MINUTES OF MEETING
STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
55 ELM STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106
December 16, 2010
Peter Blum, Chair
Jeanne Kopek, Director, Retirement Services
Craig Henrici, Counsel to the State Comptroller
Colin Newman, Asst. Director, Retirement Services
Helen Kemp, Asst. Director and Division Attorney, Retirement Services
Peggy Gray, Executive Asst., Retirement Services
Nancy Paretti, Court Reporter
Mr. Ronald Shepard
Attorney Donna Civitello
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM.
The Declaratory Ruling that you see in your packet is just slightly changed from when we discussed it last. Helen Kemp and I spent some time fine tuning the document.
DIVISION DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Following the close of the December 2010 Retirement Payroll, the current backlog of unfinalized retirement records is approximately 10,881. The Division processed 86 new retirees to the payroll (67 normal, 19 disabilities). Finalizations for the month were 51.
An update on the backlog, we are currently working on August of 2005.
As of the November 30, 2010 the Division had 64 new Disability applications. 251 are still pending and 131 are scheduled for upcoming meetings, for a total pending 446. For the month of November 18 applications were received, 23 were put on the agenda and 12 applications were approved. The next available time for scheduling is July 2011. It should be noted that we are down to three doctors on the Medical Examining Board. It is difficult to get new cases heard with just three members and equally difficult to get written confirmation on the decisions that they render. The Comptroller is working diligently to get more doctors on the MEB.
1. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2010 MINUTES. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Ms. Yelmini to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2010 meeting. All voted in favor
2. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIRMENT COMMISSION CHAIRMAN'S PER DIEM EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Greatores to approve the State Employees Retirement Commission Chairman's Per Diem Expenses and Reimbursements. All voted in favor
3. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM SERVICE RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano
move, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement
System Service Retirements for the month of November 2010.
All voted in favor
4. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENTS SYSTEMS VOLUNTARY PENDING DISABILITY RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement Systems Voluntary Pending Disability Retirements for the month of November 2010. All voted in favor
5. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM DISABILITY RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano
moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement
System Disability Retirements for the month of November 2010.
All voted in favor
6. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETROACTIVE RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement System Retroactive Retirements for the month of November 2010. All voted in favor
7. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM PRE RETIREMENT DEATH BENEFIT RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement System Pre Retirement Death Benefit Retirements for the month of November 2010. All voted in favor
8. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTICUT PROBATE JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM SERVICE RETIREMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Connecticut Probate Judges and Employees Retirement System Service Retirements for the month of November 2010. All voted in favor
9. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE JUDGES, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATES AND COMPENSATION COMMISSIONERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETIREMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Judges, Family Support Magistrates and Compensation Commissioners Retirement System Retirements for November 2010. All voted in favor
10. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTICUT PROBATE JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND PERSONAL EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Connecticut Probate Judges and Employees Retirement Fund Personal Expenses for the month of November 2010. All voted in favor
11. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL RETIREMNT SYSTEM RETIREMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Poulin to approve the Municipal Retirement System Retirements. All voted in favor
12. REQUEST COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONNECTICUT MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND B BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Poulin to accept the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement Fund B Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2010. All voted in favor
13. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION MANAGEMENT TRUSTEE'S PER DIEM AND TRAVEL EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Greatorex to approve the State Employees Retirement Commission Management Trustee's Per Diem and Travel Expenses Reimbursements. All voted in favor.
14. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION UNION TRUSTEE'S PER DIEM AND TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Greatorex to approve the State Employees Retirement Commission Union Trustee's Per Diem and Travel Reimbursements. All voted in favor Mr. Poulin abstained
15. REQUEST COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVISED STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT AS OF JUNE 30, 2010. [ no motion needed ]
16. REQUEST APPROVAL OF TWO MATTERS CONSIDERED AT THE NOVEMBER 20,
2010 MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OVERPAYMENTS (case histories
A. Frank Kania (SERS) (member) - Overpayment of $5,543.66 due to decrease in state police supplemental benefit.
Action :Mr. Luciano moved; Ms. Yelmini second to accept the
recommendation of the Subcommittee on Overpayments and deny the request for a
waiver of repayment of an overpayment as Mr. Kania failed to meet all the
statutory and regulatory requirements required for approval. Unanimous
B. Amy Vasnunes (SERS member) - Overpayment of $18,811.03 due to receipt of retroactive social security disability benefits.
Action: Mr. Luciano moved; Mr. Fortier second to table action on Ms. Vasnunes request to the February 2011 Commission meeting. Ms. Yelmini voted No
Mr. Casella, Mr. Cosgrove, Mr. Poulin, Mr. Carey, Ms. Fae Brown-Brewton, Mr. Luciano, Mr. Coffey, Mr. McLellan, Mr. Dzurenda, Mr. Culley, Mr. Greatorex voted Yes.
17. HEARING: REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS OF REPAYMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS (case history and financial information)
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATIONS: HEARING
I. Ronald Shepard (MERS)
Mr. Shepard requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision to deny him a waiver. He and his attorney, Donna Civitello, attended the Commission meeting to present their case.
Background - Mr. Shepard
Mr. Shepard's overpayment is due to his receipt of workers compensation benefits while collecting SCD benefits. Mr. Shepard made application for a MERS SCD retirement benefit on August 24, 2005 retroactive to August 18, 2004.
Mr. Shepard collected workers compensation benefits (temporary partial disability) from August 2004 to February 2010. His SCD retirement application was approved on March 10, 2006 and he was sent a letter and was informed that he had to report a payment of workers compensation to MERS. He was collecting workers compensation benefits at the time he received the letter.
Basis of Request for Waiver (Original)
Mr. Shepard stated that he spoke with Angela Hooks (City of Bridgeport) about whether his workers compensation payments were an offset to his MERS SCD pension. Mr. Shepard stated that he was in no position to physically, mentally or financially to repay any funds.
Financial Information (pre-August 12, 2010)
|Amount of Overpayment||$ 94,892.31|
|Workers' Compensation||$ 1,590.00|
|CMERS monthly benefit (February 2010)||$ -0-|
|Monthly Income (Total)||$ 1,590.00|
|Annual Income (2008) return||$ 19,080.00|
|Bank statement||$ 945.00|
Up to February 2010 Mr. Shepard had $1561.86 in monthly MERS income however
his entire MERS benefit is now offset by the amount he receives for workers
At its June 29, 2010 meeting, the Subcommittee on Regulations and Overpayments examined Mr. Shepard's waiver request.
Action: Mr. Coffey moved; Mr. Caliendo second to recommend to the Commission to deny the request for a waiver of repayment of an overpayment as Mr. Shephard failed to meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements required for approval. Tie Vote: Messrs. Coffey and Caliendo voting in favor of the motion: Messrs. Casella and Culley voting against.
As it was a tie vote, Mr. Shepard's request went to the full Commission without a subcommittee recommendation.
In anticipation of the Commission meeting, and in light of some of the questions and issues that were raised with regard to his request for waiver, Mr. Shepard was asked to submit additional information and documentation. Mr. Shepard's additional information shows a weekly income of $366.95 and weekly expenses of $443.28. The documents he submitted support this reported his income and expense.
At its August 26, 2010 meeting, the State Employees Retirement Commission
denied Mr. Shepard's request for a waiver of the repayment of his overpayment
estimated to be $ 94,892.31
The Retirement Commission met on August 26, 2010 and heard Mr. Shepard's appeal. Based upon the information presented, it found that Mr. Shepard did not meet all three prongs (i.e. all of the statutory and regulatory criteria) for a waiver and thus denied his request for a waiver.
Mr. Shepard requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision and asked for a hearing.
Request for Reconsideration
Mr. Shepard testified on his own behalf at the hearing. His attorney, Donna Civitello, who had represented him in his workers compensation issues, also provided explanatory information and material.
Mr. Shepard did not deny receiving a letter stating that "[i]f you are or begin receiving worker's compensation benefits, please notify this office immediately. Compensation benefits could cause your retirement benefit to be offset." However, he took the step of checking with Angela Hooks (City of Bridgeport) about whether his workers compensation payments were an offset to his MERS SCD pension. Ms. Hooks was the City of Bridgeport benefit officer who advised employees about their MERS pension. Mr. Shepard stated that Ms. Hooks told him that the type of workers compensation benefits he received was not offset under MERS. Attorney Civitello noted that she offered to contact MERS to verify this information but that Mr. Shepard felt there was no need to verify since Ms. Hooks was sure there was no offset. Had Ms. Hooks been unsure then he would have asked Attorney Civitello to call and check.
Attorney Civitello also noted that the amount of the overpayment was wrong as the Workers Compensation Commissioner recently approved a retroactive re-designation (back to January 2009) of Mr. Shepard's TTD benefit to PPD which is not an offset to a MERS SCD. Therefore, his overpayment would change from $94,892.31 to $75,368.39 (a reduction of $19,523.92) and he would continue to receive a MERS benefit going forward.
Attorney Civitello also questioned Mr. Shepard with regard to his finances and his health. Mr. Shepard has no other income except for his MERS pension and workers compensation payments which (at this time) are scheduled to end in 2011. He is not eligible for social security disability because he worked for Bridgeport (a non-covered Town) and does not (did not) have enough "quarters" to qualify. He lives in a studio apartment, pays his own utilities and has an older car which he does not use because it needs repairs which he cannot afford. He does have cable TV but that is because he has no other form of entertainment; he does not go out to eat, to the movies, etc. He does spend money on hats but that is because he is bald and walks everywhere so he must protect his head from the sun. He has severe medical problems and needs another back surgery which at this time he cannot afford.
Attorney Civitello noted that there were still some on-going workers compensation activity and a formal hearing had been held. The result of this formal hearing will be determinative as to the continuation of Mr. Shepard's workers compensation benefits after 2011. Attorney Civitello stated it may take several months before the decision from the formal hearing is known to the parties.
The Commission discussed the matter and believed the results of the formal hearing will be useful in a determination of financial hardship should it reach that prong. The Commission thus believed that a decision could not be made at this time.
Action: Mr. Luciano moved; Mr. Greatorex second to table action on Mr. Shepard's request for reconsideration to the July 2011 Commission meeting.
II. Darryl Mickey (SERS)
Mr. Mickey has requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision with regard to his alleged underpayment. Mr. Mickey, and his attorney, Michael Budlong, attended the hearing.
The other parties, Ms. Morales and her attorney Daniel D. Dwyer, were apprised of the hearing and invited to attend. They did not.
Darryl Mickey was a hazardous duty - Tier II member of SERS. The Mickeys (the former spouse is now known as Ms. Morales) divorced in 2001. Prior to obtaining the PADRO - they contacted Counseling and was given an estimated retirement benefit based upon the Tier II /hazardous duty retirement benefit. The PADRO they filed with SERS - which was certified by the court - read in relevant part:
A. Amount of Benefits: The court herby orders the plan to pay the alternate payee for the benefit period, as defined below, an amount equal to 40% of the participant's monthly retirement benefit payments, as such payment may be adjusted in accordance with the plan provisions.
C. Benefit Period: Distribution of benefits to the alternate payee shall commence at such time as the plan participant retires and begins to receive monthly benefit payments from the plan. Distribution of monthly benefits provided under this order shall terminate upon the death of the plan participant.
The PADRO states that Ms. Morale's benefit is based upon Mr. Mickey's benefit at the time of retirement. Therefore SERS was directed to use Mr. Mickey's benefit at the actual time of retirement to calculate Ms. Morales benefit.
Mr. Mickey's last day on active payroll was July 1, 2003 - he applied for disability retirement. He was awarded disability retirement effective June 1, 2005. His disability retirement benefit was approximately $2,382.30 at the time of retirement. Pursuant to the PADRO on file, Ms. Morales was given $952.92 of the monthly benefit. Therefore, Ms. Morales was given $952.92 and Mr. Mickey was given $1,429.38: a total of $2,382.30.
Mickey filed a "motion for clarification" with the Superior Court (divorce court) on January 13, 2006 asking the court if the pension award included a disability retirement benefit. Mickey argued that: (a) the disability retirement pension was not contemplated by the parties and therefore Ms. Morales should not get any of it; or (b) in the alternative - she should only get that portion of it that is attributable to a "normal" Tier II pension. The trial court denied Mickey's motion for clarification on November 2, 2006. The court specifically noted in its opinion that there were not two distinct pensions at issue or two separate payments but rather one: the SERS retirement pension.
Mr. Mickey appealed this decision. There was no Appellate Court decision -rather on July 21, 2009 the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision.
The Connecticut Supreme Court case of Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) held that disability retirement benefits awarded under SERS as a result of a disability that incurred after a marriage has been dissolved did not constitute distributable marital property under General Statutes ? 46b-81.2. Rather - if a State of CT employee receives a disability retirement benefit after the divorce and a PADRO is entered - the retirement benefit is computed on what the "regular" retirement would be at the time of retirement.
The trial court revised its original order on October 7, 2009 - and made its order retroactive to the date of dissolution - eight years earlier. What did this mean for Mickey? Mr. Mickey's audited retirement information indicates that he terminated state service on July 1, 2003 (the date he retired under the disability provisions). If he commenced benefits under the normal ["regular"] retirement provisions (age 62) - his benefit = $1,205.72/mo. Under the 40% rate, the Division would compute Ms. Morales' base benefit (as of July 1, 2003) rate as $482.29 per month rather than the $952.92 per month she was given.
Ms. Morales' monthly benefit was adjusted accordingly (i.e. with appropriate COLA percentages) at that time.
Mr. Mickey's Claim - Division Position
Mr. Mickey's claim is very simple - he asserts that the Division owes him the difference between what it paid Ms. Morales and what it should have paid Ms. Morales.
The Division asserts that no money is owed to Mr. Mickey. The Division disagrees and asserts that: (a) Mr. Mickey is in the wrong venue: he should return to family court for any requested relief; (2) under family case law, the correct procedure is to seek a modified financial order - an order which traditionally requires Ms. Morales (not the Division) the party who was unjustly enriched, to reimburse Mr. Mickey for any overpayments
Both parties were represented by counsel. Ms. Morales was well aware that the monthly benefit amount she was receiving was being appealed and therefore was placed on notice that she might be overpaid. Mr. Mickey was on notice that if he was successful in his appeal that he would be underpaid. Neither of the parties secured any type of court order directing the Division to place any of the possible overpayment into any type of escrow account to be held until the matter was judicially resolved.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for both clarification and to issue modified financial orders. The parties should have addressed resolution of the overpayment with the superior court at that time - such as requesting a revised PADRO or ordering Ms. Morales to repay a certain amount each month to Mr. Mickey. They did not.
At the February 18, 2010 meeting of the State Employees Retirement Commission ("the Commission") the Commission unanimously voted to deny Mr. Mickey's request that it issue a decision confirming that he is entitled to a lump sum payment under Section 5-156c to account for the alleged underpayment of his pension benefits and a lump sum payment remedying the alleged underpayment.
Request For Reconsideration
On behalf of his client, Attorney Barrrett requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision. A hearing at which both Attorney Barrett and Mr. Mickey attended was held on December 16, 2010.
Attorney Barrett gave legal argument as to why the Commission should repay
Mr. Mickey the amount. Attorney Barrett's basic premise was that the Commission
(rather than Ms. Morales) should repay Mr. Mickey because it had a duty to know
in June 2005 what the Supreme Court decision held, as first impression, in July
2009. Attorney Barrett did not explain how the Commission could have
paid Ms. Morales a different amount than ordered by the Superior Court - an
order that remained in effect until July 21, 2009 the date of the Supreme Court
decision - without being in contempt of that order.
Action: Mr. Luciano moved; Ms. Yelmini second to deny Mr.
Mickey's request for reconsideration of its February 18, 2010 decision to deny
Mr. Mickey's request that it issue a decision confirming that he is entitled to
a lump sum payment under Section 5-156c to account for the alleged underpayment
of his pension benefits and a lump sum payment remedying the alleged
III. Frances Light (MERS)
Ms. Light has requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision to deny her a waiver. She has submitted additional information and has requested a review record of the denial of her waiver request as she lives out of state. She is not represented by counsel.
Background - Ms. Light
Ms. Light's overpayment is due to her receipt of workers compensation benefits while collecting SCD benefits. Ms. Light worked for the City of Bridgeport until July 2002. She had medical problems and it appears that the City put her on a Transitional Work Program for 90 days and then a medical leave of absence for a year. Ms. Light was not notified until December 2, 2003 that her one year leave of absence was up.
Ms. Light applied for a service connected disability benefit on December 18, 2003 (based on a last employment date of October 23, 2002. She was approved for a service retirement on March 26, 2004. Workers compensation payments are not an offset to a "regular" retirement. The service connected disability retirement was approved by the MEB on Friday, April 22, 2005 retroactive to October 24, 2002. Ms. Light received temporary total disability payments from July 1, 2003 to October 5, 2003 which are offsets against her service connected disability pension.
Ms. Light was sent a letter on May 25, 2005 informing her that if she
received workers compensation benefits she should inform MERS. She was not
collecting workers compensation benefits at the time she received the letter.
The letter did not state that she should inform MERS of any retroactive
Basis of Request for Waiver - Original
Ms. Light did not submit a written explanation at the time of her original waiver request.
Financial Information - Original
|Amount of Overpayment||$ 3,883.96|
|Social Security||$ 2,209.00|
|Rental Income||$ not listed|
|CMERS monthly benefit (April 2010)||$ 1,542.00|
|Monthly Income (Total)||$ 3,751.00|
|Annual Income (2009) return||$ 36,461.00|
|Monthly Expenses:||$ 2,903.33|
Subcommittee and Commission Action
The Regulation and Overpayment Subcommittee of the Retirement Commission met on June 29, 2010 to discuss Ms. Light's waiver for repayment of overpayment. Based upon the information presented to the Subcommittee, and after discussion, the Subcommittee recommended that the Retirement Commission deny her request for waiver.
The Retirement Commission met on July 15, 2010. Based upon the information presented, it adopted the findings of the subcommittee finding that Ms. Light did not meet all the statutory and regulatory criteria for a waiver.
Repayment of the Overpayment
After a review of Ms. Light's financial information, her repayment plan was
to have her retirement benefit reduced for 23 months by $161.83 and one month by
$161.87. This monthly repayment is approximately 11% of her monthly MERS
benefit and was found by the Division to be reasonable based upon all the
financial information provided by Ms. Light.
Request for Reconsideration
Ms. Light sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision (she cannot travel to Connecticut for a hearing and hence sought reconsideration as a record review). Ms. Light was informed that if she sought reconsideration, she would need to provide the Commission with her last six months worth of bank statements and to provide any information with regard to rental income or the homes she appears to own and/or co-own. She was informed that if she disagreed with any of the information or conclusions found by the Division or Commission she needed to provide statements and documents in support of her position.
Ms. Light explained she had several severe illnesses for which her deductible/ co-pay come to $82,455.97. She also stated that one of the homes the Division thought she owned was "not hers." She does receive rental income of $475 per month.
Updated Financial Information
|Social Security||$ 2,209.00|
|Social Security (spouse)||$ 2,001.00|
|Rental Income||$ 475.00|
|Pension (spouse)||$ 533.00|
|CMERS monthly benefit (April 2010)||$ 1,542.00|
|Monthly Income (Total)||$ 6,760.00|
|Annual Income (2009) return||$ 36,461.00|
|Bank statement||$ 1,454.00|
|Monthly Expenses:||$ 2,903.33|
The Commission discussed Ms. Light's request and her financial information to determine whether repayment of the amount of $3,883.96 was a financial hardship should it find that Ms. Light met the first two prongs of the waiver criteria.
Action: Ms. Yelmini moved; Mr. Casella second to deny Ms.
Light's request for reconsideration of its June 29, 2010 decision to deny her
request for a waiver of the repayment of the overpayment. Unanimous
18. REQUEST COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE MUNICPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM VALUATION AS OF JUNE 30, 2010
Action: Mr. Casella moved; Mr. Poulin second to accept the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System Valuation as of June 30, 2010.
19. EQUEST COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLICE AND FIRE SURVIVORS' BENEFIT FUND VALUATION AS OF JUNE 30 2010
Action: Mr. Casella moved; Mr. Poulin second to accept the Police and Fire Survivors' Benefit Fund Valuation as of June 30, 2010.
20. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTICUT MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND ADMINISTRATIVE FUND RATE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE (for FY 2011)
Action: Mr. Casella moved; Mr. Poulin second to accept the recommendation of the Actuarial Subcommittee to keep the administrative fee for the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System at $100 per employee and retiree.
21. DISCUSSION - FOLLOW UP COURT PRE-TRIAL OF 12/13/10 (DICKMAN) IN RE: HHD CV 10-5034551-s -DICKMAN V .STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION - EXECUTIVE SESSION
A motion was made by Mr. Luciano, second by Mr. Greatorex to go into executive session to discuss the next three agenda items: the results of the above pre-trial; the Wentzell declaratory ruling and legal advice regarding the Sag Award and to invite Acting Division Director, Assistant Division Directors, Division Counsel and Counsel to the Comptroller to remain.
Mr.Casella moved, second by Mr.Luciano to come out of executive session at approximately 10:25 AM
No motions were made with regard to the pre-trial agenda item.
22. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DECLARATORY RULING IN THE
MATTER OF TIMOTHY WENTZELL TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2011 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 5-155-1(e)(1)(A) OF THE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES
(Attached - executive session may be required for discussion)
Mr. Luciano moved, second by Mr. Greatores to come out of executive session at approximately 10:25
Action: Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Greatorex to approve the proposed declaratory ruling in the matter of Timothy Wentzell, incorporating the suggestions made by the trustees during Executive Session, to be issued December 16, 2010 in accordance with section 5-155-1(e)(1)(A) of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies. This ruling denies Petitioner's request to transfer from Tier II into Tier I.
Voting in favor of the motion: Ms. Brown-Brewton, Mr. Carey, Mr. Casella, Mr. Coffey, Mr. Cosgrove, Mr. Culley, Mr. Dzurenda, Mr. Greatorex, Mr. Luciano, Mr. Poulin, Ms. Yelmini
Voting in opposition to the motion: Mr. McClellan
23. STATUS - PROCUREMENT OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 SEBAC PENSION GRIEVANCE AWARD
Mr. Luciano moved, second by Mr. Greatorex to come out of executive session at approximately 10:25 AM
No motions were made with regard to the status of the procurement of legal services.
Mr. Greatorex moved, seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 AM. All voted in favor
Peter R. Blum, Chair
Jeanne Kopek, Division Director
Return to Meetings, Agendas and Minutes Home Page
Return to Comptroller's Home Page