SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MINUTES

SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MEETING A Special Meeting of the General Employee Pension Plan Board was held via video conference on July 1, 2021, at 2:02 p.m. with Ms. Peddicord, Chair, presiding. Members present were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Gedney, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Courtney, and Mr. Harline. Staff members present were Mrs. Hawkins, Ms. Tauchus, and Mrs. Ramsey. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Request for Unreduced Pension (In accordance with Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (Except Police) - Division 3 - General Employee Pension Plan - Section 80-509(b) - Death of participant, etc. Mrs. Lynette Carson reviewed her late husband’s, Robert Carson, history of employment with the City of Dover and asked that the General Employee Pension Plan Board allow Bob to officially use his terminal leave which would allow him to retire directly from the City with his unreduced retirement benefits. Mrs. Kim Hawkins confirmed that the dates, times, and number of sick and vacation hours Mrs. Carson gave were correct. She stated that Mr. Carson only needed seventy-six (76) days to get him to his retirement date and he had eighty-five (85) days on the books. Mrs. Hawkins advised that the Pension Ordinance dictated that Mrs. Carson was eligible for a reduced pension and when cross- referenced with the DOE Labor Agreement which represented Mr. Carson, it indicated that a person was not eligible for healthcare if they had a reduced pension. She noted that Mrs. Carson was seeking an unreduced pension so she would qualify for healthcare effective June 1, 2021. Ms. Carolyn Courtney moved to approve Mrs. Carson’s request for an unreduced pension for Mr. Robert Carson. The motion was seconded by Mr. David Anderson. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Hawkins stated that during her tenure this was the first time the City had experienced this situation. Responding to Mr. Harline, Mrs. Hawkins stated that she would not be able to speak to the legal risk of granting Mrs. Carson’s request. The City would need to follow up with an attorney on that matter. Responding to Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Hawkins stated that if the request was not approved, Mrs. Carson would never be eligible for healthcare because of the reduced pension. She advised that the ordinance was clear as to how a reduced pension was calculated. Mrs. Hawkins noted the two things to consider were the benefits and the goodwill to a long-term employee and the family, or the financial cost, current and long-term, to the City. Responding to Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Hawkins stated that if the request was granted she was not sure how to proceed and staff would have to figure out how to do it from a payroll standpoint. She noted the terminal leave would not be taken in its normal fashion as the City was not able to provide compensation to a person who had passed away. She advised that any time an exception of any type was approved it left the door open for additional exceptions. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Anderson stated that if both sides agree to the matter, there would not be a legal dispute. He advised that he was not an attorney but his opinion was that the Code was

GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD, POLICE PENSION RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, AND OPEB BOARD MEETING OF JULY 1, 2021 PAGE 2 vague in this area. Mr. Anderson noted that if approving the request set a precedent, it was a precedent he was comfortable with and he felt it should be clarified in the Code to support this type of unique circumstance that earned terminal leave would count towards retirement. Mr. Anderson stated that if Mr. Carson had lived and been totally and permanently disabled he would have been eligible, so he felt that the inequity seemed wrong. Ms. Peddicord stated that she was concerned with the payroll aspect if this was to be used as a precedent and she thought that legal counsel would need to be consulted in that respect. Responding to Mr. Harline, Mrs. Hawkins confirmed that there was no reduction in benefits if an employee was permanently disabled per Chapter 80 - Personnel, Article IV. - Pension Plans and Retirement Benefits (Except Police) - Division 3. - General Employee Pension Plan - Section 80- 508. - Amount of Retirement Benefits and Section 80-510. - Early retirement due to permanent disability. Responding to Mr. Harline, Ms. Peddicord stated that she could not remember if the Board had set a precedent to pay out sick leave and vacation benefits owed to an estate in prior instances. Mrs. Hawkins clarified that the ordinance would provide Mrs. Carson 50% of Mr. Carson’s pension. Ms. Courtney moved to approve the request before the Board to treat Mr. Robert Carson’s accrued leave as terminal leave which entitled Mr. Carson and/or his beneficiaries to the reduced 50% benefit and benefits associated with retirement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gedney and unanimously carried. Responding to Mrs. Hawkins, Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to work with her to discuss the possibility, including the ramifications, of changing the ordinance. Mr. Anderson echoed Mr. Harline’s suggestion that, once ready, this item be added to a Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee agenda. Mr. Taylor moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Lori Peddicord Chair, General Employee Pension Plan Board LP/mr S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Misc-Minutes\PENSION AND OPEB\2021\07-01-2021 SPECIAL GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN BOARD MINUTES - MR.wpd