March 26, 2024 Minutes

Meeting Minutes
Public Safety Police Personnel Retirement Board
Special Meeting
March 26, 2024 | 9:00 a.m.
2nd Floor, Training Room B
175 S. Arizona Ave., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Turner at 9:02 a.m.
Roll Call
Board Attendance
Staff Attendance
Chairperson Steven Turner
Rae Lynn Nielsen, HR Director
Citizen Member Bill Crawford
Nichole Bombard, Medical Leave Coord.
Citizen Member Valerie Remington
Christine Jarosik, Medical Leave Coord.
Police Member Elect Daniel Shellum
Rowena Laxa, Assistant City Attorney
Police Member Elect Raymond Kieffer
Others Present
Andrew Apodaca, Board Attorney
Absent
Executive Session - Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.03 (A), the Chandler Local Police
Public Safety Personnel Retirement Board may vote to convene in executive session to discuss
or consider confidential records exempt by law from public inspection, and/or to consult with the
Board’s attorney for legal advice and to consider the Board’s position and to instruct the Board’s
attorney regarding its position on item 1. The Board will take action on those items in open
session.

Page  of 
2
7
Action Agenda Item No. 1 and Discussion
1.
Accidental Disability Application Hancock
Consideration, Discussion, and appropriate Action regarding the Application for an
Accidental Disability for Shawn Hancock.
Ms. Abramsohn, Mr. Hancock’s attorney, has submitted two motions and one subpoena
request to the board in reference to evidentiary hearing.  Claimant’s Request for a
Subpoena, with regard to Ms. Lauren Goldbach.  Claimant’s Motions included 1) Claimant’s
Motion regarding CPD Exhibit 16 and Medical Records of Wilson, Ph.D, and 2) Claimant’s
Motion to Dismiss City of Chandler Police Department.
Chairperson Turner asked Ms. Abramsohn to discuss Claimant’s Request for a Subpoena.
Ms. Abramsohn’ s medical witness requires a subpoena to appear before the board on the
direction of the witness’ attorney. Mr. Apodaca confirmed that the Board will issue the
subpoena and send it to Ms. Abramsohn to deliver to Mr. Hancock’s provider.
Chairperson Turner then asked Ms. Abramsohn to discuss the first motion, Claimant’s
Motion regarding CPD Exhibit 16 and Medical Records of Wilson, Ph.D. Ms. Abramsohn
objects to the exhibit provided by Ms. Baker that only includes 2 pages of the medical
record rather than the entire report and medical file.
Ms. Baker countered that Mr. Hancock did not see Dr. Wilson, who's a psychologist, until
after he was placed on administrative leave. The exhibit offered was the MMCI, a computer
generated report. Mr. Hancock has now provided in this huge cache of new documents that
he wants to offer including Dr. Wilson's progress reports. These are self-serving hearsay
reports by a psychologist who's not going to testify, and Dr. Wilson creates his file not to
seek out objective evidence because he's not an independent psychological examiner. He
relies on the patients’ self-report, and he doesn't create an exhaustive record of what the
patient says. He controls what is put into his records because he knows they might be
involved in a legal proceeding and as a treating psychologist, he feels that he has to not
break the bond of confidence and trust between him and the patient, and therefore he
doesn't put negative information in these records. Ms. Baker objects to anything that they
have offered from Dr. Wilson as he is not going to testify, it’s inadmissible and unreliable
hearsay, and this board in this hearing is not going to decide what the diagnosis is if there
is one. Ms. Baker is entitled to structure exhibits as they feel necessary but agrees that that
computer generated commentary is acceptable and would agree to amend exhibit 16. Ms.
Baker does object to Ms. Abrahamson’s effort to put this additional information into the
record.
Ms. Abramsohn countered that on the applications for accidental disability retirement, the
board asks that the applicants list all the doctors that they go to. She argues that the board
secretary sends out requests for those doctors and gets all these records.  All the records
are submitted to the board for the board's review for making a determination on the

Page  of 
3
7
application and it's given to your IME doctor. Ms. Baker indicates she's going to bring, an
expert which was the workers compensation doctor. All these records were given to him, so
they're perfectly admissible here. Ms. Abramsohn notes that the board asked to address 2
questions, the first question is whether Lieutenant Hancock terminated his employment due
to an accidental disability and second, whether Lieutenant Hancock’s disabling condition
was incurred in the performance of his employment duties. Those were the only two issues,
not whether or not he is disabled and all his treating physicians that he went to. Claimant is
submitting the records for understanding Lieutenant Hancock's motive and filing his
application for accidental disability.
Chairperson Turner then asked Ms. Abramsohn to discuss the third motion, Applicant’s
Motion to Dismiss City of Chandler Police Department. Ms. Abramsohn notes that through
the rules that the board has enacted, it has made the City of Chandler Police Department,
the employer in this matter, a party to the hearing.  She argues the City lacks standing to
be a party in front of this board in an application for accidental disability. She argues that
there's absolutely nothing in the statutory system that gives an employer the right to
become a party in someone's application for accidental disability. The definition of employer
under 38-842 only states what an employer is and its requirements for contributions. It says
absolutely nothing about them being a party or them being involved in application
determinations. If you continue through the statutes on 38-847(D), that claimant or the
board of trustees, or both, have a right to a rehearing on the original determination. So that
means that the board of trustees can be a party to hearing in front of the board, it doesn't
say that the employer gets to ask for a rehearing.  Ms. Abramsohn argues that the board
can ask the city to provide information, but the City doesn't get to come and argue how the
Board should rule on an application for accidental disability. If you look at the model rules
that the system established, it defines parties, and those parties are the claimant, the Board
of trustees, and the local board and that's it. It doesn't include the employer because there's
no authority for the employer to be a party in front of this board. She argues that the Local
Board cannot implement a rule to make the City a party when you don't have specific
statutory authority to. The attorney for the city is advocating for a particular result and giving
an opinion on the ultimate issue. Ms. Abramsohn questions who is directing or instructing
the appointed attorney for the City, and who is directing or advocating the position that the
attorney should take in this matter.  Ms. Abrahmsohn suggested that there was an open
meeting law violation, since she cannot understand how the City was added as a part to the
claim.  Ms. Abramsohn also suggested that since at least three members of the board work
for the City, and an attorney is arguing on behalf of what the City thinks should happen, that
there is an automatic conflict of interest.
Counsel for the Local Board asked Ms. Abramsohn if she was accusing the Local Board of
violating open meeting law, which was answered in the affirmative.   Counsel for the Local
Board asked Ms. Abramsohn if she was accusing three members of the board of having a
conflict of interest, which she again answered in the affirmative.

Page  of 
4
7
Ms. Baker countered that there are cases that discuss rulemaking authority and when there
is a statutory grant of rulemaking authority, there can be a grant of specific authority and
there can be a grant of general authority, and when general authority is granted to make
rules, it gives the body broad discretion to act. The local board clearly has a general grant
of rulemaking authority, and that's because of ARS 38-847. That is a general grant of
authority. ARS 38-847 allows the Local Board to adopt these rules that within your
reasonable discretion you deem will facilitate the presentation of evidence, the
development of a record to help you make a decision, and that includes making the city a
party.   Ms. Baker notes that the rules require at a minimum, that the board's rules shall
incorporate the model uniform rules. It doesn't say procedurally when you deem in your
judgment, it's appropriate that you can't institute a procedural rule. She argues that, in fact,
the Model Rules anticipates that a Local Board will adopt those rules that it reasonably
believes are required to facilitate a hearing like this, and therefore that's exactly what this
Local Board did.  In this case, the city comes in as the employer and can provide
information that the employee has no interest in providing. We can give you the chronology
of the decision making to show that there was a disciplinary action pending at the time that
he decided suddenly, after over a decade, to seek some sort of counseling, and that his
counselors are not independent psychological counselors. They're just relying on what he
said. The Local Board’s rule allowing the City to be a party doesn't alter or amend any
substantive PSPRS right or benefit, and therefore it's not accurate to say that the Local
Board adds to or subtracts from the system by merely having a procedural rule that the
Local Board in it’s discretion determines was appropriate to have. Nor is the Local Board
adding to the terms of the system. It has absolutely no application here, allowing the City to
come in and provide objective evidence, as it is helpful to the board and as the board
deems appropriate. It does not add to the terms of the system. It doesn't change and
benefit. It doesn't change the way the system operates. Ms. Baker argues that the statutory
language is very clear and that this board acted appropriately within its statutory authority.
Ms. Abramsohn counters that it is offensive that the City would suggest that any pending
discipline for Mr. Hancock would be relevant in an accidental disability claim.  argues that
the Local Board has general rule making authority, but no specific statutory authority for
rule that says an employer can be a party.  She argues the Local Board can't use general
rulemaking authority to make rules about things that you don't have any specific rule
making authority to make, just because you can make rules doesn't mean that you can
make rules that go beyond the terms of the statutory scheme, and that adding a party to a
procedure to a hearing is not procedural. She reiterates that the model rules define who
can be parties, and it's the claimant, the board, and the board of trustees or the system
however you want to refer to it, it does not include employer. There is a conflict with having
the employer here trying to tell the board what it should or shouldn't do when you got
people, on the board who work for the city.  Ms. Abramsohn argued that clearly the City can
come to the Board and provide any evidence that it wishes, but it cannot give an opinion on
the ultimate issue.

Page  of 
5
7
Board Counsel asked Ms. Abramsohn if Claimant was able to point to any other harm that
would come to her client, other than the alleged conflict of interest attributed to City
employees.  Ms. Abramsohn pointed to the fiduciary duty of the Local Board.  She was
asked if that fiduciary responsibility to the membership is from A.R.S. 38-848.04, which she
affirmed, and was asked if that is a local board responsibility or a board of trustees
responsibility.  Ms. Abramsohn argued that it does apply to the Local Board too.
Board Counsel asked if it is Claimant’s position that the existence of contemporaneous
discipline is irrelevant to any decision the Local Board can reach, and Ms. Abramsohn
argued that pending discipline is irrelevant because Mr. Hancock’s application for
accidental disability was already filed before any discipline was handed down.
Ms. Abramsohn was asked to confirm that Mr. Hancock does not protest that the City can
be asked to present evidence before the Local Board, which was answered in the
affirmative.
Ms. Abramshon was asked to confirm that Mr. Hancock is not protesting the fact that the
City is represented by counsel, and that question was answered in the affirmative.
In response to questioning from Local Board counsel Ms. Abramsohn argued that she is
objecting to the City being provided the right to make an opening and closing statement to
the Local Board, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to direct examination of
its own witnesses.
Counsel for the Local Board posed asked if it was more objectionable for Local Board
Counsel to direct testimony of witnesses, and cross examine Mr. Hancock’s witnesses
versus Ms. Baker doing so.  Ms. Abramsohn notd that it is not objectionable for the local
board to ask questions of Mr. Hancock or his witnesses, just that the City is participating in
the upcoming hearing as a party.
The Board took a recess from 10:20am – 10:30am
Executive Session – Chairperson Turner asked for a motion to end the Open Session and to
move into Executive Session for confidential legal advice. Police Member Elect Shellum made a
motion to end the Open Session and to move into Executive Session for legal advice in matter
Action Agenda Item No. 1. Citizen Member Crawford seconded the motion, and the vote was
unanimous to end the Open Session and move into Executive Session at 10:32 a.m.
Open Session – Chairperson Turner asked for a motion to end the Executive Session and move
into Open Session. Police Member Elect Shellum made the motion to end the Executive Session
and to move into Open Session; Citizen Member Crawford seconded the motion, and the vote
was unanimous to end the Executive Session and move into Open Session at 11:32 a.m.
Action Agenda Item No. 1 Motion and Vote
Applicant’s Request for a Subpoena for the medical provider is affirmed.

Page  of 
6
7
Chairperson Turner asked for a motion regarding Applicant’s Motion regarding Chandler Police
Department Exhibit 16 and Medical Records of Dr. Wilson. Police Member Elect Shellum made a
motion to include the documents provided by applicant’s attorney as exhibit 10; Citizen Member
Crawford seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously (5-0)
Chairperson Turner asked for a motion regarding Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss City of Chandler Police
Department.
Police Member Elect Shellum stated that the board has prior claims that we now have precedence and
we have our rules that are in place. He is hesitant to deviate from the rules at this point. The board’s
job is to determine whether or not the termination of employment was a result of the accidental disability,
and whether that was incurred in the performance of the job and permanently disabling. He feels he
should not be the one investigating, asking questions, interrogating, cross examining or trying to dive
into information or trying to figure out information. He thinks his responsibility is to determine based on
that evidence and present to the Local Board, whether or not those two questions can be answered in
the affirmative or in the negative. He would rather have somebody else ask those questions or look at
that information from the outside and from an objective standpoint, he doesn’t want to see the board
get into an adversarial relationship between the board and the applicants. Because he has sat on this
board for a number of years now and he doesn’t feel like he’s had an adversarial relationship with any
applicants. Our responsibility is to act as a fiduciary for the retirement system itself.
Citizen Member Remington stated she is looking at is in in the same way as Police Member Elect
Shellum and that she also looked at exhibit 16. She’s interested in getting all of the information and not
looking at the board being the investigative source of all this information, but she would like to have all
the information. The board shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the game, and she would
rather not do that. Also she absolutely does not feel any influence or undue pressure from any of the
parties on this to make a decision that she think that is correct. So, when she makes this decision, it's
something that she’s making and not influenced by anybody or pressure to.
Citizen Member Crawford stated he feels completely impartial. He feels no influence or that anyone is
influencing him to make a decision. He is the type of person that his integrity is extremely important to
him. It's the way he has always lived his life. He doesn’t feel like he’s being directed by anyone including
the City of Chandler to make a decision, and he will look at the facts as presented at the evidentiary
hearing and make his decision based on the information.
Police Member Elect Kieffer stated in his time of serving on this board, he’s never ever been challenged
or asked or told how to vote, one way or another. His obligation is to PSPRS and to be a fiduciary for
the system and that is the ultimate goal in the process. He has no bias one way or another, or one
feeling until I have all the information that's presented to him, to make an informed decision.
Chairperson Turner stated he looked at each one of the board’s cases as a chair of this PSPRS board
on an individual basis. The board has a model for consistency, and they try to do things the right way.
He feels very confident in the way that the rules are established and how the board run things. To do
this the board obtains as much information as possible in fairness to the PSPRS system, the applicant,
and to the city, who we have a fiduciary responsibility to PSPRS. The board has a responsibility to see
this case through as the rules have dictated. Whether it takes them in any direction and it gives them
the full information that will be available, and they will be able to make a recommendation based on the
fullness of the information available to them.

Page  of 
7
7
Police Member Elect Shellum made a motion to deny the requested motion to dismiss the City as a
party; Police Member Elect Kieffer seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously (5-0)
Adjourn
Chairperson Turner asked for a motion to adjourn. Police Member Elect Shellum moved to adjourn
the meeting; seconded by Citizen Member Remington, carried unanimously (5-0). The meeting was
adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
______________________________
______________________________
Nichole Bombard, Secretary                                           Steve Turner, Chairperson