 tie-bar date, what the significance of that date was, and why the City pre-dated if for 6 years and in turn split up the group. Mr. Smiertka stated again that the Administration’s position is that the retiree follows the active, and this is an administration/labor decision on health care. Council Member Washington referenced the February 20, 2004 memo from Mr. Colby, a City employee at the time, and why that date was chosen without explanation. Mr. Smiertka noted it was a decision at the time. Ms. Estee stated opinion that it was reflected on the time frame the drug co-pays went up. Council Member Washington noted her frustration that not everyone in the group was affected. Mr. Smiertka answered that there is policy and there is law, his opinion is and is based on law. Ms. Womboldt provided her opinion that the City interpretation from Ms. McIntyre should have been provided at the time and it would have been in favor of the retirees. Mr. Smiertka clarified that it was Ms. McIntyre’s interpretation to the Mayor of her recommendation and interpretation. Since that time there have been cases that were not in existence then. Council Member Washington’s opinion was that the Mayor chose not do to anything. Ms. Estee when on to read from her notes making statements that provided her opinion on what had happened, what was occurring, and where things stood between the Mayor and the City Attorney on this matter. Ms. Meade asked how a memo that was not negotiated in any way, be the governing language. Mr. Smiertka stated that under case law, since there is no promise in the CBA, it is within the discretion of the administration. He encouraged the Union’s now to address this topic in their CBA for the future retirees. Council Member Wood asked if Law is looking at that topic in the current contracts, and it was stated Mr. Abood with Law is looking at it. Mr. Smiertka noted to the Committee that since nothing has been done up to this point, it has to be done under current law. Council Member Washington agreed and noted that it should have been done under the law when it occurred in 2007, but can’t be and that is not the retiree’s fault. Ms. Brownlee noted in when she was an employee with the City, under the 2001-2003 contract there was an opportunity for members in deferred to buy back their time. At that time each person got a letter and the amount they would be entitled to in health care and retirement benefits. Council Member Washington apologized to the retirees. Ms. Estee again provided her opinion on what
occurred with a memo written by Ms. McIntyre, former City Attorney
and the relationship between the Mayor’s office and the City
Attorney. Mr. Smiertka stated to the Committee that he is bound by ethics, and when asked for an opinion and writing the opinion it is directed to the person who requested it. It would be up to the recipient to release the document. Mr. Smiertka confirmed his understanding that the Union cannot represent retirees, but there is nothing stopping them from putting language in their contract to protect future retirees. Ms. Womboldt asked how many people were affected, and Ms. Estee stated 95-100, and referred to the binder which had her FOIA in its listing those names. Council Member Wood asked how to make a policy requiring the HR Department and Retirement office to create an exit document outlining their benefits. Mr. Smiertka noted it can be relayed to the department. Ms. Estee went on to voice her frustration and her opinion she was being discriminated against. Council Member Washington determined the topic would again be on the agenda August 15th . Council Member Wood added that the discussion needed to include information on the amount it would cost if the Administration decided to make the retirees whole. Mr. Brewer would continue the research on the number of people and funds. Ms. Miles spoke in opposition to the process thus far.
|
| 8/15/2017 |
Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage
Ms. Estee distributed letters from retiree Robert Engle and his spouse Isobel M. McCallum, asking they be placed on the record. (Attached) Ms. Estee then read from her notes (attached) which referenced a memo from Law dated July 31, 2017; a Committee meeting on September 7, 2016; a Committee meeting on August 1, 2017; the contracts; a 2006 letter from Terri Singleton, HR Director at the time; a 2008 letter from Jerry Ambrose; and her opinion on the situation thus far. Ms. Estee provided her notes and attachments to Council staff and asked the topic continue remain on the Committee agenda as a pending item. Council Member Washington agreed to keep the item on the agenda, and admitted that currently there appears to be a stall until the new administration takes effect January 1, 2018, also noting she understood Mr. Smiertka explanations because he does have to go by the law. Mr. Smiertka informed the Committee that per their direction he did reach out to the union representative for discussion, but had not gotten a call back as of the time of this meeting. He stated that his belief even though the union states they can’t represent retirees, it is an issue that needs to be addressed with the union representative and the administration because the Charter puts Labor under the role of the Mayor. Ms. Brownlee referred the discussion back to the proposed ordinance amendment language in the Ordinance 286, asking for comparative language to what it currently states, and pointing out it states “benefits” but not “pension”, then asking for it to be specifically laid out. Council Member Wood clarified to Ms. Brownlee that the reason there was no comparative language in the draft Ordinance for 286, is because it is a complete new section, therefore there is currently nothing in 286.16 to compare to. Ms. Womboldt asked if information can be submitted even though the Teamsters item is going to be “Pending”. Council Member Washington assured her it could be, and at the end of the year she would originate a report to the whole Council from the Committee on the history of the topic for the 2018 Committee and the new Mayor. Mr. Maloney submitted a letter speaking to the issue that affects his health care with the 1% cap. (attached) Council Member Washington asked Council staff to have Ms. Thelen with the City HR Department attend the next meeting to provide an explanation on how the 1% cap is determined for the options of health care choices for retirees. Mr. Brewer was asked if he any information on his charge from the last meeting on how much and what process would need to be taken to make the retirees whole if this was resolved in their favor. Mr. Brewer did not have any information at this time, stated he had made a request to the Finance Director, and was informed it was forwarded to the City Attorney office. A copy of that request was provided to Mr. Smiertka at this meeting and he stated he would address it. Ms. Estee asked for a copy of the final report the Committee does at year end, and Council Member Washington stated she would have Council Staff forward a copy when it is sent to the Administration.
|
| 9/5/2017 |
Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage
Council Member Washington stated this will continue to stay on the agenda as “pending” until the new administration in 2018. Public Comment
|
| 9/19/2017 |
RESOLUTION – Introduction and Set the Public
Hearing; Ordinance to Add Section 286.16; Retiree Summary of Benefit
The Committee reviewed Draft #3 that was presented at the meeting from the City Attorney office. Mr. Smiertka outlined the ordinance which was to requested for an employee leaving employment, a summary of post benefits, not the retiree allowance but the benefits. If there is no exit interview, then it will be provided by registered or certified mail. Any changes to collective bargaining, the retirees would be notified. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WOOD TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO INTRODUCE AND SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORDINANCE 286.16; RETIREE SUMMARY OF BENEFITS. Ms. Estee asked why “policy” was removed from Draft #2. She then asked why it was being introduced at all because when she left she did receive an exit summary and yet the City does not honor her summary. Ms. Estee did acknowledge the Committee for their efforts, but her opinion was that until the Administration honors the items, it will not follow through. Council Member Washington stated to Ms. Estee she understood her frustration. Mr. Smiertka informed the Committee that “policy” was removed because it was too vague, and “written” was added. Council Member Dunbar questioned why it would say “through a collective bargaining agreement” at all in line 17-18, asking them to consider having it say instead “any changes to any benefits”. It is anticipated that written would apply to non-bargaining. Mr. Smiertka stated that it can’t effect collective bargaining, because that would be unfair labor practices. Council Member Wood reiterated that the Ordinance amendments were created to put something in place for future employees when they are ready to retire. Ms. Estee again protested the removal of “policy”, and Council Member Washington answered her by stating that “policy” does not override an ordinance, and will depend on the future Administrations practices. Council Member Dunbar asked Ms. Estee if she received written notification when the retirement changes and she admitted she had. Council Member Wood recapped for the Committee and the public that the goal of these amendments were to accomplish that when a retiree walked out the door they knew what they were getting, unless there was a collective bargaining change. Committee ended up including non-bargaining since they are not part of the system, so this way they would get the information also. Mr. Smiertka added that the ordinance was intended to be a notice ordinance, not a mandate. Council Member Washington voiced her concern that the ordinance as it is written will not get where the Committee wanted, which was to provide retirees with notification, and notice to assure no changes unless through collective bargaining or the administration. Ms. Bennett informed the Committee that changes through collective bargaining can change, with benefits, if they follow actives. When retirees leave they are informed that over the life of the retirement there will be changes. Council Member Washington passed the gavel to Council Member Dunbar and stepped away from the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Mr. Smiertka added to Ms. Bennett’s statements, noting that there cannot be collective bargaining for retirees, but the only changes that would occur would be with retirees who follow actives on their benefits. Council Member Washington returned to the meeting at 4:12 p.m. After further discussions by the Committee suggestions were made to the City Attorney for a Draft #4. The amendments include: Line 13, after “summary” add in prepared by the Human Resources Department”, removing that same language from line 15-16. Adding “details their” into line 14 before “post-separation”. Line 18 changing it to state “non-bargaining employees written summary of benefits”. Ms. Womboldt spoke in support of the recent changes. COUNCIL MEMBER WOOD WITHDREW HER MOTION. Council Member Washington stated the latest draft would be discussed at the October 3, 2017 Committee meeting.
|
| 1/15/2018 |
Teamster 580 Retiree Healthcare Coverage
Council Member Washington asked Ms. Estee to provide Ms. Sanchez-Gazella a brief history on that the retirees want to see happen. Ms. Estee went over her history of the situation which went back 8 years. It was noted she received a letter in March, 2010 from the City Finance Department that stated she was tied to active employees effective February 20, 2004. Her opinion was that that police was made and not negotiated with the union. She admitted she had approached the union, but was told they could not represent retirees. She outlined the information Ms. Sanchez-Gazella had in the binder provided by the Council, and even added that in November 2017 she filed a FOIA looking for the list of 2003 retirees and tie-bar, and the number from when the tie-bar took effect through 2007. She believes that at this time 11 Teamster Retirees receive 100% of their insurance paid for and the others lost that benefit with no explanation. She concludes by listing three (3) questions she is looking to find answers to: Where is the 2004 tie bar date? Why back track a policy 6 years? and Why did some retirees get to keep 100% of their benefits while others now have to pay. Council Member Washington asked her if those were the only questions and what income was she hoping to get. Ms. Estee stated the outcome she wanted was monetary, she wanted all their money back, and there needs to be accurate record keeping and no change of information. Council Member Washington then stated to Ms. SanchezGazella that the Committee and retirees are seeking clear answers on why and how, and if the answers they get are not what they want they like, can they hire an attorney. If the answer is not what the retirees want to hear, they need to know clear answers and why it happened. Lastly she added, the Committee has also asked and is asking again for the amount it would cost the City to make the retirees whole. Council Member Wood briefly outlined the binders she had presented earlier to the Mayor’s office and Ms. Sanchez-Gazella, noting the retirees need to know how things were determined and why. The Council needs to know if the City had options, if under option 1; starting today, if they find there were issues, and offered to start taking care of the retiree health care now what the cost would be; and option 2, if the City finds there was an issue, and goes back in time to the initial date, what is the cost and the number of employees affected. Mr. Maloney stated to Ms. Sanchez-Gazella and the Committee that he does not believe that his issue with the 1% has been resolved yet and he has not been reimbursed. His questions related to having to the payments made on insurance based on the benefits. Ms. Estee concluded by stated the issues impact the Teamsters from February 2004 until the summer of 2014. During 2004 – 2010 it was the “tie-bar” retirees, where they were vested 100% for benefits, and in 2010 the union negotiated a 1% cap with teamsters that stated the retirees would never pay more than 1% of their retirement towards benefits. Council Member Washington asked Ms. Sanchez-Gazella how much time she would need. It was determined Ms. Sanchez-Gazella would report back on March 22, 2018.
|
| 3/22/2018 |
UPDATE – Teamsters 580 Retiree Healthcare
Coverage; HR Director The document from the Mayor, dated March 21, 2018, was distributed to the group present. Mr. Smiertka started the discussion by outlining the document and charge that was given. There were two issues; 1) a claim that the retirees from Teamsters 580 between 2003-2007 are entitled to a level of health care that was in existence at the time, and 2) the application of a 1% cap on retirees on the premium they pay. After many Ways and Means meetings, letters to the claimant, and denying the claims, the City Attorney provided an opinion. With the new Administration on board, the Committee on Ways and Means once again asked for a revaluation, and to report back in 60 days. The Human Resource Director was in consultation with the Administration, and City Attorney, who then in turn consulted with the Finance Director, Chief Labor Negotiator and the Administration. Ms. Sanchez-Gazella acknowledge she took the charge from the Committee and reviewed everything and work with Law and Finance for background and supporting documents. They took their findings to the Mayor who made his final decision. Mr. Smiertka pointed out to the Committee that from the legal perspective and the Mayor’s decision both reflects the State agencies where case law states, unless specific in a CBA that there is a promise of life time benefits, the benefits do not go past termination of the CBA. It is to the interpretation of the contract and no promise for a life time and the language summary is that a retiree follows active employees. Mr. Tate noted that there are three (3) case laws out recently that if the language is unambiguous you can look no further. In the 2003- 2017, the CBA states they are covered by the same insurance as the active employees. Most recently a case with the Supreme Court determined that if have unambiguous language, they look no further. There were even cases in the 6 th Circuit Court that wrestled with that distinction, and both prior cases settled. Mr. Smiertka added to Mr. Tate’s explanation that if they do not find it in the CBA, and a CBA is treated like another contract, if the language expires, it ends. Council Member Washington asked where the “tie-bar” date came from and how would that affect. Ms. Bennett answered the question by stating that the letter issued in 2010 was that they discovered at that point that many health care changes that should have occurred after the 2003-2007 CBA did not happen, so they initiated those changes. The date of February, 2004 was used because in 2004 that was the start of the health care effective date, so they believed that was the date to be feasible. Council Member Wood asked how that would divide the coverages for the retirees. Ms. Bennett again stated it was because to came to light in 2010 and reflected back to February, 2004, which at the time was the start date of the health plan. Council Member Wood aske Mr. Smiertka why the opinion from the former City Attorney was different than this opinion, noting if it would have been acted on then, the court decisions that were referenced earlier, would not occurred. Mr. Smiertka stated that the opinion was an Attorney/Client Privileged opinion to the Mayor at the time, and that Mayor chose not to act on it. If he would have acted on it, Mr. Smiertka continued, it could not have been changed now and those new cases would not affect it. Council Member Wood then asked if there had been any discussion with the Mayor that if the retirees were to agree from this point forward they would receive benefits as the others who were affected, that they would not have to be a pay back to the City and it would only affect what they would have to pay in. Mr. Smiertka answered that he cannot talk about any discussions he had with the Mayor. Mr. Tate confirmed he did not have any discussion with the Mayor on that subject, as did Ms. Sanchez-Gazella. Ms. Bennett stated her only discussion was about the CBA. Council Member Washington asked if the Union was at the table when the tie bar date was agreed to conditions. Ms. Bennett stated the CBA are agreed by both parties. Ms. Meade informed the Committee that the Union was not at table when the unilateral date was determined. Ms. Bennett corrected her earlier statement, clarifying the union was at the table when they talked about retirees following actives. Council Member Wood asked Ms. Meade for her interpretation on “follow actives”. Ms. Meade explained it means the eligible retirees will follow actives, going back to 1984, and what it meant was that they were not going to offer retirees less than what the actives were offered. It had nothing to do with the how they were going to pay for it. Mr. Smiertka stated to the Committee they were charged to look at 2003-2007, not others because there are so many variables in other CBA’s. Mr. Brewer asked Mr. Tate to explain the CBA and the benefit statement in letter where it stated they are not taking any other information. Mr. Tate referenced those statements made because of the Supreme and Circuit Court cases. If there is no language in the CBA that says it does not extend beyond CBA. There is an understanding other pieces out there but per the court cases, they cannot look any further. Mr. Smiertka also answered Mr. Brewer that there is another piece involved which is the opinion when dealing with CBA’s, unless they find a life time promise, it terminates with the CBA. Ms. Estee spoke to the Committee clarifying that it was not just about her, but about 98 retirees from 2004-2010, then noted she had no comments on Mayor’s letter. She then moved onto her contract page 25, which was effective 2/20/2006, where she noted it was a promise of lifetime benefits. Ms. Estee then referenced the actuarial reports to the City that say “for the life of the retiree”. She added that if there was no validity to the issue or claim, it wouldn’t have made it fir 5 years. Council Member Washington stepped away from the meeting at 11:02 a.m. Ms. Estee stated she had provided two questions, the first being the language which made the determination that affected her, and the second question she had was why the City discriminated against the contract she references. Council Member Washington returned to the meeting at 11:04 a.m., and Council Member Dunbar left the meeting at 11:04 a.m. Ms. Estee spoke briefly on the pending item on the agenda and her frustration with the previous administration Ms. Womboldt spoke in support of the Teamsters retirees and their request, and opposition to the memo and attachments that was distributed. Ms. Miles spoke in opposition to the decision from the Administration. Mr. Maloney asked for a discussion on his concern with the “1 % cap” for retirees and the that decision. Ms. Bennett clarified to Mr. Maloney that the “1% cap” applies to the premium sharing plan that is in place and follows the actives. It does not apply if the retiree chose to buy up to a better plan. It only applies to the City base plan offered, which is also explained in the union contacts. Ms. Meade confirmed the language in the CBA is that the “1% cap” applies to the base plan only, and there are two bases; PHP and Blue Cross. Ms. Meade added that she could not recall if the union agreed to which ever plan was cheapest and that was the base for 1%. Regarding the concern with the 2010 determination to go back to 2004, Ms. Meade assured the retirees that the Union was not at the table for that determination. Council Member Washington stated her opposition to the opinion that was provided from the Administration, Law and Finance, and then stated what was written in the final paragraph from Mayor Schor, “I am bound by the law presented to me and the clear statements of the City’s obligation contained in the CBA’s. Therefore, I consider the proper and responsible course of action for my administration is to follow the opinions of the Finance Director, City Attorney and Chief Labor Negotiator on these issues. I therefore, will not recommend a change in practice regarding Teamsters 580 healthcare administration.” With that, Council Member Washington informed the public, Committees and retires that Council’s hands are tied because they cannot tell the Mayor what do to in the contracts, and as they had hoped there would be a different outcome, there is nothing more Council can do. Ms. Estee referenced the City’s actuarials, alleging false information was provided. She then provided the HR Director with a document that stated her determination on how she believed she had been discriminated against. Lastly, she acknowledged the Committee for their five (5) years of work on the claims she brought to their attention. Council Member Wood spoke in opposition to the decision that was made by the Mayor, Law and the Finance Director. She, as Council Member Washington had, hoped there would be a different outcome to rectify it for the retirees. She then advised Ms. Meade in the future to make sure, when doing the CBA, that they are written to not penalize people in the future. Committee apologized to the retirees for not the solution that would make the retirees whole. PENDING OTHER |