pages: CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 9 | required compensation for the injury. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not concerned about the outcome; she is glad that the employee has been taken care of; she is more concerned about the process, Council discretion, and the appearance of having staff take discretion away from Council; inquired whether there was a conversation between the City Attorney, Risk Manager or any other staff regarding the determination as to whether or not to bring the matter to Council in open or closed session. The City Attorney responded there was discussion on the matter based upon the third party administrator. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was discussion as to whether or not to bring the matter in closed session; stated most workers compensation issues are brought to Council in closed session and Council likes to ask questions; by putting the matter on the Consent Calendar, she assumes the City Attorney felt that Council would not have any questions. The City Attorney stated all needed information was in the staff report. Councilmember Gilmore stated obviously not because two Councilmembers raised questions regarding the issue; maybe the process broke down at the very beginning when the decision was made not to bring the matter to Council in closed session. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney was not aware that a hearing was already scheduled to occur after September 21st. The City Attorney responded that she was not aware that the matter had already gone to litigation and that a mandatory settlement conference through the Workers Compensation Appeals Board was scheduled for September 29th. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she and the Risk Manager thought that no attorney was involved and did not know that the matter was scheduled to go before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, which means; there would be no choice but for Council to approve the compensation payment set by statute; if she knew that the matter was going before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board judge on September 29th, she would not have bothered to bring the matter to Council in open or closed session because is no discretion. Councilmember Gilmore stated the matter should be reagendized. The City Attorney stated that she could have Mr. Epstein go over the issue in detail, if Council wants the matter reagendized. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have the matter resolved tonight. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |