Police Pension Board

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Police Pension Board Meeting Wednesday, January 15, 2025 4:30 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Room 306 Visitors are most welcome to attend all meetings of the Police Pension Board and can find copies of the Agenda at the meeting or online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact The Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. All matters on the Agenda may be discussed, amended, and acted upon. A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Comment D. Approval of Minutes 1) October 10, 2024 Special Meeting 2) Semi-Annual Review of Closed Session Meeting Minutes E. Accountant's Report 1) Lauterbach and Amen will present the monthly financial report 2) Presentation and approval of bills as listed in the monthly financial report 3) Additional Bills 4) Cash Management Policy F. Investment Report 1) IPOPIF - Verus Advisory Inc. G. Communication and Reports 1) Affidavits of Continued Eligibility 2) Statements of Economic Interest H. Trustee Training Updates 1) Approval of Trustee Training Registration Fees & Reimbursable Expenses I. Approval of Membership/Withdrawals from Fund J. Applications for Retirement/Disability Benefits K. Old Business 1) Portability Update - Caitlin Tabor L. New Business 1) Approve Annual Cost of Living Adjustments for Pensioners 2) Review Trustee Term Expirations and Election Procedures M. Attorney Report 1) Annual Independent Medical Examinations - Thomas Hartzell and Raymond Village of Glen Ellyn Page 1 of 66 Police Pension Board Agenda January 15, 2025 Page 2 Munch 2) Review, Adopt, and Publish Decision and Order - Thomas Roman QILDRO 3) Legal Updates N. Adjourn to Exec Session, if needed O. Adjourn Village of Glen Ellyn Page 2 of 66 Village of Glen Ellyn Minutes Village of Glen Ellyn Police Pension Board Meeting Special Meeting October 10, 2024 4:30 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room Board or Police Pension Date: October 10, 2024 Commission: Meeting: Special Called to 4:30 p.m. Order: Quorum: Yes Adjourned: 4:46 p.m. MEMBER ATTENDANCE: Jim Monson President Present John Adduci Trustee Present William Housey Jr. Trustee Present James King Trustee Present Anthony Terranova Trustee Present Also Present: Patrick Brankin Finance Director Elisa Pollina Recording Secretary Richard Lamb Lauterbach & Amen Brian Labardi Police Pension Board Attorney Public: A. CALL TO ORDER The October 10, 2024 meeting of the Police Pension Board was called to order by President Monson at 4:30 pm at the Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room. B. PUBLIC COMMENT – None C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 17, 2024 MEETING MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM JULY 17, 2024 POLICE PENSION BOARD MEETING MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: James King, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Page 3 of 66  Police Pension 2 October 10, 2024 D. Accountant’s Report 1. Lauterbach and Amen present the monthly financial report: Richard Lamb from Lauterbach and Amen presents the financial report for the month ending August 31, 2024, to the Police Pension Board. Statement of Net Position as of August 31, 2024: •Total Assets: $41,738,307.26 •Net Position held in trust for Pension Benefits: $41,735,407.26 •Total Contributions: $1,818,778.84 •Total Additions: $5,607,627.33 •Total Deductions: $2,141,444.08 •Change in Position: $3,466,183.25 •Total Expenses - $251,317.93 Trustee Terranova motioned to accept the monthly financial report as presented; Trustee King seconded the motion. APPROVAL [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anthony Terranova, Trustee SECONDER: James King, Trustee AYES: Adduci, Terranova, Housey, King, Monson 2. Presentation and approval of bills as listed in the monthly financial report – The Police Pension Board reviews the quarterly disbursements. Trustee Terranova motioned to approve the disbursements totaling $17,555.07 as outlined in the Quarterly Disbursement report; Trustee King seconded the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE QUARTERLY DISBURSEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,555.07 MOTION BY: Anthony Terranova, Trustee SECONDED BY: James King, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES – Adduci, Terranova, Housey, Monson, King 3. Additional Bills & Cash Management Policy – The Police Pension reviews the cash management policy. Richard Lamb reminded the Police Pension Board of the current minimum and maximum parameters set at $15,000 and $20,000. He suggested increasing the monthly withdrawals by 3% for 2025. Finance Director Brankin clarified that a decision on the proposed change is not required at this time. Attorney Labardi added that the current monthly withdrawal schedule is only valid through the end of the year, so a new decision will need to be made in January 2025. Page 4 of 66  Police Pension 3 October 10, 2024 President Monson motioned to continue the current monthly payments of $63,636 until the first-quarter meeting, at which time the Police Pension Board will reassess the policy. Trustee Terranova seconded the motion. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $63,636 UNTIL THE FIRST-QUARTER MEETING, AT WHICH TIME THE POLICE PENSION BOARD WILL REASSESS THE POLICY MOTION BY James Monson, President SECONDED BY: Anthony Terranova, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES - Adduci, Terranova, Housey, Monson, King A E. Investment Report 1. IPOPIF Versus Advisory Inc. – The Police Pension Board reviewed the performance report from IPOPIF, noting that the market value of the fund stands at $41,656,917.27, reflecting a 5.9% increase. F. Communication and Reports 1. Affidavits of Continued Eligibility – Richard Lamb confirmed that all affidavits have been sent out, completed, and copies have been received. G. Trustee Training Updates 1. Approval of Trustee Training Registration Fees and Reimbursable Expenses – Richard Lamb reminds the Police Pension Board members to sign up for their training. H. Approval of Membership / Withdrawals from Fund - None I. APPLICATIONS FOR RETIREMENT / DISABILITY BENEFITS - None J. OLD BUSINESS 1. Portability Update – Caitlin Tabor – No response received; item will be tabled until next month. 2. Portability Update – Kevin Lombard – The Police Pension Board reviewed the portability transfer. Trustee Adduci motioned to revise Kevin Lombard’s hire date to October 17, 2019, noting he is paid in full. Trustee Terranova seconded the motion. MOTION TO REVISE KEVIN LOMBARD’S HIRE DATE TO OCTOBER 17, 2019 MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: Anthony Terranova, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES - Terranova, Housey, Monson, King, Adduci A Page 5 of 66  Police Pension 4 October 10, 2024 3. Review/Adopt Municipal Compliance Report – The Police Pension reviews the MCR report noting the recommended 2024 municipal contribution. Trustee Housey motioned to approve the recommended municipal contribution in the amount of $2,762.669; Trustee Adduci seconded the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,762.669 MOTION BY: William Housey, Trustee SECONDED BY: John Adduci, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES - Adduci, Terranova, Housey, Monson, King A K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Establish 2025 Board Meeting Dates – The Police Pension Board reviewed and approved the 2025 meeting schedule, with meetings to be held on the third Wednesday of each quarter at 4:30 p.m. The dates are January 15, April 16, July 16, and October 15. L. ATTORNEY’S REPORT 1. Annual Independent Medical Examinations –Thomas Hartzell and Raymond Munch – Trustee Adduci motioned to initiate Thomas Hartzell and Raymond Munch annual evaluations; Trustee King seconded the motion. MOTION TO INITIATE THOMAS HARTZELL AND RAYMOND MUNCH ANNUAL EVALUATIONS MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: James King, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES - Adduci, Terranova, Housey, Monson, King A M. Public Hearing on Thomas Roman Benefit Issue (See transcribed record for details). N. Motion to Adjourn to closed executive session for the purpose of considering the evidence produced at the public hearing, provided that a written decision setting forth the Police Pension Board’s determinative reasoning is issued thereafter, pursuant to 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (4) – Trustee Adduci motioned to adjourn to closed executive session and Trustee King seconded the motion. The open session adjourned at 4:46 p.m. for purposes of deliberation. MOTION TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, PROVIDED THAT A WRITTEN DECISION SETTING FORTH THE POLICE PENSION BOARD’S DETERMINATIVE REASONING IS ISSUED THEREAFTER PURSUANT TO 5 ILCS 120/2 © (4). MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: James King, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES: Housey, Terranova, Monson, Adduci, King Page 6 of 66  Police Pension 5 October 10, 2024 O. Return to Open Session to Adopt Decision on Thomas Roman Benefit Issue– Trustee Terranova motioned to return to open session and Trustee King seconded the motion. Trustee Adduci motioned to reduce Mary Roman's monthly benefit by 4.42 percent, and pay that amount to Thomas Roman until the overpayment amount of $12,186.18 is repaid commencing with the January 2025 payroll; Trustee Housey seconded the motion. MOTION TO REDUCE MARY ROMAN'S MONTHLY BENEFIT BY 4.42 PERCENT, AND PAY THAT AMOUNT TO THOMAS ROMAN UNTIL THE OVERPAYMENT AMOUNT OF $12,186.18 IS REPAID COMMENCING WITH THE JANUARY 2025 PAYROLL MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: William Housey, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES: Housey, Terranova, Monson, King, Adduci P. Motion to Authorize Preparation of the Court Reporter Transcript Trustee Adduci motioned to authorize preparation of the court reporter transcript; Trustee King seconded the motion. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF THE COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MOTION BY: John Adduci, Trustee SECONDED BY: James King, Trustee RESULT: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AYES: Housey, Terranova, Monson, King, Adduci Q. ADJOURNMENT – Trustee Housey motioned to adjourn the meeting; Trustee Terranova seconded the motion. Submitted by Elisa Pollina, Recording Secretary Reviewed by Finance Director Brankin Page 7 of 66 Page 8 of 66  1 1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 2 GLEN ELLYN POLICE PENSION FUND 3 4 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) 5 OVERPAYMENT OF: ) 6 ) 7 MARY ROMAN, ) 8 ALTERNATE PAYEE, ) 9 10 11 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the hearing 12 of the above-entitled cause before Glen Ellyn Police 13 Pension Fund, commencing on Thursday, October 10, 14 2024, at 4:30 p.m., at 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, 15 Illinois. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: LINDA A. WALICZEK, C.S.R. 23 CERTIFICATE NO. 84-3865. 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 9 of 66  2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 3 BY: MR. BRIAN J. LABARDI 4 15 Spinning Wheel Road 5 Suite 310 6 Hinsdale, IL 60521 7 (630) 654-9547 8 blabardi@rdlaborlawpc.com 9 Appeared on behalf of the Village of 10 Glen Ellyn; 11 12 LAW OFFICES OF LOFGREN & WENTWORTH, P.C. 13 BY: MR. RICHARD J. LOFGREN 14 536 Crescent Blvd. 15 Suite 200 16 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 17 (630) 469-7100 18 rlofgren@elrlaw.com 19 Appeared on behalf of the Alternate Payee. 20 21 BOARD MEMBERS: Mr. Jim Monson, President 22 Mr. Tony Terranova, Trustee Mr. John Adduci, Trustee 23 Mr. William Housey, Trustee Mr. James King, Trustee 24 * * * SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 10 of 66  3 1 I N D E X 2 3 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE: 4 5 Board Exhibit A-F 6 6 Board Exhibit G-I 7 7 8 9 10 EXHIBITS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE 11 Board Exhibit A-F 6 12 Board Exhibit G-I 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 11 of 66  Mary Roman 4 1 MR. LABARDI: Let's go on the record in the 2 matter of the hearing for the QIDRO for Roman before 3 the Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund. 4 Mr. President, do you want to call 5 the roll and establish a quorum, please? 6 PRESIDENT MONSON: Yes. 7 Jim King? 8 TRUSTEE KING: Here. 9 PRESIDENT MONSON: John Adduci? 10 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Here. 11 PRESIDENT MONSON: Tony Terranova? 12 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Here. 13 PRESIDENT MONSON: William Housey? 14 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Here. 15 MR. LABARDI: Counsel, would you like -- 16 PRESIDENT MONSON: Jim Monson, here. 17 MR. LABARDI: -- to identify yourself for the 18 record as well, please? 19 MR. LOFGREN: Yes. Good evening. My name is 20 Richard Lofgren. I'm here today for Mary Roman, who 21 is sitting to my left. 22 MS. ROMAN: Hi. 23 MR. LABARDI: The record should indicate, as 24 we'll admit in the exhibits, Tom Roman was given SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 12 of 66  Mary Roman 5 1 notice of the hearing today. I did speak with him 2 last week. He is not here, so I assume he's not 3 showing up. 4 The first motion I would suggest the 5 board to make would be a motion to appoint me as the 6 hearing officer. What that means is I'll preside 7 over the hearing. I'll rule on any objections or 8 evidentiary matters. I may ask some questions, but 9 I'm not here to act as an advocate for one side or 10 the other. If you go into a closed session, I'll 11 certainly attend your closed session. 12 Counsel, do you have any objection to 13 me serving as the hearing officer? 14 MR. LOFGREN: No objection. 15 MR. LABARDI: Anybody want to make that motion? 16 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Motion for Brian Labardi to 17 serve as the hearing officer. 18 TRUSTEE KING: Second. 19 MR. LABARDI: Roll call on that, please. 20 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Housey, aye. 21 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Terranova, aye. 22 PRESIDENT MONSON: Monson, aye. 23 TRUSTEE KING: King, aye. 24 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Adduci, aye. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 13 of 66  Mary Roman 6 1 MR. LABARDI: I forgot one thing. This is a 2 public meeting just like your regular meeting was, 3 so we did have to ask if there is any public 4 comment? 5 (No response.) 6 MR. LABARDI: Hearing none, fair enough. 7 We've previously provided to both 8 parties what I had marked as Board Exhibits A 9 through F. 10 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 11 marked Board Exhibits A-F, for 12 identification, as of 10/10/2024.) 13 MR. LABARDI: I know, Counsel, you had a chance 14 to thumb through those before the hearing. 15 Do have any objections to admission 16 of Board Exhibits A through F? 17 MR. LOFGREN: I'd stipulate to their admission. 18 MR. LABARDI: The record should reflect 19 Board Exhibits A through F are admitted without 20 objection. 21 (WHEREUPON, said documents, 22 previously marked Board Exhibits A-F, 23 for identification were offered and 24 received in evidence.) SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 14 of 66  Mary Roman 7 1 MR. LABARDI: In addition to A through F, I 2 have a couple of procedural exhibits that I've 3 labeled Board Exhibits G, H, and I just for the 4 record. 5 And I'll give you copies of this in a 6 second, Counsel. 7 (WHEREUPON, certain documents were 8 marked Board Exhibits G, H, & I, for 9 identification, as of 10/10/2024.) 10 MR. LABARDI: Board Exhibit H is the notice of 11 hearing for today's date. 12 Board Exhibit I is an e-mail from 13 your law partner, Charles Wentworth, indicating that 14 he's representing Mary Roman. 15 Board Exhibit G is various 16 correspondence to both Mary Roman and Tom Roman 17 discussing changing hearing dates, etc. 18 I believe that's all. I'll give you 19 copies of those, and then I'll ask whether you have 20 any objection to introduction of G, H, and I. 21 MR. LOFGREN: Stipulate to their admission. 22 23 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 15 of 66  Mary Roman 8 1 MR. LABARDI: The record should reflect Board 2 Exhibits G, H, and I are also admitted. 3 (WHEREUPON, said documents, 4 previously marked Board Exhibit G, H, 5 & I, for identification were offered 6 and received in evidence.) 7 MR. LABARDI: I have copies of those for the 8 board if anybody wants to see them; but as I just 9 described, they're really just correspondence 10 matters. 11 Counsel, you know why we're here. I 12 always give anyone an opportunity to make an 13 opening statement if you'd like, be my guest, or 14 waive, whatever you prefer. 15 OPENING STATEMENT 16 ON BEHALF OF THE ALTERNATE PAYEE 17 MR. LOFGREN: My client, Mary Roman, was 18 divorced years ago from her husband, Tom. For the 19 last nine years she was receiving pension payments 20 from the pension fund. 21 Apparently, the pension fund had an 22 error in its calculations as to her monthly payments 23 that she was to receive. It's my understanding that 24 that error has since been corrected, and that SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 16 of 66  Mary Roman 9 1 overpayment was of $125 a month, and that 2 overpayment has ceased by the pension board's 3 actions. 4 We're here today to talk about how 5 much Mary's going to be required by the board to pay 6 back the fund. Simply put, under the relevant 7 statute, I think Mr. LaBardi and I would agree, the 8 relevant state deals with the QIDRO situation where 9 a spouse through a divorce action gets an award 10 through the divorce, and that involves assignment of 11 pension payments. 12 That particular section of the code 13 gives -- tells this board that they have to go out 14 and recoup overpayments if there's a mistake. We 15 understand that. We don't dispute that. We 16 certainly don't dispute that there's been a 17 recalculation of what her payments should be. We 18 acknowledge that should be done and has to be 19 done. 20 The question now becomes is this 21 board -- and I'm sure your counsel will advise you, 22 you have what's called a fiduciary duty to protect 23 the assets of the fund, and that is why the statute 24 charges you with the obligation to try to correct SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 17 of 66  Mary Roman 10 1 your mistakes. Go back and get the money you 2 mistakenly gave someone else incorrectly. 3 We don't dispute that you have that 4 obligation, and you need to discharge that 5 obligation. The particular section of the statute, 6 however, that we're looking at essentially makes 7 reference to another section of the Pension Code, 8 Article 3, which essentially says in these 9 situations, the board when it's deciding on how much 10 to seek back has a limit of up to 10 percent of the 11 actual pension payment that's being made. 12 The most important thing that I want 13 to emphasize is the statute says up to 10 percent. 14 In this case, Mary's payments are roughly $2,700 a 15 month, so 10 percent roughly -- in our case is 16 actually $274 would be 10 percent. 17 This board is not obligated to do 18 10 percent. You have the ability or the discretion 19 to decide what's appropriate for purposes of these 20 particular circumstances for purposes of 21 fulfilling your obligation to get the money back and 22 to see that those monies are given to, in this case, 23 Tom. 24 As I mentioned, this is not Mary's SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 18 of 66  Mary Roman 11 1 mistake. Mary's retired. She has two sources of 2 income right now. She has a Social Security of 3 $1,300 a month, and she has this pension payment. 4 The reversal of the mistake of $125 has already 5 blown a hole in her budget, but she has to live with 6 it, and she will. She has no problem with it. 7 Whatever amount of money up to 10 percent of her 8 $2,700 monthly payment you require her to pay back 9 on a monthly basis will make that hole even larger. 10 She's going to have to figure out ways in which to 11 make things work with less money. 12 We're going to ask the board to 13 exercise its discretion when it's exercising its 14 duty to recoup the money to ask Mary or require Mary 15 to pay back on the same scale that she received the 16 money. 17 She had overpayments of $125 a 18 month. That's roughly, by my calculations, a little 19 less than 5 percent of her payment. So it's kind of 20 between the zero and the 10 percent, which is your 21 range. 22 We would ask that the board take into 23 consideration that this is not Mary's fault. Mary's 24 not objecting that, yeah, I was overpaid. I didn't SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 19 of 66  Mary Roman 12 1 know about it. I understand you have to get the 2 money back, and she'll go along with it; but she's 3 just asking, and I'm asking, the board just take 4 into consideration that she's on a fixed income. 5 This has blown a hole in her budget that she's going 6 to have to deal with. 7 She wants to work with the board to 8 fulfill its duty and get the money to the rightful 9 owner, and she merely is going to ask simply take 10 the money out of her monthly payments at $125 a 11 month the same way that you gave it to her. 12 Because she didn't get -- I think in 13 this case there's like $12,000 in total payments 14 that were made. It was made over nine years. She 15 doesn't have $12,000 that she can just give to you, 16 and she didn't get it all at one time. She got it 17 unbeknownst to her. You guys were giving her money 18 for nine years that now you're putting her in a 19 bind. 20 All that being said, Mary says, I'm 21 going to do the right thing, but she's just asking 22 please be fair. Take into consideration her 23 circumstances. 24 At the end of this hearing, I'm SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 20 of 66  Mary Roman 13 1 simply going to ask if the board could find it to 2 enter an order where the repayment or the recoupment 3 amount on a monthly basis is $125. 4 Again, as I said, that's roughly 5 between 4 and 5 percent of what her monthly payment 6 is. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. LABARDI: Thank you, Counsel. 9 Before we get into any potential 10 additional evidence or testimony. I have brief 11 ground rules I'll lay out. 12 This is a hearing being conducted 13 pursuant to Article 1 and Article 3 of the Pension 14 Code to determine the amount of any potential 15 overpayment to alternate payee Mary Roman, 16 pursuant to the QIDRO entered in the party's divorce 17 matter. 18 Mr. and Mrs. Roman were previously 19 sent a notice of hearing advising them of the 20 proceedings on this date and advising them of the 21 right to be represented by legal counsel, to present 22 evidence, and to respond to any evidence before the 23 board of trustees of the Glen Ellyn Police Pension 24 Fund. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 21 of 66  Mary Roman 14 1 Ms. Roman, do you acknowledge receipt 2 of the notice of hearing, and you're ready to 3 proceed? 4 MS. ROMAN: Yes. 5 MR. LABARDI: The procedures to be utilized in 6 this case are as follows: 7 During the hearing, the parties or 8 their attorneys may make an opening statement. 9 You've already done that. 10 The parties may present any evidence, 11 including testimony and documentation, in support of 12 of their claim. 13 The board or its legal counsel may 14 ask any questions. 15 Rulings on any legal matters will be 16 made by the hearing officer. 17 In the event the hearing can't be 18 completed on this date, the matter will be continued 19 from time to time to dates agreeable to all parties 20 until it's completed. 21 The technical and the formal rules of 22 evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure do not 23 apply; however, rules of fundamental fairness, such 24 as the hearsay rule do apply. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 22 of 66  Mary Roman 15 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the 2 parties my either file a post-hearing brief to 3 include the post-finding of facts and conclusions of 4 law or make a closing argument or both. 5 And finally, the board will render a 6 written decision that will become the final decision 7 as to the matter in this case. 8 Counsel, do you have any questions 9 about those procedures before we go forward? 10 MR. LOFGREN: No, I do not. 11 MR. LABARDI: Counsel, do you have any 12 witnesses or documentation you'd like to submit into 13 evidence other than what's been tendered by the 14 board. 15 MR. LOFGREN: Counsel, I'm happy to put 16 Ms. Roman on to testify to what I've already stated, 17 but I don't want to waste your time because there's 18 nothing new that she's going to say that hasn't 19 already been said. 20 I would -- for trying to move this 21 along, I understand the amount of money is -- 22 Counsel, if you could give me the exact figure? I 23 think it's twelve-thousand and something? 24 MR. LABARDI: Yes. So if you'd like, maybe the SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 23 of 66  Mary Roman 16 1 easiest thing to do is ask whether -- and if you 2 want to swear your client, and she testifies, that's 3 fine; or if you have the authority to stipulate to 4 it, that's fine. Whatever you prefer. 5 MR. LOFGREN: I have the authority to 6 stipulate. I just need to have the exact dollar 7 amount. 8 MR. LABARDI: Fair enough. 9 Based on the documents that have been 10 admitted, it appears, based on the board's 11 accountants, that the total amount of overpayment to 12 your client was $12,186.18. 13 MR. LOFGREN: We'll stipulate. 14 MR. LABARDI: Fair enough. 15 The only other question that I have, 16 which you can ask your client about if you need to, 17 or whatever, Exhibit A of the board's exhibits is 18 the QIDRO that was entered March of 2005. It's 19 marked as amended QIDRO. We have a certified copy 20 of it. 21 I don't know if there was any 22 sort of a subsequent QIDRO entered subsequent to the 23 one from 2005, but that's the only one the board 24 has. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 24 of 66  Mary Roman 17 1 MR. LOFGREN: We'll stipulate to that as being 2 the affective QIDRO. 3 MR. LABARDI: Fair enough. 4 The only other question that we might 5 need your client's input on is if we look at the 6 board's exhibits with the calculations, they end in 7 October of '23, which means it doesn't have the 8 current benefit amount. But since they had a 9 regular meeting today, we have the payroll journal 10 from last month from August of 2024, which would 11 indicate the monthly benefit to your client is, in 12 gross, $2,826.62. 13 Does that sound accurate? 14 MS. ROMAN: As far as I -- yeah. 15 MR. LOFGREN: Generally speaking, it's my 16 understanding that prior to the adjustment on the 17 overpayment, the payments were $2,869; and then 18 after it had been reduced $125 a month, the payment 19 was reduced down $2,744. 20 MR. LABARDI: Correct. The discrepancy, the 21 increase that I just threw off might be because she 22 does get a proportional share of the COLA increases, 23 which occur in January. 24 MR. LOFGREN: There we go. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 25 of 66  Mary Roman 18 1 MR. LABARDI: My guess is that the $2,800 2 amount that I just read off is as a result of the 3 January COLA increase. 4 MR. LOFGREN: We'll stipulate to that amount. 5 MR. LABARDI: Fair enough. 6 So then your request is that the 7 board set a repayment amount of no more than 8 $125? 9 MR. LOFGREN: That is correct. 10 MR. LABARDI: Linda, go off the record for a 11 minute while I do math. 12 (WHEREUPON, a discussion was had off 13 the record.) 14 MR. LABARDI: Let's go back on the record. 15 The record should reflect that 16 someone in the room, who's better at math than 17 Brian, has indicated that the $125 ask would be 18 4.42 percent. 19 Fair enough. The board will make a 20 decision ultimately, obviously; but, Counsel, I just 21 want to suggest that my suggestion to the board will 22 be we set a percentage as opposed to a specific 23 dollar amount because, as I just indicated, those 24 amounts increase every January, so I don't want to SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 26 of 66  Mary Roman 19 1 have a fluctuation in terms of the percentage in as 2 much as the statute deals with percentage. 3 MR. LOFGREN: I would ask for a percentage 4 repayment at 4.42. 5 MR. LABARDI: Fair enough. 6 Counsel, you've indicated you have no 7 witnesses and no additional evidence, correct? 8 MR. LOFGREN: That's correct. 9 MR. LABARDI: Do you want to make a closing 10 statement? 11 MR. LOFGREN: I wish not to bore you further. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. LABARDI: Ms. Roman rests? 14 MR. LOFGREN: We rest. 15 MR. LABARDI: Gentlemen, you're introduced to 16 all the evidence we've heard from counsel. We can 17 discuss in open session and take a vote, or we can 18 go into closed session to discuss, and then come 19 out. We can get additional evidence if you 20 think or witnesses if you think that would be 21 helpful. 22 What's the board's pleasure? 23 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: I would move that we go into 24 closed session. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 27 of 66  Mary Roman 20 1 MR. LABARDI: It sounds like there's a motion 2 to go into closed session pursuant to Section 2(c)4 3 of the Open Meetings Act to discuss evidence and 4 testimony presented in an open hearing. 5 Anybody want to move that? 6 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: I move. 7 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Second. 8 MR. LABARDI: Roll call, please. 9 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Housey, aye. 10 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Terranova, aye. 11 PRESIDENT MONSON: Monson, aye. 12 TRUSTEE KING: King, aye. 13 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Adduci, aye? 14 MR. LABARDI: Counsel, give us a minute if you 15 don't mind. 16 (WHEREUPON, all members outside of 17 the board and Mr. LaBardi left the 18 meeting.) 19 (WHEREUPON, proceedings were had in 20 closed session outside the hearing of 21 the public which were transcribed 22 under separate seal.) 23 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 28 of 66  Mary Roman 21 1 (WHEREUPON, all parties have 2 re-entered the hearing proceedings 3 and the following proceedings were 4 held with all parties present.) 5 MR. LABARDI: Let's go back on the record in 6 the administrative hearing for the Roman QIDRO 7 matter. 8 The board has met in closed session. 9 No final determination was made in closed session. 10 The session was both transcribed and recorded in 11 accordance with the Open Meetings Act. 12 The first motion we need is a motion 13 to adjourn the closed session. 14 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: I'll make the motion to 15 adjourn the closed session. 16 TRUSTEE KING: Second. 17 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Housey, aye. 18 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Terranova, aye. 19 PRESIDENT MONSON: Monson, aye. 20 TRUSTEE KING: King, aye. 21 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Adduci, aye. 22 MR. LABARDI: Just in the interest of full 23 disclosure, Counsel, this isn't in the record as 24 evidence, but in light of the 4.42 percent request, SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 29 of 66  Mary Roman 22 1 I called the funds' payroll administrator to make 2 sure they can deal with that decimal point, and they 3 said they could. 4 I just wanted to make sure on that 5 before we decided on something. 6 MR. LOFGREN: Thank you. 7 MR. LABARDI: Having heard discussion in closed 8 session, does anyone want to make a motion to reduce 9 Mary Roman's monthly benefit by 4.42 percent, and 10 pay that amount to Tom Roman until the overpayment 11 amount of $12,186.18 is repaid commencing with the 12 January 2025 payroll? 13 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: I make a motion that we -- 14 commencing with the January 2025 payroll, we make a 15 deduction to Mary Roman in order to pay to Thomas 16 Roman of 4.42 percent of her benefit commencing 17 January 2025 until the payment of $12,186.18 is 18 repaid. 19 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Second. 20 MR. LABARDI: Counsel, do you have any 21 questions on that motion before we vote? 22 MR. LOFGREN: No, sir. 23 MR. LABARDI: Any discussion? 24 (No response.) SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 30 of 66  Mary Roman 23 1 MR. LABARDI: If not, a roll call, please. 2 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Housey, aye. 3 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Terranova, aye. 4 PRESIDENT MONSON: Monson, aye. 5 TRUSTEE KING: King, aye. 6 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Adduci, aye. 7 MR. LABARDI: That's passed. 8 Again, Counsel, obviously that number 9 will go above or fluctuate from the $125 a month 10 because of the COLA increase, but that will be 11 effective with the January 2025 payroll. We'll let 12 the payroll administrators know. 13 I'll do a written decision and order 14 that will eventually get served on you when it's 15 done, probably not until the Board's January 16 meeting, but that's it. 17 Do you have anything else for the 18 board? 19 MR. LOFGREN: Thank you. 20 MS. ROMAN: Thank you. 21 MR. LOFGREN: Appreciate it. 22 MR. LABARDI: If there's no other business, we 23 just need a motion to authorize preparation of the 24 court reporter transcript, please. SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 31 of 66  Mary Roman 24 1 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Motion to authorize 2 preparation of the court reporter transcript. 3 TRUSTEE KING: Second. 4 MR. LABARDI: Roll call, please. 5 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Housey, aye. 6 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Terranova, aye. 7 PRESIDENT MONSON: Monson, aye. 8 TRUSTEE KING: King, aye. 9 TRUSTEE ADDUCI: Adduci, aye. 10 MR. LABARDI: And then a motion to adjourn. 11 TRUSTEE HOUSEY: Motion to adjourn. 12 TRUSTEE TERRANOVA: Second. 13 MR. LABARDI: All in favor? 14 (All responding aye.) 15 (Which were all the proceedings 16 had in the above-entitled cause 17 on this date.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 32 of 66  25 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 2 ) SS: 3 COUNTY OF WILL ) 4 I, LINDA A. WALICZEK, a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter of the State of Illinois, do 6 hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the 7 proceedings had at the hearing aforesaid, and that 8 the foregoing is a true, complete and correct 9 transcript of the proceedings of said hearing as 10 appears from my stenographic notes so taken and 11 transcribed under my personal direction. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 13 hand at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of 14 October, 2024. 15 16 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter 18 19 C.S.R. Certificate No. 84-3865. 20 21 22 23 24 SCHELLI REPORTING SERVICE, LTD. (312) 558-1113 Page 33 of 66 Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Mary Roman Overpayment Matter October 10, 2024 adjustment (1) 9:23 6:7;7:16;15:4; COLA (3) $ 17:16 assignment (1) 21:10 17:22;18:3;23:10 administrative (1) 9:10 Brian (2) commencing (3) $1,300 (1) 21:6 assume (1) 5:16;18:17 22:11,14,16 11:3 administrator (1) 5:2 brief (2) comment (1) $12,000 (2) 22:1 attend (1) 13:10;15:2 6:4 12:13,15 administrators (1) 5:11 budget (2) completed (2) $12,186.18 (3) 23:12 attorneys (1) 11:5;12:5 14:18,20 16:12;22:11,17 admission (3) 14:8 business (1) conclusion (1) $125 (9) 6:15,17;7:21 August (1) 23:22 15:1 9:1;11:4,17;12:10; admit (1) 17:10 conclusions (1) 13:3;17:18;18:8,17; 4:24 authority (2) C 15:3 23:9 admitted (3) 16:3,5 conducted (1) $2,700 (2) 6:19;8:2;16:10 authorize (2) calculations (3) 13:12 10:14;11:8 advise (1) 23:23;24:1 8:22;11:18;17:6 consideration (3) $2,744 (1) 9:21 award (1) call (5) 11:23;12:4,22 17:19 advising (2) 9:9 4:4;5:19;20:8; continued (1) $2,800 (1) 13:19,20 aye (26) 23:1;24:4 14:18 18:1 advocate (1) 5:20,21,22,23,24; called (2) copies (3) $2,826.62 (1) 5:9 20:9,10,11,12,13; 9:22;22:1 7:5,19;8:7 17:12 A-F (2) 21:17,18,19,20,21; can (6) copy (1) $2,869 (1) 6:11,22 23:2,3,4,5,6;24:5,6,7, 12:15;16:16;19:16, 16:19 17:17 affective (1) 8,9,14 17,19;22:2 corrected (1) $274 (1) 17:2 case (6) 8:24 10:16 Again (2) B 10:14,15,22;12:13; correspondence (2) 13:4;23:8 14:6;15:7 7:16;8:9 A ago (1) back (9) cause (1) Counsel (20) 8:18 9:6;10:1,10,21; 24:16 4:15;5:12;6:13; ability (1) agree (1) 11:8,15;12:2;18:14; ceased (1) 7:6;8:11;9:21;13:8, 10:18 9:7 21:5 9:2 21;14:13;15:8,11,15, above (1) agreeable (1) Based (2) certain (2) 22;18:20;19:6,16; 23:9 14:19 16:9,10 6:10;7:7 20:14;21:23;22:20; above-entitled (1) along (2) basis (2) certainly (2) 23:8 24:16 12:2;15:21 11:9;13:3 5:11;9:16 couple (1) accordance (1) ALTERNATE (2) become (1) certified (1) 7:2 21:11 8:16;13:15 15:6 16:19 court (2) accountants (1) always (1) becomes (1) chance (1) 23:24;24:2 16:11 8:12 9:20 6:13 current (1) accurate (1) amended (1) BEHALF (1) changing (1) 17:8 17:13 16:19 8:16 7:17 acknowledge (2) amount (13) benefit (4) charges (1) D 9:18;14:1 11:7;13:3,14; 17:8,11;22:9,16 9:24 act (3) 15:21;16:7,11;17:8; better (1) Charles (1) date (4) 5:9;20:3;21:11 18:2,4,7,23;22:10,11 18:16 7:13 7:11;13:20;14:18; action (1) amounts (1) bind (1) circumstances (2) 24:17 9:9 18:24 12:19 10:20;12:23 dates (2) actions (1) Apparently (1) blown (2) Civil (1) 7:17;14:19 9:3 8:21 11:5;12:5 14:22 deal (2) actual (1) appears (1) board (35) claim (1) 12:6;22:2 10:11 16:10 5:5;6:8,11,16,19, 14:12 deals (2) actually (1) apply (2) 22;7:3,8,10,12,15; client (5) 9:8;19:2 10:16 14:23,24 8:1,4,8;9:5,13,21; 8:17;16:2,12,16; decide (1) addition (1) appoint (1) 10:9,17;11:12,22; 17:11 10:19 7:1 5:5 12:3,7;13:1,23; client's (1) decided (1) additional (3) Appreciate (1) 14:13;15:5,14;16:23; 17:5 22:5 13:10;19:7,19 23:21 18:7,19,21;20:17; closed (11) deciding (1) Adduci (17) appropriate (1) 21:8;23:18 5:10,11;19:18,24; 10:9 4:9,10;5:16,24,24; 10:19 board's (6) 20:2,20;21:8,9,13,15; decimal (1) 19:23;20:6,13,13; argument (1) 9:2;16:10,17;17:6; 22:7 22:2 21:21,21;22:13;23:6, 15:4 19:22;23:15 closing (2) decision (4) 6;24:1,9,9 Article (3) bore (1) 15:4;19:9 15:6,6;18:20;23:13 adjourn (4) 10:8;13:13,13 19:11 code (3) deduction (1) 21:13,15;24:10,11 assets (1) both (4) 9:12;10:7;13:14 22:15 Min-U-Script® Schelli Reporting Service, Ltd. (1) $1,300 - deduction (312) 558-1113 Page 34 of 66 Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Mary Roman Overpayment Matter October 10, 2024 described (1) enter (1) 15:6;21:9 ground (1) 18:17,23;19:6 8:9 13:2 finally (1) 13:11 indicating (1) determination (1) entered (3) 15:5 guess (1) 7:13 21:9 13:16;16:18,22 find (1) 18:1 input (1) determine (1) error (2) 13:1 guest (1) 17:5 13:14 8:22,24 fine (2) 8:13 interest (1) discharge (1) essentially (2) 16:3,4 guys (1) 21:22 10:4 10:6,8 first (2) 12:17 into (9) disclosure (1) establish (1) 5:4;21:12 5:10;11:22;12:4, 21:23 4:5 fixed (1) H 22;13:9;15:12;19:18, discrepancy (1) etc (1) 12:4 23;20:2 17:20 7:17 fluctuate (1) happy (1) introduced (1) discretion (2) even (1) 23:9 15:15 19:15 10:18;11:13 11:9 fluctuation (1) heard (2) introduction (1) discuss (3) evening (1) 19:1 19:16;22:7 7:20 19:17,18;20:3 4:19 following (1) hearing (22) involves (1) discussing (1) event (1) 21:3 4:2;5:1,6,7,13,17; 9:10 7:17 14:17 follows (1) 6:6,14;7:11,17; discussion (3) eventually (1) 14:6 12:24;13:12,19;14:2, J 18:12;22:7,23 23:14 forgot (1) 7,16,17;15:1;20:4,20; dispute (3) evidence (13) 6:1 21:2,6 January (8) 9:15,16;10:3 6:24;8:6;13:10,22, formal (1) hearsay (1) 17:23;18:3,24; divorce (3) 22;14:10,22;15:13; 14:21 14:24 22:12,14,17;23:11,15 9:9,10;13:16 19:7,16,19;20:3; forward (1) held (1) Jim (2) divorced (1) 21:24 15:9 21:4 4:7,16 8:18 evidentiary (1) fulfill (1) helpful (1) John (1) documentation (2) 5:8 12:8 19:21 4:9 14:11;15:12 exact (2) fulfilling (1) Hi (1) journal (1) documents (5) 15:22;16:6 10:21 4:22 17:9 6:10,21;7:7;8:3; exercise (1) full (1) hole (3) 16:9 11:13 21:22 11:5,9;12:5 K dollar (2) exercising (1) Fund (6) Housey (14) 16:6;18:23 11:13 4:3;8:20,21;9:6,23; 4:13,14;5:20,20; kind (1) done (4) Exhibit (5) 13:24 20:9,9;21:17,17; 11:19 9:18,19;14:9;23:15 7:10,12,15;8:4; fundamental (1) 22:19;23:2,2;24:5,5, King (15) down (1) 16:17 14:23 11 4:7,8;5:18,23,23; 17:19 exhibits (12) funds' (1) husband (1) 20:12,12;21:16,20, During (1) 4:24;6:8,11,16,19, 22:1 8:18 20;23:5,5;24:3,8,8 14:7 22;7:2,3,8;8:2;16:17; further (1) duty (3) 17:6 19:11 I L 9:22;11:14;12:8 F G identification (4) LABARDI (47) E 6:12,23;7:9;8:5 4:1,15,17,23;5:15, facts (1) gave (2) identify (1) 16,19;6:1,6,13,18; easiest (1) 15:3 10:2;12:11 4:17 7:1,10;8:1,7;9:7; 16:1 fair (8) Generally (1) important (1) 13:8;14:5;15:11,24; effective (1) 6:6;12:22;16:8,14; 17:15 10:12 16:8,14;17:3,20;18:1, 23:11 17:3;18:5,19;19:5 Gentlemen (1) include (1) 5,10,14;19:5,9,13,15; either (1) fairness (1) 19:15 15:3 20:1,8,14,17;21:5,22; 15:2 14:23 gets (1) including (1) 22:7,20,23;23:1,7,22; Ellyn (2) far (1) 9:9 14:11 24:4,10,13 4:3;13:23 17:14 given (2) income (2) labeled (1) else (2) fault (1) 4:24;10:22 11:2;12:4 7:3 10:2;23:17 11:23 gives (1) incorrectly (1) larger (1) e-mail (1) favor (1) 9:13 10:2 11:9 7:12 24:13 giving (1) increase (4) last (3) emphasize (1) fiduciary (1) 12:17 17:21;18:3,24; 5:2;8:19;17:10 10:13 9:22 Glen (2) 23:10 law (2) end (2) figure (2) 4:3;13:23 increases (1) 7:13;15:4 12:24;17:6 11:10;15:22 Good (1) 17:22 lay (1) enough (7) file (1) 4:19 indicate (2) 13:11 6:6;16:8,14;17:3; 15:2 gross (1) 4:23;17:11 left (2) 18:5,19;19:5 final (2) 17:12 indicated (3) 4:21;20:17 Min-U-Script® Schelli Reporting Service, Ltd. (2) described - left (312) 558-1113 Page 35 of 66 Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Mary Roman Overpayment Matter October 10, 2024 legal (3) merely (1) 14:2 9:12;10:5,20 23:4;24:7 13:21;14:13,15 12:9 number (1) parties (7) previously (4) less (2) met (1) 23:8 6:8;14:7,10,19; 6:7,22;8:4;13:18 11:11,19 21:8 15:2;21:1,4 prior (1) light (1) might (2) O partner (1) 17:16 21:24 17:4,21 7:13 probably (1) limit (1) mind (1) objecting (1) party's (1) 23:15 10:10 20:15 11:24 13:16 problem (1) Linda (1) minute (2) objection (4) passed (1) 11:6 18:10 18:11;20:14 5:12,14;6:20;7:20 23:7 procedural (1) little (1) mistake (3) objections (2) pay (5) 7:2 11:18 9:14;11:1,4 5:7;6:15 9:5;11:8,15;22:10, Procedure (1) live (1) mistakenly (1) obligated (1) 15 14:22 11:5 10:2 10:17 PAYEE (2) procedures (2) LOFGREN (23) mistakes (1) obligation (4) 8:16;13:15 14:5;15:9 4:19,20;5:14;6:17; 10:1 9:24;10:4,5,21 payment (7) proceed (1) 7:21;8:17;15:10,15; money (11) obviously (2) 10:11;11:3,8,19; 14:3 16:5,13;17:1,15,24; 10:1,21;11:7,11,14, 18:20;23:8 13:5;17:18;22:17 proceedings (5) 18:4,9;19:3,8,11,14; 16;12:2,8,10,17; occur (1) payments (8) 13:20;20:19;21:2, 22:6,22;23:19,21 15:21 17:23 8:19,22;9:11,17; 3;24:15 look (1) monies (1) October (1) 10:14;12:10,13; proportional (1) 17:5 10:22 17:7 17:17 17:22 looking (1) MONSON (16) off (4) payroll (6) protect (1) 10:6 4:6,9,11,13,16,16; 17:21;18:2,10,12 17:9;22:1,12,14; 9:22 5:22,22;20:11,11; offered (2) 23:11,12 provided (1) M 21:19,19;23:4,4;24:7, 6:23;8:5 Pension (11) 6:7 7 officer (4) 4:3;8:19,20,21;9:2, public (3) makes (1) month (8) 5:6,13,17;14:16 11;10:7,11;11:3; 6:2,3;20:21 10:6 9:1;10:15;11:3,18; one (5) 13:13,23 purposes (2) March (1) 12:11;17:10,18;23:9 5:9;6:1;12:16; percent (13) 10:19,20 16:18 monthly (8) 16:23,23 10:10,13,15,16,18; pursuant (3) marked (6) 8:22;11:8,9;12:10; only (3) 11:7,19,20;13:5; 13:13,16;20:2 6:8,11,22;7:8;8:4; 13:3,5;17:11;22:9 16:15,23;17:4 18:18;21:24;22:9,16 put (2) 16:19 more (1) open (4) percentage (4) 9:6;15:15 Mary (10) 18:7 19:17;20:3,4;21:11 18:22;19:1,2,3 putting (1) 4:20;7:14,16;8:17; most (1) opening (3) please (8) 12:18 11:14,14;12:20; 10:12 8:13,15;14:8 4:5,18;5:19;12:22; 13:15;22:9,15 motion (15) opportunity (1) 20:8;23:1,24;24:4 Q Mary's (6) 5:4,5,15,16;20:1; 8:12 pleasure (1) 9:5;10:14,24;11:1, 21:12,12,14;22:8,13, opposed (1) 19:22 QIDRO (8) 23,23 21;23:23;24:1,10,11 18:22 point (1) 4:2;9:8;13:16; math (2) move (4) order (3) 22:2 16:18,19,22;17:2; 18:11,16 15:20;19:23;20:5,6 13:2;22:15;23:13 Police (2) 21:6 matter (5) Mrs (1) out (5) 4:3;13:23 quorum (1) 4:2;13:17;14:18; 13:18 9:13;11:10;12:10; post-finding (1) 4:5 15:7;21:7 much (3) 13:11;19:19 15:3 matters (3) 9:5;10:9;19:2 outside (2) post-hearing (1) R 5:8;8:10;14:15 20:16,20 15:2 may (4) N over (2) potential (2) range (1) 5:8;14:8,10,13 5:7;12:14 13:9,14 11:21 maybe (1) name (1) overpaid (1) prefer (2) read (1) 15:24 4:19 11:24 8:14;16:4 18:2 means (2) need (6) overpayment (6) preparation (2) ready (1) 5:6;17:7 10:4;16:6,16;17:5; 9:1,2;13:15;16:11; 23:23;24:2 14:2 meeting (5) 21:12;23:23 17:17;22:10 present (3) really (1) 6:2,2;17:9;20:18; new (1) overpayments (2) 13:21;14:10;21:4 8:9 23:16 15:18 9:14;11:17 presented (1) recalculation (1) Meetings (2) nine (3) owner (1) 20:4 9:17 20:3;21:11 8:19;12:14,18 12:9 preside (1) receipt (1) members (1) none (1) 5:6 14:1 20:16 6:6 P President (11) receive (1) mentioned (1) notice (4) 4:4,6,9,11,13,16; 8:23 10:24 5:1;7:10;13:19; particular (3) 5:22;20:11;21:19; received (3) Min-U-Script® Schelli Reporting Service, Ltd. (3) legal - received (312) 558-1113 Page 36 of 66 Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Mary Roman Overpayment Matter October 10, 2024 6:24;8:6;11:15 right (3) 5:3 14:21 under (2) receiving (1) 11:2;12:21;13:21 side (1) tells (1) 9:6;20:22 8:19 rightful (1) 5:9 9:13 up (4) record (12) 12:8 Simply (3) tendered (1) 5:3;10:10,13;11:7 4:1,18,23;6:18;7:4; roll (5) 9:6;12:9;13:1 15:13 utilized (1) 8:1;18:10,13,14,15; 4:5;5:19;20:8; sitting (1) terms (1) 14:5 21:5,23 23:1;24:4 4:21 19:1 recorded (1) Roman (20) situation (1) Terranova (15) V 21:10 4:2,20,22,24;7:14, 9:8 4:11,12;5:21,21; recoup (2) 16,16;8:17;13:15,18; situations (1) 20:7,10,10;21:14,18, various (1) 9:14;11:14 14:1,4;15:16;17:14; 10:9 18;23:3,3;24:6,6,12 7:15 recoupment (1) 19:13;21:6;22:10,15, Social (1) testifies (1) vote (2) 13:2 16;23:20 11:2 16:2 19:17;22:21 reduce (1) Roman's (1) someone (2) testify (1) 22:8 22:9 10:2;18:16 15:16 W reduced (2) room (1) sort (1) testimony (3) 17:18,19 18:16 16:22 13:10;14:11;20:4 waive (1) re-entered (1) roughly (4) sound (1) Thomas (1) 8:14 21:2 10:14,15;11:18; 17:13 22:15 wants (2) reference (1) 13:4 sounds (1) threw (1) 8:8;12:7 10:7 rule (2) 20:1 17:21 waste (1) reflect (3) 5:7;14:24 sources (1) thumb (1) 15:17 6:18;8:1;18:15 rules (4) 11:1 6:14 way (1) regular (2) 13:11;14:21,22,23 speak (1) today (4) 12:11 6:2;17:9 Rulings (1) 5:1 4:20;5:1;9:4;17:9 ways (1) relevant (2) 14:15 speaking (1) today's (1) 11:10 9:6,8 17:15 7:11 week (1) render (1) S specific (1) Tom (5) 5:2 15:5 18:22 4:24;7:16;8:18; Wentworth (1) repaid (2) same (2) spouse (1) 10:23;22:10 7:13 22:11,18 11:15;12:11 9:9 Tony (1) what's (4) repayment (3) scale (1) state (1) 4:11 9:22;10:19;15:13; 13:2;18:7;19:4 11:15 9:8 total (2) 19:22 reporter (2) seal (1) stated (1) 12:13;16:11 WHEREUPON (8) 23:24;24:2 20:22 15:16 transcribed (2) 6:10,21;7:7;8:3; represented (1) Second (7) statement (4) 20:21;21:10 18:12;20:16,19;21:1 13:21 5:18;7:6;20:7; 8:13,15;14:8;19:10 transcript (2) who's (1) representing (1) 21:16;22:19;24:3,12 statute (5) 23:24;24:2 18:16 7:14 section (4) 9:7,23;10:5,13; TRUSTEE (37) William (1) request (2) 9:12;10:5,7;20:2 19:2 4:8,10,12,14;5:16, 4:13 18:6;21:24 Security (1) stipulate (7) 18,20,21,23,24; wish (1) require (2) 11:2 6:17;7:21;16:3,6, 19:23;20:6,7,9,10,12, 19:11 11:8,14 seek (1) 13;17:1;18:4 13;21:14,16,17,18, without (1) required (1) 10:10 submit (1) 20,21;22:13,19;23:2, 6:19 9:5 sent (1) 15:12 3,5,6;24:1,3,5,6,8,9, witnesses (3) respond (1) 13:19 subsequent (2) 11,12 15:12;19:7,20 13:22 separate (1) 16:22,22 trustees (1) work (2) responding (1) 20:22 suggest (2) 13:23 11:11;12:7 24:14 serve (1) 5:4;18:21 try (1) written (2) response (2) 5:17 suggestion (1) 9:24 15:6;23:13 6:5;22:24 served (1) 18:21 trying (1) rest (1) 23:14 support (1) 15:20 Y 19:14 serving (1) 14:11 twelve-thousand (1) rests (1) 5:13 sure (3) 15:23 years (4) 19:13 session (13) 9:21;22:2,4 two (1) 8:18,19;12:14,18 result (1) 5:10,11;19:17,18, swear (1) 11:1 18:2 24;20:2,20;21:8,9,10, 16:2 Z retired (1) 13,15;22:8 U 11:1 set (2) T zero (1) reversal (1) 18:7,22 ultimately (1) 11:20 11:4 share (1) talk (1) 18:20 Richard (1) 17:22 9:4 unbeknownst (1) 1 4:20 showing (1) technical (1) 12:17 Min-U-Script® Schelli Reporting Service, Ltd. (4) receiving - zero (312) 558-1113 Page 37 of 66 Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Mary Roman Overpayment Matter October 10, 2024 1 (1) 13:13 10 (7) 10:10,13,15,16,18; 11:7,20 10/10/2024 (2) 6:12;7:9 2 2005 (2) 16:18,23 2024 (1) 17:10 2025 (4) 22:12,14,17;23:11 23 (1) 17:7 2c4 (1) 20:2 3 3 (2) 10:8;13:13 4 4 (1) 13:5 4.42 (5) 18:18;19:4;21:24; 22:9,16 5 5 (2) 11:19;13:5 Min-U-Script® Schelli Reporting Service, Ltd. (5) 1 - 5 (312) 558-1113 Page 38 of 66  Glen Ellyn Police Pension Meeting 1/15/2025 4:30 PM Board Department: Finance 535 Duane Street Department Head: Patrick Brankin Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Report Prepared By: Patrick Brankin AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2025- DOC ID: 2025-39 39) IPOPIF - Verus Advisory Inc. Statement of the Issue: Analysis: Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Attachments: 1. IPOPIF November 2024 2. Verus Statement November 2024 Page 39 of 66 GLEN ELLYN POLICE PENSION FUND Month Ended: November 30, 2024 Market Value Summary: Current Period Year to Date Beginning Balance $41,439,608.59 $38,214,782.11 Contributions $36,100.00 $428,400.00 Withdrawals ($63,636.00) ($801,283.65) Transfers In/Out $0.00 $0.00 Income $23,050.64 $210,106.68 Administrative Expense ($575.37) ($6,236.32) Investment Expense ($642.10) ($5,943.43) Investment Manager Fees ($3,271.05) ($9,207.98) IFA Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 Realized Gain/Loss $29.75 $1,107,588.72 Unrealized Gain/Loss $930,391.61 $3,222,849.94 Ending Balance $42,361,056.07 $42,361,056.07 Performance Summary: Inception to Participant MTD QTD YTD One Year Three Years Five Years Ten Years Date Inception Date Net of Fees: 2.29% 0.20% 11.91% 17.08% N/A N/A N/A 5.74% 04/01/2022 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized Contact Information: Illinois Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund, 456 Fulton Street, Suite 402 Peoria, Illinois 61602 Phone: (309) 280-6464 Email: Info@ipopif.org Page 1 of 3 Page 40 of 66 GLEN ELLYN POLICE PENSION FUND Fund Name: IPOPIF Pool Month Ended: November 30, 2024 Market Value Summary: Unit Value Summary: Current Period Year to Date Current Period Year to Date Beginning Balance $41,439,608.59 $38,214,782.11 Beginning Units 3,517,811.612 3,549,038.901 Contributions $36,100.00 $428,400.00 Unit Purchases from Additions 3,022.435 37,127.175 Withdrawals ($63,636.00) ($801,283.65) Unit Sales from Withdrawals (5,362.824) (70,694.853) Transfers In/Out $0.00 $0.00 Ending Units 3,515,471.223 3,515,471.223 Income $23,050.64 $210,106.68 Administrative Expense ($575.37) ($6,236.32) Period Beginning Net Asset Value per Unit $11.779940 $10.767643 Investment Expense ($642.10) ($5,943.43) Period Ending Net Asset Value per Unit $12.049894 $12.049894 Investment Manager Fees ($3,271.05) ($9,207.98) IFA Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 Realized Gain/Loss $29.75 $1,107,588.72 Unrealized Gain/Loss $930,391.61 $3,222,849.94 Ending Balance $42,361,056.07 $42,361,056.07 Performance Summary: GLEN ELLYN POLICE PENSION FUND Inception to Participant MTD QTD YTD One Year Three Years Five Years Ten Years Date Inception Date Net of Fees: 2.29% 0.20% 11.91% 17.08% N/A N/A N/A 6.02% 04/06/2022 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized Contact Information: Illinois Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund, 456 Fulton Street, Suite 402 Peoria, Illinois 61602 Phone: (309) 280-6464 Email: Info@ipopif.org Page 2 of 3 Page 41 of 66 Statement of Transaction Detail for the Month Ending 11/30/2024 GLEN ELLYN POLICE PENSION FUND Trade Date Settle Date Description Amount Unit Value Units IPOPIF Pool 11/14/2024 11/15/2024 Contribution 18,300.00 11.882793 1,540.0420 11/20/2024 11/21/2024 Redemptions (63,636.00) 11.866136 (5,362.8241) 11/27/2024 11/29/2024 Contribution 17,800.00 12.007612 1,482.3930 Page 3 of 3 Page 42 of 66  November 2024 Statement Supplement Asset Flows Period New Asset Transfers Cash Contributions Cash Withdrawals November 2024 Zero $23 million $48 million CY 2024 $1.574 billion $629 million $515 million Expenses Paid Administrative Investment Direct Investment Period Expenses Expenses Manager Fees 11/1/25 $175,670.39 $196,045.50 $998,712.48 CY 2024 $1,666,462.86 $1,592,183.76 $2,562,525.47 • Expenses are paid from the IPOPIF Pool and allocated proportionately by member value. • Investment expenses exclude investment manager fees. • Direct Investment Manager Fee includes those fees invoiced and paid by IPOPIF. Other investment manager fees are tracked separately and reported to the Board Periodically. Investment Pool Details Date Units Value Unit Price 10/31/24 1,074,052,844.7297 12,652,277,720.05 11.779940 11/30/24 1,071,898,314.4376 12,916,261,211.07 12.049894 A spreadsheet with complete unit and expense detail history is linked on the Article 3 Fund Reports page NAV and Receivable Calculations Under Development The IPOPIF AR 2022-01 Valuation and Cost Rule.pdf, stipulates that subsequent to transfer of investment assets from all Article 3 Funds, the Net Asset Value (NAV) for each Participating Police Pension Fund will include a final true-up allocation of all costs paid using funds from the total consolidated IPOPIF investment portfolio for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2024, and all loan payments made to the Illinois Finance Authority subsequent to January 1, 2023. These adjustments are expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2025. Resources • Monthly statement overview: Link to Statement Overview • Monthly financial reports: https://www.ipopif.org/reports/monthly-financial-reports/ • Monthly and quarterly investment reports: https://www.ipopif.org/reports/investment- reports/ • IPOPIF Board Meeting Calendar: https://www.ipopif.org/meetings/calendar/ Illinois Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund 309-280-6464 456 Fulton Street, Suite 402 info@ipopif.org Peoria, Illinois 61602 Page 43 of 66 Total Fund Illinois Police Officers' Pension Investment Fund Asset Allocation & Performance (Net of Fees) - Preliminary Period Ending: November 30, 2024 Market % of Target Since Inception 1 Mo Fiscal YTD YTD 1 Yr 2023 Value Portfolio (%) Inception Date Total Fund with Member and Transition Accounts 12,926,086,474 100.0 100.0 2.4 6.4 12.1 17.3 13.7 5.8 03/01/22 Policy Index 2.4 6.4 12.1 17.3 14.2 5.8 Policy Index- Broad Based 2.8 7.1 13.7 19.3 16.8 5.8 IPOPIF Investment Portfolio 12,926,086,474 100.0 100.0 2.4 6.4 12.1 17.3 13.7 5.7 04/01/22 Policy Index 2.4 6.4 12.1 17.3 14.2 5.8 Policy Index- Broad Based 2.8 7.1 13.7 19.3 16.8 5.7 Growth 7,588,551,057 58.7 58.0 3.3 7.3 16.3 23.0 19.4 7.4 04/01/22 Growth Benchmark 3.3 7.4 16.3 23.0 19.5 7.3 RhumbLine Russell 1000 Index 3,087,098,283 23.9 23.0 6.4 12.1 28.0 34.3 26.5 16.1 03/15/22 Russell 1000 Index 6.4 12.1 28.1 34.4 26.5 16.2 RhumbLine Russell 2000 Index 679,709,411 5.3 5.0 11.0 19.4 21.6 36.4 16.8 10.0 03/15/22 Russell 2000 Index 11.0 19.5 21.6 36.4 16.9 10.3 SSgA Non-US Developed Index 2,364,468,085 18.3 19.0 0.3 2.6 7.9 13.9 18.3 7.8 03/10/22 MSCI World ex U.S. (Net) 0.2 2.5 7.6 13.5 17.9 7.4 International Developed Small Cap Equity 638,712,319 4.9 5.0 0.9 4.1 7.3 14.9 12.9 1.5 04/01/22 MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap Index (Net) 0.4 4.5 5.5 13.1 12.6 0.6 Acadian ACWI ex US Small-Cap Fund 318,883,495 2.5 2.5 0.5 4.2 - - - 12.7 01/30/24 MSCI AC World ex USA Small Cap (Net) -0.4 2.8 - - - 8.2 WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund 162,407,459 1.3 1.3 2.7 5.6 - - - 4.3 03/01/24 MSCI AC World ex USA Small Cap (Net) -0.4 2.8 - - - 6.4 LSV International Small Cap Value Equity Fund 157,421,365 1.2 1.3 -0.1 2.4 - - - 5.7 03/01/24 S&P Developed Ex-U.S. SmallCap (Net) -0.6 1.6 - - - 4.8 Emerging Market Equities 818,562,959 6.3 6.0 -3.2 -2.9 4.6 8.6 9.7 -0.2 04/01/22 Emerging Markets Equity Benchmark -3.3 -2.5 5.4 9.5 9.8 -0.2 SSgA Emerging Markets Equity Index 81,995,279 0.6 0.6 -3.1 -0.1 7.0 11.1 9.6 1.5 03/10/22 MSCI Emerging Markets (Net) -3.6 0.2 7.7 11.9 9.8 2.3 SSgA Emerging Markets ex China Equity 641,567,680 5.0 4.7 -3.2 -3.7 - - - 1.6 05/01/24 MSCI Emerging Markets ex China (Net) -3.3 -3.3 - - - 2.4 ARGA Emerging Markets Ex China Equity 95,000,000 0.7 0.7 - - - - - - 11/30/24 MSCI Emerging Markets ex China (Net) - - - - - - The Principal USPA Real Estate Fund is benchmarked against the NCREIF ODCE index on a quarterly basis and against itself for the purpose of monthly flash reports due to quarterly index data availability. 1 Page 44 of 66 Total Fund Illinois Police Officers' Pension Investment Fund Asset Allocation & Performance (Net of Fees) - Preliminary Period Ending: November 30, 2024 Market % of Target Since Inception 1 Mo Fiscal YTD YTD 1 Yr 2023 Value Portfolio (%) Inception Date Income 2,088,014,319 16.2 16.0 1.1 5.4 8.2 12.7 12.8 4.0 04/01/22 Income Benchmark 1.1 5.4 8.2 12.6 12.6 4.9 SSgA High Yield Corporate Credit 920,187,855 7.1 7.0 1.2 6.0 8.9 13.0 13.8 5.3 03/18/22 Spliced SSgA U.S. High Yield Index 1.1 5.9 8.7 12.7 13.5 5.2 Emerging Market Debt 774,427,440 6.0 6.0 0.9 5.6 8.1 13.3 11.2 2.7 04/01/22 Emerging Markets Debt Benchmark 1.2 5.6 8.0 13.2 11.1 4.2 SSgA EMD Hard Index Fund 580,649,872 4.5 4.5 1.2 5.8 8.3 13.5 11.2 3.9 03/14/22 Spliced SSgA EMD Hard Index 1.2 5.6 8.0 13.2 11.1 3.9 Capital Group Emerging Markets Debt 193,777,568 1.5 1.5 0.2 - - - - -1.0 10/21/24 50 JPM EMBI Global Div / 50 JPM GBI EM Global Div 0.3 - - - - 0.2 Bank Loans 393,399,025 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.8 - - - 6.7 03/01/24 Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 0.8 3.8 - - - 6.6 Ares Institutional Loan Fund 131,073,630 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.1 - - - 7.2 03/01/24 Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 0.8 3.8 - - - 6.6 Aristotle Institutional Loan Fund 262,325,395 2.0 2.0 0.9 3.6 - - - 6.4 03/01/24 Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 0.8 3.8 - - - 6.6 Real Assets 748,180,472 5.8 6.0 3.2 12.5 11.1 18.3 5.6 1.9 04/01/22 Real Assets Benchmark 3.0 11.3 9.9 15.2 4.7 -1.3 SSgA REITs Index 535,931,234 4.1 4.0 4.6 17.0 16.4 28.0 13.9 2.6 03/16/22 Dow Jones U.S. Select REIT Total Return Index 4.6 17.1 16.4 28.1 14.0 2.6 Principal USPA 212,249,238 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.2 -2.6 -4.5 -10.7 -6.2 04/06/22 Risk Mitigation 2,500,966,346 19.3 20.0 0.6 2.9 4.3 5.9 5.0 2.4 04/01/22 Risk Mitigation Benchmark 0.5 2.8 4.2 5.8 4.9 2.4 SSgA US Treasury Index 384,880,513 3.0 3.0 0.9 3.1 - - - 5.7 05/01/24 Blmbg. U.S. Treasury Index 0.8 3.0 - - - 5.6 SSgA Core Fixed Income Index 386,421,535 3.0 3.0 1.1 3.8 3.2 7.0 5.6 0.0 03/17/22 Blmbg. U.S. Aggregate Index 1.1 3.7 2.9 6.9 5.5 0.0 SSgA Short-Term Gov't/Credit Index 1,288,920,447 10.0 10.0 0.4 2.8 4.2 5.5 4.6 2.6 03/17/22 Bloomberg U.S. Gov/Credit 1-3 Year Index 0.3 2.7 4.1 5.4 4.6 2.5 SSgA US TIPS Index 388,375,945 3.0 3.0 0.5 2.5 4.9 6.1 4.6 1.9 03/17/22 Blmbg. U.S. TIPS 0-5 Year 0.4 2.5 4.8 6.0 4.6 2.0 Cash 52,367,906 0.4 1.0 0.4 2.1 4.7 5.1 5.0 3.9 03/22/22 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 0.4 2.1 4.8 5.3 5.0 4.2 IPOPIF Pool Fixed Income Transition 374,281 0.0 - Member Accounts - 0.0 - The Principal USPA Real Estate Fund is benchmarked against the NCREIF ODCE index on a quarterly basis and against itself for the purpose of monthly flash reports due to quarterly index data availability. 2 Page 45 of 66 Total Fund Illinois Police Officers' Pension Investment Fund Data Sources and Methodology Page Period Ending: November 30, 2024 Performance Return Calculations Performance is calculated using Time Weighted Rates of Return (TWRR) methodologies. Monthly returns are geometrically linked and annualized for periods longer than one year. Data Source Verus is an independent third party consulting firm and calculates returns from best source book of record data. Returns calculated by Verus may deviate from those shown by the manager in part, but not limited to, differences in prices and market values reported by the custodian and manager, as well as significant cash flows into or out of an account. It is the responsibility of the manager and custodian to provide insight into the pricing methodologies and any difference in valuation. Manager Line Up Manager Inception Date Data Source Manager Inception Date Data Source RhumbLine Russell 1000 Index Fund 3/15/2022 State Street SSgA EMD Hard Index Fund 3/14/2022 State Street RhumbLine Russell 2000 Index Fund 3/15/2022 State Street Capital Group Emerging Markets Debt Fund 10/21/2024 State Street SSgA Non-US Developed Index Fund 3/10/2022 State Street Ares Institutional Loan Fund 3/1/2024 Ares SSgA Non-US Developed SC Index Fund 3/10/2022 State Street Aristotle Institutional Loan Fund 3/1/2024 Aristotle Acadian ACWI ex US Small-Cap Fund 1/30/2024 State Street Principal USPA 4/6/2022 State Street WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund 3/1/2024 WCM SSgA REITs Index Fund 3/10/2022 State Street LSV International Small Cap Value Equity Fund 3/1/2024 LSV SSgA US Treasury Index Fund 5/1/2024 State Street SSgA Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund 3/1/2022 State Street SSgA Core Fixed Income Index Fund 3/17/2022 State Street SSgA Emerging Markets ex China Equity Index Fun 5/1/2024 State Street SSgA Short-Term Gov't/Credit Index Fund 3/17/2022 State Street ARGA Emerging Markets Ex China Equity 12/1/2024 SSgA US TIPS Index Fund 3/17/2022 State Street SSgA High Yield Corporate Credit 3/18/2022 State Street Cash 3/22/2022 State Street Custom Benchmark Composition Benchmark Time period Composition Policy Index -Broad Benchmark 4/1/2022 - Present 70% MSCI ACWI IMI (Net) and 30% Bloomberg Global Multiverse. Spliced SSgA EMD Hard Benchmark 7/1/2023 - Present 100% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index Spliced SSgA EMD Hard Benchmark 3/14/2022 - 6/30/2022 100% JPM EMBI Global Core Index Spliced SSgA U.S. High Yield Index 12/1/2022 - Present 100% ICE BofA US High yield Master II Constrained Spliced SSgA U.S. High Yield Index 4/1/2022 - 11/30/2022 100% Bloomberg U.S. High Yield Very Liquid Index 3 Page 46 of 66 Total Fund Illinois Police Officers' Pension Investment Fund Data Sources and Methodology Page Period Ending: November 30, 2024 Policy Index Composition Policy Risk As of 11/1/2024 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 10/1/2024 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 23.0% 39.7% Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 2000 5.0% 8.6% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. 19.0% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5.0% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 0.7% 1.2% MSCI Emerging Markets 0.8% 1.4% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 5.3% 9.2% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 5.2% 9.0% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7.0% 43.8% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6.0% 37.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3.0% 18.8% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2.0% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4.0% 66.7% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3.0% 15.0% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 2.0% 10.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 2% 10.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 11.0% 55.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 11% 55.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3.0% 15.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1.0% 5.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% Policy Risk As of 9/1/2024 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 8/1/2024 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 1.5% 2.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 2% 3.4% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 4.5% 7.8% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 4% 6.9% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 2% 10.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 2% 10.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 11% 55.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 11% 55.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% Policy Risk As of 7/1/2024 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 6/1/2024 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 3% 5.2% MSCI Emerging Markets 4% 6.9% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 3% 5.2% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 2% 3.4% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 1% 5.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 2% 10.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 12% 60.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 11% 55.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% 3 Page 47 of 66 Total Fund Illinois Police Officers' Pension Investment Data Sources and Methodology Page Fund Period Ending: November 30, 2024 Policy Index Composition Policy Risk As of 5/1/2024 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 4/1/2024 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. 19% 32.8% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 6% 10.3% MSCI Emerging Markets ex China 1% 1.7% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 7% 43.8% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 3% 18.8% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 13% 65.0% Bloomberg US Treasury Index 1% 5.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 12% 60.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% Policy Risk As of 3/1/2024 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 5/1/2023 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 1000 23% 39.7% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% Russell 2000 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. 18% 31.0% MSCI World ex U.S. 18% 31.0% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 8.6% MSCI Emerging Markets 7% 12.1% MSCI Emerging Markets 7% 12.1% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 8.5% 53.1% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 10% 62.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index 1.5% 9.4% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 3% 15.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 13% 65.0% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 13% 65.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 15.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 1% 5.0% Policy Risk As of 1/1/2023 Policy Index Growth Income Real Assets Risk Mitigation As of 3/31/2022 Index Growth Income Real Assets Mitigation Russell 1000 18% 36.0% Russell 3000 23% 46.0% Russell 2000 5% 10.0% MSCI ACWI ex USA IMI 20% 40.0% MSCI World ex U.S. 15% 30.0% MSCI Emerging Markets IMI 7% 14.0% MSCI World ex U.S. Small Cap 5% 10.0% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 10% 62.5% MSCI Emerging Markets 7% 14.0% 50% JPM EMBI GD/50% JPM GBI EM GD 6% 37.5% Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index 10% 62.5% NCREIF Property Index 2% 66.7% JPM EMBI Global Diversified Index 6% 37.5% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 33.3% NFI-ODCE Equal-Weighted Index 2% 33.3% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 7% 25.0% Dow Jones US Select REIT Index 4% 66.7% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 15% 53.6% Bloomberg US Aggregate Index 7% 25.0% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 10.7% Bloomberg 1-3 Year Gov/Credit Index 15% 53.6% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 3% 10.7% Bloomberg US TIPS 0-5 Year 3% 10.7% 90 Day US Treasury Bill Index 3% 10.7% 3 Page 48 of 66  2025 IPPFA Trustee Training Opportunities IPPFA ONLINE SEMINAR COURSE WHEN: Ongoing • Online 8 hr. seminar (Recorded 2024) WHERE: IPPFA Website: www.ippfa.org/education/online-classes/ COST: IPPFA MEMBER: $285.00/seminar IPPFA NON-MEMBER: $570.00/seminar This online seminar agenda includes: • School's in Session - How to Ace your Fund Administration • Retirement Healthcare Funding • Private vs. Public Pensions • Pension Funding Policy • Legal Updates and Recent Court Cases • Ask Your Attorney • Fiduciary Liability Insurance vs. Directors and Officers Insurance • Benefit Enhancements to Attract and Retain Public Safety Officers • Consolidation Update • The Wonderfully Weird World of Administrative Review - this online seminar satisfies 8 hours of the required continuing pension trustee training 47 of 64 Page 49 of 66  16-hour Certified Trustee Programs* offered through IPPFA IPPFA ONLINE Certified Trustee Program COST: IPPFA MEMBER: $ 550.00 IPPFA NON-MEMBER: $1,100.00 Registration is online at the IPPFA website www.ippfa.org/education/trustee-program/ IPPFA In-Person Certified Trustee Program WHEN: TBA WHERE: TBA COST: IPPFA MEMBER: $500.00 IPPFA NON-MEMBER: $1,000.00 *On December 18, 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 1300, making it Public Act 101-0610. This act will consolidate all Article 3 and 4 pension fund's investment assets. Under Public Act 101-0610, training requirements have now been reduced from 32-hours to 16-hours of new trustee training, however all pension trustees will still need 4-hours of mandatory consolidation transition training. All Article 3 & 4 Pension Trustees elected or appointed are required to complete the 16-hour trustee certification course within 18 months of election or appointment to the board. 48 of 64 Page 50 of 66  2025 IPPFA Pension Conferences 2025 Illinois Pension Conference May 7th - 9th Eagle Ridge Resort, Galena, IL Agenda at a glance: Tuesday, May 6th - Heroes Family Fund Charity Golf Outing Wednesday, May 7th - Educational Sessions 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm Thursday, May 8th - Educational Sessions 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Friday, May 9th - Educational Sessions 9:00 am to 12:00 pm 2025 MidAmerican Pension Conference October 1st - 2nd Oak Brook Hills Resort, Oak Brook PLEASE NOTE THE SCHEDULE CHANGE TO 2 FULL DAYS Agenda at a glance: Tuesday, September 30th - Heroes Family Fund Charity Golf Outing Wednesday, October 1st - Educational Sessions 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Thursday, October 2nd - Educational Sessions 9:00 am to 5:00 pm No Friday Sessions For more information, please visit our website at www.ippfa.org. You may also call us at (630) 784-0406. 49 of 64 Page 51 of 66 50 of 64 Page 52 of 66  0123456ÿ8ÿ09 ÿ0123456ÿ ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ"#!ÿ"$$%&#!ÿ'&ÿ(ÿ)*%&+ÿ"#!ÿ'&ÿ,ÿ)-&'./0'1+ÿ%"ÿ$#1&%# 2%"'!ÿ'311ÿ"'ÿ'43&'!ÿ%ÿ$"'&&$"ÿ&#ÿ1"56"#!"!ÿ'31ÿ'&."&%#ÿ'"&#&#/ 0"ÿ%#1&11ÿ%7ÿ"ÿ"1ÿ89ÿ0%3'1ÿ&#ÿ0&'ÿ.'1ÿ:"'ÿ"1ÿ"ÿ'31;ÿ<#ÿ"!!&&%#=ÿ'311ÿ631 %6$ÿ"ÿ6&#&636ÿ%7ÿ&/0ÿ0%3'1ÿ%7ÿ%#&#3&#/ÿ'31ÿ!3"&%#ÿ"##3":ÿ0'"7'; >?@ÿBCCDEFDGÿHIEDJDKLCÿM@LNI@ÿKOFPDQ@G R?DGÿJ@ORDSJLRDFEÿROLDEDENÿLRÿEFÿJ?LON@ÿRFÿLCCÿROIGR@@GT UCDJVÿ?@O@ÿRFÿW@NDEÿXFIOÿK@EGDFEÿROIGR@@ÿROLDEDENT Y0&1ÿ'"&#&#/ÿ&1ÿ$'%Z&!!ÿ%#&#ÿ"#!ÿ&#ÿ"%'!"#ÿ[&0ÿ1"3%':ÿ'43&'6#1; \@EGDFEÿ>OIGR@@ÿU@ORDSJLRDFEÿ]LJRÿ^?@@R ÿDE ÿ KLORE@OG?DK `DR? abÿdefÿghijÿkfjlmneolÿpjqhprnoqÿspmntujÿvÿepÿspmntujÿwÿxjolneoÿmpflmjjÿtjpmnythmneoz xujhljÿteomhtmÿflÿ{dÿj|hnuÿhmÿxjolneompflmjjl}n|u~epq~ 51 of 64 Page 53 of 66  Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Annual Benefit Increases (COLA) Effective as of January 1, 2025 Type of Prior COLA Current Annualized Pensioner Pension Notes Benefit Increase Benefit Benefit Acton, Robert E. Service 9,526.84 285.81 9,812.65 117,751.80 Baird, Paul C. Service 5,303.74 159.11 5,462.85 65,554.20 Baki, Joseph K. Service 8,762.93 262.89 9,025.82 108,309.84 Beck, Brian D. Service 7,402.62 222.08 7,624.70 91,496.40 Bellini, Martha Spouse 4,912.06 0.00 4,912.06 58,944.72 Borzym, Leon K. Service 6,208.84 186.27 6,395.11 76,741.32 Brodhead, Stephen Service 7,111.77 213.35 7,325.12 87,901.44 Bruno, William D. Service 7,301.27 219.04 7,520.31 90,243.72 Campbell, Mark Service 6,205.07 186.15 6,391.22 76,694.64 Combs, Richard N. Service 5,732.18 171.97 5,904.15 70,849.80 Crowley, John D. Service 5,907.59 177.23 6,084.82 73,017.84 French, Stephen R. Service 7,855.33 235.66 8,090.99 97,091.88 Grant, Robert D. Service 5,369.34 161.08 5,530.42 66,365.04 Hamann, James D. Service 7,986.00 239.58 8,225.58 98,706.96 Hartzell, Thomas Z. Non-Duty Disability 4,392.32 0.00 4,392.32 52,707.84 Harvey, Jean M. Service 7,893.15 236.79 8,129.94 97,559.28 Holmer, William R. Service 8,752.22 262.57 9,014.79 108,177.48 King, James J. Service 7,979.78 239.39 8,219.17 98,630.04 Kleinofen, John E. Service 5,146.18 154.39 5,300.57 63,606.84 Kozol, Phillip Duty Disability 2,854.37 37.89 2,892.26 34,707.12 Lilly, Elizabeth Spouse - NT 4,223.62 0.00 4,223.62 50,683.44 Madden, Allison Spouse 4,780.53 0.00 4,780.53 57,366.36 Miko, Stephen F. Deferred Annuitant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miller, Gerald E. Service 5,664.80 169.94 5,834.74 70,016.88 Mullany, James Jr. Service 9,042.33 271.27 9,313.60 111,763.20 Munch, Raymond Duty Disability 4,561.87 0.00 4,561.87 54,742.44 Nagel, Jeanne M. Spouse 5,464.20 0.00 5,464.20 65,570.40 Nemchock, Joseph A. Deferred Annuitant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pocuis, Ronald E. Service 6,826.85 232.68 7,059.53 84,714.36 Pocuis, Ronald E. - QILDRO QILDRO 929.15 0.00 929.15 11,149.80 Roman, Thomas W. Service 1 2,978.07 89.34 3,067.41 36,808.92 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO QILDRO 1 2,826.62 84.80 2,911.42 34,937.04 Ryan, Carol Spouse 3,573.53 0.00 3,573.53 42,882.36 Scuito, David Service 7,060.62 211.82 7,272.44 87,269.28 Smith, Larry Service 5,988.40 179.65 6,168.05 74,016.60 Smith, Stephen M. Service 7,948.66 238.46 8,187.12 98,245.44 Staples, Thomas L. Service 5,081.05 152.43 5,233.48 62,801.76 Steele, James R Service 4,974.36 149.23 5,123.59 61,483.08 Terranova, Janet L. Deferred Annuitant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thiele, Linda Spouse 10,009.27 0.00 10,009.27 120,111.24 52 of 64 Page 1 Page 54 of 66  Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Annual Benefit Increases (COLA) Effective as of January 1, 2025 Type of Prior COLA Current Annualized Pensioner Pension Notes Benefit Increase Benefit Benefit Tobias, Mark A. Service 6,184.62 185.54 6,370.16 76,441.92 Velon, Robert C. Service 4,223.37 126.70 4,350.07 52,200.84 Webber, Norman E. Service 9,457.36 283.72 9,741.08 116,892.96 Totals 244,402.88 6,026.83 250,429.71 3,005,156.52 53 of 64 Page 2 Page 55 of 66  Glen Ellyn Police Pension Fund Summary of Benefit Changes and Notes Effective as of January 1, 2025 Amount of New Monthly Pensioner Reason Date Change Benefit Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment 1st Full Month 1/31/2025 128.68 128.68 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - ArrearageArrearage 1st Full Month 1/31/2025 (128.68) (128.68) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2026 3.87 132.55 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2026 (3.87) (132.55) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2027 3.97 136.52 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2027 (3.97) (136.52) Terranova, Janet L. - New Initial Benefit Pro Rata 10/11/2027 4,124.64 4,124.64 Terranova, Janet L. - New Initial Benefit 1st Full Month 11/1/2027 1,964.12 6,088.76 Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2028 4.10 140.62 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2028 (4.10) (140.62) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2029 4.22 144.84 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2029 (4.22) (144.84) Miko, Stephen F. - New Initial Benefit Pro Rata 7/22/2029 1,426.96 1,426.96 Miko, Stephen F. - New Initial Benefit 1st Full Month 8/1/2029 2,996.61 4,423.57 Nemchock, Joseph A. - New Initial Benefit Pro Rata 12/9/2029 3,353.38 3,353.38 Nemchock, Joseph A. - New Initial Benefit 1st Full Month 1/1/2030 1,166.39 4,519.77 Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2030 4.34 149.18 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2030 (4.34) (149.18) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2031 4.48 153.66 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2031 (4.48) (153.66) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Increase 1/31/2032 4.61 158.27 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Increase 1/31/2032 (4.61) (158.27) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Cease Pro Rata 2/28/2032 (121.14) 37.13 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Cease Pro Rata 2/28/2032 121.14 (37.13) Roman, Thomas W. - Repayment Repayment Cease Full Month 3/1/2032 (37.13) 0.00 Roman, Thomas W. - QILDRO - Arrearage Arrearage Cease Full Month 3/1/2032 37.13 0.00 Terranova, Janet L. Initial Increase 11/1/2032 913.31 7,002.07 Miko, Stephen F. Initial Increase 8/1/2034 663.54 5,087.11 Nemchock, Joseph A. Initial Increase 1/1/2035 677.97 5,197.74 Munch, Raymond Initial Increase 1/1/2041 3,695.11 8,256.98 Hartzell, Thomas Z. Initial Increase 1/1/2048 0.00 0.00 Notes 1. Roman, Thomas W. & QILDRO - Repayment to Pensioner until date indicated 54 of 64 Page 3 Page 56 of 66  Volume 26, Issue 1, January 2025 Legal and Legislative Update Failure to Allow Reasonable Medical In This Issue… Treatment Dooms Officer’s Disability 1 Failure to Allow Reasonable Medical Claim Treatment Dooms Officer’s Disability Claim Shirley v. Village of Clarendon Hills Police Pension 3 New Rules & Regulations Now Available! Fund et. al, 2024 IL App (3d) 230257 Unanimous Medical Evidence Leads to Officer Shirley was injured while assisting Disability Despite Evidence of Farming paramedics by restraining a minor lying on a cot for 4 What is the Proper Legal Standard for emergency transport. While the officer struggled to Determining Causation Under Article 4? restrain the minor, he felt a pop in his right shoulder 5 Congress Passes Social Security Fairness Act and later experienced severe pain and decreased strength in his right arm. No Duty Disability Without Causal Link Officer Shirley sought treatment shortly after the Between Duty Incidents and PTSD Disability incident and was referred to physical therapy. He 7 Officer Entitled to Disability Benefits after was also seen by an orthopedic specialist who Municipality Fails to Provide Employment advised on both surgical and conservative treatment options. While conservative treatment in Court Grants Line of Duty Disability the form of physical therapy was offered, it was Benefits Despite Return to Work After unlikely it would resolve the issues in the officer’s Accident right shoulder. If those issues did not resolve, 8 Public Bodies Must Give Notice of Change surgery was the only other option. Following in Regular Meeting Dates extensive physical therapy, the officer’s symptoms 9 DOI Publishes Tier 2 Salary Cap and did not improve, and he was discharged from COLA Increase for 2025 physical therapy as the doctor found his only option for improvement would be surgery. Suggested Agenda Items for April 2025 10 RDL News © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 1 55 of 64 Page 57 of 66 Officer Shirley saw several doctors all of whom the evidence before the pension board offered no diagnosed him with a SLAP tear of the right treatment other than surgery would remedy the shoulder. The doctors also agreed further officer’s disability. conservative treatment would be fruitless and Plaintiff also argued that because his refusal to recommended surgery. The medical evidence undergo surgery was based on his sincere concerns showed surgery would likely be successful in over risk, it was reasonable and should not result in returning the officer to full duty and was denial of benefits. The Court found the pension accompanied by minimal risks. board properly rejected this basis finding he had Following a two-year period of light duty, the offered insufficient evidence of his claimed police department terminated Shirley’s light duty neurological condition and did not present evidence position, and he applied for a line of duty or, in the establishing the sincerity of his fears. alternative, a not in the line of duty disability The Appellate Court also found the pension board’s pension. All three pension board doctors agreed finding the recommended surgical procedure Officer Shirley was disabled from the tear in his would have a high likelihood of success was right shoulder. The three IME physicians also supported by the evidence. Two of the three IME agreed the tear in the right shoulder was caused by physicians found it had a high probability of the incident where Officer Shirley attempted to success and would return the officer to full and restrain the minor on the cot. Two of the IME unrestricted police duty. physicians opined it was highly likely Shirlye would be able to return to duty after surgery. They Those same physicians found the risk associated also opined the risks associated with the surgery with the surgical procedure to be minimal. While were minimal. The remaining IME physician did Plaintiff argued there was still some risk associated not offer an opinion on return following surgery. with surgery and his refusal was therefore reasonable, the Appellate Court found, “we are According to the IME physicians and his testimony aware of no governing law that requires a treatment before the pension board, the officer choose not to option to be completely risk-free in order to be pursue a surgical option because he suffered from a deemed reasonable.” migraine condition triggered by stressful situations and he knew people with similar injuries who Finishing its analysis of the denial of line of duty underwent unsuccessful surgical procedures. disability benefits, the Appellate Court affirmed the pension board determination the officer’s refusal to Following a hearing in which the Village undergo surgery constituted a superseding cause of participated as an intervenor, the pension board his disability. “A refusal to undergo recommended found Officer Shirley disabled as the result of an treatment rises to the level of a superseding cause act of duty but his refusal to undergo surgical sufficient to warrant the denial of a pension if the treatment because of his migraine condition and treatment would have restored the claimant’s anecdotal evidence from others was unreasonable. ability to work as a police officer.” Because two The pension board denied both line of duty and not IME physicians found the surgery would have in the line of duty pension benefits. allowed the officer to return to work as a police On appeal, Officer Shirley argued his refusal of officer, it was not against the manifest weight of the surgery was not unreasonable because some of the evidence to find his refusal to undergo surgery rose physicians who evaluated him identified risks to the level of a superseding cause of his continuing associated with surgery. He argued this was disability and line of duty disability benefits were analogous to the Mulak case where conservative properly denied. treatment rather than surgery was accepted as a On appeal, the officer also argued that even if his reasonable course of treatment. However, the refusal to undergo surgery resulted in denial of line Court found this case different than Mulak because © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 2 56 of 64 Page 58 of 66 of duty disability benefits, he should still be entitled to not in the line of duty disability pension benefits. The Appellate Court affirmed the pension board’s Unanimous Medical Evidence Leads to denial of any type of disability benefit adopting Disability Despite Evidence of Farming reasoning from the Turcol Court that, “regardless of Barz v. Vill. of Hazel Crest Firefighters’ Pension the type of pension that a claimant seeks, a Fund, 2024 IL App (1st) 240137-U compensable disability will not be found if the claimant unreasonably refuses the necessary Firefighter Barz sprained his ankle on two separate medical treatment for the disabling injury.” Citing dates in 2018. After the first sprain, he returned to Mulack, the Court affirmed the notion that “the work several months after having been cleared by term ‘disability’, as used in the Code, has been the municipality’s physician. On the first day back, interpreted to ‘exclude medical conditions [that] he again sprained the same ankle. The second can be remedied without significant danger to life sprain, according to the applicant, led to several or health or extraordinary suffering and when surgeries, extensive medical treatment, and an medical opinion indicates that a prescribed remedy eventual placement of a spinal cord stimulator to offers a reasonable prospect for relief.” alleviate symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome. Complicating this series of events were Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the two facts the pension board found significant. pension board decision to deny line of duty and First, the applicant was operating an 80-plus acre non-duty disability benefits. Inasmuch as there are farm at the time he was claiming he was unable to very few cases dealing with refusal of medical perform duties of a firefighter. Second, his treatment in a disability context, this case provides forthrightness about these activities was called into much needed guidance for pension boards. question by both the Board as well as the intervenor However, cases of this nature are extraordinarily municipality. The pension board, after hearing fact specific and should be analyzed on a case-by- extensive testimony, found the applicant failed to case basis. The Shirley case is the first reported prove his current disability was in fact suffered decision to affirm a pension board denial of during an act of duty. This conclusion was disability benefits due to failure to seek surgical primarily based on the pension board’s views about treatment. ❖ the applicant’s veracity. Both the circuit court and New Rules & Regulations Now the appellate court disagreed. Available! It was undisputed Barz was disabled. However, as the Appellate Court found, the manifest weight of RDL attorneys have completed extensive revisions the evidence showed Barz's 2018 on-duty injuries to the form rules and regulations for both police and were clearly a causative and contributing factor in firefighters’ pension funds. These updates reflect his disability, and the Board erred in ignoring the both statutory and case law changes relevant to three independent medical evaluators’ reports and pension board operations. If you are a quarterly documentary evidence showing a causal phone or in-person attendance pension board and connection. The Appellate Court stated there was would like to consider adoption of the updated no evidence an off-duty injury broke the causal rules, please contact our office for a draft copy. If chain or that Barz lied or concealed information to you are a non-retainer pension board and would his medical providers to such an extent to warrant like to consider adoption of the new rules, please the Board completely discarding the independent contact our office for information. ❖ medical opinions. The Appellate Court rejected the pension board’s finding the IME opinions did not address, reference, or comment on Barz's farming operation © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 3 57 of 64 Page 59 of 66 or the surveillance videos, which the Board found Biopsies of those nodes confirmed p16-positive highly relevant. The Court noted the intervenor squamous cell cancer was negative for the human failed to take any evidence depositions to support papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes. the allegations against the applicant. While the board has the authority to judge Barz's credibility, Sobczyk applied for line-of-duty and occupational- the Appellate Court concluded there was simply no disease disability pensions, citing his cancer evidence to support the Board's finding Barz lied or diagnosis. Four hearings were conducted regarding his claim. Initially, the hearing officer went over the concealed anything. It was pure supposition to basic legal principles, including causation, to suspect Barz was not forthright about causation which Plaintiff’s attorney did not object. based on the lack of commentary about farming in the medical documentation, according to the Sobczyk testified he was exposed to smoke, plastic Appellate Court. fumes, asbestos, and other carcinogens almost The Appellate Court found the board unduly daily. He wore all the department-issued gear when responding to fire calls but routinely took off his emphasized the extent and nature of Barz's farming breathing apparatus when removing smoldering operation. While Barz fed his chickens and hogs, debris. He occasionally wore an N95 mask when the Court specifically found there was no evidence there was a lot of dust and other fumes. these activities resulted in a new or intervening injury that broke the casual chain between his 2018 The Pension Board received the reports of its work-related injuries and CRPS diagnosis. The independent medical examiners (IMEs) Dr. Appellate Court found none of the examining IME Campbell, Dr. Samo, and Dr. Lieberman. It also physicians pointed to any other cause or received the report and heard testimony from intervening event for Barz's permanent disability. Plaintiff’s retained expert, Dr. Orris, trained in Nor did any other medical provider. occupational and internal medicine. The Appellate Court concluded there was no direct Dr. Campbell, board-certified oncologist, opined evidence Barz lied, either in the past or present, and Plaintiff’s firefighter duties did not contribute to his there were no minority medical opinions for the cancer diagnosis. He noted Plaintiff’s tumors tested Board to rely on. All medical opinions favored “strongly positive” for p16, which is Barz, finding the board discounted them all and indicative of cancer caused by HPV. Dr. Campbell assumed Barz lied. It also found the board jumped explained Plaintiff had negative results for HPV 16 to the conclusion there was an intervening non- and 18 genotypes because cancers become more work-related injury that broke the causal “deranged” and lose HPV positivity when they connection between Barz's 2018 injuries and his metastasize. disability. ❖ Dr. Samo opined Plaintiff’s cancer is unrelated to What is the Proper Legal Standard for an act of duty, noting patients are routinely only Determining Causation Under Article 4? tested for the two of the most common HPV variants out of over 100. He further noted the Sobczyk v. Bd. of Trustees of the Rockford relevant medical studies show no link between the Firefighters’ Pension Fd., et al., 2024 IL App (4th) type and location of the cancer Plaintiff was 240261-U diagnosed with and firefighting duties. Plaintiff sought line-of-duty or occupational Dr. Lieberman, board-certified in otolaryngology, disease disability benefits due to his cancer noted biopsies positive for p16 are indicative of diagnosis. Plaintiff joined the Rockford Fire HPV-driven tumors. He opined Plaintiff’s cancer is Department in March 1995 and was diagnosed with HPV-related and not caused by firefighting duties. p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma in April 2021. It metastasized to his other lymph nodes. © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 4 58 of 64 Page 60 of 66 Plaintiff’s expert opined “it is highly likely that end the windfall elimination and government [plaintiff’s] cancer is one covered” under the pension offset provisions for social security. Those Pension Code, given plaintiff’s exposure to various provisions had acted to reduce the social security carcinogens over the course of his decades-long benefit of individuals who also received a local employment as a firefighter. He further opined government pension. Retired police officers and Plaintiff’s cancer was not likely caused by HPV, firefighters, including their eligible spouses, who “given the genotype 16 and 18 being negative.” qualify for social security should see an increase to those benefits in 2025 as the result of the elimination of these reductions. At the time of this The Pension Board denied Plaintiff’s application for line-of-duty and occupational disease disability writing, President Biden had not yet signed the bill pension benefits, reasoning most of the medical into law although it is expected he will do so. ❖ evidence showed Plaintiff’s cancer was caused by No Duty Disability Without Causal Link HPV, not firefighting duties or exposure to heat, radiation, or a known carcinogen. It also found that Between Duty Incidents and PTSD while smoke could be a cause or factor in the Disability development of Plaintiff’s cancer, he failed to present evidence of it. Mayer v. the Bd. of Trustees of the Calumet City Firefighters’ Pension Fund, 2024 IL App (1st) On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the 232059-U decision of the pension board. It held Plaintiff failed to show the Pension Board used the wrong Plaintiff sought line-of-duty disability benefits causation standard, and the Pension Board relied on related to psychological and emotional trauma. sufficient evidence to reach its decision. After the Pension Board denied line of duty disability benefits, Plaintiff argued the Pension The Appellate Court held the Pension Board Board utilized the wrong causation standard when utilized the proper causation standard. The Pension it focused solely on the independent medical Board properly relied on the IMEs to conclude evaluators (IMEs) opinions to the exclusion of Plaintiff’s cancer was caused by HPV. It properly other evidence. The Appellate Court disagreed. placed “paramount weight” on Dr. Campbell’s opinion because he is a board-certified oncologist. Plaintiff’s background included multiple instances of psychological trauma preceding her fire service. Sobczyk illustrates the proper causation standard These included domestic conflict between her pension boards must utilize when adjudicating mother and father, the murder of her older brother Article 4 line-of-duty and occupational disease when she was nine years old, sexual molestation by disability applications. While the evidence does not a neighbor’s teenaged son when she was ten and need to be unanimous, some evidence must support eleven years old, and verbal and physical abuse by the pension board’s determination. Relevant, but her mother, until she left home at eighteen. She was not dispositive, factors a pension board may also successfully treated for post-partum consider when placing greater weight on certain depression in 1998 with Zoloft. doctor’s opinions include whether a doctor specializes in the type of injury the applicant At the time she joined the Fire Department in 2009, sustained.❖ Plaintiff was neither diagnosed with nor receiving treatment for any psychiatric conditions. Plaintiff identified numerous duty incidents she claimed led Congress Passes Social Security Fairness to her disability. Plaintiff identified incidents in Act 2015, 2018, and 2019 that she alleged contributed Following action in the House of Representatives, to her disability. She returned to full, unrestricted duty after each incident. She did not receive any in late December the Senate passed legislation to © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 5 59 of 64 Page 61 of 66 treatment after these incidents aside from being The Pension Board found Plaintiff disabled but proscribed Zoloft after the 2018 incident. determined she failed to establish a causal connection between her disability and an act of In April 2020, Plaintiff’s father suffered a heart duty. attack. The paramedics did not administer emergency care or treatment to Plaintiff’s father, The Appellate Court reiterated Plaintiff did not and they remained on the scene for only nine need to prove a duty incident was the primary cause minutes. Her father died, and Plaintiff subsequently of her disability, only that it aggravated, became depressed, suffered from insomnia, began contributed, or exacerbated her disability. It held drinking heavily, and had nightmares and the Pension Board relied on sufficient evidence to flashbacks. Plaintiff consulted Dr. Nitin Thapar, reach its decision. Specifically, every IME agreed who diagnosed her with anxiety disorder and Plaintiff suffered from preexisting mental and prescribed Xanax. emotional issues. Plaintiff testified she did not abuse alcohol or suffer from depression or PTSD Plaintiff subsequently responded to a cardiac arrest until after her father’s death. Plaintiff returned to call and attempted resuscitation efforts. A female full, unrestricted duty after every duty incident and family member yelled at Plaintiff not to touch the only became disabled after her father died. patient. Plaintiff was ordered to honor the family member’s wishes. She became upset and left the The Appellate Court held the Pension Board house. That was the last day Plaintiff worked in a reasonably relied on the opinions of the IMEs and full, unrestricted capacity. A few months later on Plaintiff’s testimony in finding she failed to Plaintiff applied for duty-disability benefits, citing establish her preexisting conditions stemmed from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and an act of duty or the cumulative effect of acts of depression resulting from the cumulative effects of duty. It noted that while firefighters/paramedics are traumatic incidents she experienced on the job. regularly exposed to stressful and gruesome events, that alone is insufficient to qualify for a duty Plaintiff was evaluated by four (4) IMEs. Dr. disability benefit. The Appellate Court affirmed the Ganellen diagnosed Plaintiff with chronic major Circuit Court, finding significant deference is due depressive disorder and generalized anxiety the Pension Board considering the record before disorder. She opined the death of Plaintiff’s father them. exacerbated her pre-existing depression and anxiety and caused her disability. Dr. Reff Mayer illustrates exposure to stressful and diagnosed Plaintiff with recurrent major depression gruesome events is insufficient alone to establish and PTSD. He opined plaintiff was “disabled by a duty disability. The applicant must present combination of pre-existing conditions and the evidence casually linking those events to an actual contribution of the cumulative effects of disability that prevents the firefighter/paramedic firefighting duty.” Dr. Reff opined the death of from returning to duty. Such evidence can take the Plaintiff’s father was the seminal event that led to form of a doctor’s report establishing a causal link Plaintiff’s disability. between a duty incident and a disability. Here, Plaintiff identified numerous stressful and Dr. Conroe diagnosed Plaintiff with recurrent gruesome events. However, she failed to present major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and evidence linking those events to her disability. PTSD. He opined Plaintiff’s condition was Instead, the overwhelming evidence illustrated the manageable prior to her father’s death. Dr. Conroe death of Plaintiff’s father triggered her disability.❖ opined duty incidents did not cause her disability. Dr. Galatzer-Levy diagnosed Plaintiff with PTSD, anxiety disorder, and a substance-abuse disorder in remission. He opined duty incidents did not cause Plaintiff’s disability but may have acted as a trigger. © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 6 60 of 64 Page 62 of 66 Officer Entitled to Disability Benefits relying on the independent medical examiner’s after Municipality Fails to Provide opinion. On administrative review, Plaintiff argued he was denied a disability benefit, yet unable to Employment return to work due to the City’s employment decision. Citing the Illinois Supreme Court’s Moreland v. The Retirement Board of the decision in Kouzoukas v. The Retirement Board of Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City the Policeman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund, Plaintiff of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 240049 asserted he was in a “catch-22” position, as he is unable to work but is not receiving disability Plaintiff applied for duty disability benefits after benefits. The Circuit Court rejected Plaintiff’s injuring his lower back and left hip in a traffic argument and affirmed the decision of the Pension accident, while he was on duty and responding to a Board, finding its decision was not contrary to the shooting. Six weeks after the accident, Plaintiff manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiff went to the emergency room with severe lower appealed. back pain. He was diagnosed with sciatica and prescribed various medications. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the City’s failure/refusal to assign Plaintiff to a position made Approximately 5 months later, after completing a the Pension Board’s decision contrary to the course of physical therapy, Plaintiff’s treating manifest weight of the evidence. Once again, citing physician cleared him for full, unrestricted duty. Kouzoukas, the Appellate Court found the Pension Plaintiff worked full, unrestricted duty until early Board did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the December of 2020, when he went on medical leave award of Plaintiff’s disability benefits since the after contracting COVID-19. In late January of City’s employment decision placed him in a “catch- 2021, an MRI of Plaintiff’s back revealed multiple 22” position, thereby requiring the award of herniated discs and disc degeneration. disability benefits. This decision represents a continuation of the cases finding the City’s Plaintiff underwent hip arthroscopy and related employment decision trumps the Pension Board’s procedures in June of 2021. Plaintiff was decision after evaluating the medical evidence.❖ prescribed physical therapy, reaching maximum medical improvement in March of 2022. His treating physician approved his return to full, Court Grants Line of Duty Disability unrestricted duty related to the left hip issue. Benefits Despite Return to Work After Nevertheless, Plaintiff complained of lower back Accident pain. Related to the lower back issues, the Board’s independent medical examiner found Plaintiff was Bechina v. Ret. Bd. of Policemen's Annuity & fit for full, unrestricted duty. In contrast, Plaintiff’s Benefit Fund of City of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) doctor opined he was permanently disabled due to 240324-U the back issues. In Bechina, the First District Court of Appeals Before the Pension Board held a hearing on his reversed the decision of the Retirement Board of disability application, Plaintiff reported to the the Policeman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund finding Chicago Police Department Medical Section plaintiff was not entitled to a duty disability benefit. (“CPD Medical”) to obtain an assignment. CPD The Appellate Court found the board’s findings, Medical referred Plaintiff to Dr. Kristin made in reliance on the opinion of the chosen IME Houseknecht, who opined he is unable to return to physician, were against the manifest weight of the duty based on his treating physician’s opinion that evidence. The Appellate Court cited several issues Plaintiff was disabled due to his back issues. with the IME opinion relied upon by the board that failed to carry the day. After hearing the evidence, the Pension Board denied his application for duty disability benefits, © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 7 61 of 64 Page 63 of 66 The record showed Bechina was injured on May the basis for this conclusion or propose any 11, 2016, while on duty. Initial statements alternative reason for Bechina's lumbar spine indicated she suffered injury to her cervical spine, condition. Instead, the Board incorrectly relied shoulder and left elbow. She was treated the upon Dr. Neal's bare assertion to support it’s following days for these injuries. While not finding the cause of Bechina's long history of specifically complaining of a lumbar back injury at medical treatment and numerous surgical the time, Bechina now claimed her current procedures is not the 2016 on-duty vehicular disabling conditions – which included lumbar accident. issues requiring multiple surgeries – were directly The Appellate Court also noted that no physician, related to her on-duty accident in 2016. either treating or examining, proposed Bechina's The Board hired Dr. Bryan Neal, an orthopedic lower back condition was idiopathic in nature. No surgeon, to conduct her IME. Dr. Neal “[did] not one suggested the disc in her lower back herniated find any of the current diagnoses *** to be related spontaneously or gradually over time or even that to her motor vehicle accident.” He refrained from it could have. To the extent the Board assumed as making a prognosis about her ability to return to much, it had no evidentiary basis to do so. work pending her planned lumbar spine fusion The Board also placed considerable weight on the surgery. He reported Bechina “does not have the fact Bechina returned to work without restrictions ability to work full-duty work,” in that she was not from June 2016 until January 2021 and that Dr. able to safely arrest someone actively resisting. He Neal acknowledged this fact in his report, whereas noted, but did not explain, the significance of none of her treating physicians mentioned it. The Bechina’s return to full, unrestricted duty for over Appellate Court concluded Bechina's return to 4 years. work alone was insufficient evidence to conclude Bechina sent Dr. Neal's report to her three treating her injuries from the 2016 collision were physicians, who each provided a narrative report thoroughly resolved. describing their treatment of Bechina and medical The Appellate Court also stated that while there opinion on her conditions. All three treating were conflicting medical opinions, there was no physicians disagreed with Dr. Neal’s assessment. conflicting evidence on the actual cause of The Appellate Court noted that none of the treating Bechina's disability—no intervening injury, physicians commented or opined about Bechina medical condition, or even proposed attribution to returning to work for over 4 years. normal aging. According to the Appellate Court, The Board found Bechina was disabled from full absent any other explanation, the opposite and unrestricted police duties due to her lumbar conclusion—that Bechina's lumbar spine injury in spine condition, but the disability was not the result 2016 caused her disabling lower back pain in of an act of duty. The Board explained it gave more 2021—is clearly evident to any reasonable finder weight to the opinion of Dr. Neal, who concluded of fact. ❖ Bechina's lumbar spine condition, while disabling, was unrelated to the 2016 collision. The Board Public Bodies Must Give Notice of found significant the four-plus year gap between Change in Regular Meeting Dates Bechina's 2016 injuries and her treatment Public Access Opinion 24-013 beginning in 2020. The Open Meetings Act (OMA) requires public The Appellate Court found the Board ignored the bodies, including pension boards, to annually fact Bechina had been involved in only one publish a schedule of regular meeting dates at the traumatic accident in which the relevant portions of beginning of each calendar or fiscal year. If a her body were injured. While the Board relied on change is made to the regular meeting dates, the Dr. Neal, the Court found Dr. Neal did not explain © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 8 62 of 64 Page 64 of 66 public body must give at least 10 days’ notice of the multiple regular meeting dates would require change by publication in a newspaper of general compliance with Section 2.03 by publication in a circulation in the area. A singular rescheduled newspaper with at least 10 days’ notice. Changes regular meeting need only comply with the usual to only one meeting date need only comply with the 48-hour notice requirement. 48-hour notice requirement of Section 2.02. ❖ At a regular meeting, the Village Board of Marissa, DOI Publishes Tier 2 Salary Cap and Illinois, voted to move its regular meetings from COLA Increase for 2025 the third Monday of the month to the third Wednesday of the month, “until further notice”. No Via a SIREN issued November 1, 2024, the additional notice of this change was given to the Department of Insurance has released the salary public at the time and within 10 days of the cap limitation for pension purposes and annual subsequent two village board meetings. increases for tier two pensioners. Recall that for tier two member of Article 3 and 4 pension funds, A complaint was filed with the Public Access the DOI is required to publish the maximum salary Counselor (PAC) at the Attorney General’s Office for pension purposes which increases annually at alleging the village board had failed to comply with the lesser of 3% or the annual unadjusted consumer the 10-day notice and publishing requirement. In a price index (CPI) for the prior 12 months ending in binding opinion, the PAC agreed the village’s September. Likewise, the COLA increase for tier action violated the OMA. two pensioners is calculated as the lesser of 3% or In construing the notice required for changes to a ½ the annual unadjusted percentage change in CPI meeting schedule, the PAC focused on Section 2.02 for the prior 12 months ending in September. The and 2.03 of the OMA. Section 2.02 provides public resulting calculation published by the DOI on notice of a rescheduled regular meeting (or special November 1 is a maximum pensionable salary for meeting) must be given at least 48 hours in tier two members for 2025 of $141,407.74. This advance. Section 2.03 provides that if a change is figure should be used as a cap for both retirement made to the regular meeting dates, at least 10 days’ determinations and salary withholdings. The notice must be given by publication in a newspaper. COLA for tier two members for 2025 will be To harmonize these two seemingly conflicting 1.2%.❖ deadlines, the PAC reasoned the 48-hour Suggested Agenda Items for requirement of Section 2.02 applies only to a singular rescheduled regular meeting. The ten-day April (or 2nd Quarter of 2025) requirement of Section 2.03 applies when simultaneously rescheduling more than one regular • Election of active/retired/disabled Trustees. meeting. As a result, the Village Board violated the • Review and/or modification of Board’s Cash OMA when it rescheduled more than one regular Management Policy. meeting by one act without meeting the ten day or • Authorize preparation of annual Department publication requirement of Section 2.03 of the of Insurance Report. OMA. • Status of independent audit report. (Due within 6 months of close of fiscal year). How does this apply to your pension board meeting • Status of Letters of Credit/Collateralization schedule? First, boards should be making a Agreements. schedule of its regular meetings for the year • Review and/or modification of Board’s available at the beginning of each calendar year. In Administrative Rules and Regulations. the event a change needs to be made to that • Annual filing of statement of economic schedule once approved, simultaneous changes to interest statements for each Trustee. © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 9 63 of 64 Page 65 of 66  REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC NEWS • November 1, 2024, RDL partner Brian LaBardi presented at the IPFA fall conference in Addison. • November 6, 2024, RDL managing partner Rick Reimer presented at the Metropolitan Alliance of Police seminar regarding “Decertification for Dummies”. • December 2, 2024, RDL managing partner Rick Reimer presented at the IPPFA certified new trustee training in Naperville. • May 2, 2025, RDL attorneys will attend and present at the IPFA Spring Pension Conference in Addison. • May 7-9, 2025, RDL attorneys will attend and present at the IPPFA Spring Conference in Galena. Legal and Legislative Update Volume 26, Issue 1, January 2025 This publication constitutes advertising material. Information contained herein should not be considered legal advice. Legal and Legislative Update is published periodically. Questions may be directed to: REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 15 Spinning Wheel Road, Suite 310, Hinsdale, IL 60521 (630) 654-9547 Fax (630) 654-9676 www.rdlaborlawpc.com Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved. © 2025 REIMER DOBROVOLNY & LABARDI PC 10 64 of 64 Page 66 of 66