Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-29-2018 Special Minutes ITY OF SEBASTIAN POLICE PENSION BOARD — MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 28, 2018 Call to Order -- Chairman Jason Gillette called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Present Board Members Jason Gillette Christine Vicars Paul Williamson Tim Wood Also Present Bonni Jensen, Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, Attorney for Board of Trustees Ken Killgore, Plan Administrator Janet Graham, Technical Writer Mr. Killgore announced that Randy Moyer was excused. II. Discussion of Benefit Due as a result of William Grimmich's Death, Discussion of Application of Forfeiture Under Florida Statute 112.3173 Ms. Jensen stated she called this meeting to discuss two issues regarding Mr. Grimmich's death: A. Who is Mr. Grimmich's designated beneficiary. She has provided the Board members with a Designation of Beneficiary form which designates his former spouse. She also provided members with a copy of Florida Statute 732.703 which states that a divorce voids the designation of a spouse as a beneficiary provided certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is relative to the death certificate, which she has also provided to the members. That certificate must state that the parties are divorced, and it does. Ms. Jensen discussed exceptions to the rule, such as a written and signed designation post the divorce designating the former spouse. In this case, their divorce was in 2013; OLICE PENSION BOARD PAGE 2 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2018 this designation was signed in 2008. Additionally, their divorce decree did not include any statement that she would take anything from the pension. In fact, there is a provision in the divorce decree that she would take nothing from the pension. Thus, Mr. Grimmich's children would be the beneficiaries of Mr. Grimmich's interest in the pension plan. Ms. Jensen stated that the first thing that needs to be done is to provide notice to the former spouse informing her that, according to the Florida statute, she is not the beneficiary and that the two children are the designated beneficiaries. Since the former spouse is the mother of one child and the second spouse is the mother of the second child, each mother would have to be notified on their child's behalf. 2. The second issue is that Mr. Grimmich was convicted of what might be a forfeiture offense under the Florida statutes, and she provided the Board members with a copy of Florida statute 112.3173. She explained that this statute provides that if a person is convicted of an offense and abuses their public position in order to have committed the crime, that person's pension is subject to forfeiture. She further explained that the Board's discretion is to examine and study the statute and determine whether the offense for which the person was convicted might subject them to forfeiture. She specifically pointed out subsection (2)(b)6 on the first page of the statute which reads: "The committing of any felony by a public officer or employee who willfully and with intent to defraud the public or the public agency for which the public officer or employee acts or in which he or she is employed of the right to receive the faithful performance of his or her duty as a public officer or employee, realizes or obtains, or attempts to realize or obtain, a profit, gain, or advantage for himself or herself or for some other person through the use or attempted use of the power, rights, privileges, duties, or position of his or her public office or employment position." A complicating factor in this case is that Mr. Grimmich is now deceased, and the decision that is to be made by the Board is whether the benefits of the children should be forfeited. Their rights grow out of the rights that Mr. Grimmich had. According to case law, a beneficiary does not have a right to a benefit even in the event of a forfeiture. Conversely, because Mr. Grimmich died, the children theoretically have an interest because his benefit transferred to them on the date of his death. There is presently no case law in Florida where the circumstances are exactly as in this case. OLICE PENSION BOARD PAGE 4 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2018 pension. Ms. Jensen stated that in all cases before there can be a forfeiture, unless the member agreed to just take a refund of his contribution --because they are always entitled to get their contributions back --there would be a hearing regardless of the crime. Ms. Jensen stated that if the amount is more than $15,000.00 each, there would have to be a guardian appointed for each of the children. It was the consensus of the Board members that the amount would be in excess of $15,000.00. Ms. Watson stated she has already been contacted by both the spouses regarding the matter. Ms. Jensen stated in the absence of someone presenting evidence that Mr. Grimmich does not fit within the criteria, it seems to be the exact activity for which this provision was put into the state constitution, and there would still have to be a hearing. Mr. Gillette asked if, in the case of the hearing, would the family have to appear with an attorney to represent their interests. Ms. Jensen stated yes, and Ms. Watson stated she expects that to be the case. Ms. Jensen told the Board that she has not yet found any administrative decisions, but she will continue searching for something in the Florida system that is applicable to this case. She stated that she would work with the Board on the case, as they are the funders of the pension. However, an advocate would have to hired to act in a prosecutorial position in order to make sure that the evidence presented by the family is clear and complete if the family desires to contest the case. To reiterate, Ms. Jensen suggested the Board send a letter to the family letting them know that the operation of the statute voided the designation of the first spouse as the beneficiary and named the two children as the contingent beneficiaries. The letter should also inform the family of the issue regarding the forfeiture of his benefit. The family is entitled to the contributions without question, and if they will execute a release, those funds would be available to be distributed, provided each of the mothers becomes a guardian of her child. Ms. Watson stated there is another child who was born to Courtney in approximately 2010, and this child is not listed on the pension form. Mr. Williamson suggested that the letter to the family include the actual dollar amount of the contributions which have been made, and all present were in agreement. OLICE PENSION BOARD PAGE 5 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2018 Ms. Jensen explained that the issue on appeal will be if the benefit can be forfeited after Mr. Grimmich's death and the potential vesting of the rights of the children. She described what she would put in the letter to the family and asking them for their reply. She also stated that from a fiduciary standpoint both mothers of the children would have to be in agreement as to how they want to proceed. It was Ms. Jensen's advice that in the future a new Designation of Beneficiary form be executed for each and every employee every year, and the form should ask for the beneficiary's social security number. Mr. Killgore suggested the next meeting should be two meetings back to back that will cover both this issue and then the quarterly report from the financial people. Ms. Jensen stated she has also spoken with Mr. Grimmich's brother, who is also a police officer, and she does not know if he will want to participate in the procedure. She also stated that the statute provides that attorney's fees are payable to the prevailing party. III. Adiourn: Chairman Gillette called for any further business. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 10:46 a.m. —- jg