 |
|
|
BOARD OF PENSIONS Meeting of April 28, 2011 MINUTES On March 24, 2011 Paula Weiss called the Regular Meeting of the Board of Pensions and Retirement to order at 9:15 a.m. in the Board?s Conference Room. Present: Paula Weiss Harvey Rice Brian Albert Celia O?Leary Carol Stukes Ronald Stagliano John Reilly Veronica Pankey Hilary Cornell Also Attending: Francis Bielli ? Board of Pensions Mark Murphy - Board of Pensions Shamika Taliaferro ? Board of Pensions Brad Woolworth, Board of Pension/Investments Christopher DiFusco ? Law Department Joshua Stein ? Law Department Benjamin Hinerfeld ? Law Department Andrew Thomas ? Fire Department Wayne Pollack ? Philadelphia resident Will Greene ? Loop Capital Bruce Ruehl ? Aksia Jasmine Siroctovic - Aksia Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve the minutes of March 24, 2011. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The
motion to approve the Minutes of March 24, 2011 carried unanimously 8-0. CONSIDERATION
OF (129) PENSION APPLICATIONS John Reilly made a motion to approve. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The
motion to approve carried unanimously 8-0. APPLICATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY BENEFITS Case of Nicholas
Gerace, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits - Plan ?B? This is an application by Nicholas Gerace, former Police Officer, Police Department for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Mr. Gerace sustained an injury to his shoulder when he was on the scene of an auto accident that occurred on December 1, 2007. He used his shoulder to break the glass and rescue the driver. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Marlise
Lewis, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?B? This is an application by Marlise Lewis, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Ms. Lewis sustained injuries to her legs, hip, shoulder, upper arm and back while working when she was hit from behind in her police vehicle. The date of injury is October 27, 2006. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-0-4. Case of Delores
Ransom Smith, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?B? This is an application by Delores Ransom Smith, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Ms. Smith sustained
the injury when she fell down a couple of steps and twisted her left knee. Her date of injury is September 22, 2007.
Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Amy Spiller, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?B?. This is an application by Amy Spiller, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Ms. Spiller sustained injuries to her neck, shoulder and arm while working when she attempted to take an offender into custody. She also tackled a suspect during a foot pursuit. The dates of her injury are January 19, 2007 and March 6, 2007. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Ryan
Whalen, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?B? This is an application by Ryan Whalen, former Police Officer for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Mr. Whalen sustained an injury to his finger while making an arrest for an assault. The date of injury is April 14, 2008. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Gary
Sinclair, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?D? This is an application by Gary Sinclair, former Police Officer for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?D?. Mr. Sinclair sustained injuries to his hand and fingers while working when he was attempting to make an arrest and a struggle ensued. The date of injury is August 10, 2007. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to deny. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Deborah D.
Fulton, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?J? This is an application by Deborah D. Fulton, former Engineering Aide, Water Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?J?. Ms. Fulton sustained
injuries to her back while she was in route to a job site when a car ran into
her vehicle. Her date of injury is June 30, 2008.
Hilary Cornell made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-0-4. Case of Anthony
McKinney, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?J? This is an application by Anthony McKinney, former Laborer, Department of Streets, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?J?. Mr. McKinney sustained
the injury when he stepped on a glass bottle that penetrated his boot and went
into the sole of his foot. The nature of
Mr. McKinney?s disability is limited mobility due to partial amputation of his
right foot. His date of injury is July 24, 2009. Hilary Cornell made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-0-4. Case of Ronald Cammisa,
Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This is an ?administrative application? on behalf of Ronald Cammisa, former Security Guard, 1st Judicial District, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Mr. Cammisa sustained
injuries to his eye, knee, ankle and hip when he was attacked by a courtroom
attendant. His date of injury is December 19, 2008. Hilary Cornell made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. Mr. Stagliano pointed out that both Drs. McCoy and Allon determined this case to be due solely, and it is only Dr. Korevaar who disagrees. The vote for the motion to deny was 3-5. The motion fails. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. Carol Stukes seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried 5-1-2. Case of Richard Grande, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y?. This is an application by Richard Grande, former Clip Supervisor, Mayor?s Office, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Mr. Grande sustained injuries to his back and shoulder while working when he slipped in a hole and hit his head. The date of his injury is March 7, 2008. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. Carol Stukes seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Wilbert Jefferson, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y?. This is an application by Wilbert Jefferson, former Laborer, Streets Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Mr. Jefferson sustained an injury to his lower back and spine while working when he attempted to empty a trash can into the hopper. The date of injury is March 25, 2009. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-1-3. Case of Walter Luczejko, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y?. This is an application by Walter Luczejko, former Corrections Officer, Prisons Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Mr. Luczejko sustained an injury to his neck while working when he attempted to break up a fight between two inmates and was thrown to the floor. The date of his injury is January 1, 2006. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-1-3. Case of Annette
Odom, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This is an application by Annette D. Odom, former Recreation Specialty Instructor, Department of Human Services, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Ms. Odom sustained the injury while attempting to subdue a resident when she was kicked in the stomach and chest area. In a second occurrence, Ms. Odom tripped and fell into a chair and hit the right side of her head on a file cabinet. The nature of Ms. Odom?s disability is limited mobility due
to stomach, hip and lower back
pain. Her dates of injury are April 28, 1997 and April 15, 2002. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-1-3. APPLICATION FOR
SURVIVORSHIP BENEFITS AS COMMON-LAW SPOUSE ? APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL Case of Harold
Ryan, Deceased, Application for Survivorship Benefits Appeal of Administrative
Denial - Common Law and Legal Spouse ? Plan J This is an appeal by Arnetta Ryan as the common law/legal widow of Harold Ryan, for survivorship benefits in Plan J. Harold Ryan, a former Laborer for the Streets Department, retired effective June 5, 1981. At the time of his retirement, he selected survivorship option 4 and named his mother as his survivor. He died on October 20, 2010. Mrs. Ryan applied for option 4 benefits as the surviving spouse and common law widow of Harold Ryan. The two were married on November 17, 1984. Their marriage application indicates that Mr. Ryan?s previous marriage ended with the death of his first wife on January 1, 1983. It also indicates that Mrs. Ryan was divorced from her former spouse on July 24, 1984. On February 24, 2011 an administrative denial letter was sent. The denial is based on the fact Mr. and Mrs. Ryan were not married two years prior to retirement and because neither Mr. Ryan nor Mrs. Ryan were free to marry at least two years prior to Mr. Ryan?s retirement. In a letter dated March 9, 2011, Mrs. Ryan appealed the administrative denial and submitted information for the Board?s review. Ms. Stukes noted that Mr. Ryan was still married to his first wife at the time of his retirement; therefore he was not free to marry Arnetta Ryan.
Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Ronald Stagliano seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried unanimously 8-0. APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL OF REQUEST TO AMEND BENEFICIARY UNDER OPTION #3 Case of Nathaniel Bell, Appeal of
Administrative Denial of Request to Amend Beneficiary under Option #3? Plan
?J?
This is an appeal by Nathaniel Bell, former Heavy Duty Compact Operator, to change his survivors under Option #3. Mr. Bell retired effective May 18, 2003. At the time of his retirement he chose Survivorship Option #3 and designated his son and daughter as beneficiaries. In his letter dated February 27, 2011, he requests to change his beneficiary from his children to his spouse, Mary Bell, under Option #3. He states his spouse helped him take care of his ailing mother when he was very ill himself. He further states, under the circumstances, he doesn?t want his wife to ?live in poverty?. On March 18, 2011, Mr. Bell was sent an administrative denial. The letter cited section 22-702 of the Code which states the choice of survivors is irrevocable, and in the event the named survivors predecease the member, the re-designation must take place within one year of the survivor?s death. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Bell sent a letter of appeal and submitted the ?Survivorship Option and Survivor (s) Designation? and ?Change of Beneficiary Designation? forms which he signed on May 19, 2003.
Carol Stukes made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Margaret Spady, Request to Apply for
Service-Connected Disability Benefits Beyond the One Year Deadline? Plan
?Y?
This is an appeal by Margaret Spady, former School Crossing Guard, to apply for Service-Connected Disability benefits in Plan ?Y? beyond the one-year deadline. Ms. Spady retired on a Service Retirement pension effective June 24, 2009 in the amount of $216.19. In her letter, Mrs. Spady states she fell in the snow on February 13, 2007, which resulted in pain in her back, legs and foot and muscle pain in her hips. She states she did have to go back to work after the injury, but has been dealing with the pain, doctor?s appointments and co-payments since the fall. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 5-0-3. OLD BUSINESS Case of Kathryn M.
Durkin, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits This case was denied at the March 18, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 30, 2011. At the hearing, it was determined that Dr. Korevaar?s report of April 22, 2009 was based on erroneous information of the applicant. Therefore, the recommendation of the hearing panel members was for reconsideration. Dr. Korevaar has reviewed the correct information and submitted an amended report, which is attached. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Kathryn M. Durkin, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Ms. Durkin sustained the injury while attempting to break up a large fight involving juveniles. The nature of Ms. Durkin?s disability is limited mobility due to swelling to left hand with pain in left wrist, chest area, left shoulder, lower back. Her date of injury is October 21, 2006. Ms. Weiss stated that the case would go through the whole process again as there were two Kathryn Durkin?s and their reports were mixed up.
Veronica Pankey made a motion to approve the reconsideration of the Service-Connected Disability application as the denial was based on erroneous information of the applicant. Carol Stukes seconded the motion. The motion for
Reconsideration carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Andrea
Ford-Tilghman, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?B? This case was denied at the January 21, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 30, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Mr. James Leonard: Recommend denial. Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. All medical testimony submitted concludes that the disability is not due solely to the on duty injury. Ms. Carol Stukes: Recommend approval. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Andrea Ford-Tilghman, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?B?. Ms. Ford-Tilghman sustained
an injury while stepping from her patrol wagon, where she slipped on the
steps. In an attempt to break her fall,
she forcefully struck the step with her buttocks, back, and her hands. The nature of Ms. Ford-Tilghman?s disability is limited mobility due to injury to her lower back and buttocks. She?s also experiencing discomfort and spasms to her neck and left shoulder area, along with numbness to her left hand and fingers. Her date of injury is January 4, 2006. Ms. Stukes stated she sat on the hearing panel and knows that some of the doctors are saying it is not due solely. However, she believes all of the injuries are due solely. One of the injuries Ms. Ford-Tilghman incurred was when she tried to restrain a 400-500 pound intoxicated man and he fell back on her. The second injury was when she hit her tail bone getting out of the car. Her recommendation is to approve the application. Ms. O?Leary stated she also sat on the hearing panel and disagreed with Ms. Stukes saying that the medical evidence states that the applicant had prior injuries. Veronica Pankey made a motion to approve. Carol Stukes seconded the motion. The vote tied. The Chair voted to deny making the vote
4-5. Motion fails and is denied. Case of Rosalind
Harris, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?D? This case was denied at the June 22, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 16, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. Mr. John Reilly: Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Rosalind Harris, former Police Officer, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?D?. Ms. Harris sustained an injury to her knee while transporting files from her police vehicle. She tripped over a raised pavement and fell onto her knees and hands. Her date of injury is January 7, 2005.
Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 5-3. Case of Denise
Mitchell, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits Plan ?J? This case was initially denied at the October 20, 2005 Board Meeting. A hearing panel was held on November 1, 2006 (3-0) denied. The case was denied on December 20, 2006. The case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas (Jan Term 2007, 004358). The attached order states that the case is remanded back to the Pension Board for a re-hearing on the merits. A hearing panel was held February 16, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Mr. James Leonard: Recommend denial. Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. Medical testimony indicated that the disability is not due solely to the injury. Mr. John Reilly: Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows: Ms. Mitchell states that she sustained the injury while working when she struck her head very hard on a shelf located in the storage area of a stairwell in her building and injured her eye. Her date of injury is February 3, 2000. Celia O?Leary made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-1-3. Case of Linda
Lampkin, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This case was denied at the August 26, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on February 16, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Mr. James Leonard: Recommend denial. Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. Ms. Carol Stukes: Recommend approval. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Linda Lampkin, former Equipment Operator, Streets Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Ms. Lampkin sustained
an injury while checking the fluids in the truck she utilizes while on duty;
she felt pain in her back. Her dates of
injuries are February 26, 2007 and July, 2008. Ms. O?Leary said the medical testimony indicates the disability is not due solely. Ms. Stukes said the injury is clearly due to the performance of her duties on the truck. The purpose of the hearing panel is to hear additional information and Ms. Lampkin proved her case at the hearing panel. Veronica Pankey made a motion to approve. Carol Stukes seconded the motion. The vote tied. The Chair voted to deny making the vote
4-5. Motion fails and is denied. Case of Valerie
Rodgers-Rice, Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This case was denied at the May 19, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held January 26, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: John Reilly: Recommend denial. Hilary Cornell: Recommend denial. Harvey Rice, Esq. Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Valerie Rodgers-Rice, Laborer, Water Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Ms. Rodgers-Rice sustained injuries to her knee and ankle when she slipped on ice, while on duty, as a laborer. Her date of injury is March 9, 2005. Hilary Cornell made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 5-0-3. Case of Mary Vaughan,
Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This case was denied at the May 19, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel held was held on February 2, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Brian Albert: Recommend denial The causes of the disabilities are
not due solely to a work related injury. Carol Stukes: Recommend Approval All of the injuries incurred by the employee were work related. James Leonard: Recommend denial The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Mary Vaughan, former School Crossing Guard, Police Department, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Ms. Vaughan sustained
the injuries to her back while on duty. She tripped over a child?s back pack as
she was assisting the children across the street. Her date of injury is October 22, 2002.
Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 4-1-3. Case of Edward J.
Timcho, Jr., Application for Service-Connected Disability Benefits ? Plan ?Y? This case was denied at the June 22, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 16, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. Dr. Knox, Dr. Weinerman and Dr. Korevaar indicated that the disability is not due solely to his employment. Mr. John Reilly: Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Edward J. Timcho, Jr., former Pre-Trial Warrant Supervisor, First Judicial District, for Service-Connected Disability Benefits in Plan ?Y?. Mr. Timcho, Jr. sustained
the injury while working transporting a prisoner. His date of injury is May 20,
2008.
Hilary Cornell made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 5-1-2. Case of Guy Lacy, Deceased, Application for Survivorship Benefits As
Common-Law Wife ? Plan ?J? This case was deferred to a Hearing Panel at the February 24, 2011 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 30, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Mr. James Leonard: Recommend denial. Decedent?s designation forms show different intent than to name Ms. Lacy. Ms. Celia O?Leary: Recommend denial. Mr. Lacy chose to designate his daughter as his beneficiary at the time of his retirement, under option 4, indicating that he did not consider himself married at that time. Ms. Carol Stukes: Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows:
This is an application by Darlene Lacy for survivorship benefits as the common-law widow of Guy Lacy. Guy Lacy, a former Laborer with the Streets Department died November 14, 2010. He retired on May 6, 2002. At the time he applied for retirement benefits, he selected Option 4 and named his adult daughter as beneficiary of his pension and life insurance. In August of 2005, he changed the beneficiary of his life insurance to his common-law wife, Darlene Minton. Guy Lacy and Darlene Minton were legally married July 7, 2008. Ms. Lacy submitted letters and information for the Board to review.
Celia O?Leary made a motion to deny. Brian Albert seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried 7-0-1. Case of Harry
Klein, deceased, Application for Survivorship Benefits - Plan ?J? This case was denied at the April 22, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held March 9, 2011. The hearing panel votes are as follows: Brian Albert: Recommend Denial. She could not have been legally married to Mr. Klein two years prior to his retirement and would not qualify for a continuation of his pension. Ronald Stagliano: Recommend Denial.
Paula Weiss: Recommend Denial. Applicant?s prior marriage was still valid at time of retirement, therefore cannot meet two year marriage requirement. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Frances Horner-Klein, Common Law widow of Harry Klein for survivorship benefits in plan J. Harry Klein, a former Building Plans Examination Technician with Licenses and Inspections, retired effective December 6, 1983. He died May 23, 1997. Ms. Horner-Klein submitted information for the Board?s review. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Ronald Stagliano seconded the motion. The motion to deny
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Karl Brooks, Deceased, Appeal of
Administrative Denial of Request to Reverse Option for Application for
Survivorship Benefits ? Plan ?J?
This case was denied at the December 14, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on March 9, 2011. Mr. Brian Albert: Recommend approval. Ms. Brooks presented compelling evidence that Mr. Brooks did not understand the options available to him. There was no logical reason to pick option #1 since there was no reduction in his pension. Mr. Ronald Stagliano: Recommend approval. Ms. Paul Weiss: Recommend approval. Approve for election of option 4. The history of the case is as follows: This is an application by Nettie Brooks, to appeal the administrative denial to reverse the option chosen by Karl Brooks for survivorship benefits in Plan ?J?. Karl Brooks, former Laborer for the Streets Department, died
on August 23, 2010. Karl and Nettie
Brooks married on February 4, 1990. Mr.
Brooks retired from DROP effective In her letter, Mrs. Brooks states that she was married to Mr. Brooks for twenty years. She believes the fact that he did not name her for his pension was an oversight on his part and that he didn?t know what he was doing. She requests that his option be reversed.
On October 4, 2010, Mrs. Brooks was sent an administrative denial letter. On November 2, 2010, Jeffrey Schaffer, Mrs. Brooks?s attorney, sent a letter of appeal. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve
carried unanimously 8-0. Case of Rosemary
DiLacqua - Pension Disqualification and Termination of Benefits This case was approved to suspend pension benefits at the March 18, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held December 8, 2010. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows. Brian Albert: Recommend disqualification. Disqualify Ms. DiLacqua as eligible for pension benefits as per the forfeiture requirements under State Law and the Philadelphia Code due to her conviction in federal court. Carol Stukes: Recommend denial. Uphold original Board decision of March 19, 2010. Celia O?Leary: Recommend disqualification. The history of the case is as follows: Rosemary DiLacqua was originally hired on April, 18, 1983. She retired from DROP on June 20, 2009 with (21) years, (3) months, (28) days credited service. On March 3, 2010, Inspector General Amy L. Kurland wrote to
Christopher R. DiFusco, Deputy City Solicitor, providing documentation to
support a request that the Board of Pensions & Retirement consider
disqualifying Rosemary DiLacqua from receiving pension benefits due to Ms.
DiLacqua?s role in defrauding a The criminal judgment states that in December 2009, Rosemary DiLacqua pled guilty to mail fraud. Additionally, Ms. DiLacqua was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day imprisonment and was ordered to pay $10,100.00 in fines. On March 9, 2010, a request was sent to Law for an opinion as to whether Ms. DiLacqua is disqualified from receipt of a pension benefit under the provisions of the Public Employees Retirement Code and the State Forfeiture Act. On March 12, 2010, Arris R. Murphy, Deputy City Solicitor, advised the crime committed by Ms. DiLacqua triggers the forfeiture and disqualification provisions of the State Forfeiture Act and the Philadelphia Code. Accordingly, Ms. DiLacqua is disqualified from pension eligibility. A copy of the opinion is attached. Brian Albert made a motion to disqualify and terminate all benefits under State Law and the Philadelphia Code. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion. The motion to disqualify
and terminate all benefits carried 6-2. Case of Edward P.
McLaughlin, Request to Purchase Pension Credit for Prior Governmental Service,
following His Voluntary Waiver of Pension Entitlement, Retroactive to the Date
of His Original Denial ? Plan ?B? This case was denied at the October 21, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on February 2, 2011. The history of the case is as follows: Mr. McLaughlin was hired as a Police Officer Recruit
effective His original application to purchase pension credit for his
prior employment with PGW from 12/2/85 through 10/13/01 was received on
12/6/01. On On 8/12/10, a letter was received from Mr. McLaughlin with an application to purchase pension credit for his prior employment with PGW. On 8/16/10, another letter was received from Mr. McLaughlin, which stated that he was never given the option to purchase this credit in 2001 when he began his career with the police department. He understands that if he were given this option at that time (2001) when he initially applied he could have purchased his service credit for $33,618. He stated he was told by the pension board that because he was vested with PGW that he did not have this option. He now understands that he should have been given this option to purchase service credit without any penalties or interest for the amount he should have been offered when he began working for the police department in 2001. In a letter dated 8/31/10, Mr. McLaughlin?s request to appeal a prior administrative denial beyond the 30 day appeal period was administratively denied and he was advised of his appeal rights. On 9/8/10, an appeal was received from Mr. McLaughlin. On 10/4/10, a letter was received from McLaughlin requesting the option to purchase prior pension credit without penalties or interest retroactive to October 2001 when he began his employment with the Police Department. His request to appeal an administrative denial beyond the 30
day appeal process was approved at the If approved, Mr. McLaughlin would be eligible to purchase up to ten of his nearly 16 years of service with PGW following receipt of documentary proof of his waiver of pension benefits and PGW?s confirmation of the acceptance and recording of the same. Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Hilary Cornell seconded the motion.
Ms. Stukes stated she is speaking against the denial. The Board has approved people to purchase back time and waive a portion of the interest. Mr. McLaughlin was told by Ms. Donovan twice that he didn?t meet the qualifications to apply for buying his time. Since he was given some bad information by staff, the Board, in the past, has allowed people to buy back the time and waive part of the interest. Her recommendation is to waive part of the interest. Mr. Albert disagreed and stated that Ms. Donovan?s letter gave him 30 days to appeal and he missed the deadline. Mr. McLaughlin makes a claim that Ms. Donovan told him it was useless to appeal but he should have put the appeal in writing. Ms. Weiss stated that he is entitled to purchase the time, but is asking for some consideration on the interest. The purchase of time can always be made but the interest continues to grow. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to approve the application contingent upon Mr. McLaughlin divesting his PGW pension, with half of the interest to be paid from the original application date accruing to the date of the completed application. John Reilly seconded the motion. The motion to approve the application to purchase prior governmental
service carried 5-3, contingent upon Mr. McLaughlin divesting his PGW pension,
with half of the interest to be paid from the original application date
accruing to the date of the completed application. Case of Annamarie
Powell, Request to Change Pension Membership from Plan Y to Plan J This case was denied at the August 5, 2010 Board Meeting. A Hearing Panel was held on January 26, 2011. The Hearing Panel votes are as follows: Ms. Hilary Cornell: Recommend denial. Ms. Powell, while presenting substantial evidence in explanation of her choice to withdraw from the Pension [Fund], nonetheless did withdraw. Accordingly, her application to move from Plan Y to Plan J must be denied. Mr. John Reilly: Recommend denial. Mr. Harvey Rice: Recommend denial. The history of the case is as follows:
Annamarie Powell was originally hired effective 12/16/91 and became a member of Pension Plan J. Following her voluntary resignation effective Brian Albert made a motion to deny. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried 5-0-3. NEW BUSINESS · Executive Director?s Report ? Mr. Bielli stated that he, Mr. DiFusco and Mr. Stein had the exit interview with the State Auditor and made an effective argument against the preliminary findings. Everything is still in the preliminary stage but he will keep the Board posted and send them a copy of the response to the State Auditor General. There was a question that came up at the Council Testimony concerning the possibility of using ICMA funds versus what is currently used. Mr. Bielli is sending a comparison to City Council for that purpose. He found that, on the whole, our funds are less expensive than most of the funds in the ICMA lineup. However, in the ICMA lineup, their target return funds seem to be more effective than the Fidelity family of target funds that we have. But as far as the rest of the funds go, our returns are generally better and generate less expense. Mr. Bielli reported that the PICA testimony and meeting focused on the valuation of the Pension Fund and he and Mr. Dubow were able to answer all of their questions. A few of their questions were concerning the DROP studies that were done. That was the essence of the meeting with PICA. Mr. Reilly commented that he attended the meeting with the Pension Board and City Council and thought they did a good job. Mr. Bielli stated he attended an Executive meeting in which the Assistant Council to the Ethics Board was present. He pointed out that since this is political season, Regulation 8 which is regarding political activity applies to Boards and Commissions and lists which activities Board members can and cannot do. Mr. Bielli said he would email the regulation to everyone for their information.
Mr. Bielli reminded the Board that financial disclosures are due May 2, 2011. The City form is definitely required. It may also be done online. Mr. DiFusco can assist anyone with questions. Mr. Stagliano stated that the Federal Order of Police (FOP) had two retirement seminars that were attended by over 150 people in each session. Pension staff which includes Mr. Bielli, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Taliaferro and Ms. Gray did a fabulous job and he appreciates that very much. The Deferred Compensation group also did a good job and received a lot of questions. The Financial Planning Presentation provided by ICMA was well received. Mr. Bielli added that the Financial Planning used to be ?for fee? but the service is free now. Mr. Reilly added that Mr. Murphy, Ms. Gray and Ms. Taliaferro all did a great job at the Firefighters seminar.
Mr. Bielli welcomed Mr. DiFusco back and informed the Board that staff is working on the next Newsletter if anyone has submissions. Litigation Summary ? Mr. Stein stated there were two cases decided in Commonwealth Court. The Court reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and reinstated the Board?s denial of Clarissa Flemming?s application for service-connected disability benefits. The opinion is attached and says that the common pleas court judge overstepped her discretion in finding that the Board was incorrect in making their determination. The oral argument on the Mariano case of withholding of pension contributions is scheduled for May 10, 2011. Lennie Garrick?s appeal (survivorship option) was dismissed by Commonwealth Court for lack of prosecution. Mr. Stein also updated the Board on the list of cases currently in Common Pleas Court. Mr. Reilly said it has come to his attention that workers? compensation has come out with new findings and there have been changes made. He requested an educational meeting of all those involved to discuss the changes with workers? compensation. Mr. Bielli said he will coordinate with Ms. Cornell to get the correct people to attend and schedule a meeting. Ronald Stagliano made a motion to adjourn. Celia O?Leary seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. |
 |
|
|
|