industrial disability retirement review revised...subject: industrial disability retirement review...

Summary of Individual Agency Observations Ordered by OFAS Job Number

Industrial Disability Retirement Review

CalPERS Office of Audit Services Public Agency Review Job Number: 4P16-005 Revised: August 2018

California Public Employees’ Retirement System Office of Audit Services P.O. Box 942701 Sacramento, CA 94229-2701 TTY: (877) 249-7442 (916) 795-0422 phone • (916) 795-4023 faxwww.calpers.ca.gov

Memorandum August 27, 2018

To: CALPERS CONTRACTING AGENCIES AND GOVERNING BODIES PER ATTACHMENT

Original signed by Beliz Chappuie

From: BELIZ CHAPPUIE, CPA, MBA, CISA Chief, Office of Audit Services

Subject: Industrial Disability Retirement Review (Job Numbers: 4P16-005 and 4SP16-001 through 4SP16-060) - REVISED

In January 2018 CalPERS Office of Audit Services (OFAS) issued the final report on the results of the industrial disability retirement (IDR) review for 60 public agencies. Subsequently, OFAS received additional information from the County of Riverside and determined that revisions were required to Observation 4 on page A-90 of the Appendix and to Figure E and the related narrative on page 4.

Enclosed is our revised final report including those revisions. No other revisions were made.

Each agency was provided with a draft copy of their report containing information on its IDR determination process and asked to provide a response to the observations. The responses have been summarized in their respective final report and are included in the appendix to this report. Agencies’ responses to the draft reports have been forwarded to the appropriate CalPERS divisions and are on file at OFAS and available upon request.

In accordance with our resolution policy, we have referred the observations identified in the report to the appropriate divisions at CalPERS. Agencies should work with the divisions to address the recommendations specified in our report. It was our pleasure to work with each agency, and we appreciate their time and assistance during this review.

Attachment

cc: Risk and Audit Committee Members, CalPERS Matthew G. Jacobs, General Counsel, CalPERS Anthony Suine, Chief, BNSD, CalPERS

Industrial Disability Retirement Review

Table of Contents

Objective and Scope ..................................................................................1

Results in Brief ...........................................................................................1

Conclusion ..................................................................................................8

Agency Reports ......................................................................... Appendix A

Industrial Disability Retirement Review Page 1

Objective and Scope

The objective of this Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to evaluate the agencies’ internal controls and to gain an understanding of each agency’s policies and procedures, or practices as they relate to the Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination processes for local safety members. More specifically, OFAS reviewed agencies’ IDR processes to determine whether agencies had policies and procedures or practices for making IDR determinations, notified the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) of pre-retirement disciplinary actions, had accepted Workers’ Compensation claims, based IDR determinations on competent medical opinions independent of the Workers’ Compensation process, and maintained a re-evaluation process for IDR retirees under the voluntary service retirement age. As part of our review, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet; we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS database for related information. To achieve the objective, OFAS selected a sample of local safety retirees from 60 public agencies and school districts. During the review, 22 of the 60 agencies did not provide all of the records requested. Therefore, we were not able to identify all of the policies and procedures or practices used by those agencies to make IDR determinations. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016.

During the review, OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL). Additionally, OFAS did not perform a compliance review of how agencies make IDR determinations. By way of the agencies’ contracts with CalPERS, the agencies agreed to be bound by the terms of the contract and the PERL. The observations outlined in this report are based solely on information obtained through the various sources identified above at the time this report was prepared.

Results in Brief

OFAS reviewed the policies and procedures or practices used by 60 agencies to make IDR determinations. The results of our review are summarized below. The sampled agencies’ individual reports are included in Appendix A.


Requested documents were not provided. Twenty-two of the 60 agencies reviewed (37 percent) did not provide all of the records requested by OFAS for safety-fire, safety-police, and safety-county peace officer retirees. The majority of the agencies stated they could not provide personnel records without a signed consent form from the retiree authorizing their release. Most of the agencies who did not provide requested records stated that they were unable to comply with CalPERS request and cited Penal Code section 832.7 which describes confidentiality of personnel records for peace officers. CalPERS requested this information for the purpose of carrying out its statutory and contractual duties to administer the system in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and agreements. Government Code section 20222.5, subdivision (a) explicitly authorizes CalPERS to “require each . . . contracting agency, to provide information or make available for examination or copying at a specified time and place, or both, books, papers, any data, or any records, including, but not limited to, personnel and payroll records, as deemed necessary by the board to determine eligibility for, and the correctness of, retirement benefits, reportable compensation, enrollment in, and reinstatement to this system.” Agencies state they are prevented from disclosing personnel records pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7; however, the PERL requires agencies to disclose such information to CalPERS pursuant to Government Code sections 20128, 20221, 20222.5 and 20572, and CalPERS is required to keep such information confidential pursuant to Government Code sections 20222.5 and 20230.

Provided All

Requested Documents

63%

Scope Limitation

37%

Figure A


Agencies did not always have policies and procedures. Thirty-one of the 60 agencies reviewed (52 percent) did not have written policies and procedures for processing IDR determinations. An additional 11 agencies (18 percent) had policies and procedures; however, the policies and procedures were not approved by their governing body. The remaining 18 agencies (30 percent) had policies and procedures for making IDR determinations that were approved by the agencies governing body. Policies and procedures are internal controls that provide reasonable assurance an agency’s IDR determinations are made consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Pre-retirement disciplinary actions were not always reported to CalPERS. Eleven of the 60 agencies reviewed (18 percent) had retirees with disciplinary actions; however, CalPERS was not notified. According to the CalPERS Public Agency and Schools Reference Guide, Agencies must forward all relevant personnel documents and medical records to CalPERS for employees with disciplinary actions and obtain CalPERS’ acceptance that the employee is eligible to apply for disability retirement before starting the IDR process. As noted in Figure C, 19 agencies (32 percent) did not provide OFAS with all requested records. As a result, OFAS could not determine if the agencies’ retirees had disciplinary actions prior to retirement that should have been forwarded to CalPERS. Government Code sections 20221 and 20222.5 state that each employer must provide CalPERS with all information concerning any member that CalPERS requires in the administration of the System and during an audit to make available for examination or copying, any records deemed necessary to determine the eligibility or correctness of retirement benefits and reinstatement to the System. The remaining 30 agencies (50 percent) did not have any disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.

Policies & Procedures

Board Approved

30%

Policies & Procedures Not Board Approved

18%

No Policies &

Procedures52%

Figure B

Did Not Provide All Requested

Records 32%

No Disciplinary

Action 50%

Disciplinary Action -

CalPERS Not Notified

18%

Figure C


Accepted Workers’ Compensation claims were not always required prior to making IDR determinations. Twelve of the 60 agencies reviewed (20 percent) did not require retirees to have an accepted Workers’ Compensation claim prior to making an IDR determination. Accepted Workers’ Compensation claims are used to determine industrial causation of work related injuries. Without an accepted Workers’ Compensation claim, CalPERS is unable to verify if the accident was industrially caused. An additional 10 agencies (17 percent) did not provide all requested Workers’ Compensation records. As a result, OFAS was unable to determine whether the employees had an accepted Workers’ Compensation claim. Government Code sections 20221 and 20222.5 state that each employer must provide CalPERS with all information concerning any member that CalPERS requires in the administration of the System and during an audit to make available for examination or copying, any records deemed necessary to determine the eligibility or correctness of retirement benefits and reinstatement to the System. The remaining 38 agencies (63 percent) required retirees to have an accepted Workers’ Compensation claim prior to making an IDR determination. Competent medical opinions were not always independent of the Workers’ Compensation process.

Fifty-three of the 60 agencies reviewed (89 percent) based their IDR determinations on medical opinions that were part of the Workers’ Compensation process. The standards used to make medical determinations for Workers’ Compensation claims are different than the standards used to make CalPERS IDR determinations. Workers’ Compensation benefits are governed by the labor code; whereas, CalPERS industrial disability benefits are governed by the PERL. Therefore, using Workers’ Compensation medical opinions for IDR determinations may not meet the standards used for IDR determinations.

No Accepted Workers

Comp Claim 20%

Did Not Provide All Requested

Records17%

Accepted Workers

Comp Claim

Required63%

Figure D

Documents Not

Provided8%

Inside Workers

Comp Process

89%

Specialist Outside Workers

Comp3%

Figure E


Two of the agencies (3 percent) based their IDR determination on medical opinions outside of the Workers’ Compensation process. The remaining 5 agencies (8 percent) did not provide the requested personnel records. Therefore, OFAS was unable to determine whether the medical determinations were independent of the Workers’ Compensation process. Government Code sections 20221 and 20222.5 state that each employer must provide CalPERS with all information concerning any member that CalPERS requires in the administration of the System and during an audit to make available for examination or copying, any records deemed necessary to determine the eligibility or correctness of retirement benefits and reinstatement to the System. Re-evaluations were not conducted. The 60 agencies reviewed did not conduct re-evaluations of industrial disability retirees under the voluntary service retirement age to ensure the disabling condition remains. Government Code section 21192 allows the governing body of a contracting agency to re-evaluate any recipients of a disability retirement allowance who are under voluntary service retirement age to verify whether the recipient remains physically or mentally disabled from the position which they disability retired. According to CalPERS Circular Letter 200-018-17, retirees under the voluntary service retirement age should undergo regular periodic reviews to verify the retiree remains disabled. The sampled agencies did not conduct re-evaluations to determine whether IDR retirees under the voluntary service retirement age remain physically or mentally disabled. As a result, retirees who are no longer disabled may be receiving IDR benefits.

No Re-evaluations Performed

100%

Figure F

Summary of Individual Agency Observations


= The Agency provided all requested records. ≠ The Agency did not provide all requested records. The Agency policies and procedures, or practices are consistent with the criteria reviewed. X The Agency policies and procedures, or practices are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. # The Agency's sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.

Figures B through F refers to criteria 1 through 5 from the individual reports in the Appendix.

Figures

# Agency A B C D E F Appendix

Page Number

1 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ≠ X ≠ X X X A-1

2 City of Gonzales = X # X A-3 3 City of Escondido ≠ ≠ ≠ X X A-5 4 City of Clovis ≠ X ≠ X X A-9 5 City of Williams = X # X X A-11 6 County of Calaveras = X # X X A-13 7 City of San Fernando ≠ X X X X X A-15 8 City of Banning ≠ X ≠ ≠ ≠ X A-19 9 City of Clayton = X # X X A-21

10 City of Fremont = # X X A-23 11 City of Newark ≠ ≠ X X X A-25 12 County of Santa Clara ≠ X ≠ X X A-27 13 City of Irvine = # X X A-29 14 City of Hawthorne ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ X A-31 15 City of Ridgecrest = X # X X A-33 16 City of Marysville = X # X X A-35 17 Central Marin Police Authority = X # X X X A-37 18 City of Richmond = # X X A-39 19 City of Selma = X # X X A-41 20 City of Bakersfield = X X X A-43

21 Copperopolis Fire Protection District = X # X X A-45

22 City of Riverside = X X X A-47 23 City of Pomona = X # X X X A-49 24 City of San Mateo = X # X X A-51 25 City of Modesto = # X X X A-53

26 Los Angeles Unified School District ≠ ≠ X X A-55

27 City of Carlsbad = X # X X A-57 28 City of Roseville = X X X X X A-59 29 City of Inglewood ≠ X ≠ X X X A-61

Summary of Individual Agency Observations (continued)


Figures

# Agency A B C D E F Appendix

Page Number

30 City of Santa Maria = X X X X A-63 31 County of Placer = # X X X A-65 32 City of Redding = X X X X A-67 33 City of Redwood City = X # X X A-69 34 City of Beaumont = X # X X A-71 35 Town of Los Gatos ≠ X # X X X A-73

36 American Canyon Fire Protection District = # X X A-75

37 City of Hayward ≠ ≠ ≠ X X A-77 38 City of Newman = # X X A-79 39 City of Elk Grove = # X X A-81 40 City of Martinez ≠ X ≠ ≠ X X A-83 41 City of Costa Mesa ≠ X ≠ ≠ ≠ X A-87 42 County of Riverside = # X A-89 43 City of California City = X # X X A-91 44 City of Alameda = # X X A-93 45 City of Stockton = # X X A-95 46 County of Humboldt ≠ ≠ X X A-97 47 City of Lodi ≠ ≠ X X A-99 48 County of Lassen = X # X X A-101 49 County of Monterey = # X X A-103

50 Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District = X # X X A-105

51 City of South San Francisco ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ X A-107 52 City of Concord = X X X A-109 53 City of Buena Park ≠ ≠ ≠ X X A-111 54 City of South Gate = X X X X X A-115 55 City of Sunnyvale ≠ ≠ ≠ X X A-117 56 City of Brentwood = X X X A-121 57 City of Antioch = X X X X A-123 58 City of Monterey ≠ X X X X A-125 59 City of Sacramento ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ X A-127 60 City of Vallejo ≠ ≠ X X A-129


Conclusion Based on the information available at the time of the review, we noted the policies and procedures, or practices used by the majority of the agencies to make IDR determinations are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. In addition, 22 of the 60 agencies selected for review did not provide all or a portion of the records requested by OFAS; therefore, we were not able to identify all of the policies and procedures or practices used by those agencies to make IDR determinations. OFAS limited this review to the areas specified in the objective and scope section of this report. OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL). OFAS recommends that agencies refer to Circular Letter 200-018-17 for IDR information for the criteria reviewed and observations made. The appropriate CalPERS division will notify the Agency of the observations and provide assistance related to IDR determinations.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Beliz Chappuie BELIZ CHAPPUIE, CPA, MBA, CISA Chief, Office of Audit Services

Staff: Alan Feblowitz, CFE, Assistant Division Chief Chris Wall, MBA, Senior Manager Cheryl Livingston, Manager

APPENDIX A

AGENCY REPORTS

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT

Industrial Disability Retirement Review Page A-1

Objective and Scope

The objective of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to gain an understanding of contracting agencies’ policies and procedures implementing Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination and reevaluation requirements for local safety members established in the agencies’ respective retirement contracts and Government Code Sections 20026, 21156, 21192, and related statutes, regulations, and rules. To achieve our objective, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet; we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS’ database for related information. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016. OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).

CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 1135793148 4SP16-001 December 1, 1958 Safety-Police

Results

Areas

Reviewed Criteria Observation

1 Agency Policies/ Procedures

Did the Agency have written policies or procedures for making IDR determinations?

No. The Agency does not have written policies and procedures that have been approved by the board. The Agency has a task list that identifies steps to follow when processing an IDR application.

2 Pre-Retirement Disciplinary Action

Did the Agency notify CalPERS of pre-retirement disciplinary actions and provide all relevant personnel documents and medical records to obtain CalPERS’ determination of the members’ eligibility for IDR prior to starting the IDR determination process?

The Agency could not provide personnel files for the five sampled retirees due to their retention policies. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination.

3 Workers’ Compensation Claim

Did the Agency require an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for the disabling condition prior to making an IDR determination?

No, one of the five sampled retirees did not have an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT


Areas Reviewed

Criteria Observation

4 Competent Medical Opinion

Did the Agency base all IDR determinations on competent medical opinions from doctors who specialized in the same field as the disabling condition outside the Workers’ Compensation process?

No, the five sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.

5 Re-evaluations Did the Agency conduct re-evaluations for IDR retirees under the voluntary service retirement age to verify the disabling condition remains?

No, the five sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation

The Agency should work with the CalPERS Benefit Services Division (BNSD) when making IDR determinations that may impact the agreed upon provisions in its retirement contract and reporting requirements pursuant to the PERL.

Conclusion The observations outlined in this report are based on information made available at the time this report was prepared. OFAS noted, the policies and procedures, or practices used by the Agency to make IDR determinations are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. Circular Letter 200-018-17 provides additional IDR information for the areas reviewed and observations made. In addition, the Agency did not provide all the records requested by OFAS; therefore, we were unable to review the policies and procedures, or practices for making IDR determinations.

Summarized Response OFAS did not receive a response to the report.

CITY OF GONZALES


Objective and Scope

The objective of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to gain an understanding of contracting agencies’ policies and procedures implementing Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination and reevaluation requirements for local safety members established in the agencies’ respective retirement contracts and Government Code Sections 20026, 21156, 21192, and related statutes, regulations, and rules. To achieve our objective, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet; we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS’ database for related information. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016.

OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).

CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 1217778828 4SP16-002 February 1, 1969 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



The sampled retiree did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, the sampled retiree had an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim.

CITY OF GONZALES


Areas Reviewed




Yes, the sampled retiree’s determination was based on a competent medical opinion from a specialist outside the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the sampled retiree did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation


Conclusion The observations outlined in this report are based on information made available at the time this report was prepared. OFAS noted, the policies and procedures, or practices used by the Agency to make IDR determinations are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. Circular Letter 200-018-17 provides additional IDR information for the areas reviewed and observations made.

Summarized Response

The Agency agreed with the Observations identified in the report.

CITY OF ESCONDIDO


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 1545398590 4SP16-003 November 1, 1958 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.

CITY OF ESCONDIDO


Areas Reviewed




The Agency had an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for one of the three sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their information. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.



No. The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found that the determination for the retiree was based on a medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their information. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.


No, the three sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation


CITY OF ESCONDIDO



Summarized Response The Agency indicated disagreement with Observations in the report and provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the additional information and revised Observation 1.


This Page Intentionally Left Blank

CITY OF CLOVIS


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 1662820276 4SP16-004 January 1, 1967 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



OFAS requested personnel files for the three sampled retirees; however, the Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination.



Yes, the three sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF CLOVIS


Areas Reviewed




No, the three sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

Summarized Response

CITY OF WILLIAMS


Objective and Scope




Results

Areas




No







CITY OF WILLIAMS


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree’s determination was based on the medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response OFAS did not receive a response to the report.

COUNTY OF CALAVERAS


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 1957548103 4SP16-006 February 1, 1969 Safety-County Peace Officer

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



The two sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, the two sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

COUNTY OF CALAVERAS


Areas Reviewed



Did the Agency base all IDR determinations on competent medical opinions from doctors who specialized in the same field as the disabling condition outside of the Workers’ Compensation process?

No, the two sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the two sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF SAN FERNANDO


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2236157495 4SP16-007 October 1, 1946 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



No. The Agency provided records for two of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found one of the two retirees had a disciplinary action and CalPERS was not notified. The Agency stated they were unable to provide the personnel files for the remaining employee in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



Areas Reviewed




No. The Agency provided records for two of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found one of the two sampled retirees did not have an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim. The Agency stated they were unable to provide the personnel file for the remaining employee in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



No. The Agency provided records for two of the three sampled retirees and determinations for both retirees were based on medical opinions in the Workers' Compensation process. The Agency stated they were unable to provide the personnel files for the remaining employee in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



Recommendation





Summarized Response


CITY OF BANNING


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2317277676 4SP16-008 July 1, 1965 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



OFAS requested personnel files for the two sampled retirees; however, the Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retirees.




CITY OF BANNING


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF CLAYTON


Objective and Scope




Results

Areas




No







CITY OF CLAYTON


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree's determination was based on the medical opinion in the Workers' Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF FREMONT


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 7431146835 4SP16-010 April 1, 1958 Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The three sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.




CITY OF FREMONT


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation


Conclusion

The observations outlined in this report are based on information made available at the time this report was prepared. OFAS noted, the policies and procedures, or practices used by the Agency to make IDR determinations are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. Circular Letter 200-018-17 provides additional IDR information for the areas reviewed and observations made.

Summarized Response


CITY OF NEWARK


Objective and Scope




Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The Agency provided records for two of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the two retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining employee. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



No, one of the three sampled retirees did not have an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim.

CITY OF NEWARK


Areas Reviewed




No, the three retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2402960317 4SP16-012 July 1, 1945 Safety-County Peace Officer

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



The Agency provided records for six of the nine sampled retirees. OFAS found the six sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining three employees in the safety-county peace officer classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the three retirees.



Yes, the nine sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA


Areas Reviewed




No, the nine sampled retiree’s determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the nine sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response

OFAS did not receive a response to the report.

CITY OF IRVINE


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2425341898 4SP16-013 February 2, 2002 Safety-Police

Results

Areas




Yes, however, the policies and procedures were not board approved.







CITY OF IRVINE


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF HAWTHORNE


Objective and Scope




Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



OFAS requested personnel files for the three sampled retirees; however, the Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retirees.




CITY OF HAWTHORNE


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF RIDGECREST


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2542403229 4SP16-015 September 20, 1965 Safety-Police

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF RIDGECREST


Areas Reviewed




No, the three sampled retirees' determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers' Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF MARYSVILLE


Objective and Scope




Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



The two sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, two sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF MARYSVILLE


Areas Reviewed




No, one of the two sampled retirees' determinations was based on a medical opinion in the Workers' Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded that the Observations would remain unchanged.

CENTRAL MARIN POLICE AUTHORITY


Objective and Scope



CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 2558720758 4SP16-017 November 10, 1980 Safety-Police

Results

Areas




No






No. the three sampled retirees applied for Workers Compensation; however, the Agency made the IDR determinations prior to the Workers’ Compensation Claims being accepted.

CENTRAL MARIN POLICE AUTHORITY


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded that the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF RICHMOND


Objective and Scope




Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The five sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.


Did the Agency require an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for the disabling condition prior to making an IDR determination outside of the Workers’ Compensation process?

Yes, the five sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF RICHMOND


Areas Reviewed




No, the five sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and revised Observation 2.

CITY OF SELMA


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF SELMA


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree’s determination was based on a medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF BAKERSFIELD


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 3050192847 4SP16-020 August 1, 1944 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



No, one of the eight sampled retirees had a disciplinary action and CalPERS was not notified.



Yes, the eight sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD


Areas Reviewed




No, the eight sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in Workers’ Compensation process.


No, seven of the eight sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted. The IDR application was cancelled for the eighth retiree.

Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency indicated disagreement with the Observations in the report and provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations will remain unchanged.

COPPEROPOLIS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 3138183363 4SP16-021 August 1, 2001 Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







COPPEROPOLIS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree's determination was based on a medical opinion in the Workers' Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF RIVERSIDE


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



No, one of the six sampled retirees had a disciplinary action and CalPERS was not notified.



Yes, the six sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE


Areas Reviewed




No, the six sampled retirees' determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers' Compensation process.


No, the six sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF POMONA


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF POMONA


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency indicated disagreement with the Observations in the report and provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations will remain unchanged.

CITY OF SAN MATEO


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No





Did the Agency require an accepted workers’ compensation claim for the disabling condition prior to making an IDR determination?


CITY OF SAN MATEO


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF MODESTO


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The four sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



No, one of the four sampled retirees did not have an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim.

CITY OF MODESTO


Areas Reviewed




No, the four sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the four sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT


Objective and Scope



Results

Areas











LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency indicated disagreement with Observation 4 and provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observation would remain unchanged.

CITY OF CARLSBAD


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF CARLSBAD


Areas Reviewed






No, the three sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted. However, one of the three retirees exceeded the voluntary service retirement age so a re-evaluation was not required.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF ROSEVILLE


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 3831513094 4SP16-028 April 1, 1945 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



No, one of the three sampled retirees had a disciplinary action and CalPERS was not notified.




CITY OF ROSEVILLE


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF INGLEWOOD


Objective and Scope

The objective of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to gain an understanding of contracting agencies’ policies and procedures implementing Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination and reevaluation requirements for local safety members established in the agencies’ respective retirement contracts and Government Code Sections 20026, 21156, 21192, and related statutes, regulations, and rules. To achieve our objective, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet, we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS database for related information. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016. OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).


Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No





Did the Agency require an accepted Workers Compensation Claim for the disabling condition prior to making an IDR determination?


CITY OF INGLEWOOD


Areas Reviewed




No, the three sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded that the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF SANTA MARIA


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF SANTA MARIA


Areas Reviewed




No, the three sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency indicated disagreement with the Observations in the report and provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

COUNTY OF PLACER


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 4088970465 4SP16-031 January 1, 1949 Safety-County Peace Officer

Results

Areas










No, two of the three sampled retirees did not have accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

COUNTY OF PLACER


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF REDDING


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF REDDING


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF REDWOOD CITY


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No


Did the Agency notify CalPERS of any pre-retirement disciplinary actions and provide all relevant personnel documents and medical records to obtain CalPERS’ determination of the members’ eligibility for IDR prior to starting the IDR determination process?



Did the Agency require an accepted workers’ compensation claim for the disabling condition prior to making an IDR determination?


CITY OF REDWOOD CITY


Areas Reviewed



Did the Agency base all IDR determinations on competent medical opinions from doctors who specialized in the same field as the disabling condition?




Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF BEAUMONT


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF BEAUMONT


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


TOWN OF LOS GATOS


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 4589482285 4SP16-035 April 1, 1972 Safety-Police

Results

Areas




No







TOWN OF LOS GATOS


Areas Reviewed




No, two of the three sampled retiree’s determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process. The Agency was unable to provide the personnel file for the remaining sampled employee. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



Recommendation



Summarized Response


AMERICAN CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 4693302718 4SP16-036 January 1, 1965 Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes. However, the Agency could not demonstrate the policies and procedures were approved by the board.







AMERICAN CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree’s determination was based on medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF HAYWARD


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes. The Agency stated the policies and procedures were approved by the board; however, they could not provide documentation showing board approval.



The Agency could not provide personnel files for the five sampled retirees due to their retention policies. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination.



Four of the five sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims. However, the Agency could not provide the personnel file for the remaining sampled retiree due to their retention policies. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.

CITY OF HAYWARD


Areas Reviewed




No. the Agency provided records for four of the five sampled retirees. OFAS found four sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process. In addition, three of the four sampled retirees were re-evaluated by an occupational/internal medical professional prior to making IDR determinations. The Agency was unable to provide the personnel file for the remaining retiree due to their retention policies. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



Recommendation




CITY OF NEWMAN


Objective and Scope



Results

Areas




Yes







CITY OF NEWMAN


Areas Reviewed






No, the sampled retiree did not have a re-evaluation conducted. However, the employee retired four months prior to the review.

Recommendation




CITY OF ELK GROVE


Objective and Scope



Results

Areas











CITY OF ELK GROVE


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF MARTINEZ


Objective and Scope

The objective of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to gain an understanding of contracting agencies’ policies and procedures implementing Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination and reevaluation requirements for local safety members established in the agencies’ respective retirement contracts and Government Code Sections 20026, 21156, 21192, and related statutes, regulations, and rules. To achieve our objective, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet; we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS’ database for related information. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2016. OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).


Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No



The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.

CITY OF MARTINEZ


Areas Reviewed




The Agency had an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for one of the three sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.



No. The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found that the retiree’s determination was based on medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two sampled retirees.



Recommendation

The Agency should work with CalPERS Benefit Services Division (BNSD) when making IDR determinations that may impact the agreed upon provisions in its retirement contract and reporting requirements pursuant to PERL.

CITY OF MARTINEZ



Summarized Response

The Agency indicated disagreement with the Observations in the report and provided an explanation with its response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF COSTA MESA


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF COSTA MESA


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations will remain unchanged.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 5982690295 4SP16-042 April 1, 1945 Safety-County Peace Officer

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The 12 sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, the 12 sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE


Areas Reviewed




Yes. However, two of the twelve sampled retirees’ determinations were made by doctors who did not specialize in the same field as the disabling condition.


No, the 12 sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation


Conclusion The observations outlined in this report are based on information made available at the time this report was prepared. OFAS noted, the policies and procedures, or practices used by the Agency to make IDR determinations are mostly consistent with the criteria reviewed. Circular Letter 200-018-17 provides additional IDR information for the areas reviewed and observations made.

Summarized Response

The Agency provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and revised Observation 4 and the Conclusion.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency provided an explanation with their response. OFAS reviewed the explanation and concluded the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF ALAMEDA


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes







CITY OF ALAMEDA


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF STOCKTON


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The 11 sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, the 11 sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

CITY OF STOCKTON


Areas Reviewed




No, the 11 sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the 11 sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and revised Observation 1.

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



One of the three sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency could not provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled retirees due to their retention policies. Therefore, OFAS was unable to make a determination for the retirees.




COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and revised Observation 1.

CITY OF LODI


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 6448562990 4SP16-047 June 1, 1966 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree did not have disciplinary action that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they did not have the personnel files for one sampled retiree based on their five year record retention policy and were unable to provide the personnel files for the other retiree due to a pending civil case. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two retirees.




CITY OF LODI


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


COUNTY OF LASSEN


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







COUNTY OF LASSEN


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency did not agree or disagree with the Observations identified in the report.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 6813590383 4SP16-049 June 1,1948 Safety-County Peace Officer

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas







The four sampled retirees did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS.



Yes, the four sampled retirees had accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY


Areas Reviewed




No, the four sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.


No, the four sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


STANISLAUS CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 7135413843 4SP16-050 April 7, 1995 Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







STANISLAUS CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT


Areas Reviewed




No, the sampled retiree’s determination was based on a medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation Claim.



Recommendation



Summarized Response The Agency agreed with the Observations identified in the report.

CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



OFAS requested personnel files for the three sampled retirees; however, the Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police classification under advice from their legal counsel. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retirees.




CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF CONCORD


Objective and Scope



Results

Areas




Yes







CITY OF CONCORD


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and concluded that the Observations would remain unchanged.

CITY OF BUENA PARK


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 7431146835 4SP16-053 March 1, 1964 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes, the Agency has an administrative memorandum containing draft procedures for processing disability retirement applications; however, it has not been approved by the board.



The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two retirees.

CITY OF BUENA PARK


Areas Reviewed




The Agency had an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for one of the three sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for two retirees.



No. OFAS requested personnel files for a sample of three retirees. The Agency provided records for one retiree and OFAS found that the determination was based on a medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the two retirees.



Recommendation


CITY OF BUENA PARK



Summarized Response

The Agency indicated disagreement with the Observations in the report and provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and revised Observation 1.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE


Objective and Scope


CalPERS ID Job Number Contract Date Classification 7499696720 4SP16-054 March 1, 1949 Safety-Police

Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




No







CITY OF SOUTH GATE


Areas Reviewed



Did the Agency base all IDR determinations on competent medical opinions from doctors who specialized in the same field as the disabling condition outside of the Workers Compensation process?



No, three sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF SUNNYVALE


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas







The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree did not have disciplinary actions that needed to be provided to CalPERS. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for two retirees.

CITY OF SUNNYVALE


Areas Reviewed




The Agency had an accepted Workers’ Compensation Claim for one of the three sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for two retirees.



No. The Agency provided records for one of the three sampled retirees. OFAS found the retiree’s determination was based on a medical opinion in the Workers’ Compensation process. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for the remaining two sampled employees in the safety-police classification without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for two retirees.



Recommendation


CITY OF SUNNYVALE



Summarized Response


CITY OF BRENTWOOD


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas











CITY OF BRENTWOOD


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF ANTIOCH


Objective and Scope




Results

Areas




No







CITY OF ANTIOCH


Areas Reviewed







Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF MONTEREY


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes







CITY OF MONTEREY


Areas Reviewed




No, two of the three sampled retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process. For the other sampled retiree, the Agency did not provide the requested information. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retiree.



Recommendation



Summarized Response

The Agency provided additional information with their response. OFAS reviewed the information and revised Observations 1 and 4.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO


Objective and Scope



Safety-Fire

Results

Areas







OFAS requested personnel files for the seven sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police and safety-fire classifications without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retirees.




CITY OF SACRAMENTO


Areas Reviewed






No, the seven sampled retirees did not have re-evaluations conducted.

Recommendation



Summarized Response


CITY OF VALLEJO


Objective and Scope

The objective of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Office of Audit Services (OFAS) review was to gain an understanding of contracting agencies’ policies and procedures implementing Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR) determination and reevaluation requirements for local safety members established in the agencies’ respective retirement contracts and Government Code Sections 20026, 21156, 21192, and related statutes, regulations, and rules. To achieve our objective, we compiled data from various sources depending on availability; we interviewed the agencies’ staff and key individuals; we searched publicly available information about the agency via the internet; we obtained copies of the agencies’ policies and procedures for making IDR determinations; we reviewed the agencies’ records; and we reviewed CalPERS’ database for related information. The review period was limited to January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2016. OFAS did not test for compliance with the terms of the contract or with provisions of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).


Safety-Fire

Results

Areas




Yes



OFAS requested personnel files for the three sampled retirees. The Agency stated they were unable to provide personnel files for employees in the safety-police and safety-fire classifications without a signed consent form authorizing release of their files. Therefore, OFAS could not make a determination for the retirees.




CITY OF VALLEJO


Areas Reviewed




No, the three samples retirees’ determinations were based on medical opinions in the Workers’ Compensation process.



Recommendation


Conclusion The observations outlined in this report are based on information made available at the time this report was prepared. OFAS noted, the policies and procedures, or practices used by the Agency to make IDR determinations are not consistent with the criteria reviewed. Circular Letter 200-018-17 provides additional IDR information for the areas reviewed and observations made. In addition, the Agency did not provide all the records requested by OFAS; therefore, we were unable to review the policies and procedures, or practices for making IDR determinations

Summarized Response
