►
Description
City of San José, California
Police & Fire Department Retirement Plan Board of November 3, 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
B
B
B
B
B
We
have
nothing
to
wave
sunshine
on
we've.
Excellent
we've
shown
to
have
excellent
Zoom
Advocates.
So
if
you
have
a
temporal
question,
go
ahead
feel
free
to
interrupt
to
speak
or
interrupt
a
fellow
trustee,
but
if
you
have
something
of
a
more
strategic
matter,
let's
wait
until
the
end
of
a
presenter's
presentation
and
they'll
go
around
Robin.
We
will
always
do
votes
around
Robin
I
reached
out
to
Harvey
to
see
if
we
can
do
action
by
unanimous
consent,
but
Harvey
said
no.
No,
the
rules
will
allow
us
to
do.
B
Zoom
are
pretty
pretty
restrictive
or
constructive,
so
we
will
always
do
round
robin
for
votes.
Members
of
the
public
raise
your
hand.
Linda
will
probably
notice.
You
have
your
hand
up.
You're
welcome
to
jump
in
to
ask
questions.
In
fact,
Floors
open
now,
I've
interviewed
from
public
on
same
thing,
Mr.
B
Harvey
yeah
all
right:
let's
go
around
Andrew
here
on.
B
B
If
not
we'll
move
directly
on
to
the
consent.
Council,
let
me
make
a
remark
before
I
ask
for
the
motion:
you'll
see
that
we've
got
a
disability
application
that
dick
and
I
in
the
panel
denied
I'm
asking
for
your
consideration.
B
It
wasn't
that
we
don't
believe
officer
zanato.
It's
just
that
we
there
wasn't
enough
evidence
in
the
file,
so
she
sent
that
you
may
have
read
her
file.
If
you
think
we
missed
something,
that's
probably
worth
pulling
off
the
consent,
calendar
I
thought
and
motion
to
approve
the
consent
calendar
so
moved
by
Santos
and
emotionally
Santos
do
I
have
a
second.
E
E
B
Howard,
yes,
yes
for
all
right,
dick,
yes,
Franco
all
right,
Dave,
hi,
I'm,
chair
Lanza
and
I
vote
I
as
well
through
all
we
have
under
Investments
is
your
oral
update.
So
I'll
just
turn
the
floor
over
to
you.
F
Okay,
great,
thank
you
Mr
chairman.
Yes,
we
don't
have
anything
under
Investments,
but
I
do
want
to
share
for
this
career
today,
performance
estimates
provided
by
Makita
and,
as
always,
you
know
just
so
the
board
notes.
These
are
estimates,
and
these
are
unaudited
numbers.
As
of
November
1st,
the
plan
was
down
one
percent
fiscal
year.
To
date,
the
healthcare
trust
was
down
two
and
a
half
percent.
This,
of
course,
does
not
include
yesterday's
steep
spell-off.
F
Yesterday,
the
market
fell
quite
a
bit
after
the
FED
announced
its
75
basis.
Point
like
so
you
know,
and
last
month
when
I
gave
you
the
performance.
Estimates
was
down
about
one
and
a
half
percent
fiscal
year
today,
so
we're
probably
around
the
same
range.
If
you
include
yesterday's
sell-off.
F
I
have
to
take
a
look
through
and
if,
if
Laura
is
here,
maybe
she
can
jump
in.
My
I
suspect
that
the
60
40
is
down
more
Bond.
Markets
have
also
taken
a
hit
and
with
the
60
40,
with
all
the
60
being
entirely
in
public
equities,
which
is
Mark
to
Mark
Daily
I
suspect
this
is
60
40s
down
more
yeah.
F
G
Cherry
Lanza
and
CIO
pelonia-
this
is
Jared
Pratt
from
Makita
I
could
just
say
that
through
the
same
time
period
so
through
a
couple
days
ago,
a
60
40
portfolio
year
to
date,
calendar
year
to
date,
was
down
about.
You
know
20
17,
to
20,
depending
on
what's
exactly
the
60
and
what's
the
40,
but
an
acwi
and
Global
AG
mix
was
down
20.7
calendar
year
to
date.
B
G
Since
June
30th
so
fiscal
year
to
date,
60
40
was
down
3.6
percent.
F
So
so
yeah,
so
our
our
portfolios,
you
know
outperformed
the
60
40
by
a
good
200
basis
points
at
least,
but
then
again,
that's
also
because,
as
I
mentioned
before
you
know,
public
asset
assets
are
marked
to
Market
on
on
a
daily
basis,
but
it
certainly
protected
the
portfolio
that
the
fact
that
we're
Diversified
so
moving
on
I
just
also
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
that
on
Tuesday
November,
8th
I
will
be
presenting
the
annual
I'll
be
making
the
annual
fee
presentation
to
the
city
council.
F
I
presented
the
report
with
with
trustee
Sunder
and
last
year,
trustee
Sunita
ganapathi
of
your
board
was
kind
enough
to
accompany
me
and
next
Tuesday
again
she
will
be
presenting
the
report
along
with
me
to
the
city,
council
and-
and
hopefully
she
will
also
do
this
for
the
next
four
years
when
she
gets
reelected
to
the
board.
With
that
Mr
chairman
I
will
conclude
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
B
Great,
hey,
Bill,
I,
see
you
in
anron,
hey
Bill,
you've
got
item
three
a
and
4C.
Why
don't
you
put
them
together,
Bill
and
take
them
in
any
order?
You
want
to
get
put
them
together
bill
so
you're
all
at
once.
H
Okay,
we'll
start
with
three
a.
Let
me
share
my
screen
here.
H
So
this
item
we've
got
our
preliminary
pension
valuation
results
and
then
the
next
item
we're
going
to
talk
about
opeb
assumptions.
But
in
addition
for
this
item
last
meeting,
we
deferred
a
decision
on
the
pension
economic
assumptions.
So
we
will
review
those
assumptions
as
well
in
this
presentation
and
we'll
be
back
in
December
with
the
final
pension
valuation
and
draft
open
valuation.
H
So
to
get
us
started
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Ann
Harper
to
run
us
through
the
preliminary
results.
I
Good
morning,
everyone
I'm
happy
to
be
here
and
presenting
some
I
guess
a
little
lackluster
results,
because
they're
almost
identical
to
what
we
were
showing
in
our
estimates,
from
the
last
board
meeting.
I
I
So
here
we're
looking
at
the
funded
status
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
slide
and
the
bars
represent
the
liabilities.
The
different
colors
represent
the
different
status
for
the
membership,
and
then
the
lines
represent
your
assets.
The
green
line
is
the
market
value
of
assets
and
then
the
actual
value
of
assets
is
that
blue
line
so
on
a
market
value
basis.
I
The
funded
status
decreased
by
from
87
percent
to
about
78,
but
then
on
the
actual
value
side,
the
funded
status
increased
from
77
to
about
just
under
80
percent,
and
if
you
see
the
space
between
the
blue
line
and
the
top
of
those
bars,
that
is
your
unfunded
accrued
liability
on
the
actual
value
basis,
which
is
the
basis
for
how
your
contributions
are
calculated.
So
you
can
see
that
that
ual
has
decreased
from
last
year
to
this
year.
I
I
I
So
the
contribution
rate
for
the
city
has
fallen
from
81
and
a
half
percent
to
76.9
percent
from
last
year
to
this
year,
and
the
primary
reason
for
that
is
the
decrease
in
the
ual
payment
which
you
can
see
are
the
yellow
and
the
gold
bars
and
then
the
normal
cost
rate
for
the
city
has
fallen
just
a
little
bit
as
well,
and
that's
due
to
the
shift
from
when
the
tier
one
members
leave
employment
and
then
their
tier
two
members
are
replacing
them
and
there's
a
lower
cost
for
their
benefits.
I
So
that's
the
primary
reasons
of
the
drop
there
and
then
the
member
rates
are
pretty
much
the
same
from
last
year
to
this
year,
just
a
slight
uptick
and
then
the
total
contribution
amounts
for
the
city
for
fiscal
year
and
2023
to
fiscal
year
in
2024,
because
that's
when
the
contributions
will
actually
be
paid
fell
from
212
million
to
209
million.
I
So
first,
when
you
look
at
the
left
hand
side
of
this
slide.
What
we're
showing
here
is
your
actual
versus
expected
investment
earnings.
I
Okay,
on
the
market
value
basis,
your
actual
investment
earnings
are
shown
by
the
green
bars
and
then
what
is
was
expected
based
on
the
assumed
rates
of
return
are
shown
with
the
blue
bars
and,
of
course,
the
first
three
years
are
pretty
stable,
but
then
the
last
two
years
here
you
can
see
the
huge
fluctuation
between
actual
and
expected
earnings
and
I
do
want
to
actually
do
want
to
make
a
note
step
back,
just
a
little
bit
from
2019
and
2019.
There's
always
is
this
sometimes
there's
this
confusion.
I
When
we
say
there's
a
loss
on
assets,
it
doesn't
mean
that
assets
act,
you
lost
assets.
It
just
means
that
your
actual
investment
earnings
were
less
than
expected,
so
we
did
have
actual
losses
in
2019
and
2020,
even
though
the
assets
did
have
a
positive
return.
It
just
wasn't
as
much
as
the
expected
return
that
we
were
assuming
so
then,
if
you
turn
to
the
right
hand
side
of
the
slide.
I
What
we're
showing
here
is
what
has
been
recognized
in
the
2022
valuation
in
terms
of
your
past
market
gains
and
losses,
and
so
you
can
see
that,
let's
just
focus
really
on
2021
and
2022..
I
Your
investment
gain
Actuarial
investment
gained
for
that
year
was
almost
800
million,
and
what
we've
recognized
is
that
bottom
green
portion
of
the
bar
and
what
has
been
deferred
is
the
light
green
portion,
so
that
light
green
portion
is
about
is
60
of
that
total
gain.
So
we're
going
to
recognize
20
of
that
green
bar
over
the
next
three
valuations.
And
similarly,
when
we
look
at
that,
2022
loss
investment
loss
of
almost
600
million
dollars.
J
So
can
I
just
pause.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
two
charts
correctly.
Could
you
go
back
on
and
sure?
Okay,
so
the
left
the
left
chart
that
says
actual
versus
expected
investment
earnings,
that's
showing
the
market
value?
Is
that
correct,
correct,
yes
and
then
the
right
hand
side
is
Actuarial
value
of
the
assets
smooth
over
the
five-year
period.
Is
that
correct.
I
It's
not
the
actual
value
of
assets,
it's
those
market
value,
those
gains
and
losses
on
an
actual
value
from
the
slide
on
the
left.
It's
the
differences
in
those
actual
and
expected
on
the
right
hand,
side
and
how
those
have
been
recognized
in
this
valuation.
I
You
know
the
next
slide
actually
goes
over
that
pretty
well,
and
so
we
can
turn
to
the
next
slide
and
if
you
still
have
questions
we
can
come
back
to
that.
I
I
The
total
of
those
gains
and
losses
is
a
86
million
dollar
loss,
so
we're
deferring
that
net
loss,
okay
and
so
what
to
come
up
with
the
actual
value
of
assets,
deferring
that
net
loss.
You
add
that
back
into
the
asset,
so
the
actual
value
of
assets
is
closer
to
4.5
billion
versus
the
4.4
billion,
and
we
will
be
recognizing,
as
I
said
on
the
previous
slide,
recognizing
all
of
those
pieces
of
the
gains
and
losses
over
the
next
four
valuations.
J
I
Yes
right
and
so
then,
just
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
this
slide
we're
showing
the
market
versus
actual
value
of
assets
and
the
green
line
shows
you
the
smoothed
assets,
the
actual
value,
and
it
just
shows
you
how
that
doing
the
smoothing
method.
It
does
smooth
the
contribution
rates
because
you're
not
getting
these
huge
jumps
in
the
when
you're
valuing
your
contribution
rate.
So
when
we're
you
know
looking
at
what
your,
where
you
stand
as
far
as
their
funded
status
and
the
contribution
right.
I
So
you
can
see
this
year,
though,
that
we
are
almost
identical
with
the
actual
value
and
market
value,
and
we
haven't
really
been
so
close
since
2013..
But
what
you
can
see?
Look
if
you
go
back
to
2008,
it's
real
interesting.
When
we
had
that
huge.
You
know
the
market
crash,
the
actual
value
of
assets
didn't
crash.
It
actually
just
kind
of
stayed
flat
for
four
years,
even
though
your
asset
returns
in
the
next.
You
know,
few
years
after
the
crash
were
really
high.
I
I
So
turning
to
the
membership
Trends-
and
this
is
really
the
chart
that
shows
the
maturity
of
your
plans
just
in
terms
of
your
membership,
so
the
before
2010,
your
actives
were
right
around
2000
for
a
decent
period
of
time,
and
then
it
kind
of
dipped
in
2011
to
2014
to
about
1700..
I
Then
it
dipped
again
in
2015
and
16,
but
since
2017
it's
slowly
been
increasing
over
the
last
five
or
six
years,
which
is
a
it's
a
good
thing
to
get
that
membership
back
up,
because
those
are
the
membership
is
what
in
a
way
triggers
what
the
contribution,
how
much
contributions
are
going
into
the
plan,
because
your
contributions
are
based
on
payroll
for
your
normal
cost,
if
you're
in
your
tier
one
UIL
and
your
tier
two
so
what's
interesting.
Here,
though,
is
your
tier
two
members
are
almost
50
of
your
total
population
in
2022.
I
Is
that
they're
actually
about
45
percent
of
your
active
population?
But
at
the
same
time,
your
retirees
and
disabled
members
and
beneficiaries
have
almost
doubled
from
1300
to
about
twenty
five
hundred
same
as
to
be
set
up
for
your
inactive
members?
Who've
left
the
system,
but
are
still
entitled
to
a
deferred
benefit
when
they
retire.
So
what
this
means
is
your
support
ratio,
which
is
your
ratio
between
your
active
or
I'm?
I
Sorry,
it's
the
ratio
between
your
inactive
members
and
your
active
members
has
more
than
doubled
from
since
2013,
meaning
that
your
population
in
your
our
plan,
is
very
mature
because
there's
about
1.6
inactive
members
supported
by
each
active
member-
and
this
is
not
a
bad
thing-
it's
we're
seeing
this
all
over
the
country.
That's
really
the
point
of
a
pension
plan
is
you're
going
to
have
a
maturing
population
where
you're
you
are.
You
have
more
retirees
and
actives.
D
Yeah
question
yeah
hi
this
is
Harvey
does.
Does
this
chart
demonstrate
that
the
active
membership
of
our
plan
has
actually
decreased
over
the
last
two
decades?
Yes,
definitely,
and
do
you
have
this
chart
broken
out
split
between
police
and
fire
so
that
we
could
see
how
they
look
relative
to
each
other.
H
The
day
it
may
be
more
difficult
for
us
to
split
the
in
Pay
group
between
police
and
fire,
but
I
I
think
that's
in
the
data,
so
we
should
be
able
to.
I
I
think
the
support
ratio
here
is
a
bit
higher
than
other
ones,
we're
seeing
we
definitely
in
California
they're,
all
over
one
percent
or
the
1.0
I
think
most
are
between
1.2
and
1.4,
because
you
are
seeing
we
haven't
seen
quite
the
decline
in
active
membership
that
we
have
in
the
police
and
fire
plan
here,
but
we
did,
we
did
see.
You
know
this
is
interesting
too.
I
I
D
And
if
I
may
Mr
chairman
one
other
question,
looking
at
the
Active
deferred,
not
the
active
members
but
the
Deferred
vested
members,
there
seems
to
have
been
over
the
last
20
years,
a
significant
increase
in
the
number
of
people
who
are
leaving
city
jobs,
but
leaving
their
contributions
on
deposit,
and
we
will
be
owing
them.
A
retirement
when
they
hit
retirement
age
is,
it
looks
like
I
mean
that's.
A
tremendous
growth
in
deferred
vested
was
that
predicted
in
your
modeling?
I
It
definitely
is
predicted
in
our
modeling.
We
have
termination
rates
where
we
expect
a
number
of
police
environment
to
leave
every
year.
We
also,
you
know
predict
when
these
deferred
vested
members
will
retire,
so
it
behooves
these
people
when
they
do
terminate
to
leave
their
contributions
on
deposit,
because
the
value
of
that
benefit
is
much
greater
than
the
value
of
a
refund
right.
So
it's
very.
It's
not
surprising
that
you're
seeing
this
number
through
as
well,
because
these
people
are
all
when
they
leave.
K
Mr
chair,
if
I
may,
this
is
Roberto
good
morning
and
good
to
see
you
again,
I
think
one
of
the
questions
I
was
going
to
ask
was
asked
by
Council,
and
you
responded
this
report
ratio.
How
do
we
compare
it
to
our
peers
across
this
day
and
you
mentioned
1.6
or
a
little
beyond
that
between
versus
1.2
to
1.4,
which
of
course
make
our
assistant
more
to
be
more
sensitive
to
the
volatility
of
the
market?
K
Right
number
two
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
said
it,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
all
understand
what
you
mean
by
that
when
you
say
when
you
talk
about
the
support
ratio
and
say
inactive
versus
active
in
the
inactive,
you
are
combining
retirees
and
deferred,
invest
versus
the
the
tier
one
and
tier
two
active
members.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
understood.
Yes,.
I
And
you
know
that's
a
really
good
point
Roberto,
because
this,
the
support
ratio
is
one
of
those
statistics
where
a
lot
of
systems
well
I,
would
say
not
a
lot,
but
it's
half
and
half
really
whether
or
not
some
systems
include
that
deferred
vested
population
in
the
support
ratio.
So
by
including
the
Deferred
vestids,
you
are
increasing
your
support
ratio,
but
sometimes
this
statistic
is
shown
without
those
deferred
vested.
So
you
do
need
to
be
careful
when
you're
making
comparisons.
K
Well,
understood,
and-
and
so
now
that
you've
mentioned
that
clearly
from
the
from
kylen's
time
point,
it
makes
sense
to
include
the
Deferred
best.
It
was
their
rationale
for
including
it
versus
not
including
enough
for,
like
other
systems,
Let
Me
In
other
words
in
other
plans
that
Chiron
worked
with
in
California.
You
always
include
the
first
as
well
in
the
super
ratio,
calculation.
A
Yeah
yeah.
H
So
let
me
just
jump
in
on
that,
because
I've
looked
at
this
on
National
Data
and
who
includes
it
and
doesn't
include
it.
The
rationale
for
not
including
it
is
the
liability
for
deferred
invested
is
generally
much
lower
than
for
retirees
and
beneficiaries
the
place
it
really
seems
to
make
a
big
difference
is
for
Teacher
Retirement
Systems.
They
will
have
a
lot
of
deferred
vests
with
very
little
benefit,
and
so
it
would
really
inflate
the
statistic
for
your
system
it.
H
You
know,
it
obviously
makes
it
larger,
but
it's
not
not
a
huge
change
in
what
your
your
ratio
is.
H
I
Right-
and
that
can
happen
too
in
systems
where,
if
they're,
offering
a
generous
interest
crediting
to
your
contributions,
a
lot
of
people
who
aren't
even
vested,
who
are
just
inactive
they'll,
keep
their
contributions
under
deposit
to
earn
a
higher
return
than
they
could
elsewhere.
So
a
lot
of
systems
not
a
lot,
but
some
systems
who
have
that
kind
of
plan
provision
you'll
see
a
higher
inactive
population.
In
with
respect
to
that,
as
bill
was
saying,
probably
consistent
with
teachers,
you
may
not
want
to
include
it
in
your
support
ratio,
understood.
K
I
Okay,
so,
finally,
turning
to
what
changed
the
ual
from
last
year
to
this
year
and
taking
a
look
at
that,
so
the
ual,
based
on
the
actual
value
of
assets
decreased
by
about
80
million
dollars
from
1.2
billion
to
about
1.1
and
a
half
billion.
The
main
driver
of
that
was
the
contributions
coming
into
your
plan.
So
that's
made
up
of
two
pieces.
One
is
your
funding
policy,
where
you're
contributing
a
large
percent
of
of
your
ual
payment
is
going
to
paying
down
that
principle
and
not
paying
down
the
interest.
I
I
mean
you're
still
paying
down
the
interest,
but
there's
a
bigger
portion
going
to
your
principal
and
also
the
fact
that
your
contribution
rates
have
been
coming
down
over
the
last
few
years,
so
you're
getting
what
used
to
be
contribution,
delay
losses,
you're,
getting
contribution,
delay
gains
because
in
the
two
previous
valuations
you
had
higher
contribution
rates,
so
those
higher
rates
are
being
contributed
for
two
thousand
and
2022
versus
what
the
2021
rate
actually
was.
So
it
just
has
to
do
with
that
timing
delay.
I
Next,
we
actually
saw
investment
gain
this
year
and
that's
why
we
went
into
that
big
explanation
of
those
deferred
gains
and
losses,
because
it
doesn't
seem
logical
that
we,
you
know,
had
these
pretty
big
losses
on
your
assets
for
2022,
but
I
ended
up
having
a
gain
and
it's
because
of
that
offset
from
the
2021
a
huge
gain
that
we
had
there
offset
by
the
loss
of
this
year.
I
Then
this
is
the
the
update
that
we
had
to
the
valuation
where
our
liability
experience,
we
saw
a
14
million
dollar
loss,
but
compared
to
the
5.6
billion
dollar
accrued
liability,
that's
less
than
three
tenths
of
percent.
So
it's
a
very
minimal
liability
loss.
I
Turning
over
to
the
chart,
on
the
right
hand,
side
we're
looking
at
the
last
five
years
of
the
liability
gains
and
losses,
and
this
the
the
scale
has
been
exploded
here,
like
we're.
Looking
at
at
the
top
of
the
axis
50
million
dollars
compared
to
1.3
billion
on
the
left
hand
side.
So
we've
blown
this
up,
so
you
can
actually
see
what
that
these
impacts
are.
I
So
we,
over
the
last
five
years,
this
net
liability
gain
loss,
has
been
about
26
million,
which
is
very
small.
Some
years
we've
had
gains
and
others
losses,
and
it's
largely
been
driven
by
your
salary
increases
and
again
those
have
not
been
consistently
gains
or
losses.
It's
just
been.
You
know
one
year,
if
you
have
a
big
mou
increase
next
year,
it
may
not
be
as
big.
So
that's
typical
of
what
we
see
with
other
systems
as
well,
foreign.
L
Quick
question
on
this
sure
when
you
overlay
the
support
ratio
going
up,
is:
is
this
intuitive
that
the
library
gains.
I
I
So,
lastly,
here
we're
looking
at
the
Historical
changes
in
the
ual
over
the
last
10
years
and
the
stack
bars
represent
what
those
gains
and
losses
have
been
in
each
of
those
valuation
years
and
then
the
Blue
Line
represents
the
net
gain
or
loss.
So
the
biggest
source
over
the
last
decade
of
your
increase
in
the
unfunded
has
been
your
assumption.
Changes
about
360
million
dollars,
followed
by
the
investment
Returns
on
your
actual
value
of
assets,
about
287
million.
I
The
liability
losses
are
about
150
million
and
again,
like
the
last
five
years.
Those
were
mainly
due
to
salary
increases
and
then
in
2016
and
2017.
You
can
see
those
gray
bars
are
the
liability
losses
in
those
two
years
and
those
are
also
predominantly
as
a
result
of
salary
increases.
I
There's
a
small
benefit,
change
of
about
five
billion
dollars
or
I'm.
Sorry,
five
million
dollars,
but
what's
really
remarkable,
is
the
contributions
in
excess
of
your
tread
water.
I
So
that
is
the
contributions
that
are
going
to
pay
down
your
unfunded
accrued
liability
over
the
normal
cost
and
interest
on
your
uao,
and
you
can
see
that
each
and
every
year
you've
there's
been
drawdown
on
ual
because
of
all
these
contributions
coming
into
the
plan
and
that's
primarily
a
result
of
your
funding
policy
that
was
in
place
back
into
since
2014
it's
about
340
million
dollars,
which,
if
you
basically
offsets
all
those
assumption,
changes
over
the
course
of
the
last
decade
and
just
for
comparison,
I
know
it's
every
to
cut
other
systems
that
we're
seeing
in
California.
I
This
plan
is
very
unique
in
that
sense,
where
we've
we're
seeing
it
almost
every
year,
except
for
2013,
which
was
flat
but
every
year
since
2014
and
it's
been
growing.
So
those
are
very,
very
positive
trend
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
10
years
and
we
do
see
it
going
forward
as
well.
In
your
projections
based
on
your
funding
policy.
K
And
go
ahead:
go
ahead,
Robert!
No!
This
is
just,
and
maybe
we
can
have
this
discussion
offline,
but
obviously
you
know
I
I,
take
this
information
and
I
make
it
very,
very,
very
short
presentation
to
the
city
council
on
on
both
plans,
and
this
is
a
I
guess,
an
interesting
data
to
share
with
them,
but
I'm,
not
really
clear
as
to
how
you
arrive
to
that
access
to
the
thread
water.
In
other
words,
let
me
just
try
and
rephrase
what
you
said.
K
There
is
a
payment
of
the
actual
liability
and
the
interest
on
the
unfunded
liability
and
the
normal
cost,
and
so
if
that
number
was
a
hundred
million
and
you
pay
whatever
interest
is
due
and
the
normal
cost
that'd
be
a
hundred,
but
because
of
our
contribute,
our
contribution
policy.
We
ask
in
the
city
to
make
payments
that
are
Beyond
100
million
dollars,
so
that
Delta
every
year
has
add
up
to
about
342
million.
Is
that
what
you're
saying.
I
Yes,
yes,
and
when
you
look
back
at
this
Slide,
the
contribution
slide.
Yes,.
K
I
In
fiscal
year
in
2023,
this
is
the
day
right
now
correct.
Yes,
so
based
on
your
funding
policy
and
where
the
ual,
then
this
is
not
a
market
value.
The
ual,
the
split
here
you're
expecting
to
pay
106
million
dollars
on
the
ual
principle,
based
on
your
funding
policy
and
only
39
million
in
interest
and
then
you're
66
in
normal
cost.
That's
exactly
right!
You
were
right
at
100
when
you
said
100
million
and
so
so
you're
paying
an
identical
amount.
I
The
principal
now
next
year
it's
going
to
go
down
a
little
bit
because
of
the
the
ual
on
a
market
value
basis
increased
right
because
of
the
of
the
markets
and
because
there
was
a
loss,
this
year's
but
you're
still
paying
70
million
dollars
in
principle
and
a
little
bit
more
in
interest,
but
pretty
much
the
same.
You
know
and
that
so
that
that
split
again
is
very
unique.
H
Yeah,
so
for
the
city's
perspective
here
they
have,
they
have
been
doing
a
lot
to
pay
down
the
ual
that
it
is
not
common
across
the
country.
In
fact,
across
the
country,
I
think
it's
close
to
only
50
percent
of
plans
pay
enough
to
cover
the
interest
on
the
UI
and
and
we've
seen
comparisons
to
like
Chicago.
H
Contributions
Chicago's
contributions
are,
you
know,
higher
than
San
Jose's
as
a
percentage
of
their
their
general
fund
budget,
but
they're
not
even
high
enough
to
pay
the
normal
Cost
Plus
the
interest
on
the
ual.
So
our
contributions
are
high,
but
they
are
actually
driving
that
ual
down.
K
H
Yeah
and
let
let
me
know
I
can
pull
the
data
on
Chicago,
although
they
have
several
systems
but
to
give
a
decent
comparison.
M
K
A
side
point,
obviously
in
California
plans,
are
required
right
to
make
the
the
Actuarial
calculated
contribution
by
the
actors,
which
includes
you
know.
Obviously,
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
our
plans,
maybe
not
as
much
police
and
fire
or
Federated
with
the
funding
ratio.
The
unfunded
liability
is
to
be
larger
than
most
of
our.
N
K
Across
this
day,
right
so
by
definition,
they
will
be
paying
less
interest
on
the
fund,
the
liability,
because
it
will
be
smaller,
whether
it
is
dollar
or
or
whether
we're
talking
about
percentage-wise
right.
So
that
also
has
an
impact.
H
Yeah,
but
to
be
clear,
the
Federated
contribution
is
not
as
high
above
the
the
tread
water
level.
So
its
contribution
to
pay
down
the
ual
principle
is
much
smaller
than
this
plant.
H
L
M
B
Yes,
that
it's
been
I
joined
in
April
of
2011,
so
I've
had
exactly
10
complete
fiscal
years
on
the
board,
as
have
dick,
as
have
all
your
Independence.
N
Question
how
many
discount
rate
changes
has
there
been
over
the
last
decade
been
to
cause
this.
B
I
mean
for
a
while
we
were
decreasing
an
eighth,
an
eighth
of
a
percent
every
year,
pretty
consistently
so
yeah.
We
probably
did
it
seven
or
eight
times
over
that
decade.
L
I
mean
actually
the
last
10
years
have
been.
Basically,
you
know,
historically
incredibly
low
interest
rate,
so
35
million
on
such
a
large
plan
doesn't
seem
so
severe.
O
I
did
I
know,
there's
two
slides
in
this
presentation
or
two
slide
decks
on
the
second
slide
deck
slide
14
at
the
very
bottom.
It
shows
the
simulator
terms
since
2012.
So
last
10
years,
I'll
give.
M
O
N
H
J
Hey
Bill
and
Ann
I
just
want
to
make
make
sure
that
the
board
is
clear
in
this
presentation
you're
presenting
two
different
things.
One
is
the
preliminary
evaluation
results
which
are
not
final
as
one
topic
and
now
we're
transitioning
into
the
Deferred
Action
that
we
had
from
last
meeting
regarding
the
economic
assumptions,
for
you
know,
discount
rate
and
and
whatnot
that
we
deferred
from
last
meeting.
Is
that
correct
exactly.
H
H
These
this
presentation
of
the
preliminary
results
does
not
include
any
changes
you
may
make
in
assumptions
this
year.
It's
also
not
final.
We
are
still
dotting
eyes
and
Crossing
T's
on
the
valuation
and-
and
even
there
was
a
data
correction
we
spotted
yesterday,
so
there
are
a
few
things
still
changing,
but
we
do
not
expect
any
material
change
to
to
these
results,
but
wanted
to
give
you
this
context
for
the
discussion
of
the
deferred
action
on
the
economic
assumptions.
Okay,.
J
And
then
so,
chair
Lanza,
just
for
the
clarity
of
the
records,
this
agenda
item
is,
has
two
components
to
it.
I
would
recommend
that
the
board
for
action
on
the
preliminary
results
on
the
evaluation,
and
so
that
we
have
the
final
numbers
that
Chiron
can
present
to
us
at
the
next
meeting
for
final
approval.
H
All
right
so
I
I,
don't
want
to
repeat
the
entire
presentation
from
last
month
on
the
assumptions
but
just
wanted
to
kind
of
Hit
the
highlights
we've
seen
inflation's
been
in
the
news
even
more.
In
the
last
month
it's
remained
High
the
feds
increased
interest
rates
yesterday
to
try
and
combat
it.
The
forecasts
are
still
showing
that
inflation's
expected
to
be
high
over
the
next
year
or
two,
but
come
back
down.
H
We
proposed
increasing
the
current
assumption
from
Two
and
a
quarter
percent
to
two
and
a
half
really
reflecting
those
longer
term
expectations
that
we're
seeing
from
from
forecasters
from
from
the
break-even
rates
in
the
market
and
from
investment
Consultants.
So
that's
our
recommendation
on
inflation
on
wage
inflation.
H
We're
definitely
seeing
an
uptick
in
the
in
this
short
term,
reflecting
some
of
the
increases
in
inflation,
where
it
goes
long
term
is
less
clear,
and
so
we
had
suggested
that
you
consider
increasing
the
long-term
assumption
from
three
percent
to
three
and
a
quarter,
but
we
note
that
we
often
look
to
the
bargaining
agreements
to
see
where
they
kind
of
level
out
at,
and
there
is
no
current
agreement
for
police
and
fires
in
the
last
year
of
their
agreements,
and
the
increase
that's
built
in
there
is
three
percent.
H
You
can
see
that
the
recent
history
has
been
much
higher
than
than
three
percent,
so
that's
a
potential
consideration
that
that
would
increase
the
costs
and
we
have
an
estimate
for
that.
The
amortization
payment
increase
rate,
so
the
Amber,
the
payments
on
that
unfunded
liability
are
scheduled
to
increase
by
a
certain
amount.
Each
year,
we've
tied
that
historically,
over
the
last
several
years,
we've
tied
that
increase
rate
to
our
inflation
assumption,
and
so,
if
we
increase
our
inflation
assumption,
we
would
increase
that
rate.
H
That
would
that
means
slight,
very
slightly
lower
payments
in
the
near
term
and
very
slightly
larger
payments.
In
the
law
end
of
the
amortization
periods,
so
it's
just
a
slight
tweak
to
the
city's
contribution
based
on
the
UIL.
D
Bill,
a
question
on
that
should
that
be
tied
to
wage
inflation
instead
of
price
inflation,
since
it's
a
function
of
payroll.
H
So
you
know:
we've
gone
through
this
discussion
before
that.
There's
a
range
from
a
typical
range
from
a
level
dollar
amount
up
to
a
wage
inflation
amount.
Wage
inflation
is,
if
you
use
that
the
idea
is
that
each
payment
going
forward
is
the
same
percentage
of
payroll,
but
that
assumes
that
payroll
grows
at
the
wage
inflation
rate.
H
What
we
don't
want
is
for
the
payment
to
actually
grow
faster
than
payroll.
So
to
add
a
level
of
conservatism.
Your
system
and
other
systems
have
been
backing
off
from
that
wage
inflation
rate,
and
a
few
years
ago
we
decided
a
good
place,
was
inflation
and
I
think
s
p,
Global.
The
bond
rating
agency
uses
that
as
kind
of
a
benchmark
when
they're
evaluating
plans,
and
so
that
means
that
you
anticipate
that
each
payment
will
be
the
same
real
dollar
amount.
H
The
the
big
issue
is
always
what
to
do
with
the
discount
rate,
and
it
was
more
confusing
this
year
than
in
most
years,
because
there's
been
significant
changes
in
the
markets.
We've
seen
a
significant
increase
in
interest
rates,
significant
reduction
in
valuations
in
the
market,
and
that's
caused
Capital
Market
assumptions
to
increase
pretty
significantly,
and
so
we
showed
that
here
with
makita's
assumptions
that
were
developed
last
December
or
those
developed
this
year
in
June
and
there's
been
just
a
significant
increase.
H
We've
suggested
that
we
hold
the
discount
rate
at
its
6.625
this
year,
because
we
wouldn't
want
to
increase
the
discount
rate
based
on
these
new
Capital
Market
assumptions.
Just
to
have
the
market
reverse
and
have
us
have
to
reduce
the
discount
rate
and
so
before,
making
any
move
we'd
like
to
see
if
those
market
conditions
persist,
and
so
we
review
this
assumption
every
year
and
we
will
have
another
shot
next
year
to
to
look
at
it.
H
So
we're
recommending
no
change
right
now,
but
if,
if
market
conditions
remain
like
this,
you
may
be
looking
at
starting
to
move
the
discount
rate
up
instead
of
down.
If
they,
if
we
fall
into
a
recession,
we
may
be
back
to
the
the
same
story
we've
had
for
the
last
decade
or
so,
where
there's
pressure
to
reduce
the
discount
rate.
N
Bill
yeah
question
I
I,
see
on
this
graph
that
in
2019
there's
also
blip
up
in
the
expected
return
on
assets
and
I.
Guess
I'm
trying
to
remember
what
happened
in
2019,
okay,.
N
H
So
it
gives
you
the
10
to
20
year
range
and
all
of
them,
except
for
this
last
one-
are
their
normal
Capital
Market
assumptions
that
are
developed
in
December
of
the
prior
year
and
in
December
2018
there
was
a
an
uptick
in
interest
rates
in
the
stock
market
dropped
significantly,
and
so
that
changed
the
price
earnings
ratios
and
and
all
the
Capital
Market
assumptions
that
had
completely
reversed
itself,
I
think
by
the
end
of
the
first
quarter
of
2019,
and
so
we
knew
it
when
we
were
discussing
this,
that
the
market
conditions
had
changed
back
to
what
they
were
before.
H
But
that
is
the
cautionary
tale
about
where
we
are
now
that
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
in
the
market
and
things
could
change
quickly.
H
So
this
summarizes
the
the
recommendations.
I
think
that
the
one
thing
we've
kind
of
tweaked
for
this
presentation
is:
if
you
think
you
we
may
be
considering
a
discount
rate
increase
next
year.
We
think
it
would
be
fine
to
delay
the
wage
inflation
increase
until
next
year.
The
the
issue
is:
if
we
increase
the
wage
inflation
this
year,
it
will
increase
costs,
as
shown
here
on
the
right
hand,
side.
H
But
then,
if
we
increase
the
discount
rate
next
year,
that
would
reduce
costs,
and
so
it
makes
sense
to
consider
those
actions
at
the
same
time
so
because
they're
kind
of
offsetting
effects-
and
so
you
know
we
do
think,
there's
enough
data
to
say
that
our
wage
inflation
assumption
is
likely
to
need
to
to
increase
a
little.
H
But
it
would
it's
not
enough
to
force
us
to
make
the
the
move
this
year.
So
we
could
delay
it.
H
B
Is
that
does
that
wrap
it
up?
Bill
that.
B
Jumping
first,
so,
if
you
remember
a
month
ago,
we're
engaging
debates
and
you
just
sort
of
LED
one
side,
I
sort
of
led
the
other
about.
So
what
is
happening
with
inflation?
So
let
me
give
you
my
two
cents,
since
you
can
jump
in,
or
anybody
wants
to
jump
in
so
I'm
an
old
man
and
old
people
have
the
advantages
of
having
seen
a
lot
and
dick
has
seen
this
Harvey
you're
an
old
guy
you've
seen
this
so
my
father
fought
in
World,
War,
II,
I'm,
sort
of
know.
B
Everything
from
45
on
I
took
my
first
job.
I
got
my
degree
in
78,
so
I've
seen
inflation
and
most
of
you
haven't
look.
There
were
two
regimes
of
inflation:
post,
World,
War
II,
the
first
one
ran
from
about
1945
to
about
1991,
and
it
averaged
about
four
four
and
a
quarter
percent,
and
that's
something
very
strange
happened.
B
It
makes
sense
to
me
because
my
first
house,
mortgage
kids
was
16
I
got
it
in
1986.
Let
me
tell
you:
16
mortgage
drives
you
nuts,
of
course
again
20
salary
increase
every
year,
and
this
is
why
folks
hate
inflation
right
because
it
scrambles
the
deck,
the
regime
from
1991
to
2021
that
30-year
period
as
Bill
alluded
to
showed
inflation
of
about
two
and
a
quarter
percent.
B
B
Those
are
regimes,
and
so
I
asked
myself
the
question.
Well,
when
should
Pension
funds
Makita,
our
staff
have
noticed
that
something
was
different
with
inflation,
so
statistics
we
should.
We
would
have
noticed
a
two
Sigma
deviation
from
4.25
2.25
in
about
2008
and
son
of
a
gun
if
we
didn't
sort
of
notice
it
right
around
the
time
of
the
crash,
and
so
this
board,
composed
of
Independence
aboard
I
joined
2011,
has
been
driven
by
this
new
inflation
regime
and
we
picked
up
early.
B
Surprisingly,
we
were
in
this
new
regime
for
over
20
years
before
a
lot
of
people
realized.
We
were
in
a
new
regime
foreign.
So
the
real
question,
to
my
mind,
is:
are
we
going
to
go
back
to
the
old
regime
of
higher
inflation
rates,
or
are
we
going
to
return
to
the
new
regime
of
lower
inflation
rights?
B
Okay,
now
I'm
going
to
make
a
political
commentary:
I'm,
not
a
republican
I'm,
not
a
Democrat.
My
parents
raised
me:
politics
is
a
four-letter
word.
Politicians
are
so-and-sized
and
such
and
such
look.
The
truth
is
that
I
think
as
Citizens
we
don't
like
inflation,
I,
think,
bankers
and
Pension
funds.
Don't
like
inflations,
but
as
we
inflated
rather
witnessed
what
the
current
staff
in
the
White
House.
If
it's
politically
expedient
to
raise
inflation,
they
will
right
everybody,
everybody
knew
Biden
was
going
to
drive
inflation
through
the
roof,
and
some
vanity
didn't
deliver
right
on
time.
B
So
the
question
for
you,
Bill
and
you've
sort
of
answered
this
in
emails
to
me
is:
if
we
predict
High
inflation,
we
get
high
inflation,
we're
okay,
if
we
predict
low
inflation
and
we
get
low
inflation.
We're
okay,
but
Bill
I've
asked
this
via
email,
so
for
the
board,
which
is
better
for
the
pension
fund.
If
we
predict
on
inflation
but
get
high
inflation
or
if
you
predict
High
inflation
but
get
low
inflation
bill,
which
of
those
is
the
more
conservative,
Way
To
Think.
H
Well
so,
first
foreign:
let's
just
think
through
how
the
liabilities
work
for
the
pension
plan,
the
for
the
people
who
are
retired
in
tier
one.
They
are
just
getting
a
three
percent
annual
increase
to
their
benefit,
regardless
of
inflation.
Their
benefit
doesn't
change
whether
inflation,
zero
or
ten
percent.
They
just
get
a
three
percent
increase.
There
is
a
guaranteed
purchasing
power
floor,
but
most
of
the
retirees
are
way
above
that
floor,
so
we'd
have
to
have
a
long
period
of
inflation
above
three
percent
before
that
comes
into
into
play.
H
That's
The,
Lion's,
Share
of
our
liabilities.
Right
now
tier
two.
They
are
subject
to
inflation,
but
their
colas
are
capped
at
two
percent,
so
high
inflation,
their
benefits
are
only
going
to
increase
at
two
percent
low
inflation.
Their
benefits
won't
increase
as
much
now
for
active
employees.
H
The
inflation
not
immediately,
but
over
time
is
reflected
in
salary
increases
and
so
higher
inflation
environments
you
will
active
members
will
earn
higher
benefits
and
low
inflation
environments.
They'll
earn
lower
benefits,
but
that's
you
know:
that's
less
than
a
third
of
our
liability
right
now
is
attributable
to
actives.
So
so.
H
Side
inflation
does
not
have
a
large
direct
impact
to
how
we
project
the
liabilities
over
time.
It
certainly
would
for
the
tier
two
members,
because
they're
much
more
based
on
active
membership
now
from
the
sponsor
point
of
view
in
terms
of
paying
for
it.
High
inflation
means
that
those
future
dollars
are
cheaper
right
and,
if
you're,
looking
at
interest
rates
adjusting
to
the
level
of
inflation,
that's
also
going
to
affect
our
future
investment
returns.
H
So
so
it's
a
long
way
of
saying
that
I
think
it's
more
conservative
for
us
to
you
know,
keep
our
discount
rate
where
it
is
and
consistent
with
that.
We
want
the
inflation
assumption
to
be
realistic,
but
a
lower
inflation
assumption,
especially
if
it's
still
above
two
percent.
It
is
probably
as
conservative
as
we
can
get.
P
And
if
I
could
just
comment
from
the
the
investment
perspective,
you
know,
obviously
Bill
gave
a
good
synopsis
of
how
inflation
affects
different
parts
of
his
Actuarial
assumptions,
but
I
think
he
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
a
bit
on
the
investment
side.
What
matters
more
is
inflation's
impact
on
rates
and
how
the
FED
responds
and-
and
that's
where
you
get
into
politics,
chair
Atlanta,
but
you
know
I
think
you
know.
P
One
sort
of
other
Dynamic
is
that,
as
rates
continue
to
increase
as
the
FED
tries
to
combat
inflation,
we
may
eventually
end
up
going
back
closer
to
an
environment
where
we
used
to
have
where
Bond
returns
and
bond
yields
are
getting
closer
and
closer
to
your
discount
rate.
So
that's
maybe
another
thing
to
consider
as
you
think,
about
going
forward,
but
in
terms
of
setting
the
discount
rate,
you
know,
even
though
makita's
expectations
for
Capital
Market
expectations
for
different
asset
class
returns
have
gone
up
in
this
environment.
P
L
Yeah
thanks
for
entertaining
my
sort
of
I
guess
being
Devil's
Advocate
lost
time.
Suddenly
a
month
has
passed
and
had
more
time
to
think
about
it
and
I.
Think
I
I
agree
with
the
philosophy
that
our
investment
expected
return
should
be
more
sticky
and
see
what
happens,
particularly
in
a
volatile
year
like
this.
L
Making
a
change
is
for
a
plan
that
has
a
very
long
Horizon
is
not
a
con
is,
is
probably
not
I've
warmed
up
to
the
thought
that
that's
not
a
good
idea.
This
is
you
know
we
sort
of
smooth
a
lot
of
other
terms
and
it's
a
good
idea
for
us
to
wait
and
see
how
how
the
markets
react
by
next
year
and
also
maybe
have
a
a
bit
more
discussion
in
the
investment
committee
around
risk
premiums
and
sort
of
future
returns
in
a
new.
L
You
know
in
a
revised
interest
rate
environment,
so
so
I'm
very
comfortable
with
leaving
the
discount
rate
where
it
is
so.
As
far
as
the
inflation
goes,
you
know,
I
I,
think
yeah.
So
I
don't
see
an
inconsistency
with
raising
inflation
assumptions
a
little
bit
and
keeping
the
returns
constant.
I.
Guess.
That's
what
that's
where
that's,
where
I
am.
B
So
CG,
you
already
know
I
think
very
highly
of
you.
Had
trustees
on
pension
plans
been
you
we
wouldn't
have
all
been
in
this
big
hole.
We
were
in
so
I
mentioned
that
we
noticed
we
were
at
a
two
Sigma
deviation
in
2018,
but
we
passed
a
one.
Sigma
deviation
in
inflation
rates
back
in
like
2000,
right
and
people
noticed
that
and
said
something
interesting
is
going
on
here,
and
then
they
started
slowly
to
ratchet
down
discount
rates.
B
We
taxpayers
would
have
trillions
of
dollars
more
in
funding
in
these
pension
plans.
So
let's
keep
folks
that's
a
a
compliment
to
Sunita
for
raising
the
right
question.
Last
time
which
is
hey.
This
is
a
big
deal,
man,
let's
noodle
on
it,
and
she
and
I
went
offline
with
Bill
and
and
then
they
noodle
on
it.
B
You
know
it
kind
of
makes
me
think
you
know
I've
been
sort
of
doing
this,
but
in
the
background
we
should
be
looking
at
at
equities
and
bonds,
inflation
and
and
wages,
and
look
for
these
one
to
two
Sigma
deviations
off
historical
Norms.
Ultimately,
folks
everything
we
do
is
based
on
the
past.
Makita
tells
us
their
forecast.
Well,
their
forecast
is
half
based
on
the
past
and
half
based
on
what
smart,
how
smart
people
think
the
future
will
deviate
from
the
past.
B
O
I
got
one
quick
question:
it's
actually
a
little
bit
different
from
what
we've
been
discussing
I'm
on
this
page.
You
know
we
see
the
member
and
City's
contributions
on
the
members
contributions.
You
know
over
the
last
10
years,
they've
been
slowly
but
surely
been
going
up
year
after
year,
I
I
know
wage
inflation
definitely
has
a
role
in
it,
but
all
the
other
economic
assumptions
are.
We
are
we
going
over
those
assumptions
which
is
causing
the
membership's
contributions
to
go
up
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out?
O
H
Yeah
I
don't
think
it's
really
the
the
assumptions
that
are
driving
that
too
much
clearly,
the
the
wage,
inflation
assumption
and
the
discount
rate
have
material
impacts
to
that
normal
cost
rate,
and
so
the
member
contribution.
H
The
the
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind,
though,
is
that
the
normal
cost
rate
is
actually
an
average
of
all
the
individuals
in
the
plan
and
and
so
for
a
normal
open
plan.
You
kind
of
expect
new
people
come
in
retirees
go
out
and
the
demographic
balance
stays
kind
of
constant
with
tier
one.
That's
not
happening
because
we
have
people
going
out,
but
no
new
people
coming
in
and
so
the
demographics
of
tier
one
are
shifting
around
and
so
there's
some
movement
in
that
average
normal
cost
rate
as
those
demographics
change,
foreign.
O
Expect
or
anticipate
that
the
members
contribution
rates
would
sort
of
level
out
at
some
point,
or
do
you
predict
this
is
going
to
keep
on
climbing
up
slowly.
H
They
can
climb
up
or
go
down
depending
on
how
that
demographic
balance
works
out.
I
think
you
know
I
think
we'll
continue
to
see
small
movements,
for
you
know,
I
I
haven't
looked
specifically
but
I
think,
probably
for
like
the
next
decade
or
so
we'll
see
small
movements.
When
we
get
down
to
very
few
tier
one
members,
it
could
get
more
volatile.
Okay,.
O
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
Bill,
but
overall,
in
this
on
this
discussion,
I'm
for
keeping
the
discount
rate
at
the
current
level
for
two
reasons,
I
mean
ever
since
2009.
O
O
If
we,
you
know,
if
we
raise
the
discount
rate,
contributions
will
be
coming
down
and
then
plus
and
then
with
the
uncertainty
of
the
current
marketing
economy.
I,
just
don't
feel,
like
you
know,
I,
don't
feel
confident
yet
that
you
know
we're
gonna
be
getting
high
returns,
especially
since
we're
down
one
percent
already
fiscal
year,
so
I'm
for
keeping
the
discount
rate
at
the
current
six
and
five
eighths.
B
Thanks
Andrew
David
Kwan
want
to
ask
anything
or
Bland.
N
No,
no,
no
questions
just
a
couple
of
comments.
One
I'm
pretty
comfortable
with
the
recommendation
by
Chiron,
so
I
have
no
issues.
Second
comment
is
that
you
know
related
to
inflation.
I
guess
I
may
appear
young,
but
I'm,
pretty
old,
myself
too
so
June
I'm,
probably
in
your
camp
and
based
on
my
experience-
and
this
is
just
anecdotal.
N
B
Yeah,
let
me
jump
in
yeah,
David,
I,
agree
and,
and
the
other
thing
too
is
that
to
as
a
citizen
as
a
guy
that
goes
up,
buys
pizzas
I,
like
law
inflation,
but
I
recognize
that
low
inflation
also
has
some
really
deleterious
effects.
You
know
you
sort
of
see
stagflation
in
Japan
and
so
on
so
yeah
it's
sticky
and
maybe
a
slightly
higher
numbers
better
than
a
long
number.
B
Let's
see
Sunita
you
want
to
weigh
in
or
make
ask
any
more
questions.
I.
L
Q
Yeah,
thank
you
Bill
and
Anne
for
the
presentation
with
respect
to
the
recommendations.
I
fully
agree,
I
Echo.
What
Andrew
said
in
this
in
this
time
of
volatility,
I,
don't
think
it's
prudent
to
change
the
discount
rate
right
now.
Q
One
I
do
have
a
a
question,
and
maybe
this
is
for
Roberto
or
Pam
is
the
expectation
with
respect
to
the
members
and
the
city
in
line
with
what
we
have
here
on
slide,
16,
that
it's
gonna,
it's
gonna
go
up,
and
hopefully
that
won't
be
a
surprise.
Given
the
market.
C
Meeting
I'm
here.
C
I
was
hoping
you'd
take
that
before
I
did
you
know
I'm
listening
to
this
discussion
and
it
we
all
know
what's
happening
in
the
market,
but
I
think
it.
Any
change
to
the
discount
rate
would
increase
the
cost
of
the
unfunded
liabilities
for
the
city
and
I'm
sure
they're
budgeting
that
they're
already
risks
of
financial
implications
of
sales,
tax
income
and
other
things
that
we
may
not
be
able
to
depend
on
next
year.
C
Property
taxes,
Etc
there's
a
lot
of
impact
on
our
general
fund
next
year,
including
the
increase
in
wages
that
we
are
in
the
middle
of
negotiating
with
the
POA
right.
Now
that
I'm,
not
sure
I
can
report
what's
going
on
so
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
But
there
are
discussions
about
raising
salaries
all
all
around,
so
that's
going
to
have
a
huge
effect
on
our
general
fund.
K
K
Very
well
done
Pam.
Thank
you.
So
much
so
from
my
discussions
with
City
staff
and,
more
specifically
with
the
budget
director
I
think
the
expectation
has
been
over
time
that
when
the
boards
change
the
discount
rate,
they
decrease
it
rather
than
increase
it.
They
were
a
little
stunned
by
anime
communication
that
I
share
with
them
just
recently,
where
I
actually
told
them
that
changing
the
discount
rate
can
go
both
ways.
K
It
can
go
up
or
down
and
they
were
surprised
so
I
think
I,
don't
want
to
speak
for
them,
but
I
think
the
expectation
is
that
the
if
there
are
any
changes
to
the
discount
rate,
they
were
really
honestly
thinking.
It
may
go
down
so
they'll
be
happy
to
see
that
there
is
no
change
and
I
actually
have
to
say
that
from
the
budget
standpoint
the
you
know,
I,
don't
pretend
to
understand
how
the
budget
they
do
the
budget
for
the
city,
but
I
think
they.
K
K
Of
course,
then
again
in
my
presentation
to
the
city
council
last
year,
I
made
a
huge
point
on
the
total
net
gain
of
on
the
five-year
I'm
going
to
see
a
five
years,
smoothing
the
gains
that
were
yet
to
be
accounted
for
or
recognized
only
to
find
out
that
this
year,
that
total
net
gain
now
is
a
total
net
loss
for
2022.
But
that's
not
my
fault,
that's
bills
and
ends
so
I
will
make
sure
I
upload
the
fall
where
it
belongs
and
because
they
do
the
numbers.
K
It's
not
our
office,
obviously
I'm.
Joking
about
that,
but
yeah
they
will
be
happy
that
the
ray
will
not
go
down
and
it
looks
like
again
I
recognize
it's
a
30
Million
numbers.
The
contributions
may
actually
decrease
a
bit
from
the
current
fiscal
year.
I
hope
they
answered
your
question.
Q
Okay,
thanks
yeah
thanks
and
Drew.
One
last
thing:
I
do
remember
the
that
interest
rate
regime
where
I
actually
had
a
mortgage
in
the
17
range
and
I
thought
that
was
the
that
was
the
normal.
So
I
I
totally
understand
how
stupid
it
can
be.
That's
it.
Thank
you.
B
Thanks
sure
questions,
comments,
yeah.
R
So
so
good
discussion,
as
I
said
last
month,
I
think
let's
keep
the
discount
rate
unchanged.
R
You
know,
let's
see
how
things
play
out
over
the
next
year
or
so
and
I
think
to
Andrew's
Point.
You
know
so
far,
this
fiscal
year
we
are,
you,
know,
I,
guess
about
one
third
of
the
way
in
or
so
you
know,
returns
are
minus
one
percent,
as
Prabhu
said,
so
we're
probably
going
to
end
the
year.
You
know,
barring
some
big
changes.
R
You
know
a
bit
more
on
the
whole
I
guess
you
know,
given
our
returns,
maybe
below
our
expected
returns,
so
no
change
in
the
discount
rate,
I
support
that
and
I
think
in
terms
of
wage
inflation.
If
you
look
at
slide
11
and
the
fact
that
our
assumptions
have
always
been
lower
than
what's
the
real
increase
in
wage
inflation,
maybe
changing
it
to
three.
You
know
3.25.
R
It
may
be
the
right
thing
to
do.
Foreign.
S
S
There
was
a
lot
of
criticism
during
our
time
about
the
discount
rate
in
per
system
and
what
we
were
doing
so
I
thought
this
board
and
Bill
and
Chevron
ever
did
an
excellent
job.
Some
questions
I
have
is,
is
the
retirement
age,
like
example,
I
think
was
something
like
averaging
27
years
bill.
Has
that
gone
down
to
25
or
23.
H
I
I,
don't
recall,
average
is
now
I
I,
don't
think
it
has
moved
a
whole
lot.
We
did
during
the
Great
Recession
we
had
a
period
where
a
whole
lot
of
people
retired,
but
since
then,
we've
kind
of
returned
to
normal
patterns
of
retirement.
S
M
H
Think
that's
a
difficult
question
for
us
to
answer.
It's
there's,
obviously,
a
lot
of
factors
that
determine
whether
someone
comes
to
work
for
San
Jose
and
how
long
they
work.
The
retirement
plan
is
certainly
a
part
of
that.
Where
we've
seen
significant
issues,
it's
been
a
more
it's
been
where
they've
put
in
a
defined
contribution
plan.
Clearly
they've
had
trouble
recruiting
police
officers
and
firefighters
if
they've
done
that.
E
B
Great
you
know
I'll,
take
the
Prague
and
make
the
motion
there's
a
lot
of
moving
Parts
here.
So
first,
let's
recall:
well,
first
of
all,
we're
on
item
3A
and
the
thing
we're
looking
to
approve
is
slide.
16
title
board
decisions
first
is
Maytag
points
out.
There
are
two
pieces,
this
presentation
one
was
the
preliminary
results,
we're
not
deciding
on
that.
We'll
see
that
again
in
an
export
meeting,
but
we
do
want
to
improve
the
economic
assumptions
that
were
held
over
from
last
month.
The
economic
assumptions
are
in
this
slide.
B
16
title
board
decisions
there
is
one
I
will
make
the
motion
that
we
approve
these,
but
I
would
like
to
I.
Remember
you
said
that
short,
but
I
think
I'd
go
with
Bill
Let's
withhold
for
a
year
increasing
the
wage
inflation
assumption
from
three
to
three
and
a
quarter.
Let's
leave
it
at
three,
because
the
whole
thing
within
some
competition
may
have
an
impact
on
the
discount
rate.
The
discount
rate
I
think,
will
be
modified
one
way
or
the
other
next
year,
but
we'll
know
until
we
get
the
the
numbers.
B
S
D
Great
and
see
if
there's
any
public
discussions.
B
B
For
the
public
want
to
make
any
comments
or
questions
thanks,
Harvey
Andrew,
hi,
good.
B
E
B
Sir
hi
Dick,
yes
allenko,
bye,
Dave,
hi
insurance,
I
vote
I
as
well:
hey
I'm
hurting
my
heart
Richard,
a
good
idea.
Let's
bump
your
item,
item
3B
on
the
brown
act
to
a
little
bit
later.
I
actually
think
we're
gonna
have
extra
time,
and
if
we
do
I'd
love
for
you
guys
to
take
more
time
because
I
I
know
this
comes
up
every
now
and
then
and
it
is
actually
a
very
important
subject
the
next
time
you
want
to
go
to
the
other
Actuarial
item,
yeah
exactly
bill.
So
back
to
you.
H
Okay,
I
think
I've
pulled
this
off
now,
hopefully
you're
seeing
my
screen
this
item's
on
the
assumptions
for
the
opeb
Actuarial
evaluation.
Mike
stunning
is
our
health
actuary.
He
unfortunately
can't
be
here
today
because
he
is
caught
up
in
Hurricane.
Lisa
and
I
got
an
email
from
him
this
morning,
he's
fine
but
does
not
have
any
internet
access
and
limited
cell
phone
access.
So
so
I'm
going
to
pretend
to
be
a
health
actuary
today,
as
well
as
a
pension
actually.
H
H
Member
contributions,
unlike
in
the
pension
plan
where
they're
affected
by
our
assumptions
in
the
op-ed
plan,
they're
just
fixed
at
eight
percent
of
pay,
and
they
don't
change
with
anything
our
contribution.
Our
our
role
is
to
set
the
city
contributions,
and
so
we
have
policies
in
place
to
establish
contributions
for
the
city.
The
city
has
an
option,
though,
to
cap
those
contributions
at
11
of
pay.
H
We've
been
right
around
that
limit
in
actually
slightly
above
it
the
last
couple
years,
but
so
far
the
city
has
not
exercised
that
option
that
contributed
the
full
amount.
H
So
this
valuation
like
for
the
pension,
is
to
develop
the
city's
contribution
for
the
2024
fiscal
year
now
retiring
medical
plans
are
a
little
different
than
pension
plans
and
they're.
One
of
the
things
that
you
will
hear
us
talk
about
is
the
implicit
subsidy
in
the
explicit
subsidy
for
the
board.
We
are
just
pre-funding,
the
explicit
subsidy,
but
we
are
also
required
to
calculate
the
implicit
subsidy
and
disclose
it,
but
the
pre-funding
is
really
just
for
the
explicit
subsidy.
H
It
varies
by
a
lot
of
things,
but
one
of
the
overriding
factors
is
age
and,
as
you
get
older,
the
expected
claims
go
up,
but
when
premiums
are
set,
they
set
based
on
the
entire
population,
that's
being
covered
and
charge
one
rate,
and
so
they
set
One
Premium
that
covers
that
entire
population.
H
That
population
is
both
the
active
employees
and
the
retired
employees,
and
specifically
here
it,
the
implicit
subsidy
comes
in
for
pre-medicare
retirees
combined
with
actives,
and
so
the
the
level
premium
is
made
up,
and
this
is
for
the
anthem,
select
PPO
plan,
which
is
a
richer
plan
than
the
lowest
cost
plan.
H
In
here,
which
is
largely
retirees
there's
an
implicit
subsidy
for
their
claims
cost
that's
effectively
built
into
the
premiums
for
younger
people,
and
so
when
we
talk
about
the
implicit
subsidy,
that's
all
we're
talking
about,
and
it's
really
just
a
disclosure
in
our
valuation.
It
is
a
an
integral
part
of
the
financial
statement
liability
for
the
plan,
but
in
terms
of
pre-funding,
we
are
just
focused
on
the
explicit
subsidy.
H
We
updated
our
projections
for
the
investment
returns.
We
have
not.
These
projections
do
not
have
any
changes
to
the
liability
amounts.
I.
You
can
see.
The
healthcare
trusts
also
lost
less
money
during
2022,
and
so
the
projection
of
the
assets
dropped
starts
at
a
lower
point,
but
is
still
projected
to
grow
pretty
significantly.
The
funded
status
has
dropped
for
police
from
41
to
38,
but
is
still
projected
to
to
increase
rapidly
on
the
contribution
side.
H
You
can
see.
Member
contributions
are
projected
to
go
down
as
the
members
who
are
covered
under
this
plan
retire
and
leave
the
city.
So
those
contributions
are
expected
to
go
down.
The
city's
contributions
are
expected
to
go
up.
The
Blue
Line
shows
what
we
were
projecting
in
2021,
so
obviously
the
line
is
higher.
Now,
with
the
effect
of
the
investment
returns
for
the
Fire
Group,
you
see
a
very
similar
sort
of
change
and
pattern.
H
They're
they
were
38
funded,
they've
dropped
to
35
percent
funded,
but
projected
to
to
grow
similar
impact
on
the
the
contribution
projection.
I
would
note
the
liabilities
here
are
much
much
smaller
than
the
pension
plan,
so
we're
looking
here
at
projecting
the
liability
for
fire
to
like
375
million
out
in
2040..
H
So
before
we
get
to
the
assumptions
in
the
Actuarial
audit,
there
was
a
recommendation
that
we
talk
about
the
contribution
policy
a
little
bit
for
oped
and
specifically
how
the
amortization
and
asset
smoothing
differs
from
the
the
pension
plan.
So
City
contributions
under
the
oped
plan
like
under
the
pension,
are
effectively
the
the
normal
cost
piece
and
administrative
expense
piece
and
an
unfunded
liability,
amortization
piece
minus
member
contributions.
H
What
we've
done
differently
here
is,
we
are
not
smoothing
assets
and
just
went
through
how
the
asset
smoothing
works
for
the
pension
plan
for
the
opeb
plan.
We
do
not
smooth
the
assets,
but
we
build
in
a
smoothing
into
the
amortization,
so
we
have
a
25-year
amortization
with
a
three-year
phase
in
and
phase
out,
and
that's
the
smoothing
piece
and
the
payments
increase
each
year
with
wage
inflation.
Now
here,
part
of
the
reason
we're
doing
the
wage
inflation
increase
is
remember.
H
H
So
when
you
do
asset
smoothing
and
here
I'm
going
to
assume,
we
do
three-year
asset
smoothing
instead
of
five
year,
what
happens
when
you
have
an
investment
gain
or
loss?
Is
you
recognize
a
third
of
it
and
you
set
up
an
amortization
schedule
for
that?
H
Third
and
then
the
next
year
you
recognize
another
third
of
it
and
you
set
up
another
amortization
method
and
then
the
third
year
you
set
up
a
third
amortization,
and
so,
in
effect,
for
one
year
of
investment
losses,
you
have,
if
you're
using
three-year
smoothing,
you
have
three
different
amortizations
for
it.
H
The
method
we're
using
essentially
replicates
that
by
just
building
it
into
the
amortization
schedule,
so
we
don't
have
to
go
through
the
asset,
smoothing
it
builds
it
in
now.
What's
the
difference,
the
main
difference
here
is
this
applies
both
to
changes
in
liabilities
and
the
changes
in
assets,
and
we
also
use
it
for
assumptions.
So
it's
used
across
the
board
on
all
those
items,
whereas
for
the
pension,
this
mechanism
with
asset
smoothing,
is
only
smoothing
the
investment
gains
and
losses.
H
Well,
why
do
we
look
at
pension
and
opev
differently?
Well,
if
you're,
looking
at
a
pension,
the
source
of
volatility
is
overwhelmingly
from
the
investment
returns.
So
here
the
gold
and
I've
made
positive
and
negative
all
positive,
so
we're
just
focusing
on
the
volatility
from
these
different
sources.
The
gold
is
from
investment
Returns.
H
The
gray
is
from
liability
changes
and
the
purple
is
from
assumption
changes
and
looking
at
the
last
10
years
and
then
taking
the
average,
and
you
can
see
that
the
investment
Returns
on
the
pension
have
been
significantly
more
volatile
than
assumption
changes
or
liability
experience.
H
When
you
look
at
opeb,
however,
it
it's
kind
of
the
reverse,
and
that's
because
health
care
costs
change,
they
change
every
year.
Our
trained
assumptions
change
every
year
for
health
care
and
that
really
moves
the
liability
measure
around
significantly,
and
so
the
gray
bars
again
are
the
change
in
the
liabilities.
H
H
This
is
on
a
market
value
basis
was
not
as
significant
as
the
liability
experience
and
that
that
was
a
very
big
investment
here
so
to
smooth
out
the
contributions
on
the
pension
side,
it's
really
important
to
smooth
the
investment
returns,
but
on
the
the
OPEC
side
we
really
need
to
smooth
all
of
it,
because
the
liability
and
the
Assumption
changes
are
going
to
move
the
contributions
around
a
lot.
And
so
that's
why
we've
gone
with
this
other
methodology
because
it
Smooths
both
the
the
liability
measures
and
assumption
changes.
H
H
So
for
the
open
plan,
we
use
all
the
assumptions
from
the
pension
plan
where
they're
applicable,
so
both
the
the
economic,
so
the
price
inflation
we
just
changed.
Wage
inflation
does
not
have
a
a
big
impact,
but
it
is
used
kind
of
tangentially
in
the
open
valuation
retirement
rates
mortality.
H
All
of
that
we
use
all
the
same
assumptions,
but
we
have
a
number
of
assumptions
that
are
unique
to
the
oped
plan,
they're
different
from
the
pension
plan,
and
so
we
need
to
address
those
we're
they're
listed
here,
I'm
going
to
kind
of
go
through
them
in
order,
some
of
them
I'm
going
to
go
very
quickly
because
we're
not
suggesting
much
of
a
change
but
to
start
out
with
wanted
to
report
what
we're
seeing
so
far
in
the
healthcare
costs
changes,
and
so
this
is
largely
built
around
the
premiums.
H
This
chart
shows
the
the
premium
for
the
lowest
cost
health
plan,
which
is
what
drives
the
explicit
subsidy.
It's
the
maximum,
explicit
subsidy
and
you
can
see
the
approximate
increase
historically
last
year.
It
was
down
a
half
a
percent
this
year
on
average
it's
about
5.9
increase.
H
Well,
it
is
a
5.9
increase
for
the
the
lowest
cost
plan,
so
that
is
slightly
lower
than
we
expected.
We
expected
an
increase
of
seven
and
two-thirds
percent,
but
it
it's
a
little
bit
lower,
but
we
won't
get
the
kind
of
gain
we
got
last
year.
Out
of
that,
all
the
pre-medicare
plans
receive
the
maximum
subsidy.
All
the
Medicare
eligible
plans
have
premiums
below
the
maximum
subsidy.
So,
just
to
summarize
what
happened
there?
H
We
expected
an
increase
of
a
little
over
four
percent.
We
got
an
11
reduction
in
the
Kaiser
premiums
and
that
covers
43
of
the
population,
and
then
we
got
about
a
five
percent
increase
in
the
rest
of
the
budget
rest
of
the
plans
it
covers
about
57
of
the
population.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
split
there,
but
on
balance,
we'd
expect
a
gain
because
of
the
11
reduction
in
premiums
for
Kaiser.
H
Looking
historically,
the
Healthcare
Trends
have
bounced
around
a
lot,
I
think
a
lot
of
us.
We
talked
about
remembering
and
having
scars
from
high
inflation
more
recently,
a
lot
of
us
have
a
good
memory
and
scars
from
High
Health
Care
cost
increases,
and
you
can
see
those
in
the
early
2000s,
but
they
have
come
down
quite
a
bit
and
so
over
20
years
the
the
Medicare
trend
has
been
around
four
percent
and
the
the
pre-medicare
trend
has
been
around
six
percent.
H
So
we
develop
our
assumptions
going
forward
using
What's
called
the
getson
model,
it's
published
by
the
Society
of
actuaries.
It's
something
that's
very
commonly
used
to
develop
these
Trend
assumptions
and
is
the
work
of
the
combination
of
actuaries
from
different
firms,
along
with
some
academics
and
others.
H
So
the
philosophy
behind
it
is
basically
you
look
at
short-term
expectations
for
costs,
set
those
for
the
next
three
to
five
years
and
then
have
that
adjust
down
to
a
long
run,
Trend,
which
is
based
on
expected.
H
H
So
we
have
tweaked
these
assumptions
a
little
bit
from
last
year.
There's
a
slight
increase
in
the
pre-medicare
short-term
Trends
slight
decrease
in
the
post-medicare
short-term
trends.
Then
the
inflation
assumption
increasing
from
Two
and
a
quarter
to
two
and
a
half
is
driving
most
of
the
the
remaining
difference.
H
Here
we
are
extending
the
period
that
it's
expected
to
be
at
that
five
percent
rate.
H
So
that's
the
most
significant
assumption
change
we're
recommending.
We
also
look
at
plan
elections
over
the
prior
year
and
over
the
last
five
years
there
was
a
new
plan
adopted
last
year
and
we
just
made
a
raw
estimate
that
we
thought
only
one
percent
of
the
population
would
elect.
It
turned
out
three
percent
elected
it
and
there's
some
adjustment
there.
So
these
items
in
red
are
the
only
changes,
we're
we're
recommending.
Everything
else
has
stayed
pretty
consistent
with
our
assumptions
yeah-
and
this
is
just
a
minor
two.
M
What
tier.
H
Elections
so
our
retirees
electing
only
to
cover
themselves
to
cover
themselves
and
espouse
children.
Family
coverage
and
those
elections
very
differ.
H
Between
males
and
females-
and
so
we
looked
at
experience
over
the
last
five
years
for
these
elections
and
we're
recommending
some
tweaks
really
for
males
moving
away
from
retiree
only
in
retiree
and
spouse
to
more
family
coverage,
so
we're
seeing
greater
levels
of
family
coverage
for
pre-medicare
males
then
for
Medicare.
We
just
assume
that
the
the
children
drop
off,
and
so
any
retiree
and
family
goes
to
retiree
and
spouse,
and
any
retiree
with
children
gets
added
to
the
retiree
home.
So
and
those
are
remaining
pretty
constant
for
females.
H
There's
been
some
movement
a
little
bit
towards
retiree
and
children
and
retiree
and
spouse
and
a
decline
in
retiree
and
family.
So
these
kind
of
offset
the
adjustments
for
males.
H
The
other
interesting
thing
in
this
plan
is
a
few
years
ago:
measure
F
added
an
in
lieu
option,
so
retirees
instead
of
electing
coverage
or
not
electing
coverage,
could
elect
an
in-loo
option
and
they
get
a
credit
to
an
account.
A
notional
account
equal
to
25
percent
of
the
benefit
they
would
have
received
by
going
into
the
in
lieu
option,
and
then
they
reserve
the
right
later
to
come
back
and
enter
the
plan
and
use
that
credit
to
help
pay
for
their
premiums.
H
In
addition
to
the
the
coverage
offered
by
the
client,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
data
so
far
because
it's
only
benefact
for
four
to
five
years,
and
so
we
started
out
with
just
some
guesstimates
of
where
things
would
be,
and
we
are
now
suggesting
a
couple.
Minor
Adjustments
one
here
is
we're
seeing
a
little
more
people
collect
retiree
and
spouse
credits
as
opposed
to
retiree
only
credits.
H
H
So
we'll
continue
monitoring
these,
but
those
coverage
levels
have
or
election
levels
have
remained
constant
I
missed
one
here,
I
didn't
talk
about
it
at
least
which
the
the
one
we
really
don't
know
about
is
once
someone
goes
to
him
Lou.
How
long
are
they
going
to
stay?
There?
We've
had
an
assumption
of
five
years.
The
program
hasn't
even
been
around
for
five
years,
so
we
really
don't
have
any
data
on
that.
H
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
we're
still
continuing
with
that
assumption,
even
though,
while
we're
watching
the
data
emerge,
but
it
will
be
a
while
before
we
have
anything
reliable
on
that
administrative
expenses,
we
assume
an
amount
per
member.
I
won't
go
through
this
whole
analysis,
but
we're
seeing
it's
not
increasing.
As
fast
as
we
had
expected.
We
have
an
increase
at
three
percent
a
year
which
would
have
the
the
rate
be
a
little
bit
above
43,
so
we're
suggesting
decreasing
that
rate
to
42.
Remember
reflecting
our
our
experience.
H
And
then
you
may
have
seen
this
idea
before,
but
we
have
to
set
the
discount
rate.
The
the
discount
rate
here
is
six
percent.
The
asset
allocation
is
different,
but
we
have
the
same
basic
Dynamic
that
the
the
discount
rate,
based
on
assumption,
set
Capital
Market
assumptions
from
December.
The
six
percent
lands
right
in
the
middle
of
that
range,
but
now
the
new
interim
assumptions
have
it
much
higher,
and
so
it's
it's.
H
This
chart
looks
very
similar
to
what
we
had
before
the
numbers
are
slightly
lower
because
the
asset
allocation
is
lower,
but
we're
recommending
the
same
thing
that
we
just
keep
the
discount
rate
at
six
percent
and
wait
and
see
what
happens.
H
You
know
I
would
say
to
preamp
this
to
Drew's
question
about
the
effect
of
inflation.
Inflation
has
a
much
bigger
effect
on
these
liabilities,
because
health
care
costs
are
expected
to
adjust
for
inflation.
So
if
we
get
high
inflation,
we
do
expect
that
to
affect
health
care
costs
over
the
long
run.
H
So
but
in
summary,
really
the
the
significant
changes
on
the
healthcare
Trend
rates
and
that's
really
driven
by
the
25
basis,
point
increase
in
price
inflation.
The
other
assumptions
are
are
just
minor
tweaks
for
recommending
and
no
change
to
the
discount
rate.
So
with
that
take
any
questions
we
are
looking
for
action
on
this
item.
B
D
I
have
one
question:
yeah
yeah,
thanks
Bill,
it's
not
on
this
page,
but
I
noticed
in
a
previous
slide
that
we've
put
the
amortization
of
the
unfunded
liability
for
opeb
on
a
25-year
amortization
schedule
right,
correct,
so
I
noticed
Elsewhere
on
our
agenda.
Today
we
have
in
the
communications
section,
I
think
it's
under
1.5
D.
If
I
remember
correctly,
we
have
a
copy
of
the
state
auditors
report
on
the
fiscal
health
of
California
cities,
and
it
includes
both
have
obligations
and
Opeth
funding
and
for
San
Jose.
D
It
appears
to
indicate
that
San
Jose's
opeb
obligations
are
pretty
modest,
but
then
it
puts
in
high
risk
category
if
the
city's
open
funding
and
I'm
wondering
whether
or
not
advertently
or
inadvertently,
we're
contributing
to
an
increased
heightened
risk
to
the
city
for
its
OPEC
funding
by
using
a
25-year
amortization
schedule,
so
that
you
know
they're
for
the
first
10
years,
they're,
not
even
paying
anything
for
its
principal
on
the
OPEC.
Could
you
sort
that
out
and
tie
that
in
a
little
bit
Yeah?
H
Yeah
well,
the
15
years
would
definitely
improve
the
speed
with
which
we
get
oped
funded.
We
adopted
a
25-year
approach
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
recognizing
that
it
does
spread
it
out
over
a
longer
period.
H
One
is
we
started
with
no
funding
fairly
recently,
and
so
we
are
trying
to
go
from
zero
to
a
hundred,
and
when
you
look
at
that
in
terms
of
generational
Equity
it
there
is
much
more
of
an
argument
to
spread
it
out
over
a
longer
period.
H
That
does
you
know
raise.
You
know
some
risk
levels,
because
the
shorter
you've
funded
the
the
better
in
terms
of
the
the
funding
risk,
but
there
were
two
other
things
one.
The
city
has
an
optional
cap
at
11
of
pay,
and
so
we
designed
this
based
on
our
estimates
at
the
time
to
come
in
very
close
to
that
11
of
pay
so
that
we
are
capturing
most
of
what
could
be
collected
under
the
cap.
H
We
have
gone
above
the
cap,
but
not
significantly
above
the
cap,
and
so
if
we
went
significantly
above
the
cap,
I
think
it
would
be
much
more
likely
that
the
city
would
invoke
their
their
11
cap.
H
M
H
I
showed
the
volatility
in
the
measure
of
the
liability
each
year
on
the
opeb
side,
and
so
those
numbers
do
change
much
more
significantly
from
year
to
year,
and
in
fact
the
sponsor
has
other
controls
that
they
can
use
to
change
those
liabilities
and
they
have
by
changing,
for
example,
the
lowest
cost
health
plan
that
is
available
to
active
members.
H
D
Thank
you
for
that.
I'm
wondering
whether
we
need
to
revisit
that
because
we
are.
This
board
is
a
separate
Trustee
of
the
opeb,
the
115
Trust
and
has
an
obligation
to
its
funding
separate
and
apart
from
its
obligations,
Trustees
of
the
pension,
Trust
and
I'm,
just
wondering
whether
or
not
we
need
to
revisit
that.
Mr
chairman,
because
I
mean
the
rating
agencies.
D
Look
at
reports
like
the
auditor's
report
on
the
health
of
California
cities
in
in
terms
of
their
op-ed
funding,
and
it
has
it-
may
have
an
impact
in
the
credit
rating
of
the
city
and
we're
contributing
inadvertently
to
raising
higher
risk
for
the
city
and
higher
costs
for
the
city.
I.
Think
it's
something
and
and
not
improving
the
funding
of
our
Opeth
obligations.
I
think
it's
something
that
the
court
should
take
into
consideration.
D
H
We
did
put
the
asset
smoothing
and
the
amortization
method
on
the
agenda
here,
but
it
it
was
primarily
in
the
context
of
should
we
be
smoothing
assets
instead
of
using
the
phase
in
phase
out
amortization,
yeah.
D
P
T
D
An
appropriate
time
to
take
that
up,
because
it's
agendized
and
it's
on
its
chart.
We
could
start
the
dialogue
on
that
I
I
didn't
mean
to
just
kind
of
throw
it
in
to
the
hopper,
but
it
was
something
that
I
think
has
a
significant
impact
and
because
it
ties
in
so
directly
with
that
Auditor's
report,
that's
on
our
agenda
and
I
see
San
Jose.
D
B
Well,
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong
bill,
you
know
when
I
looked
this,
it's
like
a
mortgage
right,
Bill
and
and
the
point
of
a
mortgage
is,
if
you're,
paying
back
principal
and
interest
and
you're
on
flat
stream
payments
in
the
early
years,
you're
paying
back
mostly
interest
and
I
kind
of
got
that
right.
Bill.
H
B
H
Think
the
difference
is
are
in
a
typical
mortgage.
The
payments
are
the
same
dollar
amount
each
year.
M
H
And
here
we
have
payments
increasing
both
During
the
phase-in
period
and
then
three
percent
each
year
after
that,
so
I
didn't
look
to
see
kind
of
where
we
are
in
the
balance
of
that
now,
because
we've
had
credits
under
that,
so
we're
not
taking
the
full
interest
credit
reduction
in
our
contribution
rate
as
well.
H
So
there
there
is
some
balance,
I'm,
not
quite
sure
where
we
stand
right
now
compared
to
normal
cost
plus
interest,
but
I
I
would
say
we
have
been
increasing
the
funding
percentage
for
these
plans
and
I
know
from
the
rating
agency's
perspective.
H
You
know
what
we're
doing
is
well
ahead
of
what
most
other
systems
are
doing
out
there
in
terms
of
the
liabilities.
California
is
probably
excuse
me,
probably
a
little
bit
more
ahead
of
the
curve,
but
an
awful
lot
of
the
systems
even
in
California
are
not
not
pre-funding.
B
Well,
maybe
maybe
let
me
just
make
suggestion,
are
we
maybe
Bill
and
Harvey?
You
guys
go
offline
and
maybe
the
right
thing
is
Bill
at
the
next
board
meeting.
Maybe
you
and
Harvey
put
your
heads
together
and
see
if
there
are
other
mechanisms
that
have
Morris
less
risk,
whatever
I
mean
they're,
just
we're
just
applying
curved
filters
to
these
things.
Does
that
make
sense,
rving
Bill.
H
Well,
I'd
suggest
this
might
be
a
good
topic
for
something
like
a
retreat
or
a
longer
sound
to
get
into
if
you
want
to
address
it
in
the
short
term.
H
The
question
is
just:
do
you
want
to
increase
the
city's
contribution
requirement
this
year
to
the
open
plan,
and
if
so,
we
could
come
back
with
something
to
do
that,
but
my
sense
would
be
let's:
let's
go
ahead
and
go
through
this
valuation,
but
have
the
bigger
conversation,
maybe
in
the
spring,
again
and
kind
of
revisit
what
we're
doing
in
terms
of
funding
these
plans.
Yeah.
B
You
suggest
that
last
board
meeting
bill
I
actually
like
the
idea
of
an
off-site
that
covers
all
these
different
assumptions:
smoothing
periods
shapes
of
Curves
as
soon
just
says:
inflation
yeah,
that's
probably
a
good
idea:
Harvey's
not
adequate.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
it
now?
No.
D
No,
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
it
now
in
in
depth
and
it
didn't
much
like
say:
I
didn't
mean
to
throw
that
into
the
board's
Hopper
this
morning,
not
necessarily
but-
and
you
know,
Bill
that's
right.
The
city
has
shown
commendable
responsibility
in
wanting
to
pay
down
and
not
not
adhere
to
the
ceiling
they've
put
on
themselves,
but
to
actually
pay
down
more
and
assure
the
oak
had
funding
and
then
that's
been
a
commendable
approach.
D
The
city
has
had
for
the
last
several
years
and
I'm
wondering
whether
we're
artificially
keeping
the
city
from
really
issuing
the
funding
of
opeb
by
you
know
stringing
out
the
the
payment
schedule
for
so
long.
But
it's
something
that
you
know
we
should.
We
should
take
up
at
another
time
as
part
of
an
overall
approach
to.
B
The
funding
of
the
opeb
obligations,
foreign
yeah,
you
know
yeah,
let's,
let's,
this
is
a
much
broader
issue.
I
mean
my
little.
My
little
diatribe
45
minutes
ago
is
all
about.
You
know
you
take
your
eyes
off
a
single
ball
like
inflation
and
all
of
a
sudden,
you're
out
you're
in
in
the
red
trillions
of
dollars.
B
So
I
like
this
idea
that
we
are
look
I
mean
you
guys
can
tell
us
they're
smarter
than
the
average
bear
I
like
this
idea
that
periodically
we're
really
digging
into
these
mortality
assumptions
the
inflation
assumptions,
the
wage
increased
assumptions
I
like
that
idea,
bill
I'll,
take
it
up
with
you.
Offline
floors,
still
open
any
more
questions.
L
Yeah
I
have
a
very
micro
question
yeah
if
I
look
at
this
page
bill,
it
says
price
inflation
at
two
and
a
half
percent
and
it
seems
like
that's
an
input
to
the
getson
model,
which
is
on
page
27..
You
sort
of
describe
it.
Yes,
okay,
so
is
that
4.97,
an
output
of
the
getson
model.
H
Yeah
that,
let
me
go
down
to
that.
H
So
the
4.97
is
a
combination
of
these
three
assumptions:
the
price
inflation
of
Two
and
a
Half
real
per
capita
GDP
growth
of
1.4
in
excess
medical
cost
growth
of
one
percent.
Those
are
all
the
Baseline
assumptions
in
the
getson
model.
We
can.
H
We
can
modify
them
as
long
as
we
have
justification
for
it.
We
we
have
modified
inflation
in
the
past
and
sometimes
since
the
the
real
GDP
per
capita.
L
L
Okay
but
I
guess
the
question:
is
we
just
voted
on
keeping
our
other
inflation
assumption
at
three
percent
right.
H
B
You
sure
Floors
open
any
more
questions.
Hey
bro,
go
back
to
the
board
decision
slide
right
because
that's
we're
going
to
be
voting
up.
B
So
no,
there
was
a
that
that
thing
about
wage
increased
Builders.
This
is
a
hard
recommendation
right,
there's
a
little
room
here.
B
B
No
then
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
prove
slide:
23
board
decisions.
L
B
Dave
Wilson
hi
I'm
chair
Lanza,
Ivo
I
I'm,
showing
1036.
Let's
take
a
four
minute
break
to
10
41
come
back
well,
I'll
pick
it
up
with
a
Roberto
and
Panama
buddy
Foreman.
B
A
A
B
So
hey
Roberto
over
to
you.
K
Apologies
over
to
you.
Thank
you
so
good
morning.
Everyone
just
have
a
few
comments.
If
you
bear
with
me
for
my
oral
update,
the
first
one
is
that,
just
yesterday
we
had
our
open
enrollment
health,
fair
and
for
all
the
members,
retirees
of
both
plans
and
as
far
as
I
understand
it
was
a
success.
We
had
quite
a
few
members
attending
the
probably
around.
N
K
Or
maybe
a
little
more
I
know,
staff
has
been
working
behind
the
scenes
on
getting
the
Open
Enrollment,
including
Sandy,
the
Open
Enrollment
packets,
late
last
week
to
all
the
retirees
so
kudos
to
staff
for
your
hard
work
and
I'm
making
this
a
successful
open
environment
Fair,
which
it
was
the
first
fear
that
we
have
had
in
person
since
since
we
started
the
covid-19
that
three
years
ago.
So
again,
the
great
job
all
around
there's
still
a
little
work
to
be
done.
K
Selections
made
by
all
the
members
if
they
have
any
changes,
there's
still
a
little
work
to
be
done.
I
know
staff
have
been
working
for
months
with
the
city
and
and
the
vendors
to
make
this
a
reality
and,
of
course,
there's
still
a
lot
of
web
presentations
by
the
vendors
for
the
rest
of
the
month.
The
members
can
participate
in
and
I'm
sure
they're
going
to
be
contacting
staff
at
the
office
with
questions.
K
To
that
extent,
we
actually
had
a
new
Hill
staff,
specially
starting
with
the
office
last
October
17th,
that's
Donna,
Hep
Donna
actually
came
to
us
from
another
department
of
the
city,
she's
been
at
the
city
with
30
years,
and
so
a
lot
of
experience
and
understanding
of
the
city
processes,
so
welcome,
donut
to
the
RS
staff
and
in
particular
to
the
Health
Care
staff.
So
congratulations
a
lot
information
for
the
benefit
staff.
K
We
also
are
in
the
final
stages
of
the
senior
supervisor
position,
so
we
have
made
an
offer
and
we're
going
to
be
welcoming
someone
soon
to
that
position.
Just
recently,
just
last
October
2028
Marty
said
that
you
remember
Marty
for
most
of
the
time,
Michelle
actually
covers
the
police
and
fire
board
committee
meetings
and
Marty
does
the
Federated
she
actually
retired
after
three
years
of
service
with
the
city.
So
we
want
to
congratulate
Marty
and
her
retirement
and
wish
her
a
loan.
K
A
healthy
retirement,
their
Fit
board
at
the
last
meeting
actually
approved
her
retirement
application
so
which
allowed
her
to
retire.
So
again,
the
congratulations
to
to
Marty,
which
means
that
we
do
have
a
new
staff,
his
attempt
working
with
Linda
and
Michelle,
so
we're
going
to
politely,
ask
you
to
be
patient
as
student
Michelle,
actually
on
board
this
new
staff
and
helped
her
through
the
process
to
understand
and
this
transition
to
understand
the
duties.
So
she
can
be
helpful
and
help
the
team.
K
So
once
again,
congratulations
to
to
Morty
staff
before
the
Open
Enrollment
actually
made
a
presentation
to
the
POA
last
Thursday
October
13
again
I
heard
it
was
a
success.
So
I
just
want
to
give
staff
kudos
for
making
the
presentation.
It
was
a
dual
job
right.
There
were
some
staff
members
making
a
presentation
to
the
Federated
retirement
reassociation.
That
was
actually
a
remote
meeting,
but
this
presentation
was
actually
in
person
to
the
POA.
K
So
again,
congratulations
on
thanking
to
staff
and
then
I
want
to
close
by
actually
touching
on
those
four
members.
Who's
covering
thrustership
position
ends
November
30th.
Let
me
start
with
trustee.
Santos
and
I
had
a
chance
to
share
some
information
with
Christy
Santos
early
this
morning.
K
K
As
to
the
other
three
positions,
I
understand,
two
of
the
trustees
have
actually
applied
already
or
in
the
process
of
applying
I
heard
for
the
third
one,
and
the
trustee
is
also
interested
in
a
plane.
We
would
love
to
have
all
of
you
back
if
at
all
possible
and
so
for
those
that
have
applied.
K
Thank
you
and
the
city
is
working
diligently
on
on
making
sure
that
this
is
the
application
is
accepted
and
that
they
work
on
actually
scheduling
an
interview
in
front
of
the
city
council
later
this
month.
K
I
think
that
the
city
will
be
able
to
work
out
the
details
on
getting
those
interviews
before
the
end
of
the
month,
but
in
any
situation
that
that's
not
the
case,
not
to
worry
so
long
as
you
are
willing
to
continue
serving.
You
are
able
to
continue
serving
with
the
boar
until
your
reappointment
is
addressed
by
the
city
council
and
hopefully
approve
at
that
point,
then
it
will
be
for
another
four
more
years.
K
So
that
concludes
my
presentation
on
my
early
promise
to
share
other
than
I
do
want
to
congratulate
trustee.
Santos
I
fully
expect
the
appointment
to
be
made
by
the
council
later
this
month,
so
another
four
more
years,
not
to
be
a
politician,
but
we
look
forward
to
working
with
Rusty
Santos
for
another
four
years.
So
thank
you.
Mr,
chair,
I'm,
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
E
K
That
was
addressed
early
this
morning
during
the
consent.
I
defer
back
to
the
chair,
I
think
trusty
Lanza
did
address
that
issue
and
pulled
and
pulled
the
item,
and
there
was
actually
a
recommendation
by
the
boa
to
approve
the
recommendation
by
the
committee.
But
if
the
ball
wants
to
make
any
of
the
comments,
so
you
have
any
specific
questions.
Ray,
please
go
ahead.
No.
E
B
B
B
Back
Florence
to
open
any
comments,
questions
for
Roberto,
if
not
Pam
over
to
you.
C
Good
enough,
thank
you
just
a
couple
of
things.
One
I
met
with
Cheryl,
Parkman
and
councilmember
Davis
to
discuss
the
joint
meeting
that
we
traditionally
have
around
this
time
and
we
agreed
that
the
best
time
to
hold
it
is
actually
after
a
new
city
council
is
seated
so
that
we
can
have
a
discussion,
hopefully
centered
around
unfunded
liabilities.
C
There
may
be
other
things
that
we
need
to
discuss
in
the
joint
meeting
between
the
trustees
and
the
city
council,
but
we
felt
it
was
really
important
to
wait
until
the
new
council
is
here
because
we're
going
to
have
at
least
three
new
council
members
and
potentially
a
new
mayor
that
will
or
a
mayor
who
is
not
a
current
city
council
person.
Let
me
put
it
that
way,
who
will
benefit
from
a
long
discussion
around
or
a
discussion
around
unfunded
liabilities?
C
Additionally,
we
decided
to
take
a
look
at
moving
it
to
late
February
in
consideration
of
budget
issues,
because
what
the
what
happens
at
the
retirement
boards
will
end
the
unfunded
liabilities
will
affect
our
budget,
so
it's
it
will
be
important
for
the
school
Earth
and
school
City
Council
Members,
to
understand
the
relationship
of
the
unfunded
liabilities
to
the
budget
making
process.
So
we're
kind
of
looking
we're
looking
at
that
it
is
election
season.
So
there's
a
lot
in
flux
right
now,
every
we,
the
next
few
Council
meetings,
will
be
really
busy.
C
As
current
seated
council
members
tried
to
wrap
things
up
before
they
are
no
longer
council
members
and
before
they
term
out
and
as
you
all
know,
it's
no
mystery.
This
is
a
middle
of
crazy
politic
political
season
and
hopefully
that
will
be
all
over
on
Tuesday
and
then
with
that
we'll
come
certainty.
What
certain
at
least
we'll
know
who
the
mayor
will
be
and
who
our
new
city
council
members
will
be,
and
that
may
change
things
dramatically
or
it
it
may
not.
We'll
just
have
to
see.
C
There's
a
but
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
and
I
would
say:
uncertainty
sits
with
staff,
but
it
also
sits
with
council
members
like
myself
wondering
who's
going
to
be
our
next
mayor.
What's
the
focus
going
to
be,
how
are
we
going
to
move
forward
and
then
the
new
two
or
three
new
or
three
new
Council
colleagues
who
come
in
with
that
I?
C
The
the
I
also
want
to
mention
and
and
welcome
back
I
guess
trustee
Santos,
who
will
come
before
us
for
an
interview,
but
these
interviews
were
a
lot
will
likely
to
be
virtual
and
because
our
agenda
is
going
to
be
impacted
for
the
next
few
months,
we'll
likely
be
cutting
them
short
and
moving
quickly
to
to
interview
and
move
forward
on
appointing
trustees,
because
we
know
we
need
you
need
to
have
trustees
with
that.
I
think!
That's!
That's
it!
For
me.
C
We
are
in
the
middle
I
mentioned
it
earlier
in
the
middle
of
negotiations
with
the
POA
I.
Don't
believe
I
can
disclose
any
of
that
yet,
but
there
may
be
someone
here
who
has
more
information
than
me
than
I
can
disclose
or
they
can't
disclose,
but
I
I.
Don't
think
we're
ready
to
do
that
and
then
we've
also
been
discussing
with
fire
about
the
EMTs
and
that's
on
our
agenda
next
week
or
two
weeks
with
that
I'll
take
any
questions.
K
Mr
chair
I,
do
want
to
thank
Pam
for
reminding
you
board
that
they
joined
meeting
with
the
city
council
was
extended
or
deferred
to
the
new
year.
It's
been
10
years,
I've
been
working
for
divorce,
man
and
I
keep
forgetting
sometimes
when
I
speak
to
one
board.
That
I
didn't
tell.
K
The
other
board
in
this
case
was
that
meeting
I
did
tell
the
Federated
and
for
God
to
mention
that
to
put
us
on
fire
because
in
my
mind,
I
have
already
told
them,
but
you
are
absolutely
correct,
with
net
with
Cheryl
and
both
of
you,
council
members
for
police
and
fire
and
Federated,
and
it
will
be
deferred
and
I.
Think.
K
The
key
point
that
you
made,
which
is
true,
is
to
have
that
meeting
before
the
new
mayors
budget
discussion
right,
so
that
questions
can
be
asked
and
there's
an
understanding,
of
course
by
then
we'll
have
the
final
numbers
from
both
valuations.
So
we'll
know
how
that
on
fund,
the
liability
is
what
the
impact
of
the
contributions
are
and
everything
else.
So
thank
you
for
that
reminder.
B
K
What
do
you
have
before
you
is
the
tentative
2023
scheduled
board
and
standing
committee
meetings,
and
this
is
based
on
having
your
board
meeting
the
first
Thursday
of
every
month
for
the
next
12
months,
except
for
the
month
of
July
and
your
committee
meetings,
which
are
usually
on
a
quarterly
basis,
except
for
you,
disability
committee,
and
then
your
investment
committee
that
you
think
is
meeting
and
I
defer
to
Prabhu,
mostly
either
quarterly
or
every
other
month,
although
sometimes
that
have
to
be
addressed
so
with
that,
I
would
just
recommend
that
you
approve
the
proposed
2023
schedule
meetings
as
presented.
B
Great
Floors
open
any
questions
or
comments
on
this.
K
My
only
comment
would
be
that
meetings
will
continue
to
be
held
through
Zoom
remotely
for
as
long
as
we
can
I
keep
trying
to
get
Council.
To
tell
me
when
we're
going,
to
go
back
to
have
meetings
in
person,
but
as
a
very
good
attorney.
They
always
qualify
their
comments.
They
do
not
know,
we
suspect
is
sometime
in
2023
early,
but
it's
hard
to
say
which
month
so.
C
Really
good
question
the
governor
has:
it
has
indicated
that
the
emergency
order
will
be
removed
by
the
end
of
February.
That
is
like
we
are
already
back
in
session
in
person
for
city
council.
Although
we
are
operating,
hybrid
I,
don't
I
I,
don't
know
Maytag
to
respond
directly
to
your
question
when
we
will
be
shifting
that
to
a
hundred
percent
in
person,
but
for
the
time
being,
we're
still
going
to
be
hybrid
as
a
city
council
through
February,
and
whether
that
changes
at
that
point.
C
Where
we'll
be
a
hundred
percent
in
person,
with
only
public
being
able
to
comment
virtually
I,
don't
know
yet
we
haven't
just.
We
haven't
reached
a
conclusion
on
that
foreign.
L
K
I
I
don't
think
it
would
be
hard,
but
I
don't
even
know.
I
suspect
that
the
the
meetings
that
are
required
by
this
by
the
munico
are
the
actual
day,
not
the
actual
time.
But
I.
Don't
even
know
that
for
a
fact
by.
L
B
Look
into
that
get
back
to
Sunita
and
the
board
right,
yeah.
K
So
we'll
look
into
that
and
get
back
to
to
you
as
a
chair
and
we
let
Sunita
know
and
of
course
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
fair
request.
Obviously
this
is
something
that
the
full
board
we
have
to
who
have
to
entertain
if
the
change
is
possible
at
a
future
meeting
right
right.
M
K
Lastly,
I
do
want
to
say
something:
my
staff
just
reminded
me:
I
mentioned
committee
meetings
on
a
quarterly
basis.
Jpc
is
actually
scheduled
to
meet
monthly
for
the
next
few
months
for
the
remaining
of
22,
and
maybe
for
the
first
few
months
of
2023.
That's
the
only
committee
that
may
not
be
meeting
quarterly
again,
except
for
disability,
which
means
monthly
and
JPC
for
the
next
few
months,
will
continue
to
meeting
monthly.
Thank
you
great.
N
L
K
E
B
You
know
I'm
trying
to
win
I
as
well,
so
we've
got
a
new
Twist
on
nominations
for
board
Char
and
vice
chair
rush,
I've
tuned
for
us
one
Angel
called
we
used
to
stagger
them,
but
but
Harvey
I
think
made
a
good
suggestion.
I
would
do
the
same
time
and
government
transformed
Andrew
in
a
second.
B
You
remember
I,
especially
two
years
for
chairman,
but
I
started
a
year
early,
so
I'm
sort
of
half
offset
and
I
got
a
purchase
if
I'd
be
willing
to
do
one
more
year
and
I'm
open
to
it.
So
Andrew
Andrew's
kind
of
been
wandering
around
the
background.
Andrew
can't
turn
the
floor
to
you
sure.
O
Happy
to
yeah,
historically,
we've
always
done.
You
know
the
chair.
You
know
we
for
two-year
terms
for
the
most
part,
although
we
prove
them
every
every
single
year
and
it'll,
typically
rotate
from
plan
member
to
non-plan
member
between
chair
and
vice
chair
Drew's
been
at
this.
He
came
in
halfway
through.
O
Is
this
two
and
a
half
years
now,
I
believe
or
two
years
you
finished
so
typically
we
would
try
and
vote
and
rotate
with
my
position
being
termed
up
in
a
year
and
I'll
finish
eight
years
for
me,
I,
don't
know
what
my
future
is
going
to
hold
and
I
believe
there.
I
would
really
like
to
have
stability
in
the
chair
and
vice
chair
spot.
O
So
my
recommendation
is
gonna,
is
gonna,
be
and
ask
if
Drew
would
stay
on
one
more
year
and
Franco
would
come
on
as
a
vice
chair
and
then
you
know
over
the
next
year
they
could
transition
and
work
together
where
Franco
you
know
in
a
year
become
chair.
O
That
was
my
thinking
and
my
recommendation
I'm
not
sure.
If
we're
going
to
do
one
recommendation
at
a
time,
if
so
but
I
like
to
have
drew
do
another
year
and
when
we
get
to
the
vice
chair,
I'm,
going
to
recommend
Franco,
see
if
you'll
be
willing
to
step
up.
B
You
I'd
like
to
say
in
for
another
year
because
we're
right
in
the
middle
of
incentive
compensation
and
we've
got
a
great
team
working
on
with
as
far
Andrew
myself
and
I'd
really
like
to
see
that
through
I've
been
working
on
off
and
on
for
seven
or
eight
years
and
I'd
like
to
sort
of
stay
in
the
thick
of
that
so
I
I.
Very
much
would
like
to
stay
on
as
chairman
Franco.
Are
you
willing
to
be
a
vice
chairman?
B
L
O
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
going
anywhere
so
I
just
know.
My
term
is
coming
up
in
in
the
year
and
if
I
decide
to
make
changes,
then
I
would
like
to
there
to
be
sustability.
You
know
in
those
two
positions
and
I
thought
this
would
be
the
best
segue,
but
doesn't
mean
I'm,
leaving.
B
B
All
right,
hey,
Harvey
Turner!
This
is
what
I
think
we're
on
mine
just
gonna
now
over
to
you
in
Maytag,
and
you've
got
plenty
of
time.
Arby.
D
Okay,
so
the
nominations
are
now
closed
on.
That
item.
Is
that
correct,
yeah
all
right,
so
at
the
next
meeting
there
will
be
a
vote.
B
Right
so
Harvey
so
Harvey
over
to
you
3B
on
the
Ralph
and
brown
act,
and
this
is
what
I
think
Robert
was
hoping.
You've
got
plenty
of
time.
Do.
J
J
J
With
the
F,
we
have
information
that
would
support
this
board's
natural
findings
to
allow
the
board
to
continue
to
meet
virtually
under
ab361,
which
is
one
that
the
governor's
Proclamation
continues
to
be
in
place
and
two
that
the
city
council
continues
to
recommend
social
distancing
and
City
facilities.
With
these
two
factual
findings
adopted
by
majority
votes,
then
this
board
may
continue
to
meet
virtually
for
the
next
30
days.
Thank
you.
B
All
right
so
I'm,
based
on
the
information
representative
I
made
Tech
that
we've
still
got
in
state
emergency
and
the
council
is
the
support
of
that.
Do.
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
those
two
factual
findings:
don't
move
by.
S
B
Got
a
motion:
my
Santos
do:
I
have
a
second
Garden
here
great:
let's
go
around
Andrew
hi
David
Quan
hi,
Sunita,
hi
Howard,
yes,
Mr
schwar,
all
right
dick,
yes,
Franco
hi
and
Dave
Wilson
hi
I
wrote
I
as
well.
We
almost
got
that
done
under
60
seconds
maytech.
That's
amazing!
Okay,.
J
B
J
Great
so
Harvey
and
I
wanted
to
do
a
presentation
for
the
board,
because
there
have
been
a
number
of
questions
over
the
last
few
months
regarding
the
brown
act
Brown
at
compliance,
what
it
requires
and
whatnot,
and
so
we
thought
it
would
be
appropriate
to
do
a
refresher
with
the
board
of
the
basic
rules
and
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
So
today's
presentation
will
go
through
the
basics
and
also
cover
a
new
legislative
change
that
the
last
legislative
session
had
passed.
J
They
passed
a
new
bill
called
ab2449,
which
provides
the
board
another
option
to
meet
virtually
in
hybrid
fashion,
but
as
I'll
explain
further
in
the
presentation,
it's
a
really
an
untenable
model
to
work
with
it's
very
cumbersome
and
so
I'll
go
over
that
law
with
you,
but
the
basic
rules
and
requirements
are
providing
your
backup
materials.
If
you
want
to
take
a
closer
look
at
those
rules
relating
to
hybrid
attendance
for
board
meetings,
please
reference
those
materials
and
we
will
close
out
with
hypotheticals
led
by
our
our
trustee
advisor
Mr
Lederman.
J
So
first,
why
do
we
have
a
brown
act
now?
This
goes
to
the
fundamental
American
policy
for
open
and
accountable
government,
and
so
the
brown
Act
is
designed
to
allow
the
public
to
have
meaningful
access
to
the
board,
as
elected
elected
officials
and
the
decision
makers
over
the
plans
Administration
for
the
funds
I
mean
for
the
members.
Excuse
me
so
all
governing
bodies
and
standing
committees
standing
committees
are
defined
as
a
permanent
committee
with
an
unlimited
duration.
So,
for
example,
the
governance
committee
would
be
a
standing
committee
of
the
local
public
agency.
J
They
must
conduct
all
their
business
in
noticed
in
open
meetings
and
allow
the
public
a
right
to
attend,
observe
and
comment.
So
the
the
prime
pillars
of
the
brown
record,
1A
notice
issues,
two
open
meetings
that
allow
the
public
a
right
to
attend,
comment
or
observe.
So
those
are
the
key
tenets
of
the
brown
Act.
Now
there's
something
called
an
ad
hoc
committee.
J
This
board
had
created
an
ad
hoc
committee
for
the
VC
investment
issues
and
the
difference
between
an
ad
hoc
committee
and
a
standing
committee
is
this:
an
Idaho
committee
exists
for
a
limited
period
of
time
for
a
very
specific
purpose
and,
most
importantly,
has
less
than
with
membership
less
than
a
form
of
a
full
board.
If
a
committee
is
deemed
an
ad
hoc
committee
meeting
those
three
requirements
again
defined
and
limited
purpose
existing
for
a
limited
period
of
time
and
the
membership
is
less
in
the
corner
of
the
board.
J
They
do
not
need
to
comply
with
the
brown
act,
so
they
do
not
need
to
comply
with
the
ground,
acts,
notice
and
posting
requirements.
They
do
not
need
to
comply
with.
You
know
the
minutes
and
any
of
the
other
Public
Access
requirements
for
members
to
attend
those
needs
in
either
in
person
or
virtually
now.
The
city
also
has
a
similar
law
provided
under
the
city's
Municipal
Code,
which
is
relating
to
the
sunshine
ordinance
and
the
purpose
of
the
city.
J
J
The
main
point
is,
if
there's
any
Gathering
of
a
quorum
of
the
war,
it
counts
as
a
meeting
for
the
purposes
of
the
brown
act,
and
this
includes
serial
meetings
which
I'll
cover
in
the
next
slide.
But
whenever
determining
whether
or
not
the
meeting
is
governed
by
the
brown
act,
consider
whether
there's
a
gathering
of
a
quorum
of
the
board
or
the
committee
now
there's
an
exception
to
the
rule,
which
is
conferences
and
social
Gatherings
of
General
interests.
J
So,
for
example,
the
sackers
or
calipers
conferences
that
you
may
attend
the
caveat
there
is
that,
while
you're
attending
these
conferences
that
are
social,
Gatherings
and
there's
a
form
of
the
board
as
long
as
you
don't
discuss
any
Board
of
business,
then
it
does
not
count
as
the
meeting
of
the
board
so
attending
a
conference
with
all
the
trustees
attending.
Although
it
has
a
forum,
it
does
not
violate,
require
you
to
post
that
you
are
all
going
to
that.
J
So,
let's
talk
about
serial
meetings,
because
this
is
where
the
brown
act
gets
really
tricky
in
serial
meetings
is
where
the
spirit
of
the
law
favors,
open
and
public
meetings,
and
that
takes
precedence
over
the
form
of
the
law.
So
now
you
know
we
talked
about
earlier
that
the
guiding
start
for
whether
the
brown
act
applies
is
whether
there's
a
form
of
the
board,
so
a
quorum
of
the
board
can
be
achieved
through
a
series
of
communications
and
that
will
bring
the
communications
within
the
scope
of
the
groundnut.
J
That
technically
Falls
within
the
ground
act
and
may
result
in
a
ground
act
violation
now.
This
also
applies
to
another
form
of
communication
which
rvm
I
like
to
call
the
Hub
and
spokes
communication,
and
let
me
give
you
an
example
of
this:
there's
an
individual
who's,
collecting
information
from
independent
streams
of
each
of
the
trustees,
so
one
person
collecting
the
information
is
the
Hub
and
the
trustees
are
on
the
Outer.
Rim
are
the
spokes.
J
It's
one-way
flow
of
communication
to
the
hub
from
each
of
the
various
trustees
and
the
Hub
then
takes
all
the
information
Nation
gathered
from
the
various
trustees
and
communicates
it
out
back
to
the
board,
and
so
that
is
considered
a
hugs
and
spoke
communication
and
that
too
Falls
within
the
purview
of
the
brown
act.
If
a
form
of
the
board
is
triggered
in
terms
of
that
form
of
communication.
J
So
the
problem
with
serial
meetings
and
why
It's
Tricky
is
that
it
collects
all
the
information
in
a
way
where
it's
difficult
to
track,
whether
a
quorum
overboard
is
triggered,
and
so
it's
difficult
to
determine.
You
know
whether
the
brown
Act
is
being
violated.
However,
it
is
advisable
to
be
careful
when
you
are
communicating
information
amongst
yourselves
to
be
mindful
that
your
email
may
be
forwarded
on
to
another
trustee
and
that
that
email
may
eventually
before
neurons,
sufficiently
far
enough,
that
a
quorum
where
the
board
is
triggered.
J
In
addition
to
that
that
logistical
problem
as
a
matter
of
policy.
The
reason
why
serial
meetings
trigger
the
broad
act
or
fall
within
the
brown
Act
is
that
the
positions
and
views
of
the
members
are
gathered
in
terms
of
consensus
and
decided
outside
the
context
of
a
public
meeting.
J
It's
important
for
the
board
to
be
mindful
of
the
value
of
open
and
deliberate,
open
and
public
deliberation,
because
it's
important
to
create
decision
making.
It
shows
that
you're
being
thoughtful
and
deliberate,
take
all
viewpoints
into
account
and
achieve
a
decision.
You
know
in
a
way
that
has
been
vetted
and
so
having
that
sort
of
deliberation
made
in
public
is
important,
because
if
we
were
to,
for
example,
be
challenged
on
the
any
decision
on
based
on
abusive
discretion,
we
would
have
a
record
of
our
deliberations.
D
For
those
members
of
the
boards
who
are
appointed
members
who
are
not
members
of
the
system
and
come
from
a
private
business
background,
this
is
so
contrary
to
your
natural
instinct
it
or
about
the
way
business
is
done
and
the
way
business
is
done
efficiently.
This
is
not
a
very
efficient,
it's
not
a
nod
to
efficiency
by
any
means,
and
it's
a
real
difference
between
business
and
the
public
sector
and
business
in
the
private
sector.
It's
just
very
difficult.
D
You're
used
to
being
able
to
pick
up
the
phone
and
send
a
text
to
somebody
or
have
a
conversation,
persuade
them
of
your
position
and
be
able
to
move
on,
and-
and
this
runs
completely
counter
to
that
instinct-
that
you
have
in
your
private
lives
in
terms
of
persuading
each
other
and
cutting
deals
and
reaching
agreements
so
that
you
can
have
a
more
efficient
meeting
and
not
waste
a
lot
of
time.
D
This
is
a
nod
to
how
the
public
interest
outweighs
the
efficiencies
of
decision
making
when
you're
dealing
with
public
monies
in
a
public
context.
So
it's
just
it
just
runs
counter
to
your
your
private
instincts
about
how
is
the
best
way
to
get
business
done,
but
that's
what
we're
given
when
we
come
into
the
public
sector.
B
Yeah
speaking
I've
crossed
this
line
a
few
times
and
and
what
I
find
so
hard
Harvey
is
it's
not
just
the
making
decisions,
part's
easy,
even
even
in
small
company
boards,
you
get
everybody
involved
in
making
a
decision.
It's
that
second
one.
It's
a
Communications.
You
can't
even
do
homework
in
the
background,
which
is
the
part
I
always
get
hung
up
on
I'll
I'll
ask
people.
Well,
you
know
what
should
we
do
about?
What
should
we
what's
the
number
four
or
five?
But
you
can't
do
that
either.
B
M
D
And
you
can
you
can
you
know
you
can
talk
about?
What's
going
to
be
on
an
agenda
because
you're
not
really
talking
about
the
substance?
You're
just
you
know,
so
that's
okay,
but
it
is
difficult
for
a
chair,
particularly
because
you
you
kind
of
want
to
be
able
to
reach
consensus.
I
mean
your
instinct.
D
J
And
also
too
just
to
kind
of
piggyback
on
it.
It
goes
to
the
third
bullet
point
here.
Is
that
actual
concurrence
is
unnecessary,
so
you
don't
it's
not
just
limited
Gathering
outside
of
the
public
meeting,
it's
any
sort
of
communications
relating
to
board
actions
or
information
or
the
business
someone
outside
of
the
public
meeting
so
actual
concurrence,
so
consensus
building
is
necessary
for
the
brown
act
to
be
triggered
again.
It's
it's
literally
the
number
of
people
who
are
on
the
communication.
It's
a
quorum
of
the
board
that
dictates
whether
the
brown
act
applies.
J
Now
there
is
an
exception
to
the
rule
and
that's
where
staff
is
answering
questions
or
providing
information
to
the
board
in
a
one-way
fashion.
So,
for
example,
when
we
get
the
agenda
in
the
back
of
materials,
there's
a
one-way
email
that
we
all
get
that
says
very
bold
at
the
bottom
of
you
know.
Please
do
not
reply
all
that's
designed
to
prevent
that
communication
from
falling
in
with
the
brown
wax
yeah.
J
So
what
are
meetings
can
can
writings
count
and
the
meetings?
Yes,
for
example,
we've
discussed
earlier
in
email
communication
can
count
as
a
writing
or
a
meeting
emails
text
chats
again
the
thing
that
matters
is
the
number
of
people
who
are
involved
on
the
communication:
I'm,
not
the
the
median
on
which
it's
made.
J
So
another
thing
too,
to
be
mindful
is
that,
even
though
we've
got
if,
if
a
communication
does
fall
within
the
brown
act,
just
posting
it
or
otherwise
making
a
public
doesn't
sanitize
it
from
a
violation
of
the
brown
act
and
all
writings
that
are
circulated
to
the
board.
Putting
the
brown
act
aside
are
also
discoverable
under
the
California
public
records
act.
So
that's
another
thing
to
be
mindful
of
what
you
put
in
writing
and
circulate
amongst
yourselves
as
trustees.
J
The
only
exception
to
that
disclosure
of
public
writings
is
any
Community
confidential
Communications.
You
have
with
your
attorneys,
meaning
either
from
your
from
myself
and
so
in
addition
to
the
brown
Act
disclosure
requirements
for
right
for
limitations
on
who
can
be
involved
in
the
communications
before
the
brown
acts
triggered.
J
There
is
an
additional
layer
for
this
board
to
be
aware
of
which
is
the
public
records
act,
and
so
there
was
a
case
specific
to
the
city
of
San
Jose
that
came
out
a
number
of
years
ago
which
concluded
that,
even
if,
if
the
board
members
were
communicating
on
their
private
devices,
for
example,
text
messaging
with
a
private
device,
your
own
cell
phone,
those
Communications,
if
it's
relating
to
public,
The
public's
rights
and
know
the
information
under
the
California
public
records
act,
for
example,
business
of
the
board
that
too
becomes
discoverable
under
the
California
public
records
act.
J
O
Hey,
thank
you
just
one
quick
question
so
on
on
Communications
to
you
and
Harvey
what
who's
going
to
determine,
what's
considered
confidential
and
and
or
is
all
Communications
with
you
guys
considered
confidential,
not.
J
The
only
types
of
communications
that
fall
within
this
exception
are
attorney
crime,
privileged
information,
so,
for
example,
if
you're
seeking
counsel
from
either
Harvey
and
I
on
a
legal
issue
that
requires
advice
from
a
legal
standpoint-
that's
covered,
but
if
it's
not
triggering
any
sort
of
legal
analysis
that
you're
seeking
from
your
attorney,
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
covered
and
accepted.
Are
you
doing
away
in
on
that.
D
Yeah
I
would
say,
because
you
don't
want
to
make
that
determination
on
the
Fly
Andrew,
that
it's
best
to
consider
any
communication
that
you
have
with
Council,
Maytag
or
myself,
for
example
as
confidential
and
treated
confidentially
and
not
disclose
it
to
others.
The
privilege
of
confidentiality
is
held
by
the
entire
board,
and
so
ultimately
it
would
be
a
decision.
The
board
would
make
as
to
whether
or
not
the
treatment
is
done
eventually,
but
I
would
say
as
a
default
setting
at
any
any
time.
You
include
us
in
a
communication.
K
D
That
but
I
would
say
we
probably
honor
it
more
on
the
breach
Roberto,
just
as
because
being
efficient,
we
don't
always
slap
the
label
on
it
necessarily,
but
if
you
were
doing
a
search
for
Communications
in
your
outlook,
folder
for
example-
and
you
search
for
either
Maytag
or
myself
as
the
recipient
or
the
sender,
you
could
gather
those
and
treat
them
all
as
confidential
until.
J
That
does
not
mean
that
any
email
that
we
have
transacted
without
that
Legend
is
not
confidential,
and
so,
as
Javi
have
mentioned,
it's
it's
really
a
a
legal
judgment
call,
and
so,
if
there's
any
questions
with
regard
to
whether
something
is
should
be
treated
as
confidential,
please
send
it
to
Javier
or
me,
and
we
will
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
and
help
to
help
the
board
make
a
determination
now
so
going
back
to
the
brown
act
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
one
of
the
key
tenets
of
the
brown
Act
is
notice
to
the
public
regarding
the
the
type
of
business
that's
going
to
be
transacted
for
the
legislative
body
at
the
upcoming
meeting,
and
so
as
you'll
see
here.
J
The
brown
act
has
a
very
particularized
rules
about
when
we
need
to
put
notice
up
when
the
back
of
material
is
going
to
be
provided
to
the
the
public,
and
the
reason
being
is
that
we
need
to
provide
sufficient
notice
to
members
of
the
public
to
know
what
sort
of
business
is
going
to
be
conducted.
What's
going
to
be
discussed,
so
they
can
make
an
educated
determination
of
whether
or
not
they
feel
it's
necessary
for
them
to
attend
that
meeting.
J
So,
for
example,
race
storms
came
earlier
today,
you
saw
in
our
agenda
that
we've
had
a
disability
issue
that
he
wanted
to
weigh
in,
and
so
he
he
was
able
to
look
at
the
agenda
and
see
what
we
were
going
to
cover
now
under
the
brown
act.
It
requires
a
72
hour,
advance
notice
and
posting
of
our
agenda
in
for
the
city
of
San
Jose.
J
There's
Sunshine
ordinance
is
seven
days
in
advance
in
the
meeting,
and
that
has
resulted
in
our
practice
of
waving
sunshine,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that,
under
the
state
law,
we
have
72
hours
before
the
meeting
to
post
their
agenda
in
our
backup
materials.
J
However,
others,
the
San
Jose
Sunshine
ordinance,
we
have
seven
days,
and
so
the
state
law
takes
precedent
over
the
San
Jose
Municipal
Code
and
that
results
in
our
practice
of
waving
Sunshine,
because
so
long
as
we
comply
with
the
brown
acts
in
terms
of
posting
We
can
wave
Sunshine
for
the
state.
Municipal
Code
provisions.
B
Just
for
the
record
deck
we've
never
had
a
case
where
you
wave
sunshine
on
anything
even
to
the
least
bit
controversial,
and
if
it
was
controversial
we
might
think
twice
about
waving
sunshine.
J
And
so
another
thing,
too
is
the
agendas
must
be
publicly
available,
so
they're
required
to
be
posted
on
the
website.
Special
meetings,
which
you
are
all
familiar
with
with
the
ab361
process
that
we
have
in
place,
is
that
those
for
those
meetings,
the
24-hour
advanced
notice
and
posting
and
no
other
business
can
may
be
conducted
at
that
special
meeting
is
for
a
limited
purpose.
Most
importantly,
special
meetings
do
not
be
used
for
executive
compensation
decisions.
J
The
only
anything
else
may
may
be
called
within
the
session
meeting,
if
called
by
the
chair
on
the
majority
of
the
board.
Matters
that
are
not
agendized
cannot
be
discussed
again.
This
goes
back
to
the
notice
to
the
public
regarding
the
the
business
that
the
legislative
body
is
intending
to
conduct
at
the
upcoming
meeting.
If
a
matter
is
not
agendized
and
we
do
discuss
it,
that
would
be
blindsiding
the
public.
The
only
exception
to
that
rule
is
when
there's
an
immediate
action
that
arose
since
the
agenda
posting.
J
So
so,
for
example,
we
posted
the
agenda
within
72
hours
notice,
but
there's
an
emergency
circumstance
that
happened
within
those
27
hours.
That
requires
board
action,
and
so
we
may
take
action
on
that
item
so
long
as
there's
a
two-thirds
vote
of
the
board
present
or,
if
that's
not
possible.
A
unanimous
vote
of
two-thirds
is
not
present
to
consider
the
matter
so
they're,
because
the
brown
act
has
a
strong
public
policy
to
allow
members
of
the
public
to
have
access
to
the
decision
makers
in
in
government,
including
this
board.
J
J
So
under
the
traditional
Brown
act
rules
it
requires
that
if
any
member
is
not
at
the
physical
location,
where
the
the
board
is
to
schedule
to
meet
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
board,
the
agenda
must
post
all
the
teleconference
locations
of
that
members
and
the
members
of
the
public
must
have
access
to
that
place.
J
So,
for
example,
if
you
were
under
traditional
Brown
act,
rules
and
you're,
taking
the
the
meetings
today
from
your
house,
your
House's
address
will
be
posted
and
any
member
of
the
public
may
come
to
your
house,
enter
your
house
and
be
there
with
you
for
the
duration
of
the
meeting.
J
In
addition,
each
of
the
teleconference
locations
must
be
Ada
accessible
to
the
public
and
during
any
teleconference
meeting
at
least
a
form
of
the
board
must
be
in
the
jurisdiction
where
the
the
agency
has
jurisdiction
to
legislate
matters
over
so
we're
all
familiar
with
ab361
I
won't
go
get
into
this
in
any
great
detail.
The
main
thing
as
I've
discussed
before
is
the
proclamation
of
the
state
of
emergency
must
exist.
In
order
for
us
to
utilize.
J
Ab361
of
note,
the
governor's
Proclamation
is
scheduled
to
burn
off
at
the
end
of
February,
so
we
will
only
have
a
very
limited
time
left
with
our
dear
ab361,
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
The
legislature
did
pass
a
new
Brown
act,
alternative
for
hybrid
meetings
as
I'll
explain
it's
very
cumbersome
and
you
can
see
the
further
details
in
the
slide
deck,
but
as
a
threshold
matter,
it
doesn't
go
into
effect
until
next
year
in
January,
and
it's
only
in
place
in
the
next
three
years.
J
Thereafter,
as
a
threshold
requirement,
we
still
need
to
have
a
form
of
the
board
in
person
from
a
single
location
within
the
local
agency's
territorial
jurisdiction.
So
before
we
can
even
mess
with
or
I'm
sorry
invoke,
AB
24
49's
new
brown-up
alternative.
We
need
to
actually
have
a
physical
form
with
the
board
in
person.
There
are
two
ways
members
can
request
for
virtual
attendance
under
this
new
law.
J
One
is
that
we're
a
request
for
Just
Cause
and
the
other
is
a
request
based
on
emergency
circumstances
and
so
I'll
go
through
each
one
of
those
with
you
in
in
abbreviated
details
because
they're
they're
such
totally
defined
and
Limited
in
the
number
of
times
you
may
use
them
so
as
a
general
matter.
Just
cause
is
statutory
defined
and
there's
no
board
action
required
to
allow
for
virtual
attendance
for
just
cause.
J
Similarly,
emergency
circumstances
under
the
new
law
is
sexually
defined.
Again
it's
physical
or
medical
emergency,
but
the
difference
between
just
cause
allow
that
member
to
participate
based
on
this
rationale
of
emergency
circumstances.
Now,
if
the
board
determines
that
the
emergency
circumstance
is
not
indeed
an
emergency
within
the
meaning
of
the
statutorily
defined
purview,
then
that
member
cannot
participate
in
the
meeting
as
a
trustee
of
the
board,
there
are
a
few
additional
requirements.
J
One
is
that,
if
there's
any
at
the
beginning
of
each
meeting,
if
the
members
participating
remotely,
they
must
disclose,
if
there's
any
other
adults
with
them
in
the
room
and
that
can
describe
their
relationship
to
the
trustee
and
there's
two
more
requirements
is
that
both
your
video
and
audio
must
be
on
at
all
times
during
the
meeting.
And
so,
if
your
audio
or
video
is
off,
you
are
not
allowed
to
participate
in
any
votes
and
there's
a
limit
on
the
total
number
of
remote
appearances.
J
D
Just
want
to
make
one
comment:
you
can
see
from
this
new
law
that
passed
this
year,
how
strong
the
commitment
is
in
the
legislature
to
the
open
and
public
nature
of
our
meetings,
because
the
only
way
that
they
were
willing
to
pass
an
alternative
to
allow
us
to
continue
having
any
board
members
participate.
Virtually
is
by
creating
this
tremendous
series
of
excuse
me,
hurdles
that
have
to
be
jumped.
M
D
Multiple
times
to
make
it
as
difficult
as
possible
to
actually
comply
with
this
new
law
and-
and
it's
just
underscores
the
strength
of
the
public,
employee
unions
and
the
media
influence
in
the
legislature,
because
those
are
classically
the
two
bodies
that
really
really
really
provide
Watchdog
functions
over
the
open
and
public
nature
of
our
meetings
and
the
legislature
was
not
willing
to
Simply.
D
Allow
us
to
continue
doing
what
we're
doing
today,
for
example,
even
though
it's
completely
open
and
public
that
they
were
not
willing
to
write
this
into
the
brown
Act,
without
imposing
these
ridiculous
hurdles.
In
my
opinion
that
make
it
nearly
impossible
to
use
to
meet
other
than
in
person,
and
so
stepping
back
from
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
we
are
going
to
suggest
to
you
that
we
can
clear
these
hurdles
and
we
should
use
this
new
Rube
Goldberg
of
Allah
to
allow
some
of
you
to
participate
remotely.
It
just
is
not
workable.
D
There
have
been
some
concerns
about
the
brown
Act
traditional
teleconference
rules
because
of
the
need
to
have
to
post.
If
people
want
to
participate
from
their
homes.
For
example,
you
got
to
post
your
home,
address
and
open
the
door
and
allow
the
public
to
come
in
if
that's,
where
you're
going
to
be
meeting
from
there's
a
lot
of
sensitivity,
obviously
and
privacy,
issues
that
that
raises
that
that
board
members
elsewhere
have
raised.
So
it's
it's
awkward,
but
it
really
just
shows
you.
D
The
legislature
is
not
encouraging
us
to
continue
to
do
what
we're
doing
now,
once
the
governor's
Declaration
of
emergency
Burns
off
in
February,
so
it
looks
like
for
the
most
part
we
are
going
to
have
to
be
back
in
public
meetings
at
a
single
location
in
the
city
of
San
Jose.
The
way
we
were
before
the
covet
emergency
happened.
J
Yeah-
and
that
goes
back
to
the
purpose
of
the
brown
act,
which
is
the
American
policy
of
opening
accountable
government.
Some
of
the
legislative
history
behind
this
new
bill
suggests
that
there
is
some
concern
that
decision
makers
do
not
face
their
their
constituents
face
to
face
and
by
having
that
ability
to
face.
The
decision
makers
face
to
face
is
why
this
becomes
so
cumbersome
and
why
the
legislature
made
the
law
that
they
did
so
going
to
closed
session.
Going
reverting
back
to
Brown
Alex
issues
here
is
that
closed
session
is
only
emitted
in
limited
circumstances.
J
Again.
This
goes
back
to
the
key
principle
that
public
meetings
should
be
done
in
open
and
public
session
with
access
to
the
public.
So
here
are
a
few
limited
circumstances
that
the
brown
act
allows
us
to
go
and
closed
session
to
discuss.
Issues
relating
to
the
board's
legislative
decision
making.
One
is
Personnel
issues
of
hiring
firing,
complaints,
evaluations
of
performance,
labor
negotiations.
All
of
that
may
be
done
in
closed
session,
with
the
exception
that
no
final
action
and
compensation
can
be
taken
in
closed
session.
J
All
of
that
needs
to
occur
in
Open
Session,
as
we
have
done
in
the
last
few
meetings
or
relating
to
the
CEO
and
CIO
compensation
review
issues.
Another
thing
that's
permitted
to
go
into
closed
session
is
legal
issues
that
includes
pending
or
threatened
litigation.
Any
settlement,
consideration
of
litigation
to
be
to
sue.
J
J
Anything
that
happens
in
post-session
must
be
treated
as
confidential
in
terms
of
the
discussion
and
all
votes
in
closed
session
are,
must
be
done
by
roll
call
vote.
How
once
the
a
transaction
or
a
litigation
has
settled
or
concluded,
or
an
investment
has
consummated.
There
is
a
requirement
to
report
out
the
the
action,
and
so
certain
actions
will
be
reportable
and
the
members
votes
would
be
disclosed
at
a
later
date,
depending
the
conclusion
of
litigation
or
conclusion
of
an
investment
decision.
J
So,
what's
the
difference
between
board
action
requiring
a
vote
and
board
action
requiring
direction
or
invoking
Direction
emotion
may
be
used
by
the
board
to
take
action
on
matters
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
board
that
affects
public
interest.
So
a
couple
examples
of
that
are
setting
contribution
rates,
making
Actuarial
assumptions,
adopting
asset
allocations,
hiring
investment
managers,
and
so
those
are
the
types
of
board
action
board
business
that
require
an
action
by
motion.
J
J
So
voting
and
extensions
because
the
trustees
are
have
a
fiduciary
duty.
Part
of
your
fiduciary
duty
is
to
administer
the
system
and
voting
is
a
key
element
to
satisfy
that
Duty.
So
you
may
abstain
from
voting
if
you
truly
have
a
reason
for
abstaining.
For
example,
you
were
not
at
the
prior
meeting
where
the
discussion
was
made
and
the
action
was
deferred.
We
haven't
had
a
chance
to
update
or
educate
yourself
to
get
up
to
speed
in
situations
like
that.
J
You
may
abstain
from
voting
or,
if
you
have
a
bias
or
some
other
concern
that
really
prevents
you
from
rendering
if
their
votes
that's.
Another
reason
why
you
may
have
stayed,
however,
cannot
abstain.
Just
avoid
controversy
again.
This
goes
back
to
your
fiduciary
duty
to
administer
the
system,
and
the
voting
again
is
the
key
element
of
that.
So
you
should
use
abstention
sparingly
and
only
for
good
reason.
J
All
votes
must
be
reported
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
during
closed
session
and
on
teleconferencing
such
as
our
our
Zoom
meeting
today,
all
votes
must
be
done
by
little
conference.
J
So
what
are
the
penalties
and
remedies
if
the
ground
Act
is
violated?
Well,
if
there's
a
knowing
violation
of
the
brown
act,
it
is
a
criminal
misdemeanor
for
on
the
Civil
side,
anyone
can
bring
a
civil
suit
to
avoid
the
actions
of
the
board
based
on
a
born-night
violation.
It
could
be
a
D.A,
it
could
be
amend
with
the
public
if
it's
a
civil
action
brought
against
the
board
that
we
have
30
to
90.
J
In
90
days
to
cure
the
alleged
violation
before
a
CPA
file
and
if
the
brown
act
violation
is
established,
the
person
who
brought
the
brown
act
violation
challenge
will
be
entitled
to
attorneys
fees
and
costs
against
the
agency,
but
not
against
the
indivisible
board.
Members
and
insurance
coverage
for
such
recovery
and
passing
fees
is
questionable
because.
D
No,
we
haven't
tested
this
or
had
occasion
to
test
this,
yet
whether
your
fiduciary
insurance
policy
would
cover
violations
of
the
brown
act.
A
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
whether
they're,
knowing
or
not.
But
you
know,
we'll
we'll
try
to
keep
you
from
having
to
ask
your
insurance
companies.
J
And
circling
back
to
my
earlier
comments
in
addition
to
the
brown
act,
there
are
also
public
records
act
considerations
so
again,
anything
that
you
put
in
writing
is
discoverable
under
the
California
public
records
act.
There
are
certain
instances
where
material
is
considered.
Non-Discover
disposable
under
the
public
records
act
and
those
generally
have
to
do
with
confidential
information
that
would
make
Prejudice
the
public
agency
is
disclosed.
J
So,
for
example,
investment
information,
that's
proprietary
is
Exempted
from
the
California
public
records
act
and,
generally
speaking,
we
shift
the
burden
to
reinvestment
managers
and
Consultants
to
make
that
delineation.
So,
for
example,
a
summary
of
our
performance
as
a
fund
is
not
considered
proprietary
confidential
information.
However,
if
that
same
report
contains
information
about
where
we
should
invest
funds,
that
sort
of
information
is
proprietary
and
therefore
should
be
deemed
confident.
So
if
both
informations
are
contained
in
the
same
report,
the
entire
report
cannot
be
deemed
confidential.
J
D
So
yeah
over
time,
our
consultants
and
I
see
Laura's
still
here.
I,
don't
think
anybody
from
Newburgh
or
Berman
is
here,
but
this
comes
up
a
lot
in
reporting
and
our
Consultants
have
gotten
pretty
Savvy
about
it.
D
For
example,
in
the
public
reports
that
we
make
available
and
post
with
the
agendas
on
our
private
Equity
programs,
we
don't
go,
they
don't
go
into
the
deep,
the
granular
detail
of
the
proprietary
interests
that
are
being
held
in
the
portfolio
of
our
private
equity
and
BC
managers,
because
that
would
be
proprietary
trading
information.
D
The
difficulties
that
we
as
Council
have
had
in
the
past
in
some
situations,
is
that
a
consultant
will
aggregate
all
of
that.
Not
only
the
investment
level
information
but
also
portfolio
information
into
a
single
report
in
some
of
which
they
want
to
declare,
and
rightly
so,
should
be
kept
confidential,
but
a
lot
of
it
can't
be
kept
confidential.
D
So
we've
had
a
good
success
with
the
Consulting
community
in
educating
them
to
know
what
to
present
to
you
for
public
posting
and
what
should
not
be
post
put
in
the
public
posted
agenda
material
because
it
it
is,
and
truly
proprietary
and
confidential.
So
this
is
not
you
know
it.
We
have
better
control
these
days
than
we
we
had
five
or
six
years
ago
over
over
what
can
be
made
public
and
what
can't
in
the
Republic
so
we're
in
pretty
good
shape
on
those
things
both
Makita
and
newburger.
J
So,
as
you'll
see,
the
brown
Act
is
fairly
complicated
for,
particularly
as
it
pertains
to
serial
meetings
so
when
in
doubt
please
ask
either
Harvard
or
me
for
any
guidance.
So
we
have
a
couple
hypotheticals
that
we
want
to
run
by
you
to
test
how
well
you're
listening
I'm
just
kidding.
So
we
have
a
couple
hypotheticals.
We
want
to
walk
through
to
highlight
some
of
the
nuances
of
the
law.
So
the
first
one
here
Harvey
do
you
want
to
take
it
over.
D
Well,
you
know
these
are
really
to
highlight
some
of
the
things
we've
been
talking
about
in
in
you
know,
example,
situations
that
have
even
come
up
here
here
before
I
mean
let's
take
this
first
one
and
then
kind
of
give
you
and
we'll
see
what
your
reactions
is
to
it,
whether
you
think
there's
some
brown
act
issues
here.
This
first
scenario
is,
you
know,
you
know,
there's
a
calipers
reception.
D
Many
of
you
have
gone
to
calipers
conferences,
the
the
annual
one
is
in
March
and
a
lot
of
times
you
have
a
full
Forum
of
Trustees
attending
calipers
conferences
and
or
CII,
or
something
like
that.
So
in
this
hypothetical
during
the
reception,
others
are
present,
but
four
members
of
the
board
are
talking
together
and,
of
course,
we
just
reverted
and
they're
talking
about
giving
their
hard-working
CEO
a
pay
raise.
Now,
that's
four
out
of
nine.
D
Let's
assume
it's
a
nine
member
board
like
we
have
and
they're
talking,
and
the
four
of
them
agree
that
there
should
be
there's
compensation
for
the
CEO
later
that
evening,
unbeknownst
to
the
other
members
of
the
board.
One
of
those
trustees
runs
into
another
trustee
and
puts
out
the
ID
and
says
you
know:
don't
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
if
we
give
our
CEO
and
that
trustee
that
that
trustee
says
yeah
I
think
it's
a
great
idea.
D
D
What's
Difficult
about
this
situation
is
that
there
isn't
a
quorum
initially,
but
the
the
four
members
of
the
board
who
are
talking
about
board
business
during
a
conference,
so
they're
no
longer
protected
from
the
brown
act.
They
don't
know
that
if,
if
one
of
their
colleagues
are
going
to
talk
to
a
fifth
or
a
sixth
or
a
seventh,
you
know
once
you
start
the
conversation,
you
can't
control
where
it
goes
from
there
and,
if
they're
passing
along
to
each
other
their
position
on
a
matter
that
is
on
an
upcoming
agenda.
D
D
A
majority
of
the
board
has
gotten
together
and
traded
ideas
about
about
the
subject
and
deprives
the
public
of
any
opportunity
to
observe
and
give
them
the
input.
Why
don't
we
go
to
the
second
life?
We.
D
L
Okay,
so
let
me
rephrase
this
suppose
this
hypothetical
in
this
hypothetical
situation
at
the
next
meeting,
the
board
discusses
whether
to
give
the
CEO,
okay
race
would
that
sort
of
cleanse
the
fact
that
the
discuss
some
discussion
happened
outside
no
okay
thanks.
Q
Yeah
Harvey
one
question
this:
this
is
it's
not
clear
in
this
description
that
there
was
a
quorum
involved
in
any
of
the
numbers
that
added
up
right
if
there
was
no
Quorum
even
after
the
one
trustee
spoke
to
another,
this
wouldn't
be
a
violation
right,
because
the
brown
act
requires
a
quorum.
D
That's
right:
it
wouldn't
be
a
violation
if,
if
Howard,
if
you
spoke
with
Sunita
outside
a
board
meeting
about
something
that
in
and
of
itself,
would
not
be
a
violation
of
the
brown
act.
But
it's
it's
sort
of
a
pregnant
violation
of
the
brown
act,
because
you
don't
know
and
Sunita
wouldn't
know
that
you're
not
going
to
talk
to
a
third
or
she's
not
going
to
talk
to
a
foreign.
J
D
You
know
it's
just
once
you
once
you
get
started
discussions
with
board
members
outside
a
board
meeting,
it's
hard
to
control,
and
so
you
just
don't
know
when
your
inadvertently
going
to
have
somebody's
going
to
be
end
up,
putting
you
over
the
edge
of
the
Quorum.
B
Amount,
okay,
and
just
for
the
record,
we
did
this
one
time,
I
think
it
was
about
an
election
Harvey.
You've
remember
and
we
two
or
three
of
us
got
together
to
have
beer
to
talk
about
who
would
run
next
that
turned
out
while
not
to
be
a
violation
of
the
brown
act.
A
staggeringly
bad
idea
call
Design
like
what
what
do
you
guys
think
you're,
the
Pope's
Council.
So
even
if
you
don't
violate
the
brown
act,
it's
just
bad
decorum
I
mean
it
obviously
depends
on
the
importance
of
it.
D
We
we
had
a
client,
a
nine-member
board,
a
different
client
in
a
different
jurisdiction
where
four
of
the
board
members
are
appointed
by
the
plan,
sponsor
kind
of
like
here
and
regularly
unbeknownst
to
me
before
every
board
meeting
about
a
half
hour,
because
they
moved
their
board
meetings
to
Anita
from
8
30
to
9
o'clock
and
at
8
30.
D
M
D
Technically
but
it
violated
every
bit
of
the
spirit
of
the
brown
Act
and,
of
course,
you
couldn't
control
if
one
of
them
went
outside
the
room
on
the
way
that
the
Board
Room
and
cornered
another
trustee,
who
would
be
the
fifth
and
say
Hey,
you
know
we're
all
ready
to
go
to
seven
and
a
half
percent
on
the
assumed
rate
of
return.
Will
you
join
us?
You
can
see
the
problem
that
creates
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
in
these.
D
D
One
board
member
announces
her
belief
that
we're
in
a
new
paradigm-
and
we
think
she
thinks
that
the
rate
should
be
raised
to
seven
and
a
half
percent
a
few
days
later.
Four
other
board
members
text
each
other
privately
and
they
all
agreed
about
the
favor
of
seven
and
a
half
percent
assumed
greater
return.
D
L
First
I'll
say
the
the
case
on
it
like
me
last
month,
but
maybe
I
inspired
this
for
the
rest
of.
It
definitely
didn't
happen,
yeah.
Absolutely
because
it
sounds
like
it
sounds
like
there
was
sort
of
lobbying
behind
the
scenes
so
to
speak.
Yeah.
D
Already
already,
knowing
that
they
had
one
person
in
their
pocket
at
seven
and
a
half
percent
that
that
only
took
four
more
to
get
together
to
create
a
majority
to
go
to
seven.
So
it's
that
communication,
even
though,
if
you
just
took
that
middle
paragraph,
you
took
that
as
a
snapshot
and
said
four
board
members
text
each
other
and
agree
on
seven
and
a
half
percent.
That
wouldn't
in
itself
in
a
vacuum,
would
not
technically
be
a
violation
of
the
brown
act.
D
D
The
CIO
sends
an
article.
You
know:
Public
public
articles,
all
the
board,
members
that
praises
the
skill
of
an
investment
manager
that
they're
considering
for
private
Equity
mandate
and
the
CIO
asks
the
other
board.
Members
ask
the
board
members.
Let
me
know
what
you
think
after
you
read
the
article
six
of
the
board
members
carefully
reply
to
the
CIA
alone,
not
reply
to
all
and
they
say
yeah.
D
F
D
F
D
Q
Specifically
here,
the
CIO
is
not
on
the
board,
and
the
brown
Act
in
particular
refers
to
board
members.
D
Well,
but
the
CIO
is
here
acting
kind
of
as
the
Hub
right
in
facilitating
a
quorum
of
the
board
members
to
come
together,
say:
that's
that's
how
this
would
work.
So
the
CIO
wallet
is
not
a
member
of
the
board
so
not
counted
towards
a
quorum.
This
facilitating
a
quorum
getting
together
and
exchanging
ideas.
D
L
D
But
also
look
at
it
this
way,
think
of
it
from
the
perspective
of
if
this
had
gone
out
on
an
RFP,
think
of
it
a
perspective
of
a
competing
manager
who
comes
to
the
board
meeting
expecting
you
know
to
have
an
open
discussion
about.
You,
know
the
competition
and
turns
out
that
there's
no
discussion
and
they
pick
the
competitor
manager
without
any
further
discussion,
except.
B
D
D
Not
at
this
time,
but
later
it's
going
to
be
displayed
all
right,
it's
going
to
be
disclosed,
but
you're
right.
This
could
have
been
done
in
in
in
in
closed
session,
for
the
selection
of
a
manager.
That's
a
good
catch
trip,
so.
B
D
D
Why
take
15
20
minutes
during
the
board
meeting
when,
when
I've
got
the
consensus
of
six
out
of
nine
I'm,
ready
to
rock
and
roll
again
expedient,
but
doesn't
serve
the
purpose
of
giving
the
public
access
and
it
also
to
me
it
also
has
a
certain
chilling
effect
on
on
manager,
selection
and
may
impede
May
discourage
competitive
Managers
from
even
applying
if
they
know
that
this
is
how
it's
gonna,
it
could
go.
J
D
D
Instructs
them
to
vote
to
raise
the
assumed,
greater
return
to
seven
and
a
half
percent,
keep
our
contributions
rates
down
or
if
you
don't
vote
for
that,
I'm
going
to
replace
you
each
of
them
individually
pledges.
Yes,
yes,
Madam
mayor,
I
I
will
vote
for
seven
and
a
half
percent
on
the
rate
of
return,
One
Trust
view
of
those
public
board
members
then
text
the
retiree
member
and
says:
listen,
please
vote
for
seven
and
a
half
percent
or
I'm
going
to
be
run
off
the
board
and,
of
course,
the
retired
member
readily
agrees.
D
L
E
D
Well,
this
is
a
real
story
by
the
way
this
took
place
in
another
jurisdiction.
Roberto
may
know
the
story
from
our
from
our
past
California.
D
It
was
yeah
not
far
from
Bell
California,
and
this
actually
happened.
It
wasn't
hypothetical,
and
you
know
some
sometimes
chairs
of
Supervisors
or
or
mayors.
P
D
This
situation,
the
the
Mayors,
is
actually
the
the
Hub.
If
you
will
in
the
four
public
board
members
or
our
spokes,
they
didn't
come
together
in
a
meeting,
but
still
there
was
a
serial
agreement
among
them
that
they're
all
going
to
go
to
seven
and
a
half
percent
again.
L
Harvey
that
had
a
discussion
coming
back
to
that
at
the
board
meeting.
Would
that
have
changed
things
no.
Q
Hey
Harvey,
supposing
in
that
first
paragraph
that
each
of
the
public
members
said
you
know,
I,
don't
know
or
you
know,
let
me
think
about
it
or
I.
Don't
think
this
is
right.
Is
there
and
then
and
then
there's
a
discussion
and
everything's
clean
right,
probably.
J
Q
D
D
B
D
S
R
If
I
have
to
ask
a
question
here,
so
please,
so
you
need
a
quorum.
You
know
off
off
the
discussion,
but
does
the
outcome
matter,
meaning
that
if
five
people
on
the
board
discuss
it
and
but
the
outcome
was
it
didn't
go?
You
know
in
this
particular
case
you.
R
Agree
to
it
eventually,
then,
is
it
not
a
violation?
No.
D
L
It's
not
just
about
getting
together
as
a
quorum.
It
could
be
the
act
of
one-on-one
Communications
that
could
spiral
into
a
quote:
correct,
yeah,
that's
a
big
learning.
J
L
So
I
guess
the
implications
of
this.
If
we
really
follow
every
little
piece
of
it,
which
of
course
we
wouldn't
be,
as
trustees
are
obligated
to
how
do
we
get
into
deeper
discussions
on
specific
topics,
we
have
to
meet
more
frequently
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
but
I'm
just
asking.
J
The
meeting
should
those
discussions
should
occur
in
public
sessions,
so
either
you
meet
more
frequently
or
you
have
a
more
you're
dedicate
more
time
during
the
public
meetings
for
those
discussion,
server.
R
J
D
Law
does
not
make
it
easy
on
you,
and
you
know
it
doesn't
recognize
the
fact
that,
because
you
only
read
once
a
month,
for
example,
maybe
twice
if
you're
on
a
committee,
it
doesn't
give
you
an
efficient
way
to
approach
those
meetings.
D
Who
wants
the
sausage
to
be
made
in
public
and
and
that's
very
difficult,
because
those
of
you
who
sit
on
this
board
and
devote
your
time
and
attention
and
energy
to
it,
you're
not
getting
paid
very
much
to
do
that,
and
yet
it
requires
enormous
commitment,
enormous
commitment
of
time,
and
so
naturally,
you
think
about
ways
to
make
it
more
efficient.
You
do
this
in
your
life
generally.
How
can
I
you
know?
How
can
I
get
the
kids
to
school
faster?
You
know,
I'm,
not
gonna.
D
You
know
when
you're
just
used
to
doing
that,
because
you
have
limited
resources
and
the
law
just
kind
of
works
exactly
in
the
opposite
direction.
For
you
who
doesn't
want
you
to
be
efficient,
it
doesn't
want
you
to
call
up
your
colleagues
and
come
to
meetings
already
ready
to
go
and
prepared.
We
want
you
to
Hash
it
all
out
in
public
and
it
wants
these
meetings
to
go
on
very
lengthy,
so
I
can't
say
that
it's
the
best
way
to
make
decisions,
but
it's
a
public
policy
issue
that,
because
you're
this
is
a
public
agency.
D
The
public
has
a
right
to
know
and
observe
everything
that
you
do
and
to
participate
in
attempt
to
influence
your
decision
making.
So
that's
why
we
that's
why
we
try
to
you
know
bring
this
to
you
every
year
or
so
just
to
kind
of
remind
you
that,
while
it
isn't
efficient,
it
creates
you
making
good
decisions.
B
That
the
public
can
have
trust
in
and
and
I
can
speak
personally,
I
still
and
I'm,
pretty
good
with
food
sharing,
Duty
I
still
slip
up
I
slipped
up
a
couple
of
months
ago.
It's
a
fine
line,
but
I
think
you
know.
Harvey's
always
said
that
and
I'm
sure
Maytag
Breeze,
maintain
trust
is
a
huge
strength
for
us.
So
doing
this
right,
you're
accusing
ourselves
when
we
have
a
conflict
and
really
even
going
Beyond.
The
letter
A
lot
of
the
spirit
of
law,
I
think
is
key
and
we
we're
a
high
function
board.
B
B
B
Oh
the
first
name:
I
love
you
Steve,
biacon,
Jeff,
fire,
captain
fire
department,
effective
November,
11,
2022,
25.23
years
service
with
rest
proxy
Rick,
Eli,
Cardenas,
II,
police
officer,
police
department,
November,
22nd
2022,
with
25.7
year
service,
John,
H,
Carey,
Police,
Sergeant,
police
farmer.
In
fact,
remember:
29,
2022,
29.9
six
years
serves
good
for
you
John.
You
almost
made
the
victory
out:
Daniel
Paul
Gallo,
a
police
officer,
police
department.
In
fact,
remember:
26,
storm
22,
31.65
years
service.
B
Give
that
guy
a
a
brass
ring:
Patrick
Dwyer
police,
Sergeant
police
foreign,
effective.
There
are
12
2022
with
27.48
years
service,
with
reciprocity,
Alex
pons
fire
engineer,
Fire,
Department,
effective
November,
12,
2022,
22.78
years
service
and
on
audio
M
Silvera
police
officer
police
department,
effective
November,
11
2022
25.87
years
Service
to
have
a
motion
to
approve
Santos.
B
O
I
Echo
the
same
things,
congratulations,
Steve
and
Alex.
Thank
you
for
your
service
to
the
city
and
the
department
enjoy
your
retirement.
T
Yeah
from
Dave
I
worked
with
all
those
guys,
they're
great
guys
and
good
luck
with
your
future.
Endeavors
enjoy
retirement
and
live
long.
B
Great
now,
we'll
we'll
announce
to
death
on
moment
of
silence:
notification
of
the
death
of
Fred
M
Abram
assistant,
police,
chief
retired
Jan,
2
1902
died,
September,
19,
2022
subversion
benefits
to
Connie,
even
response
I
apologize
for
laughing.
This
guy
was
a
stud.
B
S
Well,
duck
Santa's
here:
I'll
just
buy
this,
but
I
knew
Chief
Abrams
and
later
on,
he
worked
for
the
Bay
101
Club
in
security,
when
I
was
the
fire
captain
over
station
five,
and
we
used
to
have
you
know,
meetings
once
in
a
while
because
and
actually
perform
a
medical
over
there
at
the
101
Club.
He
was
a
great
guy
and
I
enjoyed
him
and
it's
sad
to
hear,
but
he
had
a
long
life
and
did
a
good
job.
Thank
you.
O
B
Thanks
Franco,
but
good
job
baby
man
that
that
guy
that
guy's
here
for
over
35
years,
good
job
investment
committee,
any
theater
report.
As
far
so.
R
If
you
do
have
a
meeting
I
believe
it
was
last
week
discussed
trading
costs
related
to
equity
trading
and
FX
trading,
yeah.
B
R
B
Great
oh,
go
ahead!
B
Let
me
for
the
record
note:
we
receive
and
filed
the
minutes
of
August
23
and
September
1st
audit
committee
over
here.
We've
got
some
business
here.
Yeah.
L
We
had
a
very,
very
solid
meeting
on
October
20th.
It
was
a
joint
meeting
with
Federated
I
know
that
a
couple
of
gen
items
but
I'm
just
going
to
highlight
humans
report
for
from
internal
audit
on
the
was
an
A
plus
grade
on
accuracy
of
member
contribution
rates
was
a
99.9
accuracy
and
only
at
fifteen
thousand
dollar
impact
on
are
sort
of
difference,
so
it
was
very
small
and
then,
of
course,
Graham
Thornton
presented
I
think.
L
Are
they
going
to
present
Roberto,
or
are
you
going
to
present
the
results
of
their
annual
audit
and
again,
an
eight
plus
for
the
team?
There's
a
financial
audit,
it's
clean
with
no
findings,
so
I.
K
Don't
know
Sunita,
they
won't
be
presenting
they.
They
made
the
presentation
to
the
Joint
Audi
committee
and
then
allow
the
committee
to
then,
as
your
presenting
this
afternoon,
share
with
the
board
their
findings
and
overall,
the
recommendation
for
approval
by
the
committee,
so
they
will
not
be
presenting.
But
if
there
are
any
specific
questions
you
know,
staff
is
then
ready
to
address
them.
L
Yeah
I
think
the
committee
approved
the
approved
that
we
sent
to
the
board
for
final
approval,
so.
K
Okay,
and
that
would
be
items
f
and
g,
so
both
not
only
they
act
for
but
also
their
reports
and,
of
course,
the
borderline
here
was
that
it
was
a
clean
audit
on
qualified
opinion
and
again
I
can't
say
enough
about
the
staff
work.
We
had
a
very
professional
relationship
with
Grant
Thornton.
This
was
their
last
year,
which
means
that
staff
is
already
working
on
on
a
RFP
that
we're
going
to
be
issuing
earlier
in
2023
in
time
for
the
June
30th
2023
audit
of
the
financial
statements
so
again
kudos
to
staff.
K
This
is
really
an
end
for
the
whole
office,
all
the
way
from
benefit
staff,
I.T,
obviously
Investments,
which
is
a
big
part
of
it,
an
Administration.
But
you
know,
obviously
the
most
of
the
work
falls
on
the
Accounting
Group,
which
is
led
by
their
manager
Benji
by
choice.
So
again,
congratulations
to
the
whole
team
and
for
a
great
job
so
keep
up
the
good
work.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
Roberto.
If
Drew,
would
you
be
proposing
the
action
or
am
I
supposed
to
know
that
I'm
not
sure.
B
Make
sure
hey
was
your
oral
update.
We
did
that
we
received
minutes
August,
18
.,
see
we
received
minutes.
September
1st.
We
looked
at
the
update
D
on
Sirius
recommendation
e.
We
have
the
report
on
the
member
contributes
and
then
f
and
g
are
going
to
require.
Action.
F
is
foreign
Auditors
report
and
you
both
said
it
was
a
great
report
and
we've
got
it
there.
So
the
floors
of
promotion
to
approve
Grant,
Thornton's
audit
report.
M
B
B
B
K
If
I
can
I
eat
on
Facebook,
you
need
to
say
something
about
Iden
d.
I
update
in
the
city
audit
of
recommendation
because
it
was
actually
raised
at
the
audit
committee.
This
is
actually
the
the
audit
by
the
city
auditor
on
the
officer
timing
services
that
was
actually
requested
by
the
mayor
and
the
reason
is
still
showing
up
every
committee
and
board
meeting
over
the
last
year
and
a
half
is
because,
when
there
are
recommendations
that
I
was
standing,
we
continue
providing
information.
K
One
of
the
recommendations
that
is
still
outstanding
have
to
do
with
the
city's
position
and
the
city
orders
recommendation
that
the
investment
expenses
are
included
in
the
budget
presented
not
only
to
the
boards
for
approval
but
to
the
city,
council
and
so
I
just
wanted
to,
especially
for
those
of
you
who
are
new
to
the
board
and
another
part
of
the
audio
committee.
Your
boards,
both
of
them,
receive
a
legal
analysis
from
you
during
the
night
Council
on
this
issue,
which
actually
explained
and
Harvey
If
I'm
mistaken.
K
Please
feel
free
to
correct
me
that
investment
expenses,
basically
in
California
law,
are
to
be
deducted
from
the
earnings
of
the
plan.
T
K
I'm
not
part
of
the
administrative
budget
and
obviously
the
the
city
feel
differently
about
that,
and
so
does
the
the
the
city
auditor.
So
we
had
not
been
able
to
actually
meet
the
actual
recommendation
in
the
audit.
K
That
said,
I
think
that
the
board
have
taken
steps,
even
though
the
city
auditor
has
not
agreed
to
amend
the
recommendation
have
taken
steps
so
that,
in
spirit
of
that
recommendation,
to
provide
as
much
transparency
as
possible
in
relation
to
the
investment
expenses
and
the
annual
budget
and
and
one
of
them
actually
Prabhu
spoke
about
earlier,
which
he
will
be
going
to
the
city
council
next
week
and
present
the
annual
report
on
investment
expenses.
K
That's
one
of
them,
which
is
actually
a
very
comprehensive
report,
that
only
a
handful
of
systems
not
only
in
California
but
actually
in
the
whole
nation
actually
prepared,
but
also
we
go.
We
actually
have
you
seen
in
the
presentation,
so
they
are.
My
budget
provide
you
and
the
city
council
with
a
potential
and
estimates
of
investment
expenses.
Of
course,
based
on
two
starts,
which
is
the
first
one
is
based
on
the
current
NASA
allocation
and
second,
assuming
that
we
will
return
the
actual
assume
rate
return,
which
we
know.
K
That
is
not
usually
the
case,
so
we
do
have
taken
steps
to
provide
some
transparency
in
the
process
and
and
some
information
for
the
city
council,
but
remains
that
we're
not
really
actually
adding
or
including
those
investment
expenses
as
part
of
the
on
a
major
budget,
and
as
such,
this
recommendation
is
still
open.
K
So
I
just
wanted
you
all
to
know
that
I
honestly
do
not
see
that
particular
recommendation
coming
to
some
kind
of
agreement
anytime
soon
and
I
suspect
that
council's
opinion
would
not
change
of
you
that
provided
to
you
board
and
therefore
the
board's
position
again
will
not
change
on
this
issue.
But
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment
because
number
one
we
don't
speak
about
it,
often
until
it
was
raised
at
the
Audi
committee
and
I,
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
took
this
opportunity
to
raise
that
issue
again.
Thank
you.
L
Yeah,
it
seems
like
it's
a
stalemate.
Certainly
we
talked
about
the
whole
committee
meeting
and
it
does.
It
doesn't
look
like
they're
gonna,
budge,
yeah.
B
It
sounds
like
you're
handling
exactly
wherever
so
look,
it's
not
what
everybody
else
says.
So
we're
not
gonna,
do
it,
but
here's
the
number
you
know
we're
accounting
for
it,
but
we're
not
gonna
we're
telling
you
what
the
number
is,
but
you
know
we're
not
I'm.
We
run
this
in
private
companies.
All
the
time,
FIFA's
put
the
wrong
number
in
the
wrong
box
and
we're
like
No
And.
They
said,
what's
my
job
and
we're
like?
No,
your
job
just
do
what
everybody
else
does
I.
L
Mean
I
think
we
could.
The
one
argument
perhaps
is
that
to
say
that
if
you
give
a
budget,
we
may
not
be
able
to
produce
as
much
Alpha,
because.
D
G
K
This
is
actually
the
city
auditor,
so
I
will
make
a
point
bank
if
you're
listening,
that
we
have
to
reach
out
to
the
city
auditor
on
their
defense
on
their
behalf.
K
They
ID
provide
them
with
access
to
our
different
peers
across
the
state
they
reach
out
to
all
the
different
plans-
I'm
assuming
not
all
of
them
in
California,
and
they
found
three
jurisdictions
that
actually
have
some
information
on.
The
investment
actually
I
believe
provides
some
investment
expenses
in
the
annual
budget
to
be
Coronas.
K
I,
don't
remember
the
specifics,
but
suffice
to
say
that
in
my
experience
of
25
years,
working
in
California
I
agree
with
Council
and
of
course
he
is
your
attorney
general
counsel
that
Investments
are
to
be
deducted
for
investment
earnings.
They
are
not
part
of
the
administrative.
P
K
But
second,
even
if
we
wanted
to
somehow
disregard
your
council's
opinion
and
try
to
include
it,
I
have
always
made
the
point.
What
do
you
do
say,
for
example,
last
year
when
we
returned
close
to
30
percent
and
the
cost
is
actually
going
to
be
much
higher
than
anticipated,
because
we
are
actually
returning
about
four
or
three
times
more
than
you
assume
real
return?
You
go
back
to
the
ball
and
ask
them
for
millions
of
dollars
so
that
you
can
make
and
pay
your
invoices.
It
just
doesn't
make
sense
so.
K
B
Ruto
governance
savings
report-
Franco:
oh
nothing,
new
right,
let
me
know
we're
receiving
filed
the
minutes
of
September
1st
disability
committee
check
anything
to
report
no.
B
Great
we're
receiving
final
minutes
from
September
one
September,
6.
JPC,
is
that
you
Andrew
or
Escher
I
forget.
O
I
think
it's
Ashworth
I
have
no
problem
talking
about
it.
Yeah.
O
You
know
I'll
just
reiterate:
there's
the
Committees
taking
up
three
issues
or
three
items
right
now:
all
big
played
items,
one
CEO
compensation,
two,
the
incentive
program
trying
to
implement
and
then
three
we're
reviewing
the
MPP
process
that
you
know
we
implemented
with
the
help
of
Cortex
last
year
and
just
reviewing
how
that
process
went
this
year
and
any
changes
that
might
be
needed.
That's
about
it.
We
got
a
meeting
next
week,
great.
B
Thanks
Andrew
I
can
say:
we've
got
an
extremely
high
function,
JBC,
both
on
our
side
and
this
side.
We
we
got
Ash
for
our
main
ninja.
We
are
grabbing
dirt
with
our
Wheels
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
done
next
year.
Let
me
know
we're
receiving
files,
September
9,
September,
15
minutes
any
public
comments.
Anybody
want
to
jump
in
before
we
go
to
AB
463.
O
Sure
Roberto
made
a
comment
during
his
CEO
update
I
wanted
to
thank
so
last
week,
local
230,
the
fire
Union
hosted
a
retirement
Workshop
I
want
to
thank
Sandra
Castellano
the
benefits
manager
for
allowing
Melanie
and
Han
to
attend.
They
were
a
big
part
of
of
that
morning
and
the
presentation
it
was
well
received.
We
had
about
40
people
that
fire
members
that
participated
in
the
three-hour
session
and
it
was
a
success.
O
So
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
everything
you
guys
have
done.
You
guys
made
everything
possible.
Thank
you.
B
Great
thanks,
if
you're,
no
more
overdue
Maytag
for
the
ab
show.