We seem to have a quorum this morning in the new year, and this is the January 8th, actually 2020. The agenda says 2019, but we are already into 2020, and this is the meeting of the Police and Fire Pension Board, and I want to welcome everyone, and we'll go ahead and start right through our agenda with the Treasurer's Report. Morning. Morning. You should have in your packet all the various financial reports, including the change in net assets for October-November, as well as the fund reconciliation for November-December and the checking account statement, as well as the transfer authorization letter. And today, save your manager mix, we hit a milestone today. The valuation of the plan is now at $801,634,278.83, which compares to last month at $785,890,885.99, so yay. The stock market's on a roll. On a roll. Can't promise anything next month. That's right. Being over $800 million is a first for us as well. First. First. This is a big one. Save these. Very good. All right. Are there any questions from anyone? Make a motion to approve the report and authorize the transfer. All right. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Let's move on to new business. Susan, would you want to take us through and start us with the ghost time? Yes, ma'am. Item number one on the new business is ghost time purchases for Shawn Lawson and Caleb Wade. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Item number two, widow's benefit for Melody Featherston. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Do I? All right. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. All right. That motion passes. Before we do number three, can you give us a little bit of background? Yes. Wallingford Law is actually, he's retiring. Whitney Wallingford is retiring. So he will no longer be in business. Brian Ritchie, which is the gentleman that we have been dealing with solely through Wallingford Law lately, is moving to Stull, Kenan and Ogden. He notified me, I would say late December. And what you have in the packet is if we want to continue using Brian Ritchie, there is an authorization in the packet to actually move the file from Wallingford Law to Stull, Kenan and Ogden. Is Wallingford closed right now or when do they close? I believe the end of December is when he closed, you know, he retired. And so where are the files now? Still with Wallingford Law. Okay. Yes, he still has the files. Okay. I want to ask, where's, is Keith Horn in? There you are. Of course you're in your usual place. It's a new year, sorry. To speak a little bit to this in relation to Stull, Kenan. We at the very least needed a little bit of time to look at this because I wasn't aware of it until recently as well. There are likely conflicts with Stull, Kenan, and so I need a chance to talk probably to Brian Ritchie and to figure out whether or not it is likely they would actually ever be able to provide representation to the board. If Wallingford will probably hold those files, but if not, they could go ahead and transfer them to us because they're technically the board's files and we would maintain them. Temporarily. Temporarily or potentially permanently. We don't use a lot of outside counsel. When we have needed it, we have used Wallingford and Brian has been doing it most recently. But we just, I would suggest you at least pass this to February to give me a chance to figure out if it would be appropriate to transfer those files. So you would check on the conflict of interest situation. What's your, you mentioned temporarily transferring to law, what's your feeling on whether we should do that or not? It sounds like Wallingford's closed. I mean, what do they do with their files when they close? They'll have an obligation to maintain them at least until they get transferred to the appropriate place. I don't have a problem if you want to go ahead and have them transferred to us to maintain. Now, part of that will be electronic, which I presume they're storing either on a drive or in some capacity they'll be able to pass it to us. It shouldn't be a large amount of files from Wallingford, but. Well, so then you, if we find out, I mean, we either will use Stahl-Keenan or we won't. And once we find out the conflict issue, then we could either find, if there is a conflict enough that we can't use them, we will either find someone else or, you know, figure out where to put them. But it bothers me a little that they're closed and we would leave them there. The issue wouldn't technically arise again until there comes a need for outside counsel again. At which point, if we have the files and they believe it's necessary, we would then transfer them to whoever you ended up retaining on the next issue. Okay. All right. I have a quick question. By transferring, do you mean to transfer to the pension board or to the Department of Law? They would, I would assume you would want us to maintain them. Yes. They're pension board files, the representation stuff. But as a practical matter, in terms of housing them, I don't know where else you might want them transferred to. They're legal files, correct? Correct. That's right. They're legal files. They're legal files of the pension boards, correct? Mm-hmm. Yeah. You'd probably be more comfortable with them being with the pension board in the pension office. Does the pension board hold other legal files that are law-related? That doesn't ... I do have copies of opinions that are in my office. You're not the holder of legal, I would assume, Brian is. I think the law department has a copy of the opinions as well as I do. So we both have them. Both legal services are coordinated through the law department. Other thoughts? Why don't we just let ... I mean, it's only going to be a month, so let's just not transfer them, hold off until February until we know whether we're going to be able to use them or not. Talk to Wallingford to see if he can hold them. That way, they're not transferred to anybody until we have a decision, and if we have to find another attorney to represent the board, then we can bring up the decision of transferring it to the law department until we hire a new representative. What we do. Keith, you're going to be speaking to him anyway regarding conflict, and so does that work for the board members to ask him if he can hold on to them for another month? We'll need a motion to come back in February to give Keith some time to check out the conflict of interest. Excuse me. I make a motion we table the Wallingford decision until February's meeting and confirm that Wallingford will hold the files until we've made a decision in February. Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. Is there any further discussion? We hear correspondence from you between now and the February meeting on what the decision is. It's not something that's going to be thrown on us in February, like, hey, we're going to now move the files, or we're picking a new counsel to go with. Well, let me make sure that everyone understands. You won't be picking a new counsel at this point. This question is purely whether or not, as Wallingford winds down his law practice, which usually takes an attorney a little while, even after you retire to wind down, Brian has done work for us. He's going to Stoll, so naturally I think we'll take the client with us. If you read that waiver they've sent, they themselves indicate that they have to determine whether or not there are any conflicts before that occurs. So it's really right now a question of where those files end up, because even if they were transferred to Stoll-Keenan, and I'm very doubtful that that's going to be possible, you could end up picking an attorney later that's not with that firm, and then you have the same sort of exchange of information for whoever you decide to end up using on an outside basis later. It's really a question of where to house the files that Wallingford has. So yes, we will . . . there's no reason why we can't communicate with you between now and then to say that we've . . . I don't want to say made a decision, but what my recommendation for you would be at that point. Yeah. Does that answer your question? Yes, ma'am. Okay. We don't like surprises. I don't like surprises. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. Is there any other . . . the motion is to table this until February. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much for that. So that will be . . . we'll have a report out in February. All right. Item number four is the actuary. We need to set the city's funding rate for FY 2021. Make a motion we adopt the actuary's report from December and set the rate at 38.63 percent as recommended for fiscal year 21. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? See none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now, number five is unknown to many of us. So I'd like to ask . . . I'd like to not have a motion right away because some of us don't even know what this is. Item number five is the computer directory folder for the pension office. Since hiring Tonya, all of the calculations that I run for active employees, ghost time calculations are all housed on my computer. So she doesn't have access to them. So I thought a simpler way of having us both have access to the files that are on my directory or my computer as well as her having access is to have a joint folder that we only had access to to communicate and keep the same spreadsheets. That way we're not . . . I'm not housing something on my computer and she's not housing it on her computer. So I thought this was the simplest way of doing it. Obviously, I didn't realize it was going to cause issues. So right now, I'm emailing her spreadsheets and then she's updating it, emailing it back to me, and then I'm resaving it on my computer. So we're trying to keep it . . . trying to streamline the whole process is what I was trying to do to where she had access to my data on my computer, an easier way. Okay. In a nutshell, that's what I was asking for. And this is the same folder that I think it's accounting, our accounting has access to, correct? No. Whatever's on my computer is on my computer. So everything that I have calculated, annuities, ghost time, costs, things like that, they're all housed on my computer, which is my directory. So it's not on a accounting directory. It's on my computer, which is backed up through IT. Okay. It seems to me that . . . and . . . are you still Sergeant Kennard? I apologize. That's very embarrassing. I am so sorry. That's . . . you know, I'm so . . . I so don't want to call somebody by the wrong title. I already promoted him once, remember? Your name is beside this. How about . . . was this item brought up at a meeting and put on the agenda, or is it something that . . . you know, we usually vote to put things on the agenda. It seems . . . no. We do not vote to put stuff on the agenda, no ma'am. It's if any member that wants something on the agenda requests that it be placed on the agenda. That's past practice. This chair really likes to understand what's on the agenda for future reference. I think it's very difficult for a chair to have an agenda which he or she doesn't know what's on it. So I think this would be something that I would like to understand, and I would like to talk with you about it, Susan, and perhaps discuss it in February. I don't know the importance of this, or the priority of this, or what it actually is about. So would that work for the board? For me, no ma'am. No. No. So . . . So . . . issues . . . go ahead, Chief, sir. Is there really a board issue or an internal management issue that might need to be taken up? I'm going to address that. It's a board internal management issue, in that Susan and Tonya work for the pension board. And I understand that, but we're really just talking about the computer logistics, really, and we're talking about office management. So I'm not sure if it's something we really need to weigh in . . . well, I'm asking. Is it something we really need to weigh in? Is there something . . . since it's only between them and not us, is it something our managers need to talk about? It's not solely between them. I think the issue that has arisen when the request was made . . . Bill O'Mara and I spoke about this, and unfortunately Bill can't be here today, and I know Bill was working towards a solution on this. But since he couldn't be here, I wanted to bring it up to the rest of the board to make everyone aware of what was going on so we could discuss it. And I think for today, I do want to put forward a motion that I think gets us a temporary fix that we can adjust later, so that the two of them can work together. Right now, with them emailing files back and forth, in order for Susan to have the most up-to-date, correct form, she has to make sure that any work that Tanya does, that she provides to Tanya, that Tanya sends back, that Susan saves it into that file. If they have a shared file folder for the pension office, they're both able to go in, work on that form, and the latest adjustment they do, that's it. It's there. It's done. So there's no discrepancy over, is this the correct form or not? Is this the latest one from the most recent email? So in streamlining, and also in order for Tanya to continue to learn the functions of her job, it would be very advantageous for them to have that folder. Where we got into the discussion and some trying to understand who should have access to that folder, that's where Bill and I had some discussions about that, and I think maybe he, I don't know, we spoke with Keith or someone else in the Department of Law about it, but I know that the Director of Accounting also wanted access to that file. At no point in time has anyone other than Susan had access to those computer files. Hard copies have been provided to accounting to double-check, to make sure that all calculations are done in compliance with KRS so that the finance commissioner can sign off and say that yes, we agree that these numbers are correct. So I would simply ask that we be able to create a shared folder at this time that they can work and operate out of with the ability to go in at the future with further discussions when Commissioner O'Mara is back to see about if additional people do need access to that computer or to those files. Thank you. That makes sense to me. Thanks. I think, if I could, Mayor, just to try to help, I think that the concern is technically the Pension Board is an independent organization from the Police Department, the Fire Department, LFUCG. And the concern is that even though there's a relationship and a co-interdependence between everybody still trying to maintain some level of distinct independence for the employees of the Pension Board. There are going to be times, not only from an efficiency standpoint, but also dealing with medical records, et cetera, where having unique access for just the two of them and not involving two or three different levels of supervision that are not technically members of the Pension Board, obviously Mr. O'Mara is, so that's different. But having other people who work for Bill have access to that information when it's technically Pension Board information, not city information, is what's caused the concern. Are these government files? Are they in any way, is government in any way responsible for them? And I know about this much about this. Yeah. And this is one of the, excuse me for interrupting, this is one of the distressing things for me is I was not told about this in any detail. So it's very hard in the board meeting to get a full grasp of what in the world this is about. And recognizing that these are government systems. Okay. The computer systems are government systems. So these are board files, but they're on government systems. The government has a responsibility for both, from an accounting standpoint and an auditing standpoint, responsibility for those files. We also have a system with our enterprise solutions and computer services. The way these files are created, there's a system those go through. There are, to my knowledge, no systems where only one or two employees have access that supervisors do not have access to. There are governmental standards related to audits annually, review, et cetera. So I don't think anyone has an issue necessarily with creating a directory folder for it. But there would be an expectation in the government that that would be created in the ordinary course that they create any other directory folders or programs, et cetera. So I'm not sure that you're ready to say to create this folder now with no other accesses to it. I'm also not sure that you can say that because they're governmental systems. I'm going to suggest again you wait at least a month for there to be this discussion. Meanwhile, this could go ahead and be created and the issues resolved prior to that. But I can't tell you right now that even if your motion passed, that the government would say we're going to go ahead and create that folder. So. Because it's on government systems. Because there's too many, yes, there's too many questions right now about those standards for basically financial standards, auditing, accounting, et cetera. And I can't tell you right now, I can tell you that there are many, many record systems that only certain people have access to or should have access to. But among all of those systems, you're only accessing records when it's necessary for your job. That's true for Susan and Tanya, too. They're not theoretically supposed to just be scanning through records because they're curious about something. They're accessing it when they have to do their job. Computer services, someone is going to have access to those files. It's necessary because it's part of their job. They maintain the computer. When, Keith, when our government is audited next fall or after close of business in July, are these files audited? I think. With the government audit? And that's something else we need to check on, that that goes in as a statement in the CAFR or something related to that stuff. So I just don't know that we have enough information right now that I could tell you it's okay to create this system the way that perhaps some people are wanting to create it. It seems to me the issue, I totally understand that these two women who are so critical to this board's functioning have to have, they need a shared file. I think the question is whether they are the only people who can get into that file. And that's the government, for me, that's the government question is if they're on government system and they're audited and they follow all the rules of government, then there may be an issue there, if I'm understanding this. I think that that's a fair summary statement about it. And I mean, we don't want to make your job harder. We want to make it easier. I think that's not the question here from what I've heard. Well, to me, a simple solution at this point is that Susan, Tanya, and Commissioner O'Mara have access to those files and that solves that. And because that, per KRS, that's what he's charged with, is overseeing that. Now, again, as I said, it's not to say that we can't at a later time have further discussion to see after talking to Bill, do we, the board, agree that some additional people have access to that? And I totally understand that. And of course, commissioners delegate things. And that is certainly within his purview. The difficulty right now is he won't be here for a while. So he does have people who are in charge in his place. So we need to take that into account. And I don't think we can wait, because he may not be back for a while. You know what I'm saying. I understand. And that's part of the reason I wanted to talk about this today, because my concern is long term, what if Bill does not come back? So that's why we need to be addressing this now. And I understand what Keith is saying. I think he makes some valid points. But at the same time, I think the way that we are governed by KRS is different than a lot of other things. I know that through the CAFR, the city carries a lot of other outside entities that you have to get their accounting from them and report that. I know when you talk about auditing, Bill and I talked about that. And one concern that, frankly, I brought up to him is that I know that we've talked that maybe we've not audited the fund that we ought to. However, also, I've got a larger concern that the city, at times, has not put the money in. So when we get to talking about auditing, and we find a three quarter of a million dollar mistake on the part of the city, that's a little bit larger of a concern to me from the auditing standpoint than a file sharing access. So again, I would like to be able to go on ahead and get this set up for them. So I am going to make a motion at this time that we set up a shared folder for Susan, Tanya, and Bill to be able to access those files. Do I hear a second? Second. OK. I'd like to, is there any comment, or? We've had plenty already, but is there more? Anyone want to comment? I'd like to turn the chair over to Chief and ask him to call on me, please. As the chair, I shouldn't call on myself. The board would like to call on Mayor Gordon. Thank you. I'm a little uncomfortable, including Bill O'Meara, in this knowing he's not here, and he cannot respond right now to this. And so I wonder if we can, if we could, it seems like we ought to be able to amend this to have it Bill or his designee. Because Bill, you all know Bill's not here, and Bill won't be here for a while. So when we include him in the motion, it's a moot point. He cannot call you today and say X or Y. So my thinking would be that we need to have Bill or his designee, or maybe that's implicit, Keith. A commissioner can delegate anything. Correct? That is correct. And I don't know necessarily, I don't understand the expectation or the problem. That's part of my issue with this. Yeah. If, for example, we're sharing hard copies of things with accounting because they have to be reviewed, I'm not fully understanding what the issue is. And so I cannot tell you, like I said, even if you pass this motion, if our people say it is inappropriate to establish it that way, I don't think it's going to be established. We'll have to come back next month and say there's a problem with it. And all I'm suggesting is that maybe, over the next month at least, we try to have a discussion to see if any of that can be ironed out before you try to take some sort of action on it. Bill probably has more information than anyone else. Whether or not he's able even to discuss that, I do not know. There are accounting and auditing standards that I just don't understand that I know that our professionals do understand. And it's the reason why some of those professionals have supervisory responsibility or accountability responsibilities, because that's what they do. It's the nature of their profession, not my profession. So if everyone understands, there's no confusion that even if this motion passes, it would mean that Bill or his designee or whoever he delegates that to, that that's what's going to happen. Okay, thank you. Again, there may be issues with other divisions creating this file folder with permissions in it, et cetera. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your opinion. Given all of that, I greatly respect the intent here, and I think it is probably necessary to have the shared file. I'm not comfortable with the other parts, so I'm going to vote no. I would support a motion that is stated a little differently that gives access to whoever the, I mean, who do you report to, Susan? You know, you've got a boss, right? Direct report is to Phyllis Caper. Yes. I mean, there needs to be someone, I think, for that connection. So I think we'll get here, but on this particular motion, I'm going to vote no. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. I'll turn the chair back over to the mayor. All right. Thank you. Other comments? Questions? If I could. Yes. I'd just like to point out, as we stand currently today, all of those files are unaccessible to anybody else in government because they're on her hard drive, and when she turns off her computer. Susan's. On Susan's hard drive. So if she turns off her computer, no one else has that. None of her supervisors have access. That's not to say that they can't contact somebody in the computer services to go into her drive when she's online, and I get that. But from a practical standpoint, all of those files currently are restricted only to Susan, and she's using email to transfer them back and forth, or she could use the thumb drive to transfer it back and forth. So in creating a shared folder in line with Sergeant Kenard's recommendation, I certainly understand trying to involve Mr. O'Mara when he's not here as being a valid concern. My concern is, as always happens a lot in government, is we continue to push things down the road, and efficiency continues to suffer as a result. And the risk we have is the efficiency that those two are trying to work together and teach each other and become more valuable employees versus continuing to limp along with this makeshift system. And it's something that if law or whomever determines later we need to adjust it, I think we can adjust it. But I think it's probably not best business practice to let great get in the way of good enough to move forward. And I think this, in my opinion, this is good enough to move forward so that they can start operating, and if we need to tweak it down the road because it doesn't meet an auditing standard or it doesn't meet another standard, then we go, okay, let's do this in addition. Do we know how we got to the position that Susan's the only person who has these files? That doesn't make sense to me. Yes, Chief. I was going to ask, but since you brought it up, I was curious as to who had access to it now and since you brought that up. And I'm just sitting here thinking, you know, we're talking about putting things on the main server. Is that really something that we have to do to link them up or even link them with Mr. O'Mara? Could there be another computer solution for that access? Maybe like share a hard, I don't know if it's possible to share a hard drive through a shared USB. I think it would be possible to do that or it would be possible to create some kind of cloud access for them. It's all going to the cloud anyway, correct? We're in the process. And I don't know if that's legal. And let me clarify one thing. No one is suggesting that the folder not be created and the sufficiency go forward. Today, that folder could be created, but the government would create it under the standards they typically do. The dispute seems to be between who should have access to it. If you want that created, it can happen, but your motion would be they go ahead and create the folder in the ordinary course that they would. You're asking for a deviation from that. And I think that's what the discussion has been about. And notwithstanding who has had access, you need to consider, all of us need to consider, is that a good or best practice even though it's been that way for years and years? Just because it's been that way for years and years doesn't mean there shouldn't be some sort of adjustment in it. We all agree that both of them need to have access and be able to learn and share that system. It's just a question of ultimately what kind of access parameters are set on the folder. I've seen the form that was submitted. I'm not asking for a deviation from the way, from the information that goes on the form. The form was submitted for Susan and Tanya to have access to that. It came back to Bill when it was forwarded to Phyllis for Phyllis Cooper to also have access. And that's when this discussion started. So that's why I made the recommendation that we have Tanya and Susan and the finance commissioner that complies with that form. I'm not trying to argue any of this with you. In the ordinary course of people getting access to computer systems, that form goes to someone's director. For me to get access to a system, my commissioner has to sign the form. So the form would go to whoever supervises the people in the pension office. That's the natural course of things. If that director has an issue or does not sign, then that form does not go forward. That's what we're talking about, the ordinary course of how these things are created and who gets access to them. And that's true to my knowledge of every system that we have in the government. If I may, two things. First of all, I think that actually speaks to the point where we're starting to blur lines between LFUCG and the pension board, which is part of the concern, because while Susan and Tanya on paper may report to Phyllis, the reality is they work solely at the pleasure of this board. They're unclassified civil servants, and they work solely at the pleasure of this board for the pension board. And this pension board pays their salary, and this pension board pays their benefits. So again, that's kind of that blurring of the lines. Secondly, in line of kind of what Chief Weathers had suggested, perhaps the two that motioned in second might consider amending it to also investigating some sort of shared hard drive, where their two commuters could somehow be connected to a hard drive that is not part of the network, in which case then they can work from the same files. And that actually then solves our problem of who has network access to a folder. So those are my two, one comment and one suggestion. Thank you. For issues that come directly to the commissioner, who is handling those now? Wes Holbrook. You may or may not know Wes from the commissioners. Yes, I work with Commissioner O'Mara, and for issues that are coming to the commissioner's office right now, I'm working through those with CAO Sally Hamilton. Okay. So given the motion that's on the floor, which includes Commissioner O'Mara, that would come to you? Along with the CAO, yes. Okay. All right. What other questions are there, comments? Can I just clarify one thing, is that whatever is on my computer, the hard paper is actually the calculation for the ghost time and or the annuity amount. So what's on my computer is not the final and audited copy. What is in the individual's folder is actually their annuity, so it cannot be changed. So we actually go with the hard copy that's in the file. That is what auditing, which is accounting, receives. So what our shared directory would be is us running the calculation, coming up with the numbers, printing it out, you know, and giving it to accounting to approve. So, I mean, what's on our directory is not the final audit part of it. It's the actual physical copy, so nothing can be changed. I don't think I haven't heard anybody disagree with a shared file for you. I think it makes perfect sense. So, Chief, will you take the gavel again? The board recognizes the mayor. Thank you. Given that the system in place while Bill is out is that Wes Holbrook and CAO Hamilton are the go-to people, if this motion passes, that would come to you, correct? Yes, it would. Okay. Okay, so just by automatic, how you're handling day-to-day for a commissioner. So I'm going to support this with Bill O'Mara in the motion and knowing that it will go to the proper place. I don't think anybody disagrees that both of you need access to this. That's kind of a no-brainer. And I'm all about not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. I was glad you said that. So this will enable that the motion be handled through the system. I finally am getting it. So, that's all. The board relinquishes back to the mayor. Thank you. Anything else? So, given the discussion we've had and with understanding that Keith says it's still, they may not be able to access it right away or whatever, I would like to amend my motion, okay, in that, that I heard was that they have a shared hard drive. And maybe that's the easiest fix. So, I would like to make the motion that either the city look into giving them this shared file that's on the city server, or if that's not feasible, then the board purchase them a shared hard drive or cloud system, whatever it may be, so that they can access those files. Is there a second to the amendment? I'll second it. Any discussion of the amendment? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. So, the main amendment on the floor, then, is amended. So, is there any final discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. I would just simply ask, out of respect to the entire board, that in the future, these kind of issues have some kind of vetting before they get put on the agenda. I understand the urgency of this, totally. But I think many of us weren't aware of this. And so, Susan, if you can kind of give us a little briefing or something, heads up, a summary of what's coming. Okay. If there's an item that gets on here that's not been discussed. Yes, ma'am. So that people understand what it is. And I will ask that also anybody that actually asked for something to be placed on the agenda is to give me, instead of me writing it, because I'm not the one asking for it. Yes. They can do the summary. Yes. Is to provide a summary. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Let's move on. Item number six is disbursements for January. They're listed on your agenda. I need a motion to approve. So moved. Do I? All right. And a second. Are there questions? Comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next on the agenda is retirements, disabilities, and resignations. Service retirements for the police department. Officer David Sadler retired December 21st, 2019. Officer Christopher Holliday and Officer Christopher Martin retired January 3rd, 2020. Officer Kevin Watts, Officer Kevin Jones, Officer Keith Miller, Commander Guy Green, Commander Douglas Pape, all retired on January 4th, 2020. I need a motion to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any comments? Yes. I would just like to correct. David Sadler is a sergeant. And Keith Miller is a sergeant. I don't think they want to be demoted before they retire. Somebody didn't promote them. Someone demoted them before they retired. I demoted them. Sorry. So it was Sergeant Sadler. Sadler is a sergeant. And Keith Miller is a sergeant. And the other ranks appear to be correct. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Any other comments or questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Fire retirements. We have a lot, so be patient. January 3rd, 2020. Battalion Chief Mike Farmer, Firefighter Tim Thomas. Retirement on January 4th, 2020. Retirement on January 5th, 2020. Firefighter Scotty Heiden. Firefighter David Gillum. Captain Harlan White. Major Carl Tackett. Lieutenant John Blanton. Firefighter Charles Stacy. Firefighter Roger Smith. Firefighter Alex Hardy. And Firefighter Mark Eads. I need a motion to approve. All right. Thank you. Any corrections or comments? Captain Roger Smith was a firefighter. I read him correctly, but on the sheet it shows a captain. So he should be firefighter? Yes, ma'am. See, he got promoted. Okay. Other corrections, additions, comments? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes. Next on the agenda is tributes. Martha Johnson, widow of William Johnson, Division of Police. Passed away on November 30th, 2019. Morris Featherston, Division of Fire. Passed away on December 11th, 2019. And Everett Dale Jones, Division of Police. Passed away on December 23rd, 2019. All right. Are there comments for tributes or retirements? Mr. Mayor, I had the pleasure of working with and knowing Morris Featherston, and I'd like to express our condolences to his family. I also had the pleasure of knowing Dale Jones from back at the police department forever ago, and I'd like to express our condolences to his family. Very good. Thank you. Chief? For all these that have passed, and especially the widows that have passed in their service, I just want to recognize that what everybody puts into it, even the family members, and we all belong. And for the retirees from the police department, it's odd because every last one of them I know, and I guess it shows my age, kind of like I grew up with them and watched their kids grow up, and all of them are fine and outstanding people, and I wish them great success in their retirement and any other endeavors. Thank you very much for that. Other comments or tributes? Yes. I'll speak to the retirees from the fire department. Obviously, on behalf of the pension board and the fire department, we're very appreciative of their service. I had the pleasure personally to work with most of these guys. I mean, obviously there's a bunch, but most of them. And I can't say too many bad things. I'm glad we cleared up the Captain Roger Smith and Firefighter Roger Smith. It would be much easier to decipher which one we're talking about now. But thank you for your service, gentlemen, and ladies also. Yes. Thank you very much for that. Anything else? Yes. To tack on to Chief Weathers' comments, we had eight people retire this year from the police department, just in this little span here since the last board. Altogether, their service to the city is over 180 years combined. So that's a lot of experience that's lost. I only had the opportunity to work with three or four of them, but I also know well over half of them are very excited for whatever the future brings for them and to be able to start their new phase of life. So I wish them all well. That's great. Thank you. Anything else? I will just simply say that I did not know all of them, but many of them, both police and fire retirees, I worked with back 20 years ago when I started on the council, and they represent such a fine group of people. And I have often said and I will continue to say that these are people who run toward the danger when the rest of our citizens run away. And so my hat is off to all of them for their incredible service. And I thank all of them and wish them a wonderful retirement. And those who want it to stick, I hope it sticks. You know, some people fail retirement. But they'll be into many, many good things, I'm sure. And then I had a comment about Morris Featherston. I knew him, worked with him, and loved him. And his wife, Melody, was my very first council aide. She was my legislative aide back in the days when the aides had four or five council members. And between the two of them, they were just a dynamic duo. And I just wanted to say that, and I appreciated seeing her at the visitation. And I know that all three of these folks, the widow, Morris, and Everett are a loss to our community. And so, like the chief, I appreciate all of their service. So with that. Subcommittee updates. Continuation of benefit subcommittee and the legislative subcommittee. Tommy is not here, so I'm assuming there's no updates. Organizational subcommittee, Larry, is there any updates? Keith, I do have a question for you, because our subcommittee needed to meet with Brian Ritchie to discuss the information he came in and presented to us. So I guess we still need to do that, but I don't know how this move for him is going to impact any of that. Well, I think that you probably need to go ahead and meet with him. Susan, were you putting that together for us? Yes. Because he already did that opinion, there was no conflict at that time, so I think it's okay. Anything else about subcommittees? Yes. I think I thought we had talked, I don't know, since Tommy's not here if we can do it, but we had talked about discussing possibly moving forward with some of the legislative changes we wanted. We can discuss that in the additional information. I think that it was going to be held off until we saw how Frankfurt was working, I guess. Well, we've had a day to figure that out, right? The only thing I can add to that is that we didn't have any discussions. Tommy didn't contact me or anything to discuss anything since the last meeting. Okay. We might need to wait for him to update us. I know he's not back until March, but, yeah, he's in Florida. Yeah, he's a winter bunny in Florida. Yeah, I can contact him and we can. Who else is on that subcommittee? Unfortunately, it's Bill, Tommy, Jonathan. I'm going off the top of my head. I think it's Jonathan and then Chris Conley. So, honestly, there would only be two members out of the four that could meet. Maybe you could find out from him if there's anything in particular. Yes. Tommy. I thought if we sent anything, it was going to be all or nothing. Yeah, we may have a window of opportunity, but the window of opportunity won't last until March, because by March everything would have already had to have been filed. So I'll do whatever the board wants. I mean, I can talk to him. I mean, I don't know, was February too late to actually put it on the agenda? Well, they go. I think it definitely needs to be on the agenda for at least February so that we as a board can at least discuss it. I think there were five KRS changes that we were interested in, if I'm remembering correctly. There's only one of them that personally I'm not comfortable with, so I don't know where we stand on sending those forward, but maybe we can at least talk about those changes. Maybe, Keith, maybe you could bring the ones that we kind of had already laid out. I think it was five different KRSs, if I remember correctly. Not to prolong this, you've actually had nine in your packet. And so whether or not that discussion is do you want to pursue all of those or pick the few that you may want to pursue. It seems to me there's still a little work to do on this. February would not be too late in terms of the legislature, I don't think. This is the long session. Susan, can you look back through? I think last year we did vote on five that we wanted to move forward. I will look. To see if maybe we can at least resurrect those five and then ensure that it's on the February agenda so that we can review it. And those will be included in the packet, I presume, what they are and what they mean? Okay. Yes. And they were voted on last year? They've been voted on for the last several years. We just keep rolling it over every year. Okay. Okay. All right. Anything else in terms of subcommittees? Do we want to have someone come in and talk to us and see if this is the right climate for us to bring this to Frankfurt or not? I don't even know what it is, so I have no answer to that. Somebody will send it to me, surely. Yes, I will send out. So I'm aware of what you're talking about. I'm not sure. You know, the climate is an interesting question, isn't it, in Frankfurt? So anybody have an answer to that? I didn't hear the question, Mary. Is the climate correct right now in Frankfurt? The information I've received is that, obviously, Frankfurt is never predictable. However, as I said, we may have a window of opportunity. Okay. So this will come up in February and be on our agenda. Anything else about subcommittees? So let's move on to additional anything. I did want to say when we start this out, we're still looking at space for you. We know you need space. I need to come down there and see you. If I understand, you have to open your door for somebody to be able to sit in there for the extra visitor? You're cramped. We get that. Yes. I can actually have two people in my office. But if somebody comes and meets with Tanya, she has no place to meet. Okay. Well, we're still working on it. Yeah. I think space is hard to find. It's very hard to find. And I know within government we've had a couple people working on it, trying to find the best place so that people can find you and get to you and then have a place to sit down. All right. What other additional information? Did you have something? Yes, ma'am. I'd like to ask the board. I know since I've been on the board, I think probably Tommy's the only one that was on the board the last time this was done. But would the board be interested in having someone come in and speak to the board about our responsibilities as board members? I think it might be worthwhile to maybe have a 30-minute or so presentation so that we understand what those responsibilities as board members are to our membership. And I think it would be worthwhile. I think it's good for all boards to understand their responsibility. Do we have a person who could do that? It's kind of a special board. On another board, she came in and did a presentation to us. So that's why I was bringing it up. So her name's Mary Ann Miranda. I would recommend her so I can speak with her about that, about coming in, if you all are interested. Yeah. John, do you have any thoughts on that? I think it's definitely a good idea to inform the board. Frankly, in one of the discussions today, I was a little uneasy about what the board responsibilities were. So I think I don't have a person's name, but I definitely think that it would be a good idea for sure. Is her expertise in boards? She's served on several, and, yes, she does multiple presentations like this for boards throughout town. Okay. Maybe we could get her CV or some information on her. And maybe somebody else, her mom may know an attorney who specializes in this kind of thing. I don't know. Do you have her CV, or can you get it and have it? Maybe Susan can distribute it. Yes, ma'am, I'll get it. I'll send it to Susan. Okay. Thank you. Okay, great idea. Thank you. It used to be that we, in government at least, we asked all boards to do this. And I think it's a great idea, you know, so people understand what we're here for. Anything else? Yes, Commissioner. He's been mentioned a number of times today, but I just want to take a moment and hopefully on behalf of the entire board wish that Bill gets a speedy recovery. Our prayers and thoughts going out to him and his family, and hopefully he'll be back here very soon. And as we've expressed to him and his family, if there's anything that anyone can do for them, we'll definitely try our best to help him in any way we can. Yes. Thank you very much for those words. He perseveres. He has incredible tenacity and, as we all know, has been through a lot and has still kept faith. So thank you for that. Anything else? No? All right. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All right. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.