Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees grant postponement for disability‑retirement hearing after late request; set six‑month window for rehearing
Summary
The board found good cause to postpone an applicant’s disability retirement hearing after the request arrived inside a five‑day window; trustees set a six‑month timeframe for the rehearing and authorized staff to coordinate scheduling.
At its June 26, 2025 meeting the Federated City Employees Retirement System board granted a postponement for a disability‑retirement hearing after the applicant, identified in meeting materials as Miss Barnes, requested a late rescheduling to allow time to secure legal representation and attend client obligations.
Staff told the board the request to postpone arrived June 23, inside the plan’s five‑day window that allows ORS (the office that manages hearings) to grant an untimely postponement only with a showing of “good cause.” Mariah (staff) summarized the legal point to trustees: “the request to reschedule the hearing was on June 23. And because the request was outside of the 5 day window that would enable ORS to grant the postponement, staff did not have the authority to grant the untimely request.”
Board staff representative John read the applicant’s emailed reasons into the record. The applicant wrote that an on‑site client meeting had been scheduled for June 26 and that she is working to secure legal counsel, writing in part: “Serving and supporting my clients is how I'm able to supplement my retirement from the city of San Jose.”
Sandra, a staff member, provided a timeline of prior communications with the applicant. She said the office had mailed or emailed the disability rules on multiple occasions (02/28/2024, 08/23/2024 and 06/02/2025), sent scheduling proposals in March 2025, and received confirmation from the applicant on June 10 that she would attend the June 26 hearing. According to staff, the applicant first asked to postpone on June 23 and staff followed up to request a statement of good cause.
Trustees discussed the balance between following published procedures and permitting a single, equitable postponement when circumstances arise. Trustee Linder moved to grant the postponement to allow the applicant to obtain counsel and set a rehearing within six months; Trustee Abbott seconded the motion. Trustees also discussed whether a time limit should be attached to avoid indefinite delay. Staff noted the board is setting precedent because the rules are silent on this specific late‑request scenario.
The motion passed. The roll‑call vote recorded: Trustee Abbott — aye; Trustee Nakagawa — abstain; Trustee Avasti — aye; Vice Chair Chandra — abstain; Trustee Faulkner — no; Trustee Linder — aye; Chair — aye. The board specified the rehearing would occur within six months and directed staff to coordinate scheduling with the applicant.
The board record shows ORS had repeatedly provided the disability rules and reminders to the applicant, and staff recommended deferring to the board because the June 23 request fell outside the five‑day window in the rules. Trustees praised staff’s thorough outreach but differed on whether allowing a postponement rewards noncompliance with published timing requirements.
No new rehearing date was set at the meeting; staff will work with the applicant and counsel to find a board meeting that can accommodate the hearing within the six‑month window.
