[00:00:01]
[PSPRS Board Meeting on April 2, 2026.]
MORNING.LET'S, UH, CALL TO ORDER THE THURSDAY, APRIL 2ND, 2026.
UH, SEDONA PD, LOCAL RETIREMENT BOARD MEETING IS 9 0 1.
THE FIRST THING WE'LL DO IS, UH, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COURT.
WOULD YOU ALL US ON THE PLEDGE, PLEASE? MY PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS? ONE NATION UNDER INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY AND
PETE FERMAN, PRESIDENT BOARD MEMBER CORY COOPERMAN.
PRESENT BOARD MEMBER LINDA HERE.
BOARD MEMBER SERGEANT JAY PERONE HERE.
AND BOARD MEMBER OFFICER MICHAEL LUCAS.
THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM, WHICH IS THE FEBRUARY 20, 26 MINUTES, WHICH IS IN YOUR PACKET, GIVING A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT FOR A SECOND.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOTION? UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION? SAY NAY.
THAT ITEM PASSES, UH, UNANIMOUSLY.
THE THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE CALL TO PUBLIC.
THIS IS WHERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING OUR BOARD CAN SPEAK TO US ON ANY ITEM, UH, NOT ON THE AGENDA.
I SEE LOTS OF MEMBERS, UH, IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY, WHICH IS A RARITY FOR US.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THE CALL TO PUBLIC? OKAY.
HEARING NONE, I APPRECIATE THAT.
UH, YOU JUST ALL LET US JUST 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF JUST SO WE KNOW WHO'S HERE TODAY, IF YOU CARE TO.
AND, AND THIS IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY ONLINE AS WELL.
SO THE NEXT ITEM, OUR AGENDA IS ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUBMISSION AND HEARING, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT FOR SERGEANT NATHAN DORFMAN, INCLUDING BOARD LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND A POSSIBLE WAIVER OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE DURATION OF THIS APPLICATION PROCESS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THIS POSSIBLE WAIVER OF CONFLICT ITEM, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT, UH, THAT WE CAN, AND I SUGGEST THAT WE DO CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION PER A RS 38 4 31, UH, TO GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE BOARD ATTORNEY.
CONSIDERING THIS, UM, UH, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? COULD I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BOARD TO CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? UH, I MOVE TO CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING, UH, LEGAL, UH, ADVICE ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UH, UH, POSSIBILITY.
COREY, IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
SO AT THIS MOMENT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO STOP OUR GENERAL RECORDING.
I'M AFRAID THAT WE'RE GONNA ASK, WE'LL HAVE TO ASK ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO STEP OUTSIDE FOR A FEW MOMENTS WHILE WE REVIEW THIS WITH OUR ATTORNEY.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAND OUTSIDE OR GO INTO THE LOBBY, UH, NEXT DOOR AND WAIT.
AND ONCE WE'RE DONE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL CALL TO EVERYONE TO COME BACK IN THE ROOM.
WE ARE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION BACK IN OPEN SESSION.
THIS WAS AN ITEM WE DISCUSSED IN, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH OUR BOARD ATTORNEY.
AND SO, COMING OUT OF, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, I LOOKED TO THE BOARD TO, UH, FOR A MOTION ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO RELATIVE TO, UH, REP LEGAL REPRESENTATION THROUGH THIS MATTER.
[00:05:01]
I, UH, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION? YEAH, UHHUH.UM, SO I, I MOVE TO, UH, SEEK, UM, UH, A ANOTHER ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT US, UH, AS WE MAKE OUR WAY, UH, THROUGH, UH, THIS CASE, UH, DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT OUR CURRENT ATTORNEY HAS.
IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION? SECOND? SURE.
WHICH ONE WAS WHO? WHO DID YOU GET STEP? JAY? JAY'S GOT THE SECOND ONE.
I WAS LOOKING DOWN, SO I DON'T, YEAH, I'M WRITING AS, UH, YOU GUYS ARE TOSSING ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS? I, I THINK IT'D JUST BE HELPFUL TO STATE THAT, UH, THAT WE DID, YOU KNOW, THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DID APPEAR, DID COME FORWARD AND IT WAS, UH, SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT, THAT, UH, WE FEEL WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER ATTORNEY.
SO, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? UH, LET'S VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
ALL, UH, UH, AGREEING WITH THAT MOTION, SAY AYE.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR THE BOARD TO SEEK AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DURATION OF, UH, THIS MATTER.
SO THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS MATTER UNTIL WE SEEK ADDITIONAL, UNTIL WE, UH, OBTAIN ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION OR NOT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? YES.
I ACTUALLY KIND OF PREPARED A STATEMENT.
UM, SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE IME STEP.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW IS SO THE BOARD CAN RELY ON AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REPORT AND KEEP THE RECORD CLEAN AND TO PROCEED IN A TIMELY, DEFENSIBLE MANNER.
I UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CAUTIOUS ABOUT, UM, HAVING AN ATTORNEY PRESENT.
THE NEXT STEP WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN ATTORNEY.
IT'S MOVING FORWARD TO SLIGHTLY AN IME.
THE ATTORNEY'S PURPOSE WOULD BE TO GUIDE US THROUGH OUR ACTUAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S GRANTED OR NOT GRANTED, DEPENDENT ON THE IM E'S FINDINGS.
UM, SO FOR TIMELINESS, BASED ON THAT INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD, A MEMBER HAS NOT CEASED EMPLOYMENT.
THEIR TIMELINESS REQUIREMENT TIED TO CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT YET IMPLICATED, AND THE BOARD CAN PROCEED WITH PROCESSING BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING AND THE FILE INCLUDES CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL RECORDS.
ANY DISCUSSION OF DIAGNOSES, SURGICAL PLANNING, IMAGING INTERPRETATION, OR SPECIFIC MEDICAL DATA SHOULD BE HANDLED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY DOING.
SO, UM, AS A BOARD MEMBER, I RECOMMEND WE KEEP TODAY'S SCOPE DISCIPLINED AND PROCEDURAL AND JUST MOVE IT FORWARD FOR, UH, FINDING AN IME TO LOOK OVER, UH, THE PACKET ITSELF, UM, COME UP WITH OUR OWN FINDINGS, REPORT BACK TO US, AND THEN IF A DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE, WE WILL HAVE OUR ATTORNEY SELECTED AND DONE WITH.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, UH, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING WE DO VERY OFTEN, UM, AND CERTAINLY IT'S BEEN MANY YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF, UH, CASE.
UM, I, I WOULD EVEN LIKE A LAWYER PRESENT TO DECIDE IF THAT'S THE BEST NEXT STEP.
UM, IT MAKES SENSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST LAID OUT THAT OBVIOUSLY IT IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE A STEP, BUT I MYSELF WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING BEFORE WE MAKE THAT STEP.
I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEDURE, SO APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU CAN FOLLOW UP IF YOU WANT.
SO, UM, OUR, OUR SCOPE IS CLEARLY OUTLINED IN BY ERA STATUTE, RIGHT? AND, AND WHAT THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD IS.
UM, AND I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR CONCERN, BUT IF IT'S ALREADY A PROCEDURAL STEP THAT'S, UM, THAT WE HAVE ALREADY OUTLINED MM-HMM
IT, IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT STEP AND WE DON'T NEED IT NECESSARILY INTERPRETED BY AN ATTORNEY TO TELL US.
UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE, BRENDA, WE DO HAVE A HANDFUL OF IMES GIVEN THOSE BY OTHER BOARDS YET.
I HAVE REACHED OUT TO OTHER BOARDS TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOT A COUPLE EMAILS YESTERDAY, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING CONCRETE.
UM, MOST OF THE OTHER PLACES USE A REFERRAL TYPE SERVICE AND THAT ARE, THEY'RE CONTRACTED WITH, AND WE AREN'T IN THAT POSITION.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY LINED UP AT THIS POINT THAT COULD BE REFERRED.
SO THEN MY ONE OTHER CONCERN FOR THE IME IS THAT IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE A REGULAR MD OR A DO, IT SHOULD BE SOMEONE THAT SPECIALIZES IN THIS TYPE OF, UM, DISABILITY APPLICATION SPECIFIC TO A SPINE.
AND TO ME, THAT'S WHERE WE WANT LEGAL ADVICE.
[00:10:01]
WELL, HERE'S THE THING.I, I WOULDN'T GO TO A GENERAL PRACTITIONER TO TALK TO ME ABOUT, UM, MY NECK AND OR IT'S FUSED IN CERTAIN SPOTS.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT, UH, CARE OR EXPERTISE.
BUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS, DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WITH THE KIND OF ORTHOPEDIC, UH, SURGEON BACKGROUND THAT, UM, THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT RIGHT.
THE, YOUR THOUGHTS ON GENERAL TOPIC? I'M ALIGNED WITH JAY ON THIS ONE.
I THINK THAT, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCOPE OF OUR ROLE AND, AND SOME OF, YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED IN THIS, SOME OF THIS IN THE PAST, THE, UM, THERE IS NO QUESTION WE NEED AN IME AND THIS IS A DISABILITY APPLICATION.
FINANCIAL ASPECTS ARE ON THE LINE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IT SERVES EVERY EVERYBODY TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG AS OPPOSED TO HAVING SOMETHING PROTRACTED.
UM, ON AN IME, I ALSO AGREE WITH JAY THAT YOU WOULD GET SOMEBODY WHO IS SPECIALIZED IN SPINE MANNERS MATTERS AND HOPEFULLY HAS HAD, AND WHO SERVES IN THE ROLE OF IME, SO THEY UNDERSTAND DISABILITY APPLICATIONS.
I THINK WE'RE EXTREMELY SAFE IN THAT.
I DON'T SEE ANY, UH, LEGAL RISK IN TAKING THAT ACTION, UM, AT ALL.
ANY THOUGHTS FROM YOUR SIDE? ALMOST WANNA JUST PAIR WHAT SHE SAID,
I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHY ANYBODY WOULD, WHAT POSSIBLE LEGAL RAMIFICATION THERE COULD BE TO HAVING SOMEBODY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF A SPECIFIC FUNCTION.
IT, I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T SEND SOMEBODY TO GENERAL PRACTITIONER FOR AN AUDITORY ISSUE.
NOW, WHERE I WOULD WANT THE LEGAL COUNSEL WOULD BE, UM, DEPENDING ON, ON WHAT'S REVIEWED IN THAT IME.
AND, UH, IF THE FILE LOOKS FULL AND HAS ADDRESSED EVERYTHING, THEN I MIGHT COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU GOTTEN THIS MEDICAL, MOST RECENT MEDICAL OR WHATEVER.
BUT IT WOULD BE, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE NEEDED NOW.
UH, I THINK IF THE BOARD HASN'T PREPARED QUESTIONS FOR IME WITH CONCERNS TO THE SPECIFIC, UM, ITEMS IN THIS APPLICATION WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME HISTORY INVOLVED, UM, WE SHOULD HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS READY.
UH, AND THE BOARD IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.
YOU SPEAK TO THE DOCTOR OR FOR THE APPLICANT? THIS WOULD BE FOR THE IME? EXACTLY.
BECAUSE THE, SO THIS IS, AND I'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN HERE AT THIS POINT TOO.
I ALMOST, IT'S GONNA BE INTERESTING.
I KIND OF ALIGN WITH, UH, COREY A LITTLE BIT HERE.
WE DON'T DO THIS PROCESS VERY OFTEN.
I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE ON THIS BOARD THAT'S EVEN GONE THROUGH THIS.
AND IT WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DISABILITY.
UH, AND THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING PROCESS THAT HAS VERY, YOU KNOW, SERIOUS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ABOUT US PROCEEDING.
AND I, FOR ONE, I'M ALSO UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, UH, PROCEEDING WITHOUT HAVING AN ATTORNEY SPECIFICALLY FOR SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE GONNA ASK IF, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE IME.
I HAVEN'T READ THAT ANYWHERE IN THE STATUTE'S FAIR.
AND I WOULD LIKE SOME BOARD ADVICE, SOME ATTORNEY ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN, I ALSO LOOK AT THIS FORM THAT WE FILL OUT, WHICH TO ME SAYS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS AT THE TOP BEFORE IT GOES TO THE IME.
AND I'VE GOT QUESTIONS, UH, ON THIS ISSUE MYSELF, SO THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M READY TO STINK.
THIS CLEARLY NEEDS TO GO TO AN IMEJ AND I EVEN AGREE THAT I THINK IT IS, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW IF WE COULD SPECIFY, UH, AN AN IME DOCTOR WITH A, A BACKGROUND.
BUT I WOULD LIKE ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA, BUT I WOULD LIKE ADVICE TO KNOW WHETHER WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT.
SO, AND THEN, UH, JU ALSO BROUGHT UP AN ITEM BEFORE ABOUT, UM, NOT TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC MEDICAL RECORDS, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT OUTSIDE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND I NOTE THAT SERGEANT DORFMAN DID SIGN THE WAIVER FOR THAT.
[00:15:01]
WE CAN ASK SERGEANT DORFMAN TO RECONSIDER THAT AGAIN, AT, AT THE TIME.I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT TODAY.
AND JUST, AND THAT'S WHY I REFERENCED IT QUITE VAGUELY WHEN I SAID HISTORICALLY, AND NOT EVERYBODY HERE IS AWARE OF WHAT THAT IS.
SO IT COULD BE IN ALL HONESTY, ANYTHING.
UM, AND I'M LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS RIGHT HERE.
THESE ARE BASIC, THE BASIC YES OR NOS.
WHICH ONES ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? SO, UH, IT, IT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
SO I THINK WHEN I START READING DOWN HERE, I GET TO ITEM THREE ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY ISSUE.
I THINK WE NEED TO SEEK DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.
WELL, HE NEEDS TO TERMINATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BEFORE THIS PROCESS IS COMPLETED, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA BE ON A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE RECORD OR WHAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD.
THE QUESTIONS EXIST ABOUT A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE, AND I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS I HAVE HERE.
CRAZY THAT IT IS, DID EMPLOYMENT TERMINATE BASED ON A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT EMPLOYMENT'S TERMINATED DUE TO DISCIPLINE ISSUES DUE TO DISCIPLINE ISSUE.
NOT TERMINATED AND PROCESS FOR THE SAKE, FOR THE SAKE OF TERMINATION.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SEP SEPARATING EMPLOYMENT, THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
AND THE, I MEAN, THIS IS, FROM HOW I'M READING THIS, THIS IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE.
IT'S IF I DID SOMETHING IMPROPER AND I GOT TERMINATED AND THEN I APPLIED FOR, UM, ANY SORT OF DISABILITY, UH, RELATED TO THE JOB, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL SAY IT'S PTSD, LIKE, I GOT TERMINATED.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION THAT WE'D LIKE TO GET LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON ABOUT YES.
WHETHER THE POSITION IS RIGHT OR NOT.
I'M JUST GONNA BE OUT LOUD AND SAY LIKE, I, I DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT QUESTION, BUT SURE.
AGAIN, I, I AM NOT BOTHERED BY THESE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU DID SAY SOMETHING THAT MADE ME PAUSE AND WOULD INFLUENCE WHERE I STARTED FROM.
AND THAT IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF US, OR MOST OF US DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WE WOULD ASK RELATED TO THE IME MM-HMM
AND THAT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MURKIER TO, TO PROCEED WITH THE IME WITHOUT A DISCUSSION WITH THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTIONS WHETHER WHAT THAT SCOPE IS, ET CETERA.
SO ON THAT MATTER, I I, YOU'VE SWAYED ME, UH, SOMEWHAT, I AM CONVINCED 100% THAT THERE WILL BE AN IME, BUT, UH, WHICH WAS WHY I WOULD SAY TO PROCEED, BUT, BUT YOUR POINT WAS RELEVANT TO ME.
SO I, I THINK I'M CHANGING MY POSITION HERE.
AND THEN WHAT WE'D WANNA DO IS, UH, GET SOMEBODY, GET AN ATTORNEY IDENTIFIED EXPEDITIOUSLY SO WE COULD, UH, MEET QUICKLY AGAIN.
AND JUST TO GO BACK ONE REAL QUICK, UM, THE QUESTION BEFORE THAT IS, DID OR WILL THE EMPLOYEE TERMINATE BY REASON OF DISABILITY? SO, AND YOU CAN'T GET THE QUESTION THREE WITHOUT ANSWERING QUESTION TWO, SO YEAH.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE INS SEQUENTIAL ORDER AND NOT, UM, BULLETIZED JAY, THERE WAS, THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE TRAINING DOCUMENTS THAT I WENT THROUGH THAT ASKED THIS QUESTION, AND I'M UNABLE TO PUT MY FINGER ON IT NOW.
AND SO I'LL, I'LL FIND THE SOURCE OF THAT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AGAIN, ABOUT, MY QUESTION ISN'T, I ISN'T PARTICULARLY WELL PHRASED YET, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING IN, IN MY REVIEW OF THE TRAINING DOCUMENTS THAT SAID WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, UH, WHEN WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE PACKET BEFORE IT GOES TO THE IE THAT IS THE STEPS THAT'S IN THE FLOW CHART THAT IS PROVIDED.
SOMEWHERE IT'S, IS THAT THE BOARD HAS TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE.
IT GOES TO AN IME AS THE STEPS THAT ARE LAID OUT.
SO IF THERE IS MORE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO WANT FROM SERGEANT DORFMAN, THEN THAT HAS TO BE OBTAINED BEFORE AN IME IS SELECTED.
SO NOW GOING BACK TO THE APPLICATION, IS THERE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW THAT'S MISSING OUT OF IT THAT, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD TIME TO LOOK IT OVER.
I MEAN, WE CAN'T DISCUSS THAT IF ANYBODY FEELS THERE'S STUFF MISSING OR THERE'S YEAH.
UM, WELL, NUMBER ONE IS THE COMPLETENESS OF THE PACKET IS DOES ANYBODY FEEL THAT THERE'S ANYTHING MISSING? YEAH.
BUT I, I TOOK A PRETTY THOROUGH REVIEW, BUT I DIDN'T SEE MEDICALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISABILITY APPLICATION.
[00:20:01]
DOCTOR'S NAMES.I SAW THAT HE WAS WORKING FULL DUTY, NOT FULL DUTY, I'M SORRY, BUT ON LIGHT DUTY.
UM, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE CHANGE IN STATUS, UH, ON THE MEDICAL RECORDS THAT MOVED HIM FROM LIGHT DUTY TO FULL DISABILITY.
SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D WANT TO SEE IN THE PACKET.
WELL, TECHNICALLY THAT WAS GONNA BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TECHNICALLY RIGHT NOW, HE'S STILL ON LIGHT DUTY, NOT FULL DISABILITY.
BUT IT IS A FULL DISABILITY APPLICATION.
SO YOU, SO YOU WOULD WANT MEDICALS THAT SUPPORT MOVING FROM LIGHT DUTY TO A FULL DUTY STATUS.
SO HE CAN'T BE PLACED ON DISABILITY YET, WHICH IS WHY IN HIS PACKET IT, IT, HE'S MOVED TO LIGHT DUTY WITH LISTED RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS MM-HMM
UM, WHICH THERE'S A FORM THAT, UH, OFFICERS HAVE TO PROVIDE BACK TO THE CITY THAT THE CITY PROVIDES TO US THAT LIMITS THEIR SCOPE OF WORK.
SO YOU'RE SAYING HE NEEDS TO BE PUT ON DISABILITY FIRST? A DOCTOR HAS TO, YEAH.
SEE IF, IF AN EMPLOYER SAYS, I CAN'T ACCOMMODATE YOU ANYMORE ON LIFE DUTY, WHATEVER, THEN THE EMPLOYER SAYS THAT, BUT A DOCTOR, THE LAST MEDICALS I SAW SAYS HE CAN WORK.
SO YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T SAY I'M DISABLED WITHOUT A PHYSICIAN SAYING YOU'RE UNABLE TO WORK.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW.
SO IN, IN SHORT, WITH HIS PAPERWORK, HOW IT, IT AGAIN, HOW I'M JUST INTERPRETING WHAT, WHAT'S IN THE PACKET ITSELF.
HIS JOB IS LISTED AS A POLICE OFFICER SURE.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE MEDICAL STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN HIS PACKET ITSELF, IT SAYS THAT HE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DO HIS JOB AS A POLICE OFFICER.
IS HE ABLE TO STILL WORK? YES.
BUT THAT'S THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT TYPE OF WORK? AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE KIND OF AT RIGHT NOW.
HIM BEING ON LIGHT DUTY IS THE RESTRICTION FROM DOING HIS FULL DUTIES, WHICH IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO YOUR FULL DUTIES, YOU CAN'T BE A COP.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT, BUT AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS HE'S WORKING LIGHT DUTY AND THE EMPLOYER SAYS, I CAN ACCOMMODATE THIS FOREVER AND A DAY.
THEN HE CONTINUES ON LIGHT DUTY, OR THE EMPLOYER SAYS, I'M NOT DOING A LONG TERM LIGHT DUTY FOR THAT PERSON.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT HE'S DEEMED DISABLED.
BUT IT IS, UNLESS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COME FORWARD AND SAID, YOU CANNOT CONTINUE ON LIGHT DUTY.
AND THIS IS ALSO DISABLED, AND THIS PROBABLY IS GETTING INTO THE LEGAL
AND THOSE WERE THE RECORDS THAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT TOO.
OF HOW, WHAT IS THE STATUS NOW, AND I, I, AS I, AS WELL, AND, AND I, OVER THE WEEKEND, I REVIEWED THE VIDEO RECORDING OF THE LAST BOARD TRAINING ON DISABILITIES, AND IN THERE THE, THE TRAINERS USE A PHRASE, AND, AND I'VE, I'VE HEARD THAT EVERY TIME IT'S, YOU CAN'T BE ON LIGHT DUTY ON MONDAY AND, AND, AND DISABLED ON TUESDAY.
AND SO THAT I, IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION THAT I WANT TO BE ASKING OUR ATTORNEY AS WELL ABOUT WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED IN THE PACKET TO BE READY TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER HE IS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY PREVENTED, UH, FROM PERFORMING A REASONABLE RANGE OF DUTIES.
SO THAT'S A QUESTION I THINK, AND I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT FOR A PERMANENT BASIS, THAT'S A DIFFICULTY IN DOING THE JOB, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALL ABOUT ACCOMMODATIONS TOO.
SO, CAN I ASK AN HR TOPIC QUESTION AND HOW THIS IS, HOW DOES THE CITY LOOK AT IT? OR DO I, DO WE HAVE TO ASK, UH, RUSS TO COME IN ON THAT? OR CAN YOU ANSWER DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER.
SO FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, WHAT IS HIS, IN ESSENCE, STANDING IF HE'S ON LIGHT DUTY? 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER, UM, DIVISION IN THE CITY THAT HAS A LIGHT DUTY CLAUSE.
UH, WHAT TYPE OF EMPLOYEE IS HE ACTUALLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING AT ALL THIS IN TOTALITY, HE IS STILL CLASSIFIED AS AN OFFICER, A SERGEANT, UM, I DON'T KNOW TIMEFRAMES AS TO HOW LONG THE CITY WILL OFFER LIGHT DUTY.
IT HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND HIS BUDGETED POSITION IS FOR AN OFFICER TO A SERGEANT.
[00:25:01]
THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY ACCOMMODATING ON KEEPING THE LIGHT DUTY STATUS.UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT CAN GO ON, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION.
SO IF THE EMPLOYEE, WE'LL JUST FOLLOW THAT DOWN.
UM, IF THE EMPLOYEE'S UNABLE TO DO THEIR JOB AS LISTED AND STATED, UM, ON THE JOB DESCRIPTION, AND ACTUALLY WE'LL DO IT THIS WAY, IF, IF I WERE A PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE AND I GOT HURT ON THE JOB AND I COULD NO LONGER DO THAT JOB, WHAT WOULD BE THE TYPICAL OUTCOME OR RESULT FOR THAT EMPLOYEE SEPARATION? IF THE PERSON CANNOT FUNCTION, DO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB THAT ARE ALLOW LAND OUT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION ULTIMATELY, UNLESS THERE'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION? IF THERE'S NOT, YEAH.
IF THERE'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN AND THEY CAN CONTINUE, THEN THEY CONTINUE.
IF THAT REASONABLE, IF THE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, IF THERE'S ONE PRESENTED, CAN'T BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY, THEN THERE WOULD BE SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT.
SO THEN THAT SEPARATION, WOULD THAT SEPARATION BE DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE OR WOULD THAT BE DONE AT THE BE BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYER? PROBABLY DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I'M, AGAIN, A PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE AND I CAN'T LIFT, PUSH, PULL ANYTHING OVER 20 POUNDS, WHICH IS, I THINK IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION IT'S 40 POUNDS IF NOT MORE.
IF I CAN'T DO THAT JOB, WHAT WOULD THE CITY DO IF I'M APPLYING FOR A DISABILITY BECAUSE OF AN INJURY HAPPENED ON THE JOB? THE, I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION, BUT LIKE, YEAH, NO, AND, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT PROCESS IS, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT PART OF MY JOB DESCRIPTION TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS.
UM, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, EVENTUALLY IT WOULD HAVE TO, WOULD BE SEPARATION.
IF THEY CAN'T PERFORM THE DUTIES WITH, SO THEN ME AS A POLICE OFFICER, IF I GET HURT ON THE JOB AND I CAN NO LONGER DO THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF FIGHTING WITH SOMEONE ARRESTING SOMEONE MM-HMM
AS A RESULT OF AN, UH, WORK RELATED INJURY, I'M TECHNICALLY HOLDING UP A SPOT FOR SOMEONE ELSE FOR A POSITION, WHETHER IT'S POLICE OFFICER OR SERGEANT.
AND IF I'M APPLYING FOR AN APPLICA, UH, APPLYING FOR A MECHANISM FOR ACTUAL DISABILITY, UH, I THINK IT'S KIND OF CLEAR THAT IF I CAN'T DO THE JOB, THIS IS WHY THIS PAPERWORK IS BEING PRESENTED.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO STILL BE EMPLOYED TO, TO SUBMIT THIS PAPERWORK.
YOU HAVE A YEAR AFTER SEPARATION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY FOR P-P-S-P-R-S.
SO IF HE WERE TO RESIGN, QUIT, TERMINATE, OR BE FIRED, WHERE WOULD WE, WHERE WOULD WE STAND RIGHT NOW? WOULD WE BE HAVING DISCUSSION? IF THE BOARD ACCEPTS THIS APPLICATION TODAY, THEN IT'S IN PROCESS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING WAS, WAS TO START THE PROCESS, ACCEPT THE APPLICATION, AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEPS THAT THE BOARD DECIDES ON.
I MEAN, THERE'S, YEAH, I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT IT, JUST TO BE HONEST.
I'LL JUST PUT THIS IN ANOTHER WAY.
THAT ON A DISABILITY DETERMINATION, IT'S A DOCTOR'S ROLE TO SAY WHAT THE PERSON CAN AND CANNOT DO.
SO HE CAN DO, HE CAN LIFT UP TO X POUNDS, HE CAN DO THIS.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS NOT A FULL MM-HMM
THE SCOPE OF A POLICEMAN OR POLICEWOMAN.
THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE'S AN EMPLOYER DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT THAT SAYS, CAN WE CONTINUE THIS? CAN YOU PROVIDE LIGHT DUTY? THE CITY SAID, YEAH, WE CAN.
NOW THERE'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION DOWN ROAD.
IF IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE A PERMANENT SITUATION, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DOCTOR CONVEYS THAT HE'LL BE ON LIGHT DUTY INDEFINITELY, THEN THAT'S A DISCUSSION WITH THE EMPLOYER AS TO IF THEY CAN HANDLE THAT OR NOT, AS OPPOSED TO THE DOCTOR SAYING YOU CAN OR CANNOT HANDLE IT.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT OUT OF THE DOCTOR'S SCOPE.
SO WE'RE JUST KINDA CONFUSING THE TWO SCOPES HERE, I THINK.
BUT THEN AGAIN, IN THE PACKET, THAT'S WHERE I'M GONNA DEFER BACK TO IS THE PAPERWORK THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.
IT STATES THAT UNLESS I'M NOT READING, I'M NOT INTERPRETING, I DIDN'T SEE FROM THE, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING FROM THE CITY TALKING ABOUT, SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE FROM YEAH, THEY'RE NOTHING FROM THE CITY.
BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT HIS DOCTOR HAS NO CALL ON IT.
IF THE CITY TURNED AROUND AND SAID, WE HAVE LIGHT DUTY FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS FOR HIM, HIM, HE'S SPECIAL
AND I, I SUSPECT ON THIS ISSUE, THERE'S REALLY GREAT LEGAL ADVICE FOR US.
CLEARLY THIS IS PROVING IN LOTS OF OTHER PLACES AND
[00:30:01]
PROBABLY LITIGATION AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REALLY ADVICE HERE ABOUT WHERE THE BOUNDS ARE.ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS GREAT BECAUSE IT PROVES YOUR POINT THAT WE DO NEED LEGAL COUNSEL.
MICHAEL, ANYTHING ELSE FROM, I MEAN, NO, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANYTHING ELSE I CAN ADD TO THIS.
SO I DON'T KNOW, DO WE, BRENDA, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS WE'VE GOT IT SO FAR? I MEAN, I, I'M NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO SAYING THIS ISN'T AN APPLICATION.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD APPLICATION.
I JUST WANT TO GET LEGAL ASSISTANCE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.
YOU GUYS HAVE HAD DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE THAT DOES SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION.
AND NOW YOU ARE GOING TO, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO, YOU KNOW, TABLE THE ITEM, TABLE THE ITEM FOR, AND THEN STATE WHATEVER REASON.
UM, AND THEN, UM, WE CAN WORK ON WHATEVER THOSE NEXT STEPS ARE AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.
UM, BUT THIS DOES AT LEAST START THE PROCESS.
UM, I JUST WOULD WANT TO ADD WHOEVER'S MAKING THAT MOTION THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE SOME SORT OF TIMELINE.
I'M NOT IN, THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY TO RUSH IT, BUT AT LEAST TO SET REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.
ONE FOR THE BOARD AND THEN TWO FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO THAT'S, I I THINK THAT WOULD BE, YEAH, I DON'T, DON'T, I DON'T REALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I, I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE'RE GONNA RECONVENE BEFORE OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
I MEAN, I DO THINK WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD JUDICIOUSLY, EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH THIS AS WELL.
JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE SET EVERY TWO MONTHS.
UH, WE SHOULD MOVE IT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHO YOU WANT TO REPRESENT YOU GUYS AS THE BOARD? I THINK, UH, I AM COMFORTABLE WITH YOU SPEAKING TO OUR ATTORNEY AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OR TWO OTHER BOARD SECRETARIES TO SEE IF YOU HAVE A, A RANGE.
WE CALL THEM TO SEE IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE AND, YOU KNOW, AND WILLING AND, AND WILLING AND NARROW IT DOWN.
BRING US ONE OR TWO
AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT WE WANT TO MOVE ALONG AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
I MEAN, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE COULD HAVE A MEETING WITHIN THE WEEK.
I MEAN, MEAN IT'S, IT COULD BE A PHONE MEETING JUST TO GET THAT ATTORNEY ON BOARD.
'CAUSE DO WE HAVE TO MEET TO SELECT THE ATTORNEY? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
ASKING IF YOU, AND I'M SAYING YOU COULD PUT UP A ZOOM OR A PHONE CALL SO THAT WE COULD JUST GET THAT DONE.
UH, I WAS SAYING THE OTHER OPTION TOO IS, UM, SINCE CINDY HAS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SOMEONE FROM HER OWN FIRM COULD STILL, SHE IS THE, IS HER FIRM.
THERE MIGHT OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT WORK FOR HER, BUT IT IS KELLY LAW FIRM.
BUT I DON'T, I TO WHAT JAY'S SAYING, IF I GOT THAT RIGHT, IS IF THERE'S OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THAT FIRM, WHICH IS HER FIRM THAT HAVEN'T WORKED.
THE OTHER CASE, I DON'T KNOW, THEY CAN BE INDEPENDENT ONE REALLY BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR HER.
I THINK, AND I DON'T HAVE TO EMAIL FROM HER YET, BUT I WILL, UM, THEN TAKE THE DIRECTION FROM YOU GUYS AS SOON AS I HAVE SOME INFORMATION PUT TOGETHER.
UM, ANOTHER MEETING THERE IS, THERE'S A PROCESS TO IT.
IT IS NOT A FIVE MINUTE PROCESS TO SCHEDULE OF MEETING TOGETHER BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE TO BE AGENDIZED AND POSTED AND EVERYTHING.
SO WE DO WE, AM I CLEAR, I'M HEARING THAT WE DO NEED TO MEET TO ACCEPT THE LAWYER.
SPEAKING FROM PREVIOUS WHERE WE, UM, THE BOARD KNOWS HOW THE BOARD SELECTED.
UM, CYNTHIA AS OUR, OUR REPRESENTATION PREVIOUSLY.
CAN WE ALSO PUT ON THERE, LIKE, CAN YOU GIVE US A PREVIEW OF WHO THE IMES WOULD BE ONCE YOU GET A LIST OF THEM? UM, I CAN PUT THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN, ONCE I HAVE THAT INFORMATION, I CAN SEND YOU GUYS IN AN EMAIL SO THAT IF THERE'S INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER THAT YOU GUYS THEN CAN BRING, JUST GIVE YOU A LIST.
I CAN PROVIDE A LIST AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN THEN DECIDE DO WE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECIDE IT'S WHICH DOCTOR WHICH IM YOU, WE ASK THE ATTORNEY ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN.
I JUST WANNA HAVE AS MUCH PREPARED AS
[00:35:01]
POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF NUMBER ONE ATTORNEYS ARE EXPENSIVE.AND THEN NUMBER TWO, OUR TIME IS ALSO VALUABLE AS WELL.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE AREN'T MEETING FOR ONE MINUTE ISSUE.
IT MIGHT HAPPEN BE THAT THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE.
IT'S JUST PREVENTING IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
AND AGAIN, WE COULD DO THIS BY ZOOM OR WHATEVER.
PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING HERE.
SO ARE WE LOOKING FOR A, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION REALLY TO, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF, UM, YOU KNOW, OF SERGEANT DOMAN DORFMAN AND IF, AND, BUT, UH, IS THAT ONE, THAT'S ONE OF, WE DIDN'T, BRENDA HAD ADVISED US THAT SHE THINKS THE HOLDING OF THE MEETING ITSELF IS BEEN I'M OKAY WITH THAT BEING IN A MOTION THOUGH.
I, BECAUSE I, I, I DO WANT TO SIGNAL AT LEAST THAT WE'VE GOTTEN A PRETTY COMPLETE PACKAGE, 74 DOCUMENTS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES.
SO YEAH, I THINK A MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER TO, I MEAN, WE CAN ASK FOR MORE DOCUMENTATION.
BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION, IS THERE MORE DOCUMENTATION SINCE SERGEANT DORFMAN IS HERE THAT WE NEED TO ASK HIM FOR SO THAT HE CAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO ASK FOR ANY MORE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ASK OR NOT.
OH, SO THEN I, I WILL MOVE TO, UM, TO, UH, ACCEPT THE, OH, THANK YOU.
IS IT HERE? THERE'S KIND OF SOME GUIDELINES ON THE WARNING.
I MOVE, UH, TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF SERGEANT NATHAN DORFMAN TO A MEETING ON TO BE DETERMINED, UH, PENDING THE SELECTION OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I JUST, MICHAEL, LOOKING AT THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S REALLY ANY LEGAL ISSUES.
'CAUSE IT SAYS ON OUR OPTIONS, THE BOARD CAN TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION AT THE MEETING TABLE AND CONTINUE THE CLAIM FOR MORE INFORMATION TIME, OTHER, THE REASON IS NEEDED.
BUT TO ME THAT SAYS WE'RE GOOD TO ASK FOR WHATEVER MORE INFORMATION WE WANTED.
I THINK WE COULD ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION.
I'M JUST RELUCTANT TO DO SO WITHOUT HAVING AN ATTORNEY KNOW THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK.
HE SIGNED A WAIVER, RIGHT? HE DID SIGN A WAIVER OF DISCUSSING THE MEDICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PUBLIC.
GIVE THE, THE VERBIAGE THAT'S IN HERE ME, SINCE THAT WAS JUST GUIDELINE VERBIAGE.
THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT EXACT.
THAT WAS JUST, UM, TRYING TO HELP GIVE IDEAS OF WHAT A POSSIBLE MOTION COULD BE, UM, AS MY RECOMMENDATION.
BUT IF THE BOARD MAKES A DIFFERENT MOTION, THEN THE BOARD MAKES A DIFFERENT MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER DOCUMENTS IN MIND, MICHAEL, THAT YOU WANT TO ASK FOR? NO, BUT I THINK I'M THRILLED OF THE, THE BOARD AND THAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS AND GOING, SO, AND I'M GONNA ECHO THE SAME THING TOO, BUT I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE BOARD'S HESITATION IN PROCEEDING WITHOUT, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THE PACKET IN ITSELF AND THE INSTRUCTIONS AS PROVIDED TO US IS BLACK AND WHITE AND BACKED BY ARIS STATUTE.
UM, I'M NOT SURE, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AND ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IN BECAUSE WE DELVE IN, WE DEAL WITH YEAH.
WITH THE STATUTES SO MUCH AND A LOT OF STUFF FOR US, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE, WE CAN DO.
WITHIN THIS SCOPE, IT TELLS ME RIGHT HERE WHAT I CAN'T, CAN'T DO.
UM, AND I DON'T CALL THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SAY, HEY, STATUTE SAYS THIS.
IT'S AS STATUTE SAYS THIS, WE'LL DO IT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
AT THIS POINT I'LL, UH, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION SAY AYE.
AND, AND YOU OPPOSED THE MOTION.
I'M STILL PROCESSING THE ENTIRE MOTION BECAUSE WE, WE WENT INTO DISCUSSION, SO LET I DISTRACT US BOTH ONE.
COULD WE REPEAT THE MOTION? OH, SURE.
UM, I MOVED TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF SERGEANT NATHAN DORFMAN, UH, TO A MEETING, UH, TO BE DETERMINED PENDING THE SELECTION OF A NEW, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL.
[00:40:02]
I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE MOTION.I KNOW WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED, UM, WHETHER WE'RE ACCEPTING IT.
IS THIS PART OF THAT MOTION, WILL THAT BE A SEPARATE MOTION? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST THIS ACTION JUST TABLES IT.
ARE WE ACCEPTING HIS APPLICATION? WE ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION.
WE DID THAT MOTION FIRST, BUT I ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU HAD WORD ABOUT ACCEPTANCE AT THIS POINT.
I WAS JUST READING THIS SO, SO I COULD, UM, I MOVED, I MOVED TO, UH, ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR, UM, FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT, UH, FROM SERGEANT NATHAN DORFMAN.
UM, BUT TO ALSO, UH, TABLE THE PROCESS, UH, UNTIL WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SELECT LEGAL COUNSEL.
THAT WAS THE MOTION AS I UNDERSTOOD IT BEFORE.
ALRIGHT, SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE.
UH, A HEARING THAT WAS UNANIMOUS.
SO WE WILL TABLE THE MOTION, UH, UNTIL WE HIRE A NEW ATTORNEY.
I DO THINK AT THIS POINT, UH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
I WAS JUST GONNA ASK WHETHER ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANTED TO SPEAK.
I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT IF THE BOARD THINKS THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE MIGHT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE AUDIENCE SO FAR? GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING, ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I JUST DID, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION IN, IN THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
I, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT, WANT THE LEGAL COUNSEL HERE FOR IT.
I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IT IS A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT I PROVIDED AND YOU CAN GET LOST IN IT.
UM, FOR REVIEW, MY DOCTOR DID STATE, UM, ABOUT ME NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE, UH, IN MY FUNCTIONS DOING THAT.
UH, P-S-P-R-S ALSO STATES, UM, NOT JUST APPLYING AFTER HAVE A YEAR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.
THEY DO STATE IN THERE THAT YOU CAN APPLY BEFORE THAT YES, UM, OCCURS.
AND THEN I WOULD ASK TO CONTACT SOME OF THE OTHER AGENCY BOARDS.
UM, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR OFFICERS TO BE ON LIGHT DUTY STATUS WHILE THEIR APPLICATION IS BEING, UM, BEING REVIEWED BY THE BOARD.
AND THERE IS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF UPON COMPLETION OR UPON, UM, ACCEPTANCE.
IF IT IS, THEN THE OFFICER DOES HAVE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT AT THAT POINT.
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE PROCESSED AFTER THE, AFTER THE EMPLOYEE HAS EITHER QUIT OR BEEN FIRED FROM EMPLOYMENT.
THAT IS, IF I HAVE A CATASTROPHIC INJURY, I CAN NO LONGER WORK.
THERE'S NO PHYSICIAN AND EMPLOYMENT'S TERMINATED.
I CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN APPLY FOR THAT BENEFIT A YEAR OR WITHIN THE YEAR.
THIS, MY SITUATION DOESN'T FALL INTO THAT, WHICH IS WHY I'M APPLYING FOR THAT DISABILITY NOW.
SO I JUST ASKED THE BOARD TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I HEARD THAT WERE, UH, CONCERNS AND THERE ARE, UH, THAT INFORMATION IS THERE.
REST ASSURED THAT THIS BOARD IS MOTIVATED TO MOVE THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
WE UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES THAT YOU, 74 DOCUMENTS I THINK YOU SUBMITTED BY MY COUNT AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES.
ITEM FIVE IS A DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS BRENDA.
UM, WELL I WILL WORK TO GET OUR NEXT MEETING FOR THIS ITEM SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
UM, I ALREADY HAVE REQUESTS OUT FOR IME, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER, UH, BOARDS AND UM, I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH CINDY TO GET THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHE HAS, UM, AND WORK ON GETTING, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL.
I'LL ALSO ASK OTHER BOARDS WHO THEY HAVE AS REPRESENTATION SO THAT, UM, WE HAVE THAT, UM, FOR THEIR NEXT MEETING.
AND I'LL JUST GET THAT SCHEDULED AS, AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY CAN ONCE I HAVE THE INFORMATION COMPILED.
UM, OTHER ITEMS, OF COURSE, OUR NEXT PRE-SCHEDULED ALREADY WOULD BE JUNE 4TH OF COURSE, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE WE WOULD HAVE THAT LONG BEFORE, UM, THAT DAY.
UM, AND THEN NEW MEMBERSHIPS AS NEEDED.
UM, I KNOW THERE ARE, UH, THERE IS A COMMANDER POSITION THAT IS OPEN, SO THAT'S BEING WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO EVENTUALLY THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A, AN AGENDA ITEM FOR, UM, THE NEW COMMANDER.
[00:45:01]
UM, SO GREAT.AND THEN JUST SO IT'S ON YOUR RADAR, THERE WILL BE AN AUGUST MEETING BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TWO, UM, RECRUITS OVER IN ACADEMY THAT WILL GRADUATE IN JUNE, BUT THEIR GRADUATION IS AFTER THE PRESCHEDULED JUNE MEETING.
AND TO GIVE THEM THE ADEQUATE TIME, UM, THAT THERE WOULD BE, UM, ON THAT AUGUST MEETING, UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF MEETING WHERE, UM, FOR THIS PROCESS WHERE THEY COULD BE ADDED ON.
UM, SOMETHING ELSE TO BRING UP IS, UH, SOON WE'LL BE WORKING ON UM, BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, OFFICER LUCAS'S TERM ENDS ON AUGUST 9TH, SO SOON I WILL START THE PROCESS WITH SWORN PERSONNEL TO FILL THAT TWO YEAR SEAT.
AND THEN LYNN'S TERM DOES TECHNICALLY END ON 7 31, BUT UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE MOVING OUT OF THE AREA THAT IS HAPPENING SOONER.
UM, SO I'LL BE WORKING WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO GET THAT POSTED, UM, TO FILL LYNN'S SEAT BECAUSE SHE WILL NO LONGER BE A RESIDENT.
WE NEED TO IZE NEXT MEETING, PERHAPS BRENDA, TO TALK ABOUT BOARD TERMS AND JUST SCHEDULE.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA SO WE CAN FULLY DISCUSS THAT WHOLE, THAT PROCESS.
THAT WHOLE, THE WHOLE PROCESS.
TERMS. AND YOU MIGHT, I'LL PUT A DISCUSSION ITEM ON, ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
AND THEN BRENDA, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING ATTORNEYS AND LETTING 'EM KNOW WE WANNA MEET WITH 'EM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
START SIGNALING TO US WHAT WINDOWS ARE LOOKING GOOD AND GET FROM US FEEDBACK ABOUT THE POSSIBLE DATES AND JUST LET'S YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE, YEAH, BECAUSE YEAH.
AND WHAT IS THE DATE FOR THAT AUGUST MEETING? THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST THURSDAY.
SO LET ME LOOK AT WHAT THAT IS.
AND I DON'T THINK I'VE DONE HOLDS YET BECAUSE THERE WAS, UM, I KNEW THINGS WERE GOING, UM, TO CHANGE.
ANY OTHER FUTURE, UH, IDEAS OR MEETING TOPICS? IF YOU COULD JUST NARROW THE SCOPE FOR SECURING THAT IME, UM, TO WHAT I HAD BEEN SHOULD SAID BEFORE WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S, UM, SPINE RELATED, SO WE SHOULD KEEP THAT SCOPE TO THAT.
WELL, I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS THAT CAN SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR THAT TYPE.
CAN THE BOARD, I, I'M OKAY WITH YOU SCREENING SOME FOR KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, BUT THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE PUT TO THE ATTORNEY.
BUT IF YOU, YOU SHOULDN'T SCREEN ONLY FOR, BUT YOU KNOW, BUT AT LEAST HAVE SOME OF 'EM 'CAUSE THAT'LL EXPEDITE IT.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS TIMELINESS.
YEAH, BECAUSE HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE LEFT NOW? WE'VE ACCEPTED IT.
THE TIME THE TIMEFRAME SET WAS, UM, 90 DAYS TO THIS HEARING.
SO, UM, THERE ARE NO OTHER TIMEFRAMES LAID OUT IN THEIR PRO, IN THE P-S-P-R-S APPLICATION PROCESS.
IT IS, UH, 8 59 AND I MOVE THAT.
WELL, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO MOVE.
I THINK WE SAY THAT THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.