►
Description
City of San José, California
Federated City Employees' Retirement Plan Board, October 20, 2022
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda: pending
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
Trustee
Keller
here
Vice
chair
Jennings,
here
trustee,
Linder,
absent
and
trustee
avasti,
yeah
and
chair
Horowitz,
is
here
very
good.
We
will
a
few
ground
rules.
We
are
continuing
to
meet
virtually
under
ab361,
as
such
all
votes
will
be
roll
call
votes.
If
not
speaking,
please
be
on
mute
to
cut
background
noise
for
discussion
items.
Each
trustee
will
have
a
turn
to
speak
and
will
call
order
more
than
once
if
desired,
and
the
public
will
also
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
on
each
item
after
trustees.
B
At
this
point
we
will
have
orders
of
the
day.
We
will
take
a
break
at
around
the
10
o'clock
hour
and
there
will
be
another
recess
from
1
to
105
to
accommodate
the
Civic
Center
broadcasting
meeting
and
I'm
asking
board
members
to
please
stay
on
the
zoom
after
the
regular
meeting
ends
so
that
we
can
have
very
special
meetings
for
the
various
committees
with
respect
to
ab361.
D
B
B
B
Mr
C
code
enforcement
inspector,
his
effective
date
of
retirement
is
2023
and
it
was
state
of
2023
should
be
2022.,
and
there
is
also
a
correction
under
item
13A
approval
of
the
board
minutes
from
our
last
meeting.
September
15th.
The
correction
is
under
item
5C
on
that
agenda,
and
that
is
that
the
motion
was
seconded
by
trustee
Linder
and
trustee.
Kelleher
voted
no
to
the
motion
so
recognizing
those
two
Corrections
does
the
motion
and
seconds
still
stand
from
trustees
or
and
Chandra.
B
B
So
there's
no
need
to
wave
Sunshine
at
this
time.
We
will
accept
public
comments
on
any
item
that
is
not
on
the
agenda
but
which
is
under
the
general
jurisdiction
of
this
board.
Members
of
the
public,
who
wish
to
provide
comment
at
this
time
may
do
so
by
quote
raising
their
hand
unquote
in
the
zoo
map
or,
if
joining
by
telephone,
by
pressing
star
nine
on
their
phone
keyboard
keypad
when
addressing
the
board.
Please
pests
are
six
to
mute
and
unmute.
Please
state
your
name
for
the
record
prior
to
providing
your
comments.
B
B
B
E
Mr
chair,
if
you
allow
me
I,
do
have
a
comment
if,
if
on
the
item
first
item
for
the
service,
retirements
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
notice,
if
you
can,
if
Tascam
can
bring
the
the
the
agenda
back
down
to
that
area,
you
see
there.
Ale
is
Mariana
sarate
office
of
Retirement,
Services,
she's
retiring.
This
coming
Saturday,
October,
29th
his
life
and
last
day
at
work
would
be
October
28th,
31.07
years
of
service,
you
haven't
seen
Marty
she's
been
in
the
office.
E
The
last
few
days
and
she's
been
really
sad.
I
I
think
I
caught
her
even
with
a
tear
in
her
eyes.
The
last
couple
of
days-
and
we
just
want
to
you-
know
thank
Marty
for
her
dedication
and
and
hard
work
and
efforts
working
with
the
retirement
office
for
the
last
few
years,
I'm
with
the
ministry
staff
on
all
your
board
meetings
and
committee
meetings.
E
We
wanted,
which
Modi
a
lengthy
and
healthy
retirement
and
again
on
behalf
of
the
plant
members,
thank
her
for
not
only
his
31
years
of
service
at
the
city
of
San
Jose,
but
I
have
many
years
of
service
the
last
few
years.
At
the
office
of
Retirement,
Services,
Linda
I
know
she
works
for
you,
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
say
anything
else,
but
again
we
just
want
to
acknowledge
Maurice
work
for
the
retirement
office
and
wish
you
the
best.
Thank
you.
Morty.
B
E
E
A
E
B
All
right,
then
so
I
I
believe
we
had
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
consent
calendar
and
there
was
no
further
trusty
discussion
and
no
further
public
comments.
We
will
have
a
vote
so
trustee
Chandra.
How
do
you
vote
aye,
trustee
or
I
Vice
chair,
Jennings,
aye,
trustee,
Keller,
aye,
trustee,
avasti,
hi
and
I
vote
I
as
well?
The
motion
passes
agenda
item
two
death
and
survivorship
notifications.
A
A
G
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
good
morning,
board
members
good
luck
to
Marty
on
our
retirement.
She
can
rest
assured
that
we
will
work
hard
to
make
sure
that
she
gets
a
pension
check
and
I
just
so.
We
have
one
agenda
item
this
morning
and
that's
the
annual
fee
report,
and
this
is
a
report
that
we
bring
to
the
boards
in
the
fall
and
once
it's
presented
to
the
boards.
G
G
G
H
Right,
oh
great,
thank
you
Prabhu.
Can
you
guys
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
okay
great.
So
here
we
are.
Thank
you
board
members.
This
is
my
first
time
sharing
as
Prabhu
mentioned,
I
just
joined
last
December
and
I.
Think
this
view
report
is
now
lands
on
my
on
my
lap.
So
this
is
the
annual
fee
report
for
calendar
year
2021.
H
and
you
guys
should
all
have
it.
This
is
a
big
in
undertaking
we,
along
with
just
a
handful
of
pension
plans,
do
this
there's
a
lot
of
work
related
to
this.
Just
to
give
you
a
glimpse
as
to
the
steps
to
prepare
for
this,
we
we
definitely
gather
information
from
our
managers.
We
have
them
first
request.
We
first
request
managers
to
fill
out
various
fee
templates
to
gather
data
so,
for
example,
the
private
Market
funds.
We
ask
them
to
fill
out.
H
The
bilpa
templates,
which
is
ilpa,
stands
for
institutional,
limited
partners
Association
and
for
the
public
funds.
We
asked
them
to
fill
out
a
simpler
version
of
the
template.
So
after
we
get
all
the
data
back,
we
we
definitely
scrub
the
data.
We
do
some
quality
control.
We
ask
the
managers
to
provide
any
sort
of
missing
data,
or
if
we
have
questions
we,
we
ask
them
to
to
provide
some
missing,
make
it.
H
H
H
Is
this
1.66
percent,
as
compared
to
1.12
percent
for
the
previous
year
now,
just
to
describe
a
little
bit
about
the
actual
decomposition
of
the
number,
the
the
in
the
blue
bars
that
that's,
basically
our
management
fee,
so
you
you've
seen
it
decrease
from
58
basis
points
or
0.58
to
0.54
percent
from
the
previous
year.
So
a
slight
decrease.
H
Total
expense
ratio
is
is
this:
is
this
light
brown,
which
is
basically
the
incentive
or
profit
sharing
fees?
So
it's
increased
from
0.38
to
1.02
percent,
and
so
you
know
one
one
question:
if
we
take
a
look,
yeah
are
hit,
you
know
our
total
plan.
Return
has
not
increased.
You
know
it.
It's
it's
pretty
for
2020
to
2021.
There
is
not
a
large
difference
in
2020
we
had
a
return.
A
total
plan
return
for
our
pension
Federated
pension
from
16
this
past
2021
year.
H
It
was
the
total
plan,
return
was
16
and
a
half
percent,
but
what
is
a
bit
more
surprising
is,
is
and
kind
of
it
describes.
This
increase
in
the
in
the
incentive
fees
is,
is
the
returns
that
are
are
coming
from
our
private
markets
that
are
coming
from
our
private
Market
managers,
so
in
in
2020
the
the
private
markets,
those
returns
were
at
6.8
percent
in
2021,
That,
Grew,
From,
6.8
percent
to
40,
so
20
20,
the
returns
for
our
private
markets
managers
was
6.8
percent
in
2021.
H
The
return
for
our
private
Market
managers
was
40
percent,
thus,
the
the
large
increase
in
the
the
total
in
in
the
incentive
fees
or
the
profit
sharing
fees
right.
If
we
go
to
our
next
slide.
This
is
something
that
we
do
for
comparison.
This
is
the
acfr
and,
as
we
can
see
here,
this
is
something
that
we
do
to
to
to
measure.
How
are
we
doing
with
the
rest
of
our
with
other
plans,
and
we
can
see
here
that
we
are
here
in
green
calstr?
H
People
like
Calpers
are
in
black
and
calstrs
are
in
purple,
and
so
we
can
see
where
we're
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
the
pack,
which
is,
which
is
something
that
helps
us,
monitor
our
fees,
and
this
is
for
a
different
year.
This
is
for
this
is
for
2021,
but
this
is
for
the
fiscal
year,
so
you'll
see
that
the
returns
are
are
different
than
the
calendar
year
returns
that
we
have
on
the
on
the
left
side,
but
are
you
out
of
46
Diversified
users
public
plans
that
boast
their
fees?
H
H
Is
measuring
the
same
things
so
we'll
see
the
similar
numbers
from
you
know
the
previous
slide,
but
on
the
right
side,
we'll
we'll
ascribe
dollar
amounts
to
those
to
those
percentages
right,
so
the
9.3
became
29.2
in
terms
of
the
the
incentive
fees
but
We've
also,
you
know,
we've
also
so
you'll
see
that
Dollar
Wise
are:
are
management
fees
have
grown
because
our
AUM
has
grown,
but
in
terms
of
percentage
of
our
total
expense
ratio?
It's
it's
actually
going
down.
H
During
this
next
slide,
we're
going
to
just
you
know
we're
going
to
just
focus
on
management
fees
percentage-wise
as
well
as
dollar
amounts
and
we'll
see
that
management
fees
have
reduced
from
82
basis
points,
which
is
you
know
to
what
we?
What
was
there
in
2016
to
53
basis
points,
which
is
what
we
had
for
our
2021
year
and
we
have
reduced
it.
H
You
know,
even
though
our
plan
has
increased
from
2016
to
2021,
we
have
reduced
the
management
fees
by
0.9
million,
which
is
which
is
which
is
great.
This
the
management
fees
are
are
things
that
we
can
control,
and
so
the
therefore
I
think
we've
done
a
a
good
job
in
terms
of
dropping
it.
Now
you
might
see
yeah
things
have
gone
up,
but
this
might
be
a
result
of
increased
in
in
the
in
the
total
plan.
H
The
contribution
to
management
fees
for
our
active
has
actually
dropped
from
20
to
2021,
so
0.55
percent.
Now
it's
0.5
and
there's
nothing
alarming
here.
Everything
is
sort
of
in
line
with
the
previous
year
contribution
to
management
fees,
as
it
relates
to
the
passive
you
know:
increase
from
0.02
to
0.04,
but
the
active
has
has
decreased
and
it's
a
larger
decrease.
So,
overall
it's
a
slight
decrease
in
management
fees
and
then
on
the
right
side,
we
have
the.
H
We
show
the
average
allocation
for
that
year
by
fund
type,
meaning
by
active
versus
passive.
So
we'll
see
our
active
funds
increase
marginally,
as
well
as
our
and
therefore,
as
a
percentage,
our
our
passive
allocation,
our
allocation
to
passive
managers
have
have
a
have
decreased,
and
this
is
as
a
release
to
our
total
plan.
So
this
includes
private
markets
as
well
as
to
you
know
the
public
markets,
so
as
the
public
markets
as
a
private
markets
have
they,
as
as
as
they
have
increased
in
management.
H
H
So
what's
in
in
light,
brown
are
the
public.
So
this
we
here
we
divide
it
by
public,
which
is
in
the
light
brown
are
private.
Related
managers
are
in
blue
and
are
hedged
are,
are
in
in
a
brown.
A
brownish
color
they
decomposition
overall
decomposition
from
last
year
to
this
year
has
not
changed
much.
H
G
A
C
B
A
G
Yes,
yes,
it
is
thanks
for
the
question,
so
you
know
at
one
point-
and
this
was
several
years
prior
to
to
my
getting
to
San
Jose.
You
know
the
the
Federated
plan
had
a
fully
25
of
the
portfolio
was
an
edge
strategies
and-
and
you
know,
I-
think
I-
think
there
was
a
feeling
that
the
market
and
I
think
this
may
have
been
a
reaction
and
I'm
just
guessing
to
the
to
the
downturn
in
2008-2009,
with
the
exposure
to
Beta
into
the
market
and
the
market
dropped.
G
G
These
are
typically
long
short
strategies
or
strategies
that
alter
the
beta,
and
so
the
the
idea
behind
these
is
that
when
the
market
goes
down,
that
these
strategies
will
offer
some
downside
protection-
and
so
you
know
I
I
I'm,
in
a
conscious
decision,
with
the
support
of
the
boards
to
actually
decrease
hedge
fund
allocation
and
and
nothing
against
hedge
funds.
I
used
to
manage
one
myself
and
you
know
I
and
I've
seen
you
know
through
Market
cycles,
that
I
mean
there
are.
There
are
some
good
hedge
funds.
G
In
fact,
we
have
a
phenomenal
hedge
fund
manager
in
our
portfolio
de
Shaw,
but
what
I
have
observed
is
that
They
Don't
Really
offer
the
protection
that
they
promise
to
offer
when
there's
a
deep
drawdown.
So
what
ends
up
happening
with
the
higher
fees
and
hp's
hedge
funds
command
higher
fees?
So
what
happens?
G
Is
you
end
up
paying
a
lot
of
fees
through
a
bull
market
in
terms
of
Base
fee
and
and
there's
typically,
a
base
pay
and
an
incentive
beat
associated
with
hedge
fund
strategies
and
then,
when
the
decline
comes,
is
when
they're
supposed
to
protect
the
portfolio,
and
sometimes
they
do,
and
sometimes
they
don't.
So
you
really
start
questioning.
Are
you?
Should
you
really
be
paying
these
very
high
fees
when
you
can
simply
have
allocation
to
Beta
in
the
portfolio
as
long
as
you
can
tolerate
the
Downs
the
declines?
G
So
it
was
a
conscious
decision
made
by
by
the
investment
team
with
the
support
of
the
boards
beginning
2018,
when
we
started
cutting
back
on
hedge
funds
and
now,
as
I
said,
there
are
a
couple
of
strategies
that
we
still
have,
which
are
very
very
good.
Hedge
funds
and
I
think
we
would
probably
continue
to
have
those
hedge
funds
they've
done
very
well,
especially
in
a
year
like
this.
G
When
there's
a
huge
decline
in
the
market,
they
have
done
well,
but
that's
that's
sort
of
the
the
journey
trustee
or
and
the
reason
why
we
cut
Edge
strategies
and
that's
really
helped.
As
you
can
see
from
this
chart,
this
really
helped
bring
down
the
management
fees
and
that's
the
that's
the
one
component
that
we
can
control.
We
cannot
control
performance
fees,
but
we
can't
control
the
base
fee
that
we
pay
managers
and
that
sort
of
helped
reduce
our
our
expense
ratio.
B
G
Well,
the
incentive
fees
is
not
well
in
terms
of
hedge
funds.
The
fee
is
actually
coming
from
one
particular
fund,
which
is
the
issue
which
has
done
extremely
well,
but
incentive
fees
have
gone
up
from
last
year
because
all
private
markets
strategies
have
done
well
did
well
in
in
calendar
year
2021..
So
it's
it's.
G
You
post
a
good
question
right
I
mean
how
can
we
actually
bring
down
incentive
piece
and
and
there's
a
couple
of
things
that
we
can
do
as
a
plan,
and
you
know,
and
one
is
to
is
to
negotiate
harder
which
we
do
with
our
managers,
but
it's
also
demand
and
Supply.
At
the
end
of
the
day
right
there
is,
there
has
been
a
trend,
I
would
say
in
general,
for
fees
to
go
down
and
and
you've
seen
that,
especially
with
long
only
strategies.
G
You
know
when
I
was
when
I
was
managing
long
early
strategies
in
the
early
2000s.
You
know
many
people
here
may
be
surprised
to
know
that
manages
actually
you
know
strategies
Benchmark,
the
S
P
500
commanded,
you
know
fee
ratios,
you
know
expense
ratios
of
100
basis
points
and
that's
a
thing
of
the
past.
If
you
want
exposure
to
the
S
P
500
now
you
simply
buy
an
index
and
pay
three
or
four
or
five
basis
points
now.
So
so
you
have.
G
We
have
seen
a
trend
of
fees
going
down
in
general,
and
so
it
it
behooves
us
as
stewards
of
these
assets,
along
with
other
LPS
and
to
another
investors,
to
put
pressure
on
managers
to
reduce
these
cities
now
the
the
other
the
other
side
to
it
is.
There
are
always
very,
very
good
managers
out
there
who
refuse
to
negotiate
peace
and
who've
done
phenomenally
well,
so
sometimes
getting
in,
especially
in
private
markets.
G
When
you,
when
you're
able
to
get
an
allocation
to
an
extremely
good
high
performing
manager,
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
control
over
the
face.
So
fees
are,
you
know
in
a
sense,
you
know
we
can
control.
When
we
say
we
can
control
what
we
can
control,
we
can
try
to
negotiate
management
fees
up
to
a
point,
but
fees
are
the
bigger
impact
of
these
is
really
asset
allocation
and
that
really
gets
to
the
heart
of
your
question.
G
As
long
as
we
have
an
allocation
to
private
markets,
we
are
going
to
higher
expense
ratios
because
private
markets
do
charge
higher
fees,
but
we
try
to
take
a
look.
We
are.
We
are
very
sort
of
conscious
of
the
peace
that
we
pay
and
I
can
tell
you
without
mentioning
manager,
names
and
a
couple
of
instances.
G
I'm
not
I'm,
not
happy
paying
the
fees
that
you
know
they
want
us
to
pay,
but
they've
done
so
well
that
we
end
up,
you
know
still
keeping
them
because
on
an
after
fee
basis,
they've
still
done
better
than
most
other
managers
out
there.
So
so
fees
are
a
function
of
of
asset
allocation,
and
as
long
as
we
have
an
allocation
to
private
markets,
you
are
going
to
see
high
fees,
but
what
we
should
focus
on
is
on
an
app
on
after
fee
returns,
which
we
try
to
look
at
well.
F
I
A
And
I
just
wanted
to
chime,
and
thank
you
for
this
report.
I
know
this
is
something
we
started
doing
a
few
years
ago.
I
don't
think
it's
common
across
plans.
I
know
it
sometimes
takes
a
little
extra
digging
to
get
to
the
truth
of
the
matter.
So
thanks
to
the
staff
who
think
it's
important,
we
stay
mindful
of
this,
always
just
to
see
how
fees
are
trending
and
whether
they're
creeping
up,
but
obviously
Neta
fees.
Performance
is
what's
most
important.
A
B
And
I
would
also
Echo
that,
in
that
we
do
appreciate
this
detail
and
having
it
presented
to
the
board.
I
do
have
a
question
on
slide.
Number
six,
I
I
think
probably
probably
did
answer
this
in
his
last
comments,
but
no
going
up
one
go
and
go
back
one
slide
there
we
go
so
what
you
know
we
yeah
so
the
there's
a
a
clear
Trend
down
in
the
management
fees,
but
there's
no
clear
trend
on
the
allocation
to
passive
strategies.
G
That's
that's
right.
Mr,
chairman
It's,
a
combination
of
you
know,
you've
seen
the
Hedge
strategies,
the
allocated
the
head
strategies
come
down
and
also
our
continued
negotiation
and
I
should
also
point
out
to
trustees
that
when
we
choose
a
manager,
it's
usually
also
endorsed
by
our
investment
consultant
Makita,
and
we
can
actually
sort
of
pull
in
our
assets
with
other
clients
and
thereby
the
the
amount
the
dollars
contributed
are
greater
and
therefore
we
are
able
to
command
lower
fees.
Thanks
to
our
consultant.
G
Yes,
we
only
have
and
I'll
ask
Jay
to
speak
to
this.
We
only
have
a
handful
of
head
strategies
now
and
therefore
with
two
or
three
managers.
In
fact,
one
of
our
hedge
fund
managers
chose
to
increase
their
fees,
which
is
because
of
how
well
they've
done,
and
you
know-
and
it
is
it's
it's
again:
it's
a
demand
and
Supply
game
right
and
I'm,
not
happy
paying
extra
fees,
but
on
an
after
fee
basis.
G
B
E
Thank
you
Mr,
chair
good
morning,
everyone.
So
a
few
comments
I
want
to
start
with
reminding
trustees
and
the
public
in
general
that
coming
November
1st
through
November
30th
is
the
open
enrollment
for
our
retirees,
for
the
healthcare
will
be
in
progress
this
year.
It's
going
to
be
the
first
time
in
a
couple
of
years,
because
I
covered
that
there
are
plans
to
have
an
in-person
health,
fair,
currently
schedule
I
believe
if
I
make
a
statement
that
is
incorrect.
E
Please
staff,
correct
me
for
November,
2nd
at
the
leninger
center
in
Happy,
Hollow,
zoo
and
flu.
Shots
will
be
available
for
the
Open
Enrollment.
We
will
be
we
plan
on
mailing
all
the
enrollment
package
to
the
members
at
the
end
of
this
month
and
in
addition
to
the
in-person
health
fair,
there
are
going
to
be
multiple
opportunities
for
members
to
attend
virtual
online
webinars
and
one-on-one
consultations
with
the
vendors
information
on
that.
E
Not
only
is
going
to
be
in
the
packet,
but
it
also
can
be
addressed
on
find
our
website
staying
with
Healthcare
I
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
a
new
health
specialist
started
at
the
office
on
Monday
October
17th.
Her
name
is
Donna
hip
and
she
actually
comes
to
us
with
almost
30
years
of
service
at
the
city
of
San
Jose,
so
welcome
Donna.
E
E
The
next
retirement
connection
newsletter
will
be
issue
later
this
month,
so
it
should
be
available
at
you
November
board,
meeting
under
Communications
a
couple
last
week
at
the
meeting
for
the
Federated
retiree
group
staff
made
a
presentation
on
First
on
open
enrollment
for
the
upcoming
health
care
and
also
a
gender
representation
about
the
retirement
office,
services,
staff,
Actuarial
and
so
on.
Investment
information
that
was
done
on
October,
13
and
staff
did
an
excellent
job.
E
Let
you
know
youbor
actually
has
a
biannual
self-assessment
process
that
you
go
through
just
to
make
sure
how
you
are
functioning
as
a
board
and
making
sure
that
you
can
improve
from
time
to
time,
making
sure
that
everything
is
running,
hopefully
as
expected
and
as
effective
as
as
is
needed,
and
so
you
should
be
expecting
an
email
kicking
off
that
process
from
Walter
Viola
from
cortex.
It
should
be
coming
to
you
emails
in
the
next
week,
or
so
so
be
on.
E
The
local
is
going
to
be
a
link
so
that
you
can
answer
some
questions
so
that
we
can
kick
off
the
self-assessment
process.
The
goal
is
to
come
back
to
you
boy
in
the
next
couple
of
meetings
and
present
the
findings
and
recommendations
with
them.
It's
a
chair.
That
concludes
my
comments.
Happy
to
answer
any
question.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
I
did
want
to
amplify
that
last
Point,
an
important
a
tool
for
improving
our
process
as
a
board
is
the
sport,
self-assessment
and
the
responses.
Of
course,
just
like
our
responses
to
the
executive
staff
review.
These
are
Anonymous,
so
let
loose.
Let
let
your
answers
be
as
honest
and
as
direct
as
they
need
to
be,
and
it's
a
lengthy
survey
but
I'm
sure
you'll.
We
will
be
able
to
get
through
it
very
quickly.
A
E
Yes,
I
understand
that
the
governor
has
indicated
tentatively
will
be
February
28th,
and
you
know,
assuming
that
everything
remains
as
it
is
right
now
and
it
doesn't
get
worse.
That
will
be
February
28th,
which
means
that,
in
terms
of
actual
board
meetings,
you're
probably
going
to
have
your
last
remote
board
meeting,
possibly
in
March.
If
I'm
mistaken.
E
J
Ahead,
Roberto
before
before,
we
go
on
to
that
next
point,
so
that
that
is
true,
that
the
state
of
emergency
is
anticipated
to
be
lifted
towards
the
end
of
February.
However,
in
order
for
this
board
to
meet
virtually
either
the
city
council
has
to
continue
to
recommend
social
distancing
or
there
has
to
be
some
health
and
safety.
Factual
findings
supported
by
you,
know,
CDC
evidence
or
County
Health
evidence.
If,
if
those
latter,
two
points
are
not
supported,
then
we
may
need
to
in
person
much
sooner
than
when
the
proclamation
will
expire.
J
E
Thank
you,
Council
and,
and
so
far
the
city
has
actually
approved
those
as
required,
which
allow
us
to
continue
a
meeting
remotely.
But
council
is
correct
in
terms
of
the
specific
question
about
the
office.
Trustee
or
I
do
provide
some
updates
from
time
to
time,
but
I
really
have
in
the
last
couple
of
minutes
and
thank
you
for
asking.
We
are
as
an
office.
We
actually
are
open
to
the
public.
E
Our
actual
doors
are
actually
closed
for
safety
purposes,
but
it's
in
the
website
and
we
let
members
know
that
we're
open
and
actually
staff
come
to
the
office
twice
a
week.
At
the
very
least.
In
fact,
as
you
can
see,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
tell
from
the
look
I'm
in
my
office
and
so
I
think
for
the
time
being,
the
the
goal
is
to
continue
coming
to
the
office
at
least
twice
a
week.
E
I
don't
see
going
back
to
a
five
days
a
week
anytime
soon,
but
certainly
something
that
may
be
in
the
long-term
future,
I
think.
In
the
meantime,
we
will
continue
the
current
approach,
as
we
have
been
able
to
meet
our
core
duties
and
staff
has
been
diligently
accommitted
for
the
last
couple
of
years,
so
I
would
expect
in
the
next
six
nine
months
to
a
year.
E
B
B
K
All
right,
good
morning,
everyone
we're
here
to
review
the
economic
assumptions
that
are
used
for
the
pension
valuation,
and
some
of
them
are
also
used
in
the
oped
valuation.
I
just
wanted
to
start
by
giving
kind
of
the
schedule
of
our
meetings
because
we're
in
our
Actuarial
process
here
for
the
valuation.
K
The
next
month
we
will
be
providing
some
preliminary
pension
valuation
results,
along
with
reviewing
the
assumptions
for
the
opeb
or
the
retiree
medical
program
and
then
in
December
everything
ratchets
forward.
Again
we
give
the
final
pension
valuation
results
and
an
update
on
the
opeb
and
in
January
the
final
notepad.
So
that's
our
upcoming
schedule
just
to
put
things
in
context
of
where
we're
going
I
well
always
want
to
kind
of
ground
these.
K
K
So
with
that
I
wanted
to
turn
to
the
economic
assumptions
we
review
those
every
year.
That
doesn't
mean
we
need
to
change
them
every
year.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
that
they
are
reasonable
to
use
in
the
valuation
each
year.
The
demographic
assumptions
like
retirement
rates,
mortality
rates
and
so
forth.
We
do
that
every
four
to
five
years
and
it's
scheduled
to
be
done
again
next
year,
but
not
this
year.
So
we're
not
reviewing
those
assumptions.
K
In
that
order,
I
would
say
when
we're
reviewing
the
assumptions,
we're
really
trying
to
get
reasonable
assumptions
or
our
best
estimates
of
what
the
future
is
going
to
be,
because
these
are
used
to
measure
the
liability,
and
so
we
want
an
act
as
accurate,
an
assessment
as
we
can
get
of
what
the
liability
is
going
to
be
in
in
the
future,
and
then
we
build
off
of
that
in
our
funding
methods.
How
fast
are
we
going
to
pay
for
that
liability
and
how
are
we
going
to
build
the
contributions
around
it?
K
But
the
assumptions
are
really
about
measuring
the
liability,
and
so
where
we
set.
The
assumptions
is
really
not
affected
by
how
well
or
poorly
funded.
We
are
because
we
are
really
trying
to
get
the
best
estimate
of
what
that
liability
is
now.
There
is
a
reasonable
range
around
each
assumption,
so
we
aren't
always
conservative
on
every
assumption
or
aggressive
on
an
individual
assumption.
Those
things
may
balance
out
in
total
and
we
can
always
look
if
an
assumption,
we
think
is
a
little
bit
on
the
aggressive
side.
K
We
may
want
to
tweak
it
down
to
get
a
more
conservative
estimate
going
forward.
So
that's
generally
how
we
approach
the
Assumption
side
and
I'm
going
to
start
us
with
price
inflation,
which
really
it
in
a
building
block
model,
is
really
the
foundation
where
the
economic
assumptions
as
soon
here
in
this
chart
for
the
three
wage,
inflation
and
expected
return.
Our
current
assumption
is
two
and
a
quarter
percent.
K
K
We
do
have
a
guaranteed
purchasing
power
provision
and
we
have
415
limits
that
are
directly
affected
by
our
inflation
assumption.
But
that's
a
very
small
group:
that's
affected
by
those
currently
tier
two
colas
are
tied
to
inflation,
but
they
have
a
cap
that
is
low
enough,
that
our
assumption
doesn't
directly
impact
those.
K
K
Now
inflation
has
been
all
over
the
place
lately,
and
projections
for
the
future
have
been
all
over
the
place.
I
think
at
August
31st,
the
12-month
trailing
inflation
was
8.3,
I,
think
September
30th
was
announced
at
8.2,
but
that's
the
current
trailing
12
month
we're
trying
to
project
future
inflation
and
the
inflation
projections
in
the
future
remain
lower.
K
But
those
are
those
were
set
around
6
30
this
year,
but
maybe
the
one
that
I
find
most
interesting
is
this
survey
of
professional
forecasters,
that's
done
by
the
Philadelphia
Federal
Reserve
and
it,
and
this
is
showing
their
10-year
forecasts.
The
last
survey
was
issued
in
August
and-
and
the
first
thing
I
would
note
from
this
survey-
is
the
wide
range
of
responses
we're
in
a
period
where
the
range
of
forecasts
is
wider
than
we've
seen
for
many
years.
K
K
A
K
I
A
K
It's
about
40,
sizable,
okay,
yeah,
it's
sizable,
it's
been
a
survey,
that's
they've
been
doing
for
for
years,
and
there's
a
variety
of
these
that
that
people
look
at
I
did
a
webinar
with
the
where
one
of
the
other
speakers
was
from
the
CBO
and
their
forecast.
This
is
one
of
the
surveys
they
look
at
in
doing
their
forecasts
as
well.
I
K
I
think
you're,
not
the
only
one,
so
there's
a
lot
of
volatility
in
in
this,
and
given
our
assumption
at
two
and
a
quarter
at
this
point,
we're
proposing
that
we
we
take
a
step
and
increase
that
to
to
two
and
a
half,
but
we're
certainly
not
looking
to
to
jump
up
to
a
number
like
three
or
four
percent.
At
this
point,.
B
K
Is
was
Jackie
able
to
join
us?
I
can't
see
her
on
my
screen,
but
she
had
another
board
meeting
today
as
well,
so
he
has
not
joined
okay
she's.
She
did
a
lot
of
the
research
on
the
wage
inflation.
So
I
was
going
to
have
her
walk
us
through
that,
but
wage
inflation
is
the
across
the
board
portion
of
salary
increases,
so
we
can
think
of
salary
increases
as
three
different
components:
there's
the
price
inflation
component,
a
real
wage
growth
component
and
Merit,
or
longevity
or
promotion
increase.
K
We
looked
at
that
Merit
or
longevity
or
promotion
increase
assumption
based
on
Service
as
a
part
of
the
demographic
study,
so
that
we
can
really
look
at
the
the
patterns
within
the
San
Jose
Workforce.
So
we're
not
talking
about
that
piece.
Wage
inflation
is
that
across-the-board
piece
that
that
everyone
gets,
and
so
we
we
look
at
National
Data
and
we
also
look
at
the
bargaining
agreements
and
see
what's
been
going
on
there.
K
The
current,
on
the
right
hand,
side
we're
showing
the
wage
inflation
assumptions
for
the
California
systems,
so
there's
I
think
39
California
systems
that
we
look
at
and
they
they
range
from
two
and
a
half
to
three
and
a
half,
but
the
bulk
are
at
three
or
three
and
a
quarter
with
some.
You
know
another
group
at
2.75.
We
are
currently
at
three
right
in
the
middle
there,
so
it's
a
very
standard
wage
inflation
assumption
we're
using
right.
K
The
current
bargaining
agreements
all
had
three
percent
annual
across
the
board
wage
increases
built
into
them,
which
really
supported
our
Assumption
of
three
percent.
There
was
a
good
match
there.
This
last
year
there
were
wage,
reopeners
and
side
letters
in
all
the
bargaining
agreements
in
general,
they
had
wage
increases
of
four
and
a
half
percent
instead
of
three
percent
effective
around
July
1st
of
2022,
and
then
there
were
some
one-time
special
adjustments
by
job
classification
that
were
not
entirely
insignificant.
Some
of
them
were
Minor
Adjustments.
K
We
just
continue
at
three
percent.
This
year,
most
of
the
bargaining
Agreements
are
set
to
be
renegotiated
going
forward.
We
have
a
lot
of
uncertainty
in
what's
going
on
with
the
labor
markets
and
and
what's
what
we're
likely
to
see
going
forward
and
as
you'll
see,
that
also
extends
to
our
Capital
Market
assumptions
and
so
we're
suggesting,
let's
hold
off
on
making
any
adjustment
to
the
ultimate
rate
until
next
year,
and
we
can
get
some
insight
from
the
bargaining
agreements
and
also
see
what
what
happens
with
the
economic
situation.
C
Basically,
we
already
have
the
amounts
that
have
been
agreed
upon
and
that
is
starting
as
of
July
2022,
so
you're
going
to
incorporate
the
latest
salary
changes
that
are
effective
in
fiscal
year,
2223
and
then
moving
forward
for
the
next
10
years,
or
so
as
we're
looking
at
that
we're
going
to
keep
the
Assumption
of
three
percent.
Is
that
correct.
K
C
Yeah,
the
special
adjustments
by
job
class
just
to
re-edify.
Why
and
I
happen
to
be
somewhat
involved
in
this
so
I
know
is
because
it
is
evaluating
what
city
employees
are
earning
comparatively
to
other
municipalities
and
given
our
high
vacancy
rate,
it's
been
very
hard
to
fill
these
vacancies
if
we're
paying
under
the
salary
of
other
municipalities.
So
it's
really
just
wage
equality,
I!
Guess
if
you
would
say
so
that
we
can
fill
these
vacancies.
K
C
That
inflation
and
I
get
that
and
that
just
propagates
it
further
right,
but
everybody
and
especially
government
employees,
don't
make
that
much
so
and
we
live
in
a
area,
that's
very
expensive.
So
all
of
that
makes
it
that
much
difficult,
but
I
understand
we're
looking
at
the
next
10
years
out.
So
three
percent
is
reasonable.
Based
on
that.
K
K
K
Yeah,
so
we're
assuming
payroll
will
grow
at
three
percent
a
year,
and
so,
if
our
payment
on
the
unfunded
liability
Grows
by
three
percent
and
payroll
Grows
by
three
percent,
then
that
payment
is
a
level
percentage
of
payroll
and
level
percentage
of
payroll
is
good.
But
what
we
don't
want
is
actual
payroll
to
grow
by
less
than
that
number,
because
if
the
amortization
payment
goes
up
three
percent,
that
payroll
remains
flat.
K
Now
the
city's
having
to
pay
a
higher
percentage
of
payroll
going
forward,
and
so
we
want
that
to
be
a
level
percentage
of
payroll
or
a
declining
percentage
of
payroll.
And
so
so
we
want
the
amortization
payment
increase
to
be
lower
than
we
expect
payroll
to
grow.
Just
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
margin
in
case
payroll
doesn't
grow
as
fast
as
we
expect
now.
K
K
The
police
and
fire
would
be
at
two
and
a
half
percent,
because
we
assume
inflation
is
two
and
a
half
and
you're
at
2.75
and,
and
so
the
difference
is,
is
very
slight
in
where,
in
the
way,
the
amortization
payments
worked
for
police
and
fire,
they
would
start
higher
and
and
not
increase
as
much.
Your
payments
start
just
slightly
lower
and
increase
at
a
higher
rate.
J
So
I,
maybe
so,
I
decide
conceptualize
and
understand
it
and
party.
My
ignorance,
though,
because
I'm
not
an
actuary,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understood
correctly,
that
for
the
amortization
payments
increased
for
Federated,
your
recommendation
is
that
we
keep
it
level
or
or
below
what
we
do
for
the
wage.
Inflation
now
for
police
and
fire
they've
taken
a
different
model
and
they've
decided
to
or
make
relative
their
amortization
rate
to
the
inflation
rate.
And
so
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
between
the
two
is:
what's
the
justification
for
either.
K
It's
not
a
different
model,
it's
the
same
model.
We
want
them
to
be
below
wage
inflation,
they've
just
chosen
to
go
to
a
little
lower
number
than
we
are
at
with
Federated
and
we're
comfortable
with
where
Federated
is
now
so
we're
not
we're
not
proposing
that
they
go
down
to
where
police
and
fire
is.
We
would
certainly
not
be
opposed
to
being
where
police
and
fire
is
at
two
and
a
half
there,
because.
J
K
Just
because
it's
a
year
where
we
expect
contributions
to
be
higher
than
we
had
expected
last
year
or
higher
than
last
year's
contributions,
and
so
we
would,
if
we
wanted
to
make
that
change.
We'd
typically
make
it
after
a
year
like
last
year,
because
it's
it's
just
a
minor
change
going
forward,
and
so
you
typically
try.
C
Can
I
ask
a
really
basic
question:
okay
and
I
apologize
if
this
is
something
that
you've
explained,
that
I
am
a
bit
confused
all
right?
What
is
an
amortization
payment?
What's
that
mean?
How
does
that
relate?
I'm?
Sorry,
I,
just
you
know,
I
got
the
whole
inflation
piece,
the
price
piece,
but
I
don't
understand
right.
K
Right
so
we
have
an
unfunded
liability.
That's
about
two
billion
dollars.
Okay,
so
we
set
up
a
schedule
of
payments
to
pay
off
that
two
billion
dollars
over
time.
Okay
and
it's
broken
up
into
a
bunch
of
different
pieces,
but
those
payments
for
each
of
the
pieces
of
those
payments.
The
amortization
schedule
is
that
schedule
of
payments,
so
so
it
is
kind
of
like
your.
Your
mortgage
has
a
schedule
of
payments
to
pay
off
your
two
billion
dollar
mortgage,
and
so
it's.
How
do
we
structure
those
payments
and
your
typical
mortgage?
C
K
So
and
I
guess
my
view
and
a
lot
of
other
actuaries
view
has
been
that
perhaps
we
should
set
it
so
that
it's
a
declining
percentage
of
payroll,
a
gradually
declining
percentage
of
payroll,
because
the
plans
that
have
gotten
into
trouble
are
ones
where
they
assumed
payroll
would
grow
much
faster
than
it
actually
did.
And
then
their
payments
become
a
higher
and
higher
percentage
of
payroll,
which
is
bigger
and
bigger
percentage
of
the
sponsor's
budget.
K
K
It
could,
but,
but
that
happens
more
when
you
have
a
city
that
or
sponsor
that's
Contracting.
So
you
know
the
the
places
we've
seen
that
play
out
in
a
damaging
way
are
places
like
Detroit,
with
the
decline
of
the
Auto
industry,
their
whole
Revenue
base
shrink,
and
so
their
payroll
had
to
shrink
as
well.
Kentucky
saw
that
they
were
expecting
continued
rapid
growth
and
It
reversed
and
got
them
into
a
lot
of
trouble.
D
K
This
is
in
the
amortization
period,
has
a
far
more
significant
effect
on
how
quickly
you
pay
down
the
ual
than
this
number.
Certainly
I
guess
I
would
I
would
argue
if
you
had
really
long
amortization
payments.
There's
another
argument
for
bringing
this
number
down,
because
we
talked
last
time
about
negative
amortization
or
payments
that
aren't
sufficient
to
pay
any
portion
of
the
ual,
and
if
you
get,
if
you
have
long
amortization
periods
and
a
high
increase
in
the
amortization
rate,
you'll
get
negative
amortization
and
negative
amortization
for
a
longer
period.
K
We
are
not
doing
that.
We
are.
We
do
not
have
any
negative
amortization
in
our
in
our
schedules,
so
this
is
more
about.
You
know,
broadly
how.
How
is
is
payroll
expected
to
grow
in
the
system
and
how
do
we
keep
costs
as
a
level
or
declining
percentage
payroll
on
that
schedule?
But
if
you
are
focused
on
getting
your
60
plan
better
funded
versus
your
90
plan,
you
really
need
to
talk
about
the
amortization
periods.
Much
more
than
this,
this
is
going
to
have
a
much
more
minor
impact.
J
K
I
think,
certainly
one
of
the
times
to
look
at
shortening
periods
is
after
we've
had
a
good
investment
year.
We've
done
that
with
discount
rates.
We
do
that
with
other
things,
where
what
would
otherwise
be
a
decline
in
costs.
We
use
a
portion
of
that
to
tighten
things
up,
and
so
that's
an
excellent
time
to
look
at
shortening
the
remaining
amortization
periods.
I
think
what
we
saw
looking
at
them
last
month
is
you
can
get
pretty
significant
increases
in
the
contributions
and
the
board
wasn't
ready
to.
A
K
B
K
L
Okay
good
morning,
everyone
so
now
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
discount
rate,
which
is
also
the
expected
return
on
assets
and,
as
Bill
mentioned,
this
is
the
single
most
powerful
assumption.
So
you
know
the
change
of
25
basis.
Points
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
on
the
liabilities
and
the
higher
the
expected
return,
the
lower
the
expected
contributions,
and
vice
versa.
So
but
over
time
it
is
the
actual
experience
which
determines
the
contributions
right.
L
L
So
so
what
do
we?
Where
do
we
look
for
context
and
selecting
this
rate?
Well
one.
We
look
at
historical
experience
for
the
plan
for
the
system
and
also
we
look
at
industry
industry
Trends.
So
you
know
what
what
are
other
systems
doing,
surveys
that
are
a
good
source
of
you
know,
industry
trends
and
then
there
there
are
two
primary
factors
in
to
consider
in
setting
the
discount
rate,
one
being
the
expectations
for
the
future
and
two
being
the
board's
risk
preference.
L
The
red
line
is
the
Assumption,
so
you
can
see
that
in
in
2013,
that
was
seven
and
a
half
percent,
and
that
has
gradually
come
down
over
the
past
10
years
to
the
6.625
percent.
Assumption
that
we're
using
today.
So
so,
where
have
the
returns
been
well,
the
blue
bars
are
showing
the
return
on
market
value
of
assets
and
the
green
bars
are
showing
the
return
on
Actuarial
value,
which
is
the
smooth
value.
L
L
You
know
the
past
two
years
have
have
been
outliers,
see
the
30
plus
return
for
fiscal
year
at
2021
and
Then,
followed
up
by
some
some
negative
returns
in
the
most
recent
fiscal
year.
So
so,
over
this
period
the
average
return
has
been
6.3
percent
on
a
market
value
basis.
So
that's
you
know
a
bit
under
the
assumption
and
on
an
Actuarial
value
basis.
5.6
percent,
although
I
would
note
there,
with
the
the
returns
in
2021,
haven't
fully
been
smoothed
in
yet
right.
So
so
there's
a
bit
of
a
lag
there.
L
L
L
K
I
K
I
K
That
was
200
basis
points
above
the
yield
on
the
treasury
to
meet
our
assumption
as
those
discount
rates.
As
those
interest
rates
have
declined,
we've
had
to
adjust
our
asset
allocation
and
and
other
things
to
try
and
get
a
greater
margin
over
the
yield
on
a
10-year
treasure.
Now
that
probably
reached
its
peak
extreme
in
2020
in
the
middle
of
the
pandemic,
when
the
yields
dropped
to
0.7
percent,
they
weren't
down
there
that
long,
but
they
were
certainly
between
one
and
two
percent.
K
K
K
K
K
That
has
a
variety
of
investment
consultants
in
it
and
they
calculate
an
average
assumption
for
each
asset
class.
And
then
we
map
your
asset
allocation
to
those
average
assumptions
and
calculate
what
the
expected
return
on
that
average
Capital
Market
assumption
would
be
for
your
portfolio
Makita
this
year
because
of
those
changes
in
interest
rates
and
also
changes
in
valuations
and
price
earnings.
K
Ratios
I
issued
an
interim
set
of
Capital
Market
assumptions
that
around
June
30th
and
so
we've
included
those
this
year
as
well,
and
so
you
can
see
over
the
10-year
time,
Horizon
The
Horizon
survey.
We
would
want
to
compare
to
makita's
original,
because
the
timing
of
the
Capital
Market
assumptions
is
approximately
the
same,
which
would
have
been
as
of
the
beginning
of
this
year.
The
median
expectation
it
is
below
six
and
a
half
six
point,
one
for
Makita
6.4.
K
K
If
we
look
at
it
over
a
20-year
Horizon,
the
Makita
original
and
Horizon
survey
were
identical
at
about
7.1,
but
the
interim
has
jumped
all
the
way
up
to
8.3
percent.
For
your
your
return
here,
we
note
that
the
Horizon
survey
on
a
10-year
time
frame
has
40
different
investment
Consultants
on
a
20-year
time.
President
only
has
24.
just
to
give
us
a
sense
of
this.
That
survey,
so
there's
been
quite
a
change
in
those
interim
assumptions.
K
Changing
price
earnings
ratios
this
similar
Dynamic
caused
the
Capital
Market
assumptions
to
rise,
but
three
to
four
months
later.
All
of
that
had
reversed,
and
so,
when
we
got
to
the
next
year,
they
were
back
where
they
had
been
before
and
at
the
time
we
were
looking
at
it
for
the
2019
valuation.
We
knew
that
it
had
reversed,
and
so
we
said,
don't
don't
make
a
change
this
year.
We
are,
we
don't
see
any
reversal
in
this
right
now.
K
C
K
A
I
C
K
Yeah
I
think
that's.
Our
sense
is
there's
so
much
up
in
the
air,
and
we
think
where
we
are
now
is
fine
and
so
I
would
hate
to
make
the
move
right
now
that
a
year
from
now
we
would
regret
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
just
wait
and
reassess,
and
hopefully
there's
a
little
more
clarity
on
on
what
the
long-term
situation
will
be.
I
K
K
One
is
a
base
set
of
mortality
rates
and
then
the
second
is
how
those
mortality
rates
improve
each
year
in
the
future,
and
we
had
adopted
an
assumption
for
that
Improvement
piece
to
use
the
most
recent
scale
published
by
the
Society
of
actuates,
which
normally
comes
out
next
week
of
each
year,
and
so
we
are
expecting
a
report.
Next
week,
I
just
got
an
update
on
Tuesday
from
representative
of
the
Society
of
actuaries.
At
a
conference,
I
was
attending.
K
They
are
going
to
issue
a
report,
but
it
will
not
have
a
new
scale
in
it.
It
will
have
data
and
actuaries
can
create
their
new
scale.
The
reason
for
that
is
this
is
the
first
year
that
it
would
incorporate
data
affected
by
covet,
and
so
the
model
they
would
normally
update,
provide
would
provide
kind
of
unusual
results
and
probably
inconsistent
with
our
projections
for
future
mortality.
K
And
so
there
are
a
lot
of
opinions
about
how
covid
is
going
to
affect
mortality
going
forward,
there's
a
whole
range
of
thoughts
and
they
published
a
survey
of
those
ranges
of
Thoughts
by
experts,
but
we're
suggesting
that
we
cease
updating
to
the
latest
scale.
Just
stick
with
our
current
scale
that
we
used
in
the
last
valuation.
And
then,
when
we
do
the
demographic
experience
study
next
year,
we'll
reassess
it
see
if
there's
new
information
and
new
thoughts
on
what
the
longer
term
implication
of
covid
is
on
on
mortality
rates.
K
C
A
C
K
K
At
that
point,
the
big
spike
had
really
not
hit
on
the
west
coast.
It
was
that
Delta
spike
in
December
or
the
winter
of
2021,
which
will
show
up
in
this
year's
data.
So
I
have
seen
other
plans
having
a
much
more
significant
impact
in
terms
of
head
count
in
the
2022
data.
I
have
not
looked
at
your
data,
yet
so
I,
don't
know
how
it's
affected
you,
but
most
of
that
impact
that
I've
seen
so
far
has
been
among
the
oldest
members
in
the
plan,
who
have
a
very
small
liability.
K
K
B
I
have
a
sense,
this
United
Infinity
on
increasing
it.
Perhaps
the
and
the
devil
is
very
much
in
the
detail
here
of
to
what
level
such
a
modest
increase
of
only
25
basis
points
seems
to
me
overly
cautious
and
and
not
fully
responsive
to
the
current
moment.
So
I
don't
know
if
others
have
opinions
about
what
the
price
inflation
rate
should
be
or
or
how
much
we
should
increase
it
and
bearing
in
mind
that
we
are
looking
out
at
you
know,
10-year
inflation
rates
yeah.
That's.
I
A
We're
always
going
to
be
without
perfect
data
and
and
these-
and
we
also
don't
have
to
be
right
on
target
we're,
not
forecasters
so
I'm
I'm,
fine
with
where
we're,
what
being
what
is
being
proposed
and
just
add,
we
always
have
next
year
as
well.
If
we
feel
like
we've
aired
on
the
side
of
too
much
caution,
but
the
10
to
20
years
is
so
hard
to
predict
right.
I
think
that's
where
we
all
get
a
little
bit
hesitant,
but
but
something
incremental
seems
reasonable.
C
I
agree
that
trustee
Chandra,
you
know
I
believe
again.
We
need
to
and
that's
why
I
said
it
in
the
beginning,
we're
looking
at
the
10
to
20
years.
If
we
were
looking
at
this
year,
it'd
be
like
no,
of
course
it's
higher
but
10
to
20
years,
and
we
have
next
year
to
make
that
change
so
I'm
comfortable
with,
what's
being
proposed.
A
B
C
B
K
F
I
think
you've
already
captured
my
question.
It's
a
very
increasing
price
inflation,
but
we
are
keeping
wage
inflation.
The
same
so
I'll
be
assuming
that
the
real
wage
growth
is
going
to
be
lower,
and
so
my
question
really
is:
like
you
know
we
are,
we
are
changing
the
building
blocks
right.
So
how
does
it
impact
the
overall
model.
K
There's
a
there's,
still
a
lot
of
uncertainty
around.
What's
going
to
happen
with
wages
going
forward
and
the
the
place
we
ended
up
with
a
another
client
was
looking
at
increasing
the
wage
inflation
assumption
this
year
in
increasing
costs,
with
a
likelihood
of
increasing
the
discount
rate
next
year,
which
would
reduce
costs,
and
so
the
thought
was,
let's
make
those
moves
at
the
same
time
instead
of
in
subsequent
years,
so
that
they
offset
each
other,
and
so
it's
really
more
of
a
question
of
let's.
K
Let's
just
hold
off
on
the
wage
inflation
for
one
more
year,
we
may
next
year
decide
to
reverse
and
increase
it
to
three
and
a
quarter
and
we'll
have
more
information.
We'll
know
what's
going
on
on
the
discount
rate
as
well
at
that
time,
and
so
it's
more.
Let's
make
those
assumption
changes
at
the
same
time
rather
than
in
different
years.
C
B
B
B
B
K
K
B
I
A
B
B
B
Okay,
thank
you.
So
that's
trustee
Keller
says
motions
that
we
do
not
update
the
scale
this
year.
Is
there
a
second
hi
segment?
That's
a
second
from
Vice
chair
Jennings,
any
further
trustee
discussion,
any
public
comments,
we'll
move
to
roll
call,
trustee,
Chandra,
aye,
trustee,
Orr,
aye,
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye,
trustee,
Kelleher,
aye,
Gusty,
avasti,
aye
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
Motion
carries
and
I
believe,
is
that
the
of
final
issue
with
this
agenda
item.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
J
Thank
you,
chair
Horowitz,
so
Sandra,
Casiano
and
I
will
be
presenting
on
this
item,
and
we
have
also
invited
the
city
attorney's
office
in
the
city
to
participate
and
comment
on
this
agenda
item
as
well.
So
if
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
sharing
my
screen,
please
let
me
know
when
you
can
see
it:
okay,.
J
Great
I'm
just
going
to
make
a
little
bigger,
so
you
can
see
it
better.
So
there
is
a
San
Jose,
Municipal
Code.
Let
me
just
scroll
down,
which
is
an
attachment
to
the
backup
materials
provided
to
you.
So
San,
Jose,
Municipal,
Code
3.28.1970,
provides
the
requirements
for
participation
of
members
in
a
city
provided
medical
insurance
plans
and
sets
forth
the
requirements
for
such
parts
of
the
patient
that
that
this
plan
administers
for
retirees-
and
so
you
see
here
this
is
the
beginning
of
the
provision.
J
There's
a
provision
down
in
subdivision
I,
which
is
known
as
the
Medicare
mandates,
cold
wheelies.
So
in
this
provision,
I'll
walk
you
through,
so
you
can
take
a
look
that
it
the
to
be
able
to
receive
medicare,
I'm,
sorry
to
receive
city-sponsored
medical
insurance
and
be
all
one
of
their
provided
plans.
As
a
retiree
remember,
you
must
do
two
things
one.
J
You
must
first
enroll
in
the
Medicare
Medicare
when
you
become
eligible
in
part
A
and
Part
B
during
the
initial
enrollment
period
under
the
applicable
federal
rules,
and
in
addition
to
that,
you
must
also
not
only
enroll,
but
you
must
also
assign
your
Medicare
part
A
and
Part
B
benefits
as
required
by
the
health
care
provider.
So
once
you
do
those
two
things
for
initial
compliance,
one
enroll
in
Medicare
and
two
assign
your
Medicare
to
the
healthcare
provider
under
contract
with
the
city.
J
J
Now
the
plan
once
the
if,
if
a
member
does
not
meet
this
requirement,
the
initial
enrollment
period
I
mean
the
initial
compliance
requirements
in
the
plan.
Member
shall
be
enrolled
at
the
next
available
enrollment
period,
which
generally
is
January
to
March.
The
open
enrollment
period
for
Medicare
there's
only
one
window
each
year,
and
so
the
plan
member
must
wait
until
the
next
enrollment
period
to
actually
comply
if
they
miss
their
initial
enrollment
period
around
the
Medicare
eligibility
date,
which
is
either
age,
65
and
or
any
other
Medicare
qualifying
eligibility.
J
So,
as
you
see
here,
this
is
what
we
call
the
Medicare
mandates.
Enforcement
provision
so
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
requires
initial
compliance.
As
you
see
here,
it
doesn't
contemplate
or
discuss
explicitly
what
to
do
in
circumstances
where
a
member
initially
complied
meaning
they
enrolled
in
Medicare
and
assigned,
but
for
some
reason
later
down.
The
line
lost,
Medicare
coverage
for
whatever
reason,
and
so
the
population
we're
talking
about
today.
For
this
agenda
item
is
the
latter.
J
This
board
dropped
coverage
for
these
affected
members,
because
they
have
failed
to
maintain
Medicare
coverage
and
stated
that
and
have
also
stated
its
intent
that
they
intended
this
provision
to
also
extend
to
those
who
to
extend
to
require
that
effective
members
maintain
their
preparation.
Now,
like
I,
said
earlier,
it
doesn't
explicitly
say
that,
but
it
could
be
read
implicitly
to
support
that,
and
so
with
that,
I
am
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Sandra
who's.
J
Going
to
be
talking
more
about
the
details,
the
facts
we've
been
working
collaboratively
with
the
city
to
enforce
this
Medicare
mandate,
and
so
what
we
want
here
today
is
to
get
direction
and
from
in
approval
for
actions
of
the
board
of
these
recommendations
provided
above
in
the
memo.
Once
we've
heard
from
Sandra.
M
Good
morning,
Sandra
Castellano
benefits
manager,
so
I'll
go
over
a
few
key
points
from
the
memo.
The
city
has
two
Health
Care
Providers
Anthem
and
Kaiser
Anthem
and
Kaiser
operate
differently
for
members
who
are
Medicare
eligible
for
Anthem.
If
a
member
does
not
enroll
in
a
sign
or
does
not
stay
enrolled
in
Medicare,
Anthem
drops
their
coverage
automatically
for
Kaiser
Kaiser
does
not
drop
the
members
coverage
and
instead
transfers
them
to
a
special
exception
group
at
a
high
cost
to
the
city.
M
We
discovered
this
population
of
affected
members
when
the
city
and
ORS
began
working
together
to
enforce
the
Medicare
mandate.
Earlier
this
year,
I'll
do
mention
the
city's
been
very
clear
that
it
it
intended
that
the
Medicare
mandate
would
extend
to
this
effective
population
and
has
to
ask
us
to
drop
their
coverage.
M
I'll
point
out
that
if
this
recommendation
is
approved
by
the
board-
and
we
certainly
will
be
working
closely
with
these
members
to
ensure
that
they
have
opportunities
to
re-enroll
in
Medicare,
if
that's
the
issue
and
continue
their
coverage
without
a
lapse
in
in
coverage
at
all
and
the
city
as
Maytag
mentioned,
we've
been
working
closely
with
the
city
in
their
full
agreement
in
that
strategy.
So
there's
certainly
no
plan
to
drop
people
without
giving
them
an
opportunity
to
to
enroll
in
Medicare
again
and
with
that
I
think
those
were
the
highlights.
J
J
One
is
to
acknowledge
that
the
plan
is
obligated
to
cease
providing
retiree
health
care
benefits
to
members
who
are
Medicare
eligible,
but
who
have
not
initially
enrolled
in
Medicare
and
who
have
not
assigned
the
Medicare
benefits
to
the
health
care
insurance
insurer
provided
by
the
city
under
the
municipal
provision,
and
so
this
again
is
just
a
population
for
the
initial
compliance.
That's
fairly
stated
clearly
in
the
municipal
code.
J
Second,
we
want
would
like
the
board
to
acknowledge
that
there
is
a
population
of
retiree
members
who
initially
complied
with
the
Medicare
enrollment
and
assignment
requirements
in
the
municipal
code,
but
who
subsequently
lost
Medicare
coverage
and
who
have
retiree
health
benefits
provided
by
Kaiser
under
the
city
contract.
Again,
this
is
the
effective
members
that
we
are
seeking
to
address
in
the
next
few
bullet
points
and
further
acknowledge
that
the
city
has
stated
its
intent.
J
And
this
is
the
part
that
Sandra
had
mentioned.
We're
also
seeking
the
awards
approval
to
direct
staff,
to
provide
notice
of
to
the
effective
members
that
they
must
be
continuously
enrolled
in
Medicare
to
maintain
coverage
on
a
city
health
care
plan
and
allow
these
members
an
opportunity
to
cure
their
loss
of
Medicare
coverage
and
in
the
next
Medicare
open,
enrollment
period
again,
and
that
would
be
in
January
to
March.
J
J
We
would
also
recommend
the
board
or
seek
the
board,
to
recommend
to
the
city
council
that,
at
the
end
of
the
term
of
the
Kaiser
contract
in
December
of
2023,
if
the
party
shoots
to
renew
that
contract,
that
they
consider
adding
a
provision
that
requires
Kaiser
to
drop
Health
Care
coverage
for
Medicare
eligible
members
who
do
not
have
Medicare
coverage
now,
as
Sandra
had
mentioned,
there's
two
different
ways
that
this
has
been
handled.
Anthem
has
automatically
dropped
them,
but
in
Kaiser's
contract
there
is
a
provision
in
there.
J
That
maintains
requires
them
to
maintain
them
and
ship
them
to
the
load.
And
so
that's
why
a
lot
of
times
this
applies
under
the
radar,
because
we
don't
ORS
is
not
monitoring
to
ensure
that
everybody's
Medicare
compliant
throughout.
We
would
prefer
that
responsibility
to
be
shipped
into
the
the
healthcare
insurance
provider.
J
Lastly,
as
alternative
recommendation,
we
would
also
recommend
to
this
city
council
to
consider
adding
language
in
the
smjc
provisions
to
make
sure
that
the
plan's
obligation
to
cease
providing
Healthcare
benefits
to
retirees
who
are
a
Medicare
eligible
and
but
who
lost
their
Medicare
coverage,
that
we
have
the
authority
to
drop
them,
because
it's
not
explicitly
stated
so,
and
so
those
are
the
recommendations
that
we
are
seeking.
The
board's
adoption
we
approval
with
with
board
action
and
with
that
I
open
it
up,
I
believe
I
saw
Suzanne
Hutchinson.
M
A
M
I
M
M
I
think
I
I
think
there's
two
main
ways
here:
number
one
they
would
stop
paying
for
Medicare
coverage.
You
know
they
have
to
pay
Medicare
for
coverage
and
number
two.
There
are
opportunities
to
reassign
through
private
agencies,
so
they
may
you
know,
there's
commercials
on
TV
there's
other
opportunities
that
they
may
have
followed
up
with
to
assign
their
coverage
somewhere
else
and
not.
Let
us
know.
M
A
A
M
Into
into
part,
B
I
believe
which
is
they're,
not
it's
not
coming
out
of
their
pension.
They
have
to
pay
separately
based
on
you
know
their
their
income
level.
Essentially,
so
you
pay
Medicare
directly.
It
doesn't
come
out
of
your
pension
check,
so
you
have
to
sign
up
with
Medicare
during
open
enrollment,
and
it
is
a
separate
transaction.
So
for
us
as
active
employees,
it
comes
directly
out
of
our
paycheck,
but
for
them
they
have
to
sign
up
and
pay
separately.
If
that
may
be
what
you're
thinking
of
Okay
so.
C
C
So
it's
those,
maybe
employees
that
never
worked
outside
this
city,
who
don't
get
Social
Security,
then
have
to
pay
for
Medicare,
Part,
B
I
believe
that's
correct,
yes,
and
thus
don't
pay
it
and
then
lose
it
now.
I
was
also
told
that
if
they're
not
paying
in,
they
received
a
letter
from
Retirement
services
or
from
the
city
saying
hey
by
the
way
you
know
you
need
to
sign
up
for
Medicare
I
mean.
Is
that
an
annual
thing
that
goes
out
to
these
people?
Or
do
they
absolutely?
Yes?.
M
If
we
haven't
heard
from
them
on
the
month
of
their
65th
birthday,
we
send
them
another
letter
with
the
additional
information
we
reach
out
to
them
personally
and
then
we're
going
to
send
a
final
letter
within
three
months
after
because
that's
the
Medicare
enrollment
period,
three
months
before
three
months
after
your
65th
birthday,
I
send
them
another
letter
reach
out
to
them
again.
If
we
haven't
heard
from
them.
M
M
Well,
initially,
they
were,
and
they
did
sign
up.
So
at
this
point,
no
we
have
not
reached
out
to
them.
So
once
you
get
direction
from
the
board,
we
will
reach
out
and
I.
You
know,
I
do
think
there
are
also.
There
may
be
some
that
stop
paying
for
Medicare.
I
do
really
do
think.
There
are
some
who
assign
with
private
agencies
so
no
longer
are
signing
through
the
city
but
are
getting
Medicare
coverage
through
another
entity
and
just
need
to
know
about
that
and
and
update
our
records
with
them.
J
And
may
just
chime
in
one
one
point
here:
you
know,
while
we
were
working
through
the
Medicare
mandates,
enforcements
is
when,
during
this
year
is
when
we
learned
the
city's
stated
intent
that
they
wanted
to
extend
this
provision
to
apply
to
those
who
use
Medicare
as
well
along
the
line
after
initial
compliance,
and
so
that's
why
this
issue
is
being
raised
before
the
board.
Now
it's
because
it
has
come
to
our
attention
and
we
require
board
action
and
direction
and
one
other
point
Sandra.
Could
you
explain
to
them
what
we
would
do?
J
M
So
and
I
think
for
the
the
majority,
when
we
find
out,
someone
has
dropped
coverage
through
Anthem
and
Anthem
drops,
and
then
we
do
reach
out
to
the
members
talk
to
them
about
what
has
happened
and
give
them
an
opportunity
to
re-enroll
if
they
want
to
re-enroll
through
us,
I
think
the
what
staff
is
telling
me
is
the
majority
of
times
it
is
that
option
where
they
have
decided
to
go
with
another
private
entity
and
not
assign
through
the
city.
So
in
those
cases
they're
going
with
that
other
entity.
C
J
J
F
J
M
And
we
will
be
reaching
out
to
them
in
December
with
an
initial
letter
following
up
with
phone
calls
and
emails
in
January
February
March,
to
make
sure
they
have
every
opportunity
to
ask
us
questions
and
know
the
process,
but
they
will
need
to
re
if,
if
the
issue
is
that
they
are
no
longer
enrolled
in
Medicare,
they
will
need
to
re-enroll
during
that
period
in
order
to
maintain
coverage.
So.
I
If
I'm
a
retiree
and
I'm
currently
at
the
high
price
Kaiser
solution,
the
city
will
continue
to
pay
for
that.
But
I'll
have
the
opportunity
to
switch
over
to
Medicare
and
name
the
city
as
a
beneficiary
in
January
I'm
not
going
to
be
devastated
if
I
get
cancer
in
December
right
before
the
open
enrollment
period.
Absolutely.
A
J
Well,
it's
unclear
exactly
for
each
individual
member.
We
just
know
that
these
these
members
have
been
shipped
into
the
kinds
of
load
we
haven't
reached
out
and
assessed
with
each
and
every
member.
But
while
we
go
to
this
direction
to
provide
notice,
while
we
work
through
that
with
each
number,
we
would
ascertain
that.
J
M
Sure
and
I
have
Cheryl
Parkman
office
of
employer
relations.
I
can
chime
in
just
from
the
city's
perspective.
We
believe
that
the
municipal
code
is
inherently
clear
on
this,
that
this
is
already
the
action
that
should
be
taken
is
that
if
somebody
is
not
in
Medicare,
regardless
of
the
reason
whether
they
never
enrolled
or
they
did
enroll
in
and
have
dropped
out,
that
we
should
be
taking
action
now
in
order
to
rectify
this
situation.
M
So
if
they
do
not
enroll
in
open
enrollment
in
the
January
to
March
time
frame
of
2023
that
we
should
drop
them.
However,
it
is
the
board
at
the
board's
discretion
if
they
would
like
to
recommend
the
two
bullets
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
on
this
memo
to
city
council
I
think
that
if
the
city
had
a
preferred
method
and
in
my
understanding
as
the
last
two
bullets
are,
you
can
take
one
or
the
other.
M
That's
my
understanding
from
the
our
police
and
fire
meeting
is
that
if
we
do
one,
if
we
recommend
to
Kaiser
that
we
change
the
contract
that
would
replace
having
to
change
the
municipal
code.
So
if,
if
there
is
a
preferred
City
method,
it
is
that
we
try
to
rectify
this
situation
with
Kaiser
so
that
they
are
acting
in
the
same
way.
That
Anthem
is
where
Anthem
now
just
drops
the
the
this
coverage.
M
As
this
board
may
know
the
the
way
and
process
to
change
the
municipal
municipal
code
is
a
a
long
and
lengthy
process,
and
we
believe
the
municipal
code
is
already
clear.
So
if
there's
one
preferred
method
from
the
city,
it
is
the
first
bullet
to
recommend
that
we
change
language
with
Kaiser
when
that
contract
is
up
next
year
and
the
city
retains
Kaiser
as
one
of
our
medical
providers
should
that
happen
through
a
request
for
a
proposal.
So
that's
the
city's
perspective
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
on
that.
M
J
C
Oh
I
do
have
one
more
question
so
when
you
retire
and
then
you're
going
through
this,
is
it
clarified
to
the
retiree,
through
the
city
or
office
of
Retirement
services,
that
it
is
one
required
that
you
have
Medicare
Part
B
and
that
you,
you
know
kind
of
sign
it
over
to
the
city
if
you're
going
to
take
if
you're
tier
one
taking
the
city
benefits,
is
that
do
people
know
that
I
mean?
Is
it
or
is
it
just
kind
of
inherent.
M
We
do
have
it
in
several
places
when
you
retire
on
the
application.
It's
stated,
and
you
have
to
initial
that
you
understand.
Like
I
said
earlier,
we
do
send
letters
when
you're
turning
65.
We
are
now
offering
quarterly
workshops
on
Medicare
enrollment,
for
retirees
to
help
that
all
said.
I
do
also
understand
that
it
is,
you
know
a
confusing
process,
and-
and
you
know
we
do
our
best
to
educate
as
much
as
we
can
yeah.
B
B
B
J
You
and
for
one
for
before
we
move
on
from
the
agenda
item
I,
do
want
to
applaud
Sandra
and
Cheryl
for
working
together
on
around
us.
It's
been
a
very
long
Endeavor
process
to
sort
through
all
the
rules
and
figure
out
which
population
is
to
which,
because
it's
been,
we
started
the
project.
Last
December-
and
here
we
are
today
working
with
this.
These
last
few
stragglers
I
do
want
to
apply
them
for
their
work.
E
E
Yes,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair
I'm,
going
to
lead
the
discussion
on
that
one,
and
we
have
staff
available
for
comments.
If
there
are
any
questions,
if
I
can
have
staff
bring
up
the
memo
on
that
particular
item,
so
I'm
not
gonna,
go
through
all
the
memo
and
the
details
suffice
to
say,
Obviously,
the
the
recommendations
are
in
the
memo,
the
process
and
and
what
is
it
that
really
led
us
to
to
this
point
and
recommending
what
we're
going
to
be
recommending.
E
E
Well,
lo
and
behold,
I
was
run.
We
did
receive
one
vendor,
World
Health
Solutions,
which
included
Dr
Das,
who
was
the
actual
last
board
medical
advisor
to
the
Committees
and
the
boys
before
the
two
treatment
when
he
worked
as
the
medical
doctor
capacity
for
the
city
until
the
city.
Actually,
this
banded
that
particular
Department,
and
so
we
we.
E
E
It
took
us
about
nine
months,
working
with
whs
to
actually
go
through
the
agreement
and
receive
all
the
documentation
that
was
needed
and
since
the
agreement
was
signed,
the
experience
that
we
have
had
with
their
services,
which
is
actually
a
split
on
two
areas.
First,
is
the
administrative
support
portion
of
the
service,
and
then
there
is
the
actual
board.
E
It's
actually
twofold
number
one
again:
I
have
I
actually
come
from
other
systems
in
the
state
that
have
worked
well
without
having
that
particular
portion
of
that
process.
But,
second,
because,
as
we
know
very
well,
there
are
many
other
of
our
peers
across
the
state
that
actually
function
well
without
that
particular
role.
In
fact,
if
you
read
the
memo,
we
staff
actually
had
meetings
with
our
counterpart
at
the
City
of
Fresno.
E
We
elected
the
City
of
Fresno,
because
our
disability,
Council
Rose
ricketta,
actually
also
is
the
disability
Council
for
the
City
of
Fresno
and
is
were
very
closely
with
that
process
in
Fresno.
So
again,
I
won't.
Go
to
the
whole
the
memo
we're
happy
to
answer
any
specific
questions
myself.
Our
staff
is
available.
E
I
was
suffice
to
say
that
at
this
point
our
recommendation
is
to
eliminate
that
role
from
the
process
and
actually
work
in
a
diligent
approach
to
stop
change
the
agreement
with
whs
or
terminate
that
agreement
and
work
diligently
with
them
on
the
services
that
they
provide
at
this
point,
while
at
the
same
time
extend
the
services
to
work
with
exam
work,
exam
works.
It's
actually
one
of
our
two
vendors
that
provide
independent
medical
examiners
services.
E
It
is
also
one
of
the
vendors
that
work
at
the
City
of
Fresno,
and
so
the
goal
here
is
twofold.
Rather
than
using
the
boy
medical
advisor
role
at
the
disability
education
process,
we're
going
to
be
first
suggesting
that
the
committee
and
the
boards
rely
on
that
independent
medical
analysis
report
that
today
is
actually
part
of
the
process
and
you
already
received
as
part
of
the
disability
application
process,
but
we're
also
going
to
be
asking
to
possibly
expand
the
services
provided
by
exam
Works
to
provide
some
administrative
support
as
well.
So
with
that.
E
C
E
E
E
The
only
difference
that
you'll
see
from
what
they
actually
produced
today
is
that
we
will
ask
then
the
doctor
that
writes
the
independent
medical
analysis
will
ask
them
to
be
available
at
the
either
the
committee
meeting
or
the
board
meeting
for
questions.
At
that
point.
That's
the
additional
request,
we're
going
to
be
asking
them
on
that
role
again.
I
also
mentioned
we're
going
to
be
looking
to
expand
their
services
to
also
provide
some
support
from
the
administrative
standpoint,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
understood.
E
D
Because
the
clear
impact
of
this
is,
you
may
remember,
we
had
a
very
successful
relationship
with
Dr
tiermann
as
the
advisor
and
the
value
of
that
and
the
value
that
our
new
disability
committee
here
is
going
to
miss
is
having
that
advisor
sitting
during
disability
committee
meetings
and
also
as
necessary,
board
meetings
to
give
advice
to
the
board
members
about
whether
or
to
Grant
and
under
what
conditions
to
Grant
disability.
You
won't
have
that
advisor
present
at
your
committee
meetings
and
that's
that's
kind
of
tough
for
a
brand
new
committee.
E
We
we
we're
not
looking
tuition
on
RFP,
we,
we
have
already
a
working
relationship
with
the
exam
works
and
we're
just
looking
to
expand
the
services
that
they're
providing.
But
let
me
just
say
some:
you
mentioned
something
that
I
I
forgot
to
mention
in
my
introductory
comments,
and
is
that,
as
I
know,
to
this
whole
discussion
is
that
you
may
recall
that,
as
as
part
of
I
forget
what
the
measure
letter
is
measure
I
forget
the
name,
the
one
that
approved
the
new,
the
tier
two
and
everything
else
measure
B.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
E
Council
ladyman.
It
also
included
in
that
measure
was
the
fact
that
the
this
whole
disability
process
was
going
to
be
updated
and
the
meaning
code
was
updated
to
reflect
that.
The
truth
of
the
matter
is
that
the
disability
process
that
we
have
in
place
today
is
not
actually
in
line
with
the
mini
code
and
doesn't
really
follow
the
mini
code.
It
is
they
all
process
that
we
have
before
they
update.
The
process
was
added
to
the
mini
coil,
and
that
process
was
such.
That
was
doing
a
couple
of
things.
E
One
was
taken
away
from
your
board,
the
ultimate
disability
decision
making,
and
it
was
going
to
actually
transfer
that
decision
making
with
a
panel
of
doctors
right
and
that
was
a
and
I.
Don't
you
know,
I
I
know
there
are
some
union
members,
maybe
at
the
public
and
and
even
maybe
share
a
program
from
the
city.
They
they
have
a
lot
more
knowledge
about
that
than
I
do,
but
they
work
diligently
and
and
working
together
on
putting
that
new
process
in
the
mini
code.
E
Unfortunately,
when
our
office
went
out,
I
think
we
went
out
definitely
twice
if
not
three
times
to
the
market,
with
an
RFP
we
didn't
have
any
bidders
I
actually
know
also
that
the
city
didn't
requested,
hey,
let
us
go
out
to
the
market
and
they
did
that
as
well
with
noxa
says
not
better.
So
boronline
is
because
they
were
not
vendors,
really
not
able
to
meet
the
requirements
of
their
FP.
E
That
new
disability
process
that
is
happens
to
be
in
the
medical
today
has
not
been
implemented.
So
we
are
functioning
under
the
all
process
for
the
munico
I
hope
that
that's
that's
clear,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
specific
questions
and
I.
Don't
know
if
Cheryl
still
with
us
but
she's
with
us,
and
she
have
any
further
comments
on
that.
Certainly
she's
welcome
to
do
so.
J
J
E
That's
a
good
point:
Maytag
I
I
I.
Maybe
you
know
this
is
why
you're
an
attorney
and
I'm
not,
but
we
were
looking
to
do
sort
of
all
that
concurrently.
In
other
words,
in
addition
to
eliminating
this
step
from
the
process
to
wind
down
our
contract,
which
I
think
right
now,
USA
there's
a
30-day
class
with
whs,
while
at
the
same
time
working
on
expanding
the
contract
with
with
the
exam
Works
I
mean.
E
E
E
Mostly
it's
going
to
be
a
training
meeting,
we're
going
to
have
your
disability
attorney
with
a
lot
of
disability
requirements
and
medical
information
for
training
at
least
a
couple
of
times
before
we
actually
start
introducing
the
process
and
and
kick
off
the
work
of
the
community.
So
I
just
want
you
all
to
know
that
so
be
on
the
lookout
for
those
emails.
Thank
you
sure.
I
J
E
I
B
A
B
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
hi
trustee
killer,
aye,
trustee
avasti
hi
and
I
vote
I.
It
passes
unanimously
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
five
F
discussion,
action
on
board
and
committee
assignments,
I
guess,
I'll
I'll
introduce
this
trustee.
Orr
has
regretfully
resigned
her
position
on
the
joint
Personnel
committee
and
as
the
JPC
is
embarking
on
a
very
energetic
schedule
of
of
meetings
to
discuss,
amongst
other
things,
the
possibility
of
implementing
a
incentive
plan
for
our
investment
staff
and
possibly
others.
B
It's
important
that
we
have
a
full
roster
on
the
JPC
at
this
point
in
time
and
after
some
discussion
with
interested
parties,
I
am
proposing
that
are
already
quite
busy
and
frequently
assigned
Vice
chair
Jennings,
be
assigned
to
the
Joint
Personnel
committee
and
with
that
I
will
open
to
any
comments
or
questions
from
any
other
trustees.
As
we
discuss
and
improve
this
proposal.
B
A
B
A
B
E
Chair
you,
you
have
an
item
on
the
board
right
now
you
she's
actually
trustee
or
is
actually
resigning.
At
this
point
you
are
and
I
defer
to
counselor
you
could
appoint
a
new
member
to
the
IC
or
you
could
do
it
at
a
future
meeting.
Think
about
it.
I'm
just
telling
you
in
case
because
I
don't
know
when
the
next
IC
meeting
is
I,
don't
know
if
I
was
still
in
the
meeting
or
not.
B
Well,
I
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
discuss
an
assignment
with
any
of
the
other
trustees,
and
I
would
normally
want
to
do
that
before
I
I
made
it
I
I
make
such
a
proposal.
I
do
have
in
mind
a
candidate
but,
as
I
said,
haven't
had
a
chance
to
to
discuss
that
with
them,
and
I
won't
give
any
initials.
But
it
is
a
candidate
who
has
served
on
the
IC
before.
B
C
B
E
A
Yeah
I
was
about
I
was
about
to
add
that
that
note
thanks
Prabhu,
it
was
also
gonna,
I,
don't
think
It.
Ultimately
matters
I
thought
I
was
going
to
be
leaving.
This
I
do
have
to
leave
this
meeting
by
noon,
but
I
think
we
will.
We
will
be
able
to
get
the
special
IC
meeting
accomplished
by
then,
if
not
I
would
ask
trustee
or
to
resign.
After
that
meeting
okay,
we
will
not
have
Quorum
30
days.
K
A
B
D
A
D
B
A
A
A
A
A
J
J
J
F
A
A
A
B
E
I'm,
sorry
to
interrupt
I'm,
really
sorry,
I
I,
don't
think
that
you're
going
to
lose
Quantum
when
trustee
Chandra
leaves
you
still
have
four
members,
but
can
I
recommend
using
the
event
as
an
emergency
and
you
lose
another
member
to
actually
approve
the
ab361
now
so
that
if
something
comes
up,
you
can
still
have
the
presentation.
Even
though
the
meeting
is
officially
not
longer
a
meeting
because
you
lose
Quantum
I,
just
that's
just
a
suggestion.
You
don't
have
to
do
it,
but
just
in
case
your.
E
B
J
So
the
governor's
Proclamation
for
the
state
of
emergency
continues
to
be
in
place
and
the
governor
has
indicated
that
they
were
he's
going
to
lift
the
proclamation
in
the
end
of
February
of
2023,
but
for
the
moment
it's
currently
in
place
and
these
San
Jose
City
Council
has
recently
renewed
its
resolution
to
continuous
social
distancing
in
City
facilities.
So
if
this
board
adopts
these
two
factual
findings
by
majority
vote,
they
may
continue
to
meet
virtually
for
the
next
30
days.
Thank
you.
B
Do
we
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
findings
and
to
continue
to
meet
telephonically
emotion?
You
have
a
motion
from
trustee
and
vice
chair
Jennings.
Do
we
have
a
second
property
caliber
so
seconds?
We
have
a
second
from
trustee
Keller,
any
trustee
discussion,
any
public
comments,
a
roll
call
vote,
trustee,
Chandra,
hi,
Vice,
chair
Jennings,
aye,
Rusty,
Kelleher,
aye,
trustee,
avasti,
aye
and
I
vote
I
to
the
motion
carries
okay.
Now
we
will
continue
with
item
5G
the
long-awaited
educational
presentation
on
the
brown
Act.
J
A
J
Okay,
so
the
reason
why
we
have
public
meetings
is
that
government
is
supposed
to
be
open
in
public
and
accountable
to
the
public
and
as
an
American
policy,
and
so
the
public
is
entitled
to
meaningful
access
to
elected
officials
and
decision
makers
such
as
this
board.
All
governing
bodies
and
standing
committees
of
local
public
agencies
must
conduct
their
business
and
noticed
open
meetings,
giving
the
public
the
right
to
attend,
observe
in
comment.
This
is
provided
under
the
brown
act
now.
J
So
what
are
meetings
covers
by
the
brown
act?
It
includes
any
Gathering
of
the
form
of
the
board.
It
does
not
need
to
be
necessarily
in
person;
it
also
extends
the
electronic
media.
What
I
mean
by
that
that
counts
soon,
that
counts
emails
that
counts
any
other
telephonic
Communications
as
long
as
it's
a
gathering
of
the
form
of
the
board.
So
that's
the
important
Point
to
that
to
determine
the
threshold
of
whether
or
not
a
communication
triggers
a
brown
ax
requirements.
J
Next,
we
have
what's
less
obvious,
it's
something
called
serial
meetings
where
it's
a
series
of
communications,
whether
oral
or
written
that
here
discuss
deliberate
or
take
action
on
any
item
from
the
board's
jurisdiction
when
the
members
of
the
legislative
board
learns
of
others
each
other's
views.
Now.
So
here's
an
example
of
that.
A
calls
Board
number
a
calls
board.
Member
B
for
member
B.
J
Take
the
information
from
board
member
a
then
communicates
it
to
board
member
C
and
board
member
C
takes
the
information
from
board
members
A
and
B
and
communicates
it
to
board
member
D
and,
and
that
is
a
form
of
the
board,
a
b
c
and
d
accounts
of
the
Forum
that
counts
as
a
serial
meeting
covered
by
the
brown
acts
rules.
And
so
we
have
to
be
very
careful
about
how
many
emails
you
forward.
How
many?
J
How
much
information
you
pass
on
from
the
board
member
to
board
member
another
less
obvious
Brown
act
trigger
here
is
something
called
the
Hub
in
the
spokes
communication,
so
think
about
a
wheel.
So
the
Hub
would
be,
for
example,
board
member
a
who
or
any
individual
accounts
as
a
hub
that
collects
information
from
the
various
board
members
so
and
then
communicates
it
back
to
the
board.
So,
for
example,
person
a
is
collecting
information
from
board
member
B
and
then
board.
J
Member
B
gives
information
of
the
Hub
and
then
board
member
C
gets
information
to
the
hub
and
board.
Member
D
gives
information
to
the
hub
and
the
Hub
eventually
communicates
back
to
the
entire
board.
What
their
various
positions
are.
The
reason
why
this
is
a
problem
is
that
this
communication
has
taken
place
outside
of
a
public
meeting,
and
so
there
is
less
opportunities
for
the
public
to
persuade
the
board
members
to
change
the
positions
on
anything
or
provide
public
input
for
both
the
chain
of
communications
and
the
Hub
and
scope
text
communication.
J
J
There
is
an
exception,
though,
which
there
is
more
staff,
answers,
questions
and
provides
information
in
a
one-way
communication
to
the
board,
so,
for
example,
scheduling
the
oftentimes
you'll
have
ORS
staff
emailed
and
the
entire
board
regarding
scheduling,
and
if
you
see
at
the
bottom
of
their
email,
it
often
says
please
do
not
reply
all
so.
That's
an
example
of
an
exception
where
staff
answers
questions
in
the
board
at
large
foreign
Medium,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
can
be
considered
a
meeting.
J
This
includes
letters,
emails
texts,
chats
Zoom
meetings,
telephone
calls
that
all
counts
as
a
meeting
email
exchanges
amongst
the
board
are
not
sanitized
by
sending
it
to
officers
or
posting
it
on
the
website
or
reporting
on
it
later
that
it's
still
a
violation
of
the
brown
acts
so
long
as
it
has
emailed
amongst
the
form
of
the
Lord
or
reaches
a
month
to
form
move
the
board
in
terms
of
the
the
communication.
All
writing
circulates.
The
board
members
are
disposable
of
public
records
and
must
be
available
at
the
relevant
meetings.
J
J
J
D
D
That's
why
we
try
to
encourage
you
to
use
a
separate,
don't
use
your
personal
email
account
for
your
board
business
because
you
don't
want
to
have
to
go
through
10
000
personal
emails,
if
ever
requested
to
find
email
traffic
that
may
have
to
do
with
board
business
so
get
a
musician,
a
city
or
or
some
other
server.
If
you
will
to
be
able
to
segregate
your
board
Communications
from
your
personal
Communications
it'll,
save
you
a
lot
of
grief
in
the
future,
thanks
NATO
sure.
J
J
Now,
because
the
brown
Act
is
a
Statewide
law
and
the
city's
ordinance
as
a
city
law,
the
Statewide
law
generally
preempts,
the
sunshine
ordinance
to
the
extended
applies,
and
so
that
results
to
our
practice
of
waving
sunshine,
and
so
because
we
are
allowed
to
add
to
the
agenda
later
material
materials
beyond
the
seven
days
provided
in
the
San
Jose's
ordinance.
So
long
as
we
meet
the
brown
next
72
hour,
Advance
posing
requirements
for
regularly
agendized
meetings.
J
The
postings
must
be
on
included
on
the
website
if
there
is
one
so
as
you
all
are
familiar,
we
have
had
a
number
of
special
meetings
throughout
this
year
for
ab361.
for
those
special
meetings.
They
are
generally
required
in
the
Brown
X.
The
24
hours
in
advance,
with
their
posting
of
the
notice
in
the
agenda
called
to
called
by
the
chair
or
the
majority
of
the
board,
and
the
special
meeting
can
only
address
specific
special
issues
agendaives
and
cannot
be
used
in
any
way
or
executive
compensation
decisions.
J
Non-Agendized
matters
at
a
regular
meeting
or
a
special
meeting
cannot
be
discussed
unless
there's
a
need
for
immediate
action
that
has
arose
after
the
agenda
has
been
posted.
So,
for
example,
say
there
is
an
emergency
under
the
California
emergencies
act
that
requires
the
board
to
take
special
actions
that
to
make
factual
findings
that
arose
after
we
posted
the
agenda
so
that
we
can
utilize
ab361
in
a
different
way.
J
So
there
has
been
a
TR
there's
been
a
number
of
legislative
developments
of
the
last
few
months
and
weeks
that
have
affected
our
our
options
for
teleconferencing,
but
as
a
ground
as
a
as
a
general
Trend
over
time.
There
is
a
push
to
go
back
to
traditional
Brown
act
rules,
so
I
want
to
go
through
these
a
little
bit
more
thoroughly
with
you
at
least
the
traditional
Brown
act
rules
so
that
everyone's
reminded
of
what
that
entails.
J
The
agenda
must
be
posted
at
all
teleconferencing
locations,
and
members
of
the
public
must
have
an
opportunity
to
address
the
board
directly
at
each
location
and
so
on.
The
agenda.
If
you
anticipate
that
you
will
be
remote
at
the
meeting
that
your
location
or
where
you
intend
to
take
that
remote
participation
will
be
posted
on
the
agenda
and
any
member
in
the
public
may
come
to
that
location.
J
To
address
to
you,
the
teleconferencing
locations
must
be
identified
on
the
notice
and
the
agenda
of
the
meeting
at
each
teleconference
location
and
each
teleconfidence
location
must
be
Ada
accessible
to
the
public.
There
must
be
at
least
a
quorum
of
members
participating
in
the
location
within
the
territory
of
the
local
agency
that
exercises
the
jurisdiction.
So
here
it
means
that,
for
a
telecoms
meeting
at
least
a
quorum
of
the
members
must
be
physically
present
within
the
San
Jose
City
borders.
J
So
we're
all
very
familiar
with
the
the
option
here,
which
is
an
alternative
to
the
traditional
Brown
act,
rules
which
is
ab361.
Now,
let's
set
the
sunset
in
January
1st
2024,
but
as
a
threshold
matter,
it
requires
a
proclaimed
state
of
emergency
for
it
to
be
used
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
meeting
that
the
governor
anticipates
lifting
the
state
of
emergency
in
the
end
of
February
2023,
and
so
once
the
the
governor
Has
Lifted
that
ab361
no
longer
becomes
available
for
this
board
to
utilize.
J
Now
the
legislature.
Recently,
this
last
legislative
session
passed
ab2449
I
will
go
in
into
it
in
great
detail
with
you,
but
at
a
very
high
level,
it
provides
an
alternative
for
hybrid
meetings
where
a
member
or
trustee
or
a
member
of
the
board
or
trustee
has
an
emergency
circumstance
or
a
just
cause
to
prove
to
attend
virtually.
However,
as
with
the
traditional
Brown
act
rule,
it
requires
to
have
a
reform
of
the
members
in
person
in
a
single
physical
location
within
the
city
of
San
Jose's
jurisdiction.
J
Now
this
law
does
not
go
into
place
until
January
of
next
year
and
it
will
remain
in
place
for
the
following
three
years.
However,
as
as
you'll
see
here,
the
the
rules
for
this
are
very
complicated.
It's
almost
impractical,
and
so,
however,
we
will
go
over
the
just
that
very
high
level,
so
that
your
board
is
familiar
with
this.
J
So
for
members,
you're
request
to
participate
remotely
for
Just
Cause
just
cause
the
sex
to
really
Define
as
you'll
see
here,
and
the
Highlight
here
is
that
each
board
member
is
entitled
to
two
virtual
attendencies
for
Just
Cause
per
calendar
year,
and
so
you
cannot
use
this.
Just
cause
request
willy-nilly:
it
must
be
used
judicially
and
so
also
there's
no
board
action
required
for
this
virtual
attendance,
which
is,
in
contrast
with
emergency
circumstances,
which
is
also
statutorially
defined,
and
requires
the
board
to
take
action
to
allow
the
virtual
attendance
now.
J
This
is
a
complicated
issue,
so
if
you
seek
to
request
to
participate
remotely
because
of
an
emergency
Circumstance,
the
rest
of
the
board
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
must
decide
whether
the
emergency
circumstance
fits
the
statutory
definition
and
if
it
does
not
the
determine
that
is
not
satisfy
the
emergency
circumstance.
Statutory
definition,
then
the
board
member
at
that
point
can
only
participate
as
a
member
of
the
public.
They
cannot
participate
in
the
board
meeting
of
the
board
member.
J
There
are
a
few
additional
requirements
under
the
new
law
which,
if
you
are
allowed
to
participate
remotely,
you
must
declare,
if
there's
any
other
adults
in
the
room
and
explain
your
relationship
to
those
adults
and
for
remote
attendance,
video
and
audio
must
be
on
at
all
times
during
the
meeting,
and
it
also.
The
law
also
provides
a
number
of
limited
total
number
of
remote
appearances
for
Just
Cause
And
emergency
circumstances
taken
together
for
any
calendar
year
really.
D
Comment
if
I
may
this,
this
new
bill
that
passed
last
month,
AB
2449,
is
a
very
good
example
of
how
strongly
held
the
right
to
Public.
Access
is
in
the
California
legislature,
and
now
it's
promoted
by
the
particularly
by
the
media,
but
also
by
the
employee
unions
across
the
state
as
well.
The
only
way
that
they
were
besides
the
current
ab361
emergency.
The
only
way
the
legislature
was
willing
to
bend
the
rules
for
teleconferences
to
allow
these
remote
appearances
was
creating
such
a
ridiculously
difficult
process
that
it's
nearly
impossible
to
comply
with.
D
Otherwise,
we're
going
to
have
to
rely
on
the
on
the
traditional
teleconference
rules,
which
are
very
circumscribed,
but
it
just
goes
to
show
you
that
even
you
get
this
much
leeway
in
in
the
ability
to
have
teleconference
meetings
for
any
number
of
people
on
the
board
that
this
was
a
hard
thought
and,
as
far
as
the
legislature
is
willing
to
go
in
bending
the
open
and
public
access
rules
to
local
agency
meetings.
So
you
can.
J
Continues
to
be
strongly
held
even
in
the
in
the
face
of
the
pandemic
yeah
and
the
ab2449
is
going
to
be
very
hard
to
keep
track
of
administratively,
because
each
member
we
would
have
to
track
which
justification
they
use.
And
do
we
have
a
boron
for
the
upcoming
meetings
and
do
they?
How
many
requests
have
they
done
for
that
calendar
year
and
are
we
favoring
one
from
the
member
to
participate
remotely
versus
the
others?
J
J
There's
a
very
strong
policy,
both
in
American
democracy
and
California,
in
particular
that
all
the
government's
business
and
legislative
bodies
business
be
conducted
in
public,
and
so
because
of
that
there
are
only
very
few
limited
permitted
circumstances
that
the
board
is
allowed
to
go
into
closed
session,
and
that
is
also
prescribed
by
Statute
under
the
brown
act.
So
one
of
them
is
for
personnel
hiring
that
includes
hiring
firing,
complaints,
evaluations
of
performance
and
labor
negotiations
now
caveat
there.
The
board
may
not
take
any
final
action
on
compensation
and
procession.
J
J
J
However,
once
the
board
has
taken
action
in
closed
session
for
any
purchase
or
sale
of
a
specific
investment
vehicle
or
asset
once
the
deal
is
consummated
or
the,
the
transaction
is
consummated
that
they,
it
must
report
out
a
full
session.
Any
real
property
negotiations
is
also
another
limited
circumstance,
and
this
is
important
most.
The
discussions
during
closed
session
must
be
treated
as
confidential
and
self
reported
out.
J
J
So,
what's
the
difference
between
emotion
and
seeking
Direction,
so
you
would
use
a
motion
to
have
the
board
take
action
on
matters
within
and
subject
matter
jurisdiction
that
affects
public
interest.
So
a
couple
examples
of
this
are
setting
contribution
rates,
making
Actuarial
assumptions
as
the
board
did
today.
J
You
may
have
seen
the
vote
if
you
truly
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
familiarize
yourself
with
a
matter
and
can't
AG
prudently
or
if
you
have
a
bias
or
other
concern.
So,
for
example,
if
something
happened
at
a
prior
board
meeting
that
you
weren't
there
for
and
if
they
continue
the
action,
and
you
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
hear
the
deliberations
and
kind
of
up
to
speed.
You
may
have
stayed,
however,
as
fiduciaries.
J
You
have
a
duty
to
administer
the
system
and
voting
is
a
key
element
to
satisfy
that
Duty.
So
don't
abstain,
just
avoid
controversy.
You
should
use
it
sparingly
and
only
to
hold
things
on
so
the
reporting
of
the
votes.
The
brown
act
requires
that
all
actions
be
reported
by
the
member's
name
unless
unanimous
and
the
chair
can
call
for
oral
vote,
but
if
it's
not
unanimous,
each
person
must
say
I,
May's
or
say,
or
a
Nays
or
extensions
pose
session
and
teleconferencing.
J
Both
such
as
spiritual
meetings
such
as
here
must
always
be
by
Lil
pump
vote.
So
what
are
the
penalties
for
violating
the
brown
act?
So
if
it's
and
knowing
action
of
violating
the
brown
acts
say
that
you
know
that
there's
an
issue
or
potential
violation
coming
up
and
you
choose
to
violate
it
willingly
or
knowingly
it's
a
criminal
misdemeanor
and
so
to
all
extents
possible.
J
If
there's
a
brown
act
issue
that
we
are
aware
of,
we
must
imply
there's
also
a
civil
injunction
or
declaratory
relief
that
any
member
of
the
public
can
seek
to
avoid
the
actions
of
the
board.
For
the
meeting
to
which
they
believe
that
there
was
a
brown
act
violation
now
there
is
a
30
and
90
day
opportunity
to
hear
before
any
lawsuit
is
filed
and
attorneys
fees
and
costs
against
agencies
may
be
reproved.
J
So,
in
addition
to
the
products
I
mentioned
before,
there's
a
California
public
records
act,
any
writings
circulated
to
the
board,
for
the
meetings
are
disclosable
unless
they
fall
under
an
exception.
This
particularly
impacts
investment
deliberations
because
that'll
all
be
investment,
related
materials
or
deemed
confidential.
So
let
me
give
you
an
example
say
that
you
get
an
investment
report
from
Makita.
The
beginning
of
the
report
is
a
summary
of
returns
from
on
the
from
the
plan's
assets,
so
that
portion
of
the
report
would
not
be
deemed
confidential.
J
However,
the
report
also
contains
a
market
on
competitive
market
information
for
the
board
to
consider
that
is
proprietary.
That
portion
of
the
report
should
be
deemed
confidential
and
Marx
so
alleged
with
the
legend
at
the
bottom,
so
the
best
practice
is
generally
to
shift
the
burden
to
the
Consultants
to
segregate
that
information
for
the
board.
Should
the
board
get
a
California
public
record
act
or
a
sunshine
organ?
D
The
fun
part
yeah,
we
thought
we'd
put
in
a
couple
of
scenarios
for
you
to
consider
and
and
react
as
you
sit
and
listen
to
what
we're
talking
about
is
required
of
the
brown
act,
particularly
about
the
what
what
is
a
meeting
you
know,
because
meetings,
meetings
of
the
board
or
committee
have
to
be
in
public,
so
we
talked
about
serial
meetings
and
hub
and
spoke
meetings,
and
some
of
the
couple
of
these
go
to
that.
Let's,
let's
talk
about
this
first
hypothetical.
D
So
let
me
give
you
this
the
scene
here
as
a
calipers
reception.
You
know
a
calipers
and
Statewide
Conference
of
public
Retirement
Systems
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
present.
We
already
told
you
that
conferences
are
generally
accepted
on
ground
act
requirement
so
that
a
quorum
of
the
board
could
actually
be
at
a
conference
normally
without
being
subject
to
the
brown
act.
But
let's
take
look
at
what
this
situation
is.
D
Four
members
of
the
board
are
chatting
with
each
other
and
they
agree
that
they
should
give
their
hard-working
CEO
a
pay
raise
and-
and
in
this
case
four
is
less
than
a
quorum.
This
is
written
for
a
nine-person
board.
So
let's
just
look
it's
the
four
members
of
a
nine-person
board
and
they
get
together,
they're
they're
having
a
nice
cocktail
hour
of
developers
and
they
think
their
CEO
deserves
a
pay
raise.
D
But
later
that
is
one
of
those
trustees
runs
into
another
trustee
and
puts
out
the
idea
that
payrolls
or
the
CEO
and
and
that
one
that
trustee
that
that
trustee
agrees.
That's
a
very
good
idea.
So
at
the
next
board
meeting
matters
agendized
for
compensation,
Matlab
told
you
it
had
to
be
an
open
session
for
compensation,
but
they
don't
talk
about
it.
Somebody
just
makes
a
motion
and
the
board
votes
to
give
the
CEO
pay
raise.
Anybody
have
any
concerns
about
this.
Under
the
brown
act.
Julie
you've
been
listening
to
this.
C
I
have
been
listening.
It
would
not
be
acceptable.
Why
not
one?
Because
there
were
four
people
that
talked
about
it
and
then
it
floated
around
to
another
person.
So
that's
the
spin-off
or
whatever
you
guys
called
it,
and
thus
and
then
we
raise
it
at
the
board
without
even
a
discussion,
so
all
I
mean
there's
multiple
cases
there
that
are
all
bad.
D
F
D
If
it's
just
four
of
them,
arguably
that's
not
a
quorum
of
the
board.
Is
it
but
but
look
at
the
danger
that
creates
because
one
it
innocently
goes
to
somebody
who
then
makes
it
a
quorum,
and
it
kind
of
puts
you
on
a
slippery
slope,
but
wouldn't
it
be
rather
difficult
to
keep
you
folks
from
talking
to
calipers
when
you
run
into
each
other
about
board
business?
Is
that
too
much
to
expect
of
you
not
to
talk
about
it
among
yourself?
D
C
D
You
look
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
what
the
brown
Act
was
constructed
for,
which
was
to
benefit
members
of
the
public.
You
see
what
happens
in
a
situation
like
this.
You
end
up
with
no
public
discussion
at
a
board
meeting
where
it's
specifically
all
compensations,
there's
a
reason
for
requiring
that
to
be
discussed
in
public
and
here
A
Deal
has
basically
been
hooked
up
even
innocently,
but
it's
basically
been
done.
There's
no
public
discussion,
the
board
posts,
so
you
can
see
how
these
things
can
lead
to
a
situation
like
that.
B
D
Well,
you
would,
it
would
be
really
questionable
technically
Spencer
whether
this
is
a
violation
of
a
brown
Act.
It
does
look
like
a
Serial
meeting.
You
know
we
have
four
and
then
exploded
out
to
one
more
and
that's
a
quorum
of
the
board,
because
there
would,
in
your
in
what
you
posit
there
would
be
a
public
discussion.
D
At
least
members
of
the
public
would
be,
would
not
be
complaining
about
this
being
cooked
up
behind
closed
doors
that
it
was.
You
know
at
least
they'd.
Had
the
opportunity
to
weigh
in
the
city
could
come
and
say:
gee.
We
think
the
Rays
you
want
to
give
your
CEO
is
out
of
line,
or
at
least
there's
some
possible
access.
D
But
if
there's
not
even
any
discussion-
and
nobody
gets
to
hear
the
in
public
with
the
board,
members
actually
think
the
public
is
hamstrung
in
its
ability
to
assess
the
pros
and
cons,
and
so
that
that's
the
problem,
is
it
a
violation
of
the
letter
of
the
brown
act?
I
would
argue.
No.
This
is
a
violation
of
the.
B
D
So
here's
another
possibility
boards,
considering
the
assumed
greater
return.
The
discount
rate
is,
is
the
actuary
is
electropology
and
they're
going
to
be
considering
that
at
your
neck,
at
the
next
meeting
of
the
board,
the
hypothetical
board,
not
our
board
but
they're.
In
the
comment
phase
of
this
meeting,
one
board
member
announces
her
belief
that
we
are
in
a
new
paradigm
and
the
rape,
the
discount
rate
should
be
raised
to
seven
and
a
half
percent.
No,
it's
a
statement
in
public
on
the
record.
D
D
Let's
see
what's
happened
here
is
a
little
bit
different,
because
one
board
member
has
previously
expressed
her
position
and
then
four
take
that
position.
Four
additional
ones
now
you've
got
five
people
considering
that
position
a
quorum
of
the
board.
They
take
what
they've
already
learned
from
the
one
and
privately
reach
agreement.
D
D
B
I
F
D
Yeah,
this
would
be
a
violation
most
likely.
The
question
would
be:
is
it
something
that
the
board
could
cure
brought
to
the
board's
attention
before
anybody
would
be
prosecuted
in
something
like
this?
The
question
is
there?
Is
there
a
way
to
fix
it
in
the
future
and
and
I
think
part
of
that
way
would
be
to
have
a
full
public
conversation
about
it.
D
J
For
your
text
messages
well,
if
I'm
as
well.
So
if
it's
a
knowing
violation
that
the
board
members
know
that
they're
texting
and
you
know
say,
there's
five:
instead
of
four
on
the
text,
message
string
and
they're
the
clear
violations
they
all
knew,
then
there
could
be
criminal
penalties
within
misdemeanor
but
civilly.
Yes,
as
Xavier
had
mentioned,
there's
a
cure
period.
If
the
member
of
the
fellow
kind
of
avoid
the
action
of
adopting
the
7.5
percent
raise
in
the
a
serrated
return.
D
D
That's
that
under
consideration
for
a
mandate
and
the
CIO
in
the
in
this
email
to
all
the
board,
members
is
passing
along
this
article,
but
it's
somebody,
that's
you
know
being
considered.
Ask
the
board.
Let
me
know
just
let
me
know
what
you
think:
don't
copy
other
members
reporting.
Just
let
me
know
what
you
think.
So
six
of
the
board
members
were
very
careful.
They
replied
to
the
CIO
alone.
They
didn't
broadcast
a
law
and
say
they
agree.
They
think
this
manager
is
terrific
and
they
intend
to
vote
for
them.
D
Each
of
them
said
they
intend
to
vote
to
the
managers
in
the
next
meeting.
So
the
meeting
comes
around
and
the
CIO
says
I've,
you
know
gathered
the
information.
I've
had
favorable
replies
from
most
of
the
board.
The
chair,
mindful
of
the
clock,
says
oh,
this
is
great.
We
don't
have
all
this
discussion
about
this
investment
manager.
You
have
to
independently
gathered
the
approval
of
everybody,
I
call
for
the
vote.
The
vote
comes
in
the
manager
is
hired
crunchy.
Any
problem
with
that
one.
D
D
I
D
What
your
response
is
and
very
careful
to
say,
don't
reply
to
all
and
that's
what
happened
here.
Nobody
replied
to
all,
but
again
it's
short-circuited
the
whole
conversation
in
public
because
it
gathered
one
person
acted
as
a
hub
in
gathering
all
the
views
of
everybody
before
the
meeting.
So
they
were
all
they
all
got
them
considered
ahead
of
time.
They
come
to
a
meeting.
They
don't
talk,
they
don't
debate,
they
don't
have
any
feedback.
D
D
Let's
try
with
the
last
one,
the
last
hypothetical
now
this
is
a
little
bit
different,
we're
back
to
the
the
assumed
greater
return
or
the
discount
rate.
So
in
this
situation
the
mayor
calls
into
her
office
one
at
a
time
each
of
the
public
board
members
from
the
board.
It
says:
I
expect
you
to
vote
to
raise
the
consumed
rate
at
seven
and
a
half
percent,
and
if
you
don't
do
that,
I
will
replace
you.
D
C
C
A
D
Certainly,
does
you
have
a
real
fiduciary
duty
issue
here
by
the
way
that
crosses
into
this,
that
you
you're
not
there
to
represent
the
mayor
or
the
city
who
prepare
to
do
what's
best
for
the
members
and
beneficiaries
of
the
system?
So
what
should
evaluate
in
exercise
your
own
independence,
even
if
it
means
awesome
you
your
position
on
the
board.
D
By
the
mayor,
only
if
the
only
if
the
member
believed
that
they
then
couldn't
exercise
independent
judgment,
if
you,
if
you
felt
that
the
member
felt
a
poisoned,
essentially
yeah
in
this
situation-
and
you
know-
maybe
they
reacted
to
the
board
to
the
to
the
mayor,
leaning
on
them
and
saying
I
am
so
angry.
I
can't
there's
I,
even
if
it
made
sense
to
go
to
seven
and
a
half
I,
wouldn't
do
it.
D
C
D
It
was
real
and
it
created
a
quite
a
kerfuffle
in
the
media,
because
the
board
member
who
was
affected
ratted
out
from
the
mayor
good,
but
it
was
Hardball
politics
all
along
the
way.
I
will
tell
you
how
that
was
accomplished
just
so.
You
know
very
briefly
before
the
in
that
particular
location.
The
mayor
had
a
lot
of
authority
in
terms
of
appointing
board
members
to
the
Retirement
Board
and
had
a
practice
that
before
they
would
appoint
anyone
to
any
border
Commission,
they
had
to
have
an
undated
signed
resignation.
D
Letter,
oh
wow,
and
all
the
mayor
had
to
do
was
write
in
the
date
on
the
person's
resignation
letter.
So
the
mayor
had
a
desk
full
of
mission,
Commissioners
and
board
members
undated
resignations
in
the
members
desk
and
when
the
mayor
got
unhappy
with
some
way
that
they
voted
the
exercise.
The
resignation.