CALL TO ORDER: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - President R. Reinhart convened the meeting to order at 15:30 hours.

ROLL CALL: R. Reinhart, President; J.K. Muller, Vice-President; J. Huss, Secretary; D. Hashin, Treasurer; A. Preece, Sergeant-at-Arms/ Director; B. Reed, Director; R. Frahm, Director; S. Ekstedt, Director; G. Coerper, Director.

OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Tatar.

GUESTS: M. Reid.

MINUTES: No minutes provided.

TREASURER REPORT: D. Hashin distributed the December’s Treasurer’s Report and gave an overview of the POA’s accounts and balance(s). He also provided a year-to-date review of the POA’s finances. Motion by G. Coerper and A. Preece to accept the Treasurer’s Report with all concurring.

LAWSUIT(S): R. Reinhart gave an update as to the current lawsuit(s) involving the City and/ or Department. He said that the PacifiCare Lawsuit would need to be amended for individuals affected and handled as a “class action” lawsuit with the members involved. Overview provided on these litigation items: range lawsuit; Opp Lawsuit; Nowotny lawsuit; Canine lawsuit.

PORT AUTHORITY PD: C. Tatar addressed the Board of Directors as to rumors he had heard regarding the recent hosted visit by members of the PAPD. Specifically addressed comments that were heard as to the integrity of R. Frahm. Discussion was held, and J. Huss said that he had made the comment in an “off-the-cuff” manner, due to a lack of communication with the some of the Board. He apologized for the comment and said he hoped that any future efforts would not be hampered by this incident.

C. Tatar said that the hosted visit was a ‘thank you’ to those members that they met in New York for their efforts and an emotional bond that was formed. He said that there should be no question as to monies collected from ‘passing-the-hat’ would not go to anything else, and any extra money would go to benefit the members of the PAPD Fund. Lengthy Discussion held.

REGISTER ARTICLE: R. Reinhart said that due to the recent article in the Orange County Register where the reporter misquoted the City and POA as to their current relationship, which has improved in the past years. The City has established a liaison committee with an editor and City representatives.

GET-TOGETHER: J. Huss said that the plans for the Honorary Members Group get-TOGETHER scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2002 at the Huntington Beach Elks Lodge is proceeding nicely. The program will have a pre-mixer time, the deli food service with, officer involved shooting incidents and reflections by the New York City Delegation. Discussion held. Motion by B. Reed and J. Huss to completely host the get-TOGETHER by the POA, with all concurring.

D. Hashin said that the Committee listed their goals and objectives for 2002. Consideration to be given to: PERS Health Care Insurance, PERS Care (similar to City-PPO Plan), PERS Choice, PORAC (PORAC members only), City comparisons for retirees offers nothing.

City Council recently approved for Non-Associated employees (City Treasurer; City Attorney; etc) to cover family members the month after an employee is hired. The POA had asked for this during MOU negotiations, and refused discussion on it. Motion made by the Committee to recommend this benefit to the other city employee groups as well which is viewed as a definite benefit for recruitment and retention. Currently, the employee-waiting period is a year, prior to receiving paid family coverage.

R. Reinhart said that the agenda was as follows:

1. Case Agents - The POA said that a recently retired member (detective) has a critical role in a case(s) going to trial soon and wonder how the City might compensate the retiree for his trial preparation and court appearance. It is believed that this is the same with other detectives to retire soon too. CITY TO REVIEW & RESPOND.

2. Vacation Pay - The POA wanted the City to properly compensate those members receiving specialty pay to be included in their compensation. When selling back vacation pay it should be include ‘specialty pays’, the City only pays the base pay rate. The POA recommended the City review a recent court decision: “National City POA vs. National City. CITY TO REVIEW & RESPOND.

3. Military Reserve Duty - It was agreed that current federal law would be followed.

4. Drug Testing - City asked the POA as the status of vendor selection. POA TO REVIEW & RESPOND.