General Employee Pension Board - Regular Meeting

In the middle of the second page, I believe that it talks about the board size. I think at that meeting we discussed amongst ourselves that the size ought to remain the same, that that was our recommendation to the village council. I think we also thought that we recommended, but again a recommendation, that neither current village council members nor the manager be a member of

three employee representatives that want each of each level of employment in the village, stating that it is more likely not and where that came from I have no idea but as far as the rest of my counsel but in fact that's

That's all I recall. Well, I think you're absolutely right. The vote was that that was what they wanted, but it was not a vote on an ordinance. You're correct about that. But I think it's something, I believe it's imperative that that is something that we still think it's a great injustice I know mr. McCoy came to the meeting but That's not what we're talking about. Go ahead, the minutes.

Well, don't the minutes need to reflect that first? We are voting on minutes.

Well, I do, because the minutes are often quoted at the council meeting. And if it's going to be quoted at the council meeting, it should reflect what was said. So therefore, I move that the minutes be amended to reflect what was on the tape.

I move that we ratify the warrants as written.

And again, thank you for giving us the detail.

It says the following day. It's in the ordinance now. I've got that section I just quoted.

Well, it's not that it doesn't make sense. It's just that I don't understand what's wrong with what we have now. It does, in fact, say, and I hope you'll hear that again, that the...

Yes, sir. Okay. And normally the village attorney would be the attorney, but the board was allowed, if it decided to, to hire a different attorney just to represent this board, and that's what was done. How long have you done that assignment for us?

I agree right with those six. not the original ordinance? MR.

I guess what I was trying to get at is your job then is to work for this board.

Just a question. Basically, it was sort of kicked back to you to come up with a plan. The council did not approve a plan, but sort of kicked it back to come up with options. Is that correct?

A question. Can this board simply award another year of eligibility and get all around this?

From my point of view, the goal is to solve for this particular problem because the question at the end, how competitive is it compared to our plan to peer group plans? And I think that this doesn't even begin to address that because it focuses on one very narrow section of the plan. Again, I would urge that what we do is simply add a year, then B would come into effect and be done.

And what's there makes a lot of sense. It's been very effective. If you want to do that, that's fine. But what are we writing this new legislation for? I mean, I think what we really need to do and what the council wants to do is to address this specific situation. No one on the council was happy with simply returning the money. So that's not

I talked to numerous employees about this situation and what people would like to see done. One of the things is what we don't have here is if a guy leaves, if a guy works 10 years and he's vested and he leaves and goes somewhere else or whatever and his intention to draw his money at age 62. If he passes away before age 62, there's never been a benefit for that person. so what you know the employees and different people we've talked about is to when they leave or when they're vested to sign the paper to say what they want to do with their pension so that they are you know covered as people th

So if it's a 10-year, we'd be on that percentage, not a full 30 years.

But aren't you talking about really two problems here? Problem number one is this specific situation, and problem number two is the overall design of a plan, one of which is the issue you raised here, but also this is a 20-year-old plus plan. So I think the real thing is should we go back and look at the entire plan, but I think first we should fix this. And in my mind, the easiest thing to do is for us to say, well, add a 25th year by simply charging it against the plan. Now you can ask somebody to pay for it. And then the family can get the benefits immediately. And that solves problem numbe

That's sort of my point. The saying we'll add a 25th year of service as if he had retired, had died at 25 years, then Section B kicks in at that point. and then paid that benefit, which solves the immediate problem, then go back and look at the plan overall. Because I think we're trying to fix the plan a little bit to solve a singular problem.

So let's do the others, but let's do this separately.

to do something. The council unanimously felt that we needed to do something for this individual to address this. So whatever we can do to do that, I think we should.

Wasn't he here 27 years? And he's age 54?

So he was over the 25 years that we keep saying...

And it's age 55. He was a year shy of that. He was a year shy of 55. So that's why he didn't get the thing. What we proposed, I thought, was for her to be able to wait until his 30th anniversary.

2029 and draw a 27-year pension, you know, on his years of service, whatever it is, that pension number be that amount on his 30th anniversary. That's what we were proposing. But the thing that we didn't have was her age and difference, what the lesser amount was. We said the full amount. But it should be the amount that your spouse would get.

It should be the reduced amount for her age or whatever it is.

That's what we proposed, but we did not have that in the writing, and that's what got kicked back. I think it should be the reduction of her age, whatever that is.

Well, I think we're not going to make a recommendation and change the plan. I think we're now, what is the recommendation for this specific case? That we can solve this problem hopefully here and go back to the council and say we suggest you do X.

Well, perhaps we should just get a sense of the group. If that's it, then we put it in its case of motion. I know how you feel, but I feel that it ought to be modified, as you all were talking about.

For this situation? Yes, for this situation.

So then what would be the specific recommendation for this case? Is it simply to add a year? No. Or maybe you can explain it a little bit.

I'm going to use 27 years because I don't know the exact amount. As a 27-year employee, his intentions would be to be here for 30 years. So his beneficiary would have been his wife. So his wife, on his 30th anniversary, would be able to draw his pension at whatever the amount is for the spouse of age difference. I don't know what that's called.

And whatever that reduction is, is what she should get.

But it would be the same impact if he would have lived and drew the pension for her. There's not really a big impact on the pension because he would have drawn it anyway if he would have made it to 30 years.

Am I correct that the benefit would not start for four years? Is that correct?

Whenever his 30th anniversary would have been.

It would be four years. Because I think it's retroactive.

And is that generally agreeable with the family? Is that correct?

I think that's the fair thing, not of this date. I think it would have to be on his 30th anniversary.

And what we're saying is that we will... Do it as if he retired on that date and died simultaneously. Correct. Yes. Is that a motion before us at this point?

MR. Jim, can I ask you a question? There will be no income then for three years? SECRETARY KERRY, Correct. MR. You think that's good?

I'm looking at what is fair, I think, for everybody. I don't want to single out a person for feelings. I think as a board or as we have to do for the group,

one incident in 20 years and maybe longer than that.

Can you hold one second? Sir, is it possible that before the item is voted on that we can entertain public comment?

I felt that, you know, we're talking about this situation. The thing I brought up earlier would be for the future and other things that we need to fix on 18A. We're just concentrating on this situation here. And my intention is that if he worked here 27 years, he was going to retire here. He was going to work the full 30 years and retire. whatever, then he would have drawn up the paper that they give and signed his beneficiary or whatever. So we're actually doing that ahead. So we're saying that he passed away. She will get his pension at the reduced amount, whatever that number is because of

Was to be able, for her, to be able to draw... his benefit on his 30th anniversary date. So whatever his 30th anniversary was, 2029. Yes, 2029. So she would be able to draw the amount of his pension of the reduction of the spouse.

It's 100% of his, but she gets less because of her age and different things.

Because if I died today, that's what my wife would get. And it would be fair that that would be fair for everybody.

Jim, what is she supposed to live on for the next three years?

Well, she did get a check from here for her life policy and different things. And

She did get a life insurance policy from here. I guess that she was the beneficiary. I don't know that.

Then we would have to grant the one year of age, too, for that.

Yeah, I think it should be on the 30th year is my...

I would say it's more limited. It's specific to this person.

But the ordinance date would be so limited it would be only this person. We know that because we passed those.

We already voted. We already voted. No, no.

It was for the 27, whatever his years of service, plus the reduction of whatever the reduction would be of her age.

Minus the amount of her age. Because of her, that's the joint, I think that's the joint.

No, it would be his 30th anniversary. Okay.

And that's what we were going to talk about in the next meetings when we come up with maybe some things to help the benefit of somebody that died at 10 years or once they're vested. MS. Okay.

MS. The taxpayers did it. The pension fund spent it.

A question, if I might, to the actuaries, if they could take a quick. What is our current actuarial liability? Do you have that decided?

Sort of your actuarial number is 22 and a half at present, give or take a few cents.

And I realize that you'd use a five-year average also on the actual. I understand that. But I'm just trying to get a sense of where we are in terms of funding. Okay, thank you.

And I would say that... We don't have any further action. No further action.

That's when I started, and it has dropped below the 100.

Yeah, but you've still got a P-E ratio at 40.

Can I ask you a question? Do you all consider, either of you also, geopolitical factors in your assumptions?

Also, if it's possible, this type of information being handed out at this meeting everyone else may be a lot smarter than I am but I can't absorb this think about it and cetera I'd love to get this information a week ago where I could have read each one of these papers and then be able to understand understand it better get handing this out at the meeting it's impossible to listen to the speaker and read this at the same time

Is this other than magisterial decision? Well, I think it's... Or is there a policy decision? Because if it's something magisterial, then you'd say it's okay as of that date and we simply approve it ex post facto.

And my question is, is approval anything other than pro forma?

That way you can read these really – But it says receipt, not vote.

So receipt is when somebody delivers a piece of paper The administrator.

It's received. I mean, if it had to be voted on, would the language not say it must be voted upon?

But that's something we have never done. We've never voted on somebody going in there. That's my point. It's never been done here.

Just to summarize. So March is wrong. It's when it was received. And it was received in November, correct?

Now, were we the only one that applied for this? I was being easy on you guys. You know that. I've still got problems with it.

I've got one more thing under new business. Yes, Trustee Birch. Okay. Who is setting the dates for these meetings?

I'm questioning the specific date that it's being done in that quarter and

I don't see that in the ordinance. Where did that come from?

Well, I'd like to present something then and have it discussed. In this village, we historically take one month off for people that are making a dollar a year or less. and I guess for most of you, you don't even get the dollar. And that month is August. And by holding this July meeting at the end of the month or whatever you're doing, then in essence, we're losing whatever time we had after that second council meeting to be able to get out of here and have maybe a little more time off. And so I would propose if no, I don't see how it hurts anyone that at least for that meeting that we move it

I'd love to trade checks with you for what we're receiving for this, but in the end, unless any of you are horribly opposed to that. I'm not opposed. I would like to see that moved as far up as possible. Our second council meeting is the second Tuesday of the month. Third. I'm sorry, the third Tuesday of the month. And, you know, we would like to have – that's the only time in the year we can ever get out of here. So it would be a big help if we could do that.

The only thing is our meetings are on the same day as the police one, and I think we have an agreement with – You might have to work something out with the police, too, to change their date. I don't think they would care. Because their meeting is right after this meeting, so we get two for one, basically. They don't have to make two trips, and it costs twice as much money.

If they would delay it till the first week of September instead of you know, but I mean again the one month we have is August and I'm trying to squeeze a little more time on to that You know to get the last week or so of July if it's if it's possible I'm not trying to create a problem, but you know, it's it's very difficult to You know, we'd all like to be able to engage in other activities too, so.