Remarks by Jerome Charles
393 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 14 of 16
“Just lower it down to the bottom part of the phone. Just lower it down to the bottom part of the phone. That's where the speaker is.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“Are there any other public comments at this time? Council discussion? Second reading, no council discussion. Is there a motion?”
“There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Madam Clerk.”
“Before council discussion, it's a public meeting. Is there any public comment on this?”
“So we calculated what his benefit earned through his date of death was, or through the day before he died. That's fine for what you calculated, but those aren't the same numbers that you have in front of us, though. Because you're pushing it up to the 30 years of service.”
“But that's him, again, to Council Member Walensky's point, is that's his benefit. And we don't – there's a bunch of unknowns, and what's presented before us is not what we asked for. I can tell you that right now because the thing is there's a lot of assumptions here.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“That isn't what they were directed to do. yeah I mean that was the board the board's discussion led to that what's before us again is something that we didn't ask for and I could tell you that right now and in the discussion is and should have been a year ago is if the village itself is going to look at all the employees and have a document or an ordinance on there And it's tragic what happened to this family. How do you fix that in the 21st century? And there's other municipalities that have something, so that's not. This was age per person, per RB was age, and then how many years of…”
“is seeking out early retirement. And then what's before us is full retirement. So where did the miscommunication happen here? I hear that you say the pension board, but there's two different things here. If you're going to address, we have A, B, and then you come A, B, C, and C, what you're trying to change this over 50 years is just for one individual, and you're doing it by way of ordinance? It was not me or Adam that did that. Did they have direction?”
“so the board and then it's it's unusual for me that the last meeting there's no recording of it and the minutes haven't been approved until the next meeting so this is again before us the council doesn't have we have what's presented to us we don't have actually that discussion we have what you're telling me there's no representative other than mr bircher but i don't think he's speaking for the board he'd have to only speak as him he doesn't have board approval to speak tonight other than his opinion as a council member So, again, we ask for this, and yes, it's a year later, and then this is,…”
“No, but if this passes, don't go down that. If this passes as we pass it, then what? Then we wrote this for the one individual, then it reverts back to B?”
“This is the widow, though. You're creating then something for, I mean, to me, it's, what his point is, is what's with the son. You're taking three years for Miami Shores for the liability of this. What happens in between now and then?”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“Lisa. Lisa. My point to that one is, if you think about that, what the plan is, and it's audited, and it's a liability, but it's a trust asset, correct? Correct.”
“Right. And we're going to do – we're going to want to reward the 25 years of institutional longevity, right? That's what we're doing and discussing here, right?”
“And retention and we're encouraging and why wasn't there a discussion then if there was a gap in what Miami Shores has Then why are the other employees not discussed in that meeting? This is why it went back to them and it was also one of those earlier meetings that these are not capable of doing pension discussions, but we certainly are and I don't understand as our legal team and also they've heard what this board did since December and board members did and just like it was pointed on public comment it was 4-3 it's not unanimous I don't see I mean for me and these discussions have to…”
“I just would like to know, I mean, was there any discussion about a compassionate bridge payment? I mean, was there alternative discussion for like how the direction to go back to the pension board?”
“I do have one more question on that. Was the math done for the date of 54 years old and the wife's age?”
“Because that's the age his benefit would start. Understood. But why was the math done from that? If we're doing hypotheticals and he filled out the paperwork for early retirement and day one right after it, what's the wife's benefit?”
“Was that discussed? I don't have that calculation in front of me. But again, this board asked for that.”
“Was – just yes or no was that discussed to your best recollection? Was it – on this last one where this is before us, was it discussed that it was early retirement, yes or no?”
“Okay. But the case is an early retirement.”
“Were the numbers, again, I'll ask it again, were the numbers based on this for early retirement, yes or no? No.”
“But the whole discussion is that RB doesn't cover it. And what he would have been eligible for was early retirement. I don't know why the two-hour thing that we discussed this was not discussed in that meeting. You asked the people to watch it. I know that one person that did watch it on that board voted no.”