►
Description
City of San José, California
Police & Fire Department Retirement Plan Board of May 5, 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 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=959403&GUID=2C9EAAE0-1445-4F5F-AC47-068F8B8B3E03
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
And
all
this
meeting
to
order,
let's
go
ahead
and
go
through
the
roll
calls
views
here.
I'm
here
julen's
andrew
here
here,
anita,
are
you
here.
B
As
far
you're
here,
you
might
be
on
mute.
As
far
are
you
here,
I'm.
B
B
Gosh,
I
don't
know
anytime,
I
don't
always
have
such
trouble
connecting.
Let
me
go
through
orders
of
the
day.
Let's
note
that
we
have
these
felony
forfeiture
hearings,
I
see,
we've
got
the
attorney
mizeitman
line,
so
we'll
be
taking
those
at
time,
certain
8,
30
and
10.
Well,
as
soon
as
the
meeting
is
called
to
order.
Howard
are
you
online?
Yet
god
is
so
weird.
B
It's
still
connecting
this
front
side
of
the
meeting
will
be
a
little
more
formal
than
normal,
but
in
general
once
we're
through
that
our
zoom
editor.
A
B
I'm
here,
oh
great,
so
we've
got
a
full
compliment
on
one
vacancy.
We
we
generally
let
people
interrupt
the
speakers
to
ask
temporal
questions,
but
in
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
it's
a
bit
more
formal.
So
let's
let
counselor
chin
neat
and
may
go
at
the
beginning
and
we'll
get
to
that
in
just
a
minute.
B
Let
me
keep
going.
There
is
nothing
that
we
have
to
wave
sunshine
on,
and
you
recall
that
the
last
meeting
we
decided-
maybe
it
was
maybe
it
was
at
our
gym-
setting
meeting
to
put
public
comments
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
So
harvey
wrote
something
over,
maybe
because
you
may
text,
let
me
or
maybe
staff.
B
So
at
this
time,
members
of
the
public
may
comment
on
items
not
included
on
the
agenda,
provided
the
matter
is
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
on
the
board,
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
provide
comment.
This
time
may
do
so
by
raising
their
hand
in
the
zoom
app
or
if
you're,
by
joining
my
telephone
press
start
on
your
cell
phone,
keep
pad.
B
Oh
and
then,
when
addressing
the
board,
it's
star
six
to
unmute,
we'll
ask
you
to
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
I
think
we'll
give
about
three
minutes.
So
do
we
have
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
weigh
in
now.
B
Okay,
that's
great,
so
I
think
we
are
past
that
so
we're
gonna
go
directly
now
to
item
hang
on,
I'm
shuffling
my
pages.
F
So
I
just
got
a
received
a
call
from
council
denise
in
may
she's
having
difficulties
logging
in
she
was
initially
logged
in,
but
was
logged
out.
So
I'm
I'm
looking
at
the
gallery.
I
do
not
see
her
currently
in
the
gallery.
B
Okay,
well,
look
we
thanks
maytag.
Will
you
keep
your
eyes
out
for
her
and
just
interrupt
me
when
we
get
when
she's
back
on
sure
great?
So
then
let's
go
ahead
and
we'll
just
keep
plowing
on
so
our
first
item
of
business
is
the
consent
calendar.
Does
anybody
want
to
pull
anything
off
the
consent
calendar.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I'm
going
to
keep
it
brief.
I
know
we
have
a
long
agenda
today
and
other
more
pressing
matters,
but
you've
all
noticed
the
market
is
falling.
There
was
a
violent
rally
yesterday
up
three
and
a
half
percent
is
down
nasdaq's
down
four
percent.
Today
s
p
down
three
percent
and
change
extremely
volatile
conditions
in
the
market,
as
a
result
of
which
fiscal
year
to
date
estimate
from
makita
as
a
tuesday's
close.
The
pension
plan
was
down
one
point:
four
percent
fiscal
year
to
date.
A
Of
course,
these
are
estimates,
and
these
are
also
not
as
of
month
end
something
to
keep
in
mind
and
the
healthcare
trust
was
down
five
and
a
half
percent
fiscal
year
today.
So
just
I
mean
we
have
a
very
investment
savvy
board,
but
you
know
as
a
reminder
to
everyone.
This
is
the
nature
of
financial
markets.
Markets
go
up,
markets
go
down.
We
were
up
25
and
changed
last
fiscal
year,
this
fiscal
year.
To
date
we
are
down
one
and
a
half
percent
and
that
shouldn't
be
a
surprise
to
anyone.
A
I
I
don't
think
the
market
is
in
an
oversold
condition,
yet
we
may
get
there
very
very
soon
if,
if,
if
we
have
a
few
more
down
days
like
that-
and
I've
already
started
talking
both
internally
with
my
team
as
well
as
externally
with
some
managers,
if
I
feel
that
we
need
to
you
know
re-risk
the
portfolio
at
some
point,
I
will
bring
that
to
the
board.
A
Now
with
that,
there
is
one
other
item
on
the
agenda.
That's
the
the
pacing
plan,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
from
the
board,
if
not
so
just
to
introduce
the
plan
and
the
basic
plan.
This
is
something
that
we
present
to
the
ic
every
year
and
then
bring
it
to
the
board
private
market
spacing
plan
and
dinesh
did
present
this
at
the
ic
last
month
and
the
ic
adopted
it
and
forwarded
it
to
the
board
for
its
formal
acceptance.
B
Yeah
we
we
we
can
do
you
need
more
time
to
get
your
internet
stable.
Your
connection,
stable
yeah,.
C
I'm
still
trying,
I
think,
we've
got
it
back
again
this
time,
but
I'm
still
working
on
just
one
human
thing.
B
It's
yeah
that
is
quite
a
bit
better,
go
ahead
and
and
and
read
the
line
your
favorite
shakespeare
passage.
So
we
can
tell.
B
C
F
Welcome
and
council
even
may
I
suggest
what
you
may
want
to
do
is
to
mute
yourself
on
zoom
and
call
in
so
you
have
a
more
secure
audio
by
phone
yeah.
I
To
another
item,
so
can
I
suggest,
and
of
course,
if
council
think
this
is
not
appropriate
to
try
to
tackle
like
quick
items
like,
for
example,
the
aura
update
by
the
ceo
and
others.
That
would
just
be
a
matter
of
a
couple
of
minutes,
because
I'm
I'm
almost
positive
that
if
we
initiate
the
private
markets,
we're
going
to
interrupt
them
right
through
the
presentation.
B
I
Announcing
retirements
yeah,
there
might
be-
I
mean
this
probably
another
one
on
the
new
business
for
the
extension
of
the
contract
for
the
communication
consultant.
That's
just
another
two
minutes:
okay,.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair
sure.
You
may
be
called
that
at
the
last
meeting
you
borrow
approve
the
fiduciary
insurance
and
I
think,
as
council
explained,
there
are
three
different
agreements
for
fisher
insurance
and
council
also
explained
the
the
concept
of
the
waiver
of
recourse
fees.
I
I
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know,
I
think
it's
a
newsletter.
We
issued
the
the
spring
edition
of
the
quarterly
retirement
connection.
I
Again,
I
just
want
to
publicly
thank
not
only
the
work
by
staff
and
our
communication
consultant,
but
it's
clear,
headed
by
by
barbara
heyman
and
linda
alexander,
so
I
want
to
publicly
thank
them
for
their
for
their
work
and
keeping
this
information
critical
information
to
the
to
the
members
available
on
a
quarterly
basis,
and
I
also
want
to
give
our
cio
this
a
very
short
article
kudos
to
prabhu
palani
for
the
the
article
where
he
was.
I
forget
the
specifics.
Probably
you
can
help
me.
You
were
selected
who,
provided
you,
the
award.
A
I
Insight,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
I
just
wanted
to.
You
know,
call
kudos
on
that
and
then.
Lastly,
I
want
to
let
you
know
a
couple
of
things:
the
city
lifted,
the
mandatory
masking
policy
at
the
city
locations,
the
a
couple
of
staffing
updates.
I
I
I
Two
new
members
to
the
staff
and
their
names
are
tracy
tanner
and
tara.
Tran
again,
two
new
members
of
the
benefits
benefits
group
so
welcome
to
both
of
them.
I
also
want
to
let
you
know,
give
another,
no
medicare,
b
reimbursement,
the
deadline
for
reimbursement
form
submission
was
april
1st
we
actually
received
806
reinvestment
forms,
606
of
them
have
been
processed
through
april.
The
remaining
200
will
be
processed
with
the
may
payroll.
I
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
if
you
have
submitted
a
payment
again,
investment
for
payment-
if
you
haven't
received
that
yet
against
606
in
april
and
200
will
be
made.
But
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
contact
the
office
and,
lastly,
and
linda,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
send
you
an
email,
but
I
know
it
was
late.
I
The
click
of
the
office
has
reached
out
to
trustees
about
the
filling
out
the
conflict
of
interest
form
in
the
clerk
website.
That
was
due
for
april
first.
Is
that
form
that's
a
separate
issue
from
form
700?
Is
that
correctly?
Now
it's
the
same
thing,
that's
correct!
It's
it's
separate,
it's
separate!
So
if
you
have
received
an
email
from
the
clerk's
office,
asking
you
to
fill
out
the
conflict
of
interest
form
found
on
the
clerk
website,
please
make
sure
you
go
through
it.
I
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
us
with
questions
and,
lastly,
just
want
to
remind
you:
staff
continue
attending
the
office
two
days
a
week
and
we
actually
had
a
soft
opening
of
the
office.
We
haven't
advertised
it,
but
we
do
have
doors
open
now.
The
office
from
9
a.m,
to
4
p.m.
That,
mr
cheer
concludes
my
update.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
I
hear
that
before
I
go
in.
B
All
right:
well,
let's
hey,
let's
give
it
a
try.
Everybody
remember
to
stay
on
mute,
so
we
can
hear
miss
eat
may
clearly.
If
there
are
no
questions
for
roberto,
then
let
me
kick
off
item
for
you.
I've
got
something
to
read,
but
I've
got
a
little
preface
before
I
read
it.
B
First
and
foremost,
we
are
an
agent
of
the
state
and
because
we
are
an
agent
of
the
state.
We
owe
due
process
rights
to
the
two
gentlemen
we're
about
to
discuss.
B
So
the
core
of
due
process
is
notice.
Well,
we've
done
that
and
the
ability
for
them
to
appear
and
to
contest
and
have
counsel
and
call
witnesses
and
question
stuff.
So
I
would
say
to
our
counsel
and
and
do
you
miss
me
and
to
your
client
if
at
any
time
you
feel
like
we're
not
observing
due
process
by
all
means,
interrupt
us
and
point
out
to
us.
We
do
actually
have
a
process
every
month
where
we
have
to
follow
due
process.
B
It's
our
disability
committee,
it's
very
ably
led
by
trustee
dick
santos,
who
makes
sure
people
know
they
have
to
be
there.
We
accommodate
them
if
they
can't
be,
they
bring
counsel.
We
have
witnesses
so
we're
used
to
this
process,
but
a
disability
application
is
something
quite
a
bit
easier.
I
think
than
cases
we're
going
to
hear
today.
B
So
let
me
move
on
to
the
frame
for
this
mate.
Our
council,
maytag
chin,
is
going
to
explain
to
you
a
minute,
but
I
cannot
highlight
enough
as
she's
pounded
into
me
ss
harvey.
B
You
know
there
are
two
justice
systems
in
the
country,
there's
the
criminal
justice
system
and
the
civil
justice
system,
and
I
think,
we're
sitting
somewhere
our
board
right
now
with
the
what
we're
about
to
do
in
the
civ
in
the
civil
side
of
things.
Well,
I'm
a
venture
capitalist,
that's
the
only
place
I
live.
B
The
criminal
courts
have
already
had
their
due
you've,
read
the
briefs
and
so
on,
so
we're
outside
the
criminal
justice
we're
in
the
civil
justice
system.
So
we're
not
talking
about
punishment.
We're
talking
about
damages,
I
think
our
job
today
is
to
figure
is
to
figure
out
there
was
a
contract
involved
and
so
on.
So,
let's
not
think
that
we're
here
to
impose
punishment,
we
are
not
our
civil
courts.
B
Our
criminal
courts
rather
have
already
done
that
and
finally,
before
I
sort
of
go
to
my
thing,
two
quick
things,
one
as
I
said
before,
we
have
this
sort
of
general
zoom
philosophy
of
interrupt
and
asked
questions.
Let's
be
a
little
more
formal
today,
let's
not
interrupt
counsel,
either
chin
or
mizeet
may,
let's
let
them
do
their
thing
before
we
do
that
and
secondly,
I
I
cannot
thank
you,
council,
council,
chin
and
council
eat.
May
the
briefs
that
you
prepared
were
well
written.
B
They
were
easy
to
understand,
especially
may
thank
you
for
highlighting
the
middle
of
your
brief.
What
you
thought
the
salient
issues
were
that
enabled
me
to
do
a
bunch
of
homework
over
the
weekend,
and
I
really
thank
you.
It
was
clearly
written
prose.
It
was
easy
to
grasp
what
we're
getting
at
okay.
So
now,
I'm
going
to
read
a
formal,
intro
and
turn
it
over
to
our
council
maytag,
so
we'll
be
hearing
two
matters
scheduled
for
certain
a
time
certain
in
items.
Four
e
and
4f.
B
These
two
matters
involve
the
application
of
san
jose
munich
code
to
two
members
for
the
potential
cancellation
and
termination
of
retirement
allowances
convicted
of
different
felonies,
because
these
two
items
have
been
agendized
separately
and
involved,
the
application
of
the
community
code
to
two
different
members
for
two
different
felonies.
It's
important
maytag
points
out
to
us
that
we
keep
our
comments
in
consideration
of
each
matter
separate
and
distinct.
There
will
be,
I,
I
suspect,
a
little
bit
of
overlap,
but
I
think
maytag
is
saying:
let's
focus
on
the
particulars
of
each
case.
B
Now
we
do
have
we
have
a
court
reporter
president
right,
maytag
nod
your
head
up
and
down
that's
correct
right
and-
and
this
reporter
is
authorized
to
swear
in
witnesses
who
may
present,
including
the
member
mr
gallaher,
at
the
request
of
the
board,
because
we
have
a
court
reported
president
transcribing
everything
again,
let's
not
interrupt.
Let's
not
talk
over
one
another.
We
will
do
the
round
rob
and,
as
appropriate,
we'll
do
raising
hands
when
it
comes
to
the
public.
B
So
for
each
item
we
will
have
the
following
format:
council
channel
on
our
side,
we'll
go
first,
then
council,
eaton
may
will
go
second
and
then
we'll
let
them
go
back
and
forth
to
rebut
and
answer
each
other.
Then
I'll
open
the
floor
for
public
comments
and
then
a
slightly
more
formal
way
of
going
around
the
board
anything
else
you
want
to
add
before
you
begin
maytag,
no
wait.
C
F
C
B
F
B
F
Okay,
great
so,
as
you
can
see
here,
this
is
exhibit
k
to
the
materials
that
the
plan
council
has
provided
to
the
board,
as
you'll
see
that
the
matter
has
been
noticed
under
san
jose
municipal
code,
3.3
6.830
for
the
cancellation
and
termination
of
service
retirement
allowances.
Due
to
mr
gallagher's
felony
conviction.
F
F
Now,
last
month,
I
provided
a
presentation
of
the
overview
of
pension
forfeiture
laws,
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
today
is
to
provide
a
refresher
for
the
board.
F
F
F
Although
the
provision
has
been
renumbered
throughout
the
years,
the
current
version,
which
has
been
on
the
books
since
1962,
but
renumbered
and
amended
in
1993,
to
become
gender
neutral,
but
otherwise
the
same.
In
substance
to
the
1965
version
has
been
on
the
books
and
been
a
part
of
the
members
member
gallagher's
employment
agreement
as
you'll
see
here
here
are
the
key
points
from
the
san
jose
provision
at
issue,
which
is
section
3.36830.
F
If
the
board
decides
to
apply
the
forfeiture,
that
is
a
bifurcated
proceeding
and
that
would
have
to
come
via
a
separate,
separate
application.
So
I
wanted
to
put
this
put
the
guardrails
and
scope
out
the
issue
before
the
board,
which
is
that
we're
limited
to
the
payment
of
retirement
allowances
to
the
member.
Here
at
this
proceeding
now
the
board's
discretion
is
guided
by
existing
case
law.
F
An
existing
case
law
provides
the
guard
rails
for
the
board's
exercise
of
discretion
as
you'll
see
here,
there
are
four
things
that
arise
out
of
the
case
law
of
existing
body
of
case
law
that
guide
the
board's
exercise
of
discretion.
One
appeasing
public
opinion
alone
is
insufficient
is
an
insufficient
justification.
F
But
if
it
was
one
of
many
considerations
that
the
board
takes
into
consideration,
then
it
may
be
part
of
it
would
not
undermine
the
board's
application.
F
Two
pensions
are
awarded
for
faithful
and
conscientious
service
and
felony,
and
pension
forfeitures
are
appropriate
for
a
breach
of
trust.
So
this
goes
back
to
the
issue
of
what
were
the
terms
of
employment
and
what
did
the
member
agree
to
do
in
exchange
for
a
vested
right
to
a
full
pension
benefit
from
this
fund?
F
Three
felonies
or
treasonous
acts
must
occur
before
the
member
reaches
retirement
status.
So
the
timing
of
the
conviction
and
the
timing
of
the
retirement
status
achieved
is
material
two
and
four.
The
board
may
return
some
or
all
of
the
member
contributions
if
it
decides
to
apply
the
forfeiture
provisions
now.
Based
on
this
information,
we
have.
F
The
member
must
have
been
convicted
of
a
felony
or
treason
if
the
member
had
not
been
convicted
of
a
felony
or
treason
or
the
conviction
was
reversed.
For
any
reason,
the
board
may
not
apply
san
jose
municipal
code
3.36.830
to
the
member
to
cancel
or
terminate
any
portion
of
his
or
her
pension.
From
this
plan,
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
two,
the
convicted
conduct
must
have
occurred
before
the
member
reached
retirement
status,
meaning
the
date
on
which
the
board
approved
the
retirement
application.
F
So
that's
the
that's,
the
that's
the
main
date
that
we're
we're
going
to
be
focusing
on
these
two.
These
are
the
two
required
findings
that
the
board
must
consider
and
decide
before
it
can
even
apply
the
statute
or
municipal
code
as
a
threshold
matter.
F
Now
the
board
also
has
the
discretionary
authority
and
may
consider
the
following
in
determining
whether
or
not
to
apply
the
statute.
F
F
The
board
may
also
consider
whether
to
cancel
all
or
a
portion
of
the
service,
disability
or
disability
retirement
allowances,
and
the
board
must
also
determine
effective
as
of
what
date,
if
it
should
decide
to
apply
the
municipal
code
provision
and
if
the
board
decides
to
apply
the
provision,
the
board
may
then
further
consider
whether
to
return
any
portion
of
the
member's
contributions
and
with
or
without
interest.
And
lastly,
given
that
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provides
that
survivor,
death
benefits
are
unaffected
by
any
application
of
the
municipal
code.
F
We
to
the
extent
because
of
that
the
board
must
also
consider
how
how
it
will
continue
to
fund
those
benefits
if
member
contributions
are
returned
and
if
the
the
board
decides
to
apply
the
municipal
code
provisions
now
going
to
the
facts
particular
to
this
item
and
to
his
members,
stephen
gallagher,
the
parties
do
not
dispute
the
basic
facts.
F
Mr
gallagher
retired,
with
a
service
retirement
with
22
years
of
service
over
22
years
of
service.
I'm
sorry
as
you'll
see
in
this
memorandum
provided
to
the
board
in
the
pages
one
and
two
it
lays
out
the
basic
summary
of
the
members
information.
F
The
parties
do
not
dispute
that.
Mr
gallagher
was
first
employed
with
the
san
jose
police
department
and
the
city
of
san
jose.
On
february,
28
1983
mr
gallagher
entered
a
guilty
plea
on
february
9th
of
2005..
F
F
Now,
as
you'll
see
here
on
page
two
of
the
memorandum,
it
outlines
the
benefit
information
for
this
particular
member,
mr
stephen
gallagher,
and
it
also
provides
information
regarding
mr
gallagher's
criminal
conviction,
which
was
under
penal
code
section
288
letter
a
subdivision
a
for
sexual
conduct
with
a
child
under
the
age
of
14.,
and
one
thing
I
do
want
to
note
for
the
board
before
I
turn
it
over
to
council
eaton
may-
is
that
it
appears
from
their
materials
submitted
to
the
board
that
mr
gallagher
was
a
detective
in
the
child
and
elder
physical
abuse
detail
during
his
time
as
a
officer
with
the
police
department.
C
Good
morning,
everyone,
my
name,
is
denise.
May
I
have
mr
steven
gallagher
here
with
me.
He
is
visible
in
my
screen
and
I'd
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
present
our
position
with
respect
to
the
legality,
as
well
as
the
viability
of
applying
code,
section
3.36830
in
this
particular
fax
and
in
this
situation
I
would
like
to
request
if
I
could
share
my
screen.
B
H
C
B
G
C
Thank
you
so
again,
I
am
agree
with
council
that
there's
no
major
conflict
or
dispute
regarding
the
facts,
but
I
think
for
us,
the
issue
is
a
little
different.
C
So
during
this
particular
period
mr
gallagher
earned
22
years
of
vested
retirement
service
credit.
He
applied
for
service
retirement
in
2010
and
after
the
board
determined
his
eligibility
qualifications
to
receive
the
service
benefit.
Mr
gallagher
began
receiving
those
benefits
in
on
september,
2nd
2010..
C
One
of
the
reasons
is
that
we
feel
that
this
was
an
impairment
of
his
contract
rights.
We
also
feel
like
his
official
job
duties.
C
C
At
the
time
that
mr
gallagher
was
employed,
the
issue
becomes
when
it's
applied
is
when
the
contract
is
impaired
and
our
position
is
that
there's
really
no
legal
basis
or
an
appropriate
basis
to
apply
this
provision.
Right
now
in
this
particular
situation,
so
again
for
us,
the
issue
is
whether
the
service
retirement
benefits
of
mr
gallagher
should
be
terminated
or
cancelled
by
the
board,
and,
if
so,
if
we
believe
that
should
not
be
applied.
Why
not?
C
So
we
believe
that
applying
the
charter,
which
we
believe
is
where
you
get
the
authority
for
the
municipal
code
charter,
section
1504e
and
municipal
code
3.36830-
has
some
problems,
it's
inappropriate
and
problematic
for
several
reasons
which
I
will
show
as
we
move
forward.
C
The
first
reason
is
that
we
believe
that
the
charter
section,
as
well
as
the
code,
are
unconstitutionally
big,
ambiguous
and
over
broad.
The
second
issue
that
we
look
at
is
as
applied
to
this
retiree.
Is
it
constitutional?
We
do
not
believe
it
is
still
so
it's
vague
in
the
senses.
What
felonies
qualify,
it
just
says
a
felony
or
treason.
What's
the
difference
between
a
dui
and
a
manslaughter,
the
whole
idea
that
you
can
judge
which
felonies
are
applied
to
be
terminated
or
canceled,
I
think,
creates
a
problem.
C
C
I
think
there
is
some
vagueness
and
big
ambiguity
in
the
statute
itself.
That
is
subject
challenge.
C
We
feel
it's
over
broad.
The
sections
include
persons
who
are
receiving
pension
benefits
who
commit
a
felony,
which
means
that
retirees
who
commit
felonies
after
retirement
may
be
subject
to
cancellation
or
termination
of
benefits.
This
is
illegal
unless
you
can
meet
the
criteria
and
do
the
constitutional
analysis
under
alameda
county
case,
and
so
as
we
go
through
that,
I
think
we'll
be
able
to
see
that
our
approach
is.
This
particular
statute
seems
awkward
and
I
think
it's
subject
to
constitutional
challenge
notwithstanding.
C
C
The
relationship
with
respect
to
the
employee
and
employer
in
that
the
employee
provides
services
in
exchange
for
a
salary
and
a
pension
is
a
contract,
and
we
believe
that
applying
these
sections
will
impair
the
public
pension
contract
and
the
supreme
court
has
established
that
any
impairing
is
unconstitutional
unless
it
survives.
The
two-step
analysis
of
the
alameda
county
case.
C
Even
though
the
statue
was
in
existence
at
the
time
that
mr
gallagher
was
working,
it
wasn't
applied,
it's
never
been
applied,
and
so
his
standing
and
his
right
his
ability
to
be
able
to
assess
the
change
which
is
at
this
particular
hearing,
subject
to
canceling
his
only
source
of
income,
I
think,
is
the
basis
for
what
we
believe
is
a
modification
of
his
pension.
C
So
when
we're
looking
at
the
two-step
process,
the
court
gave
us
instructions
and
saying
that
if
the
application
of
the
section
involves
an
economic
disadvantage,
is
it
is
to
be
offset
by
new
comparable
advantage
for
the
retiree
here,
we've
seen
no
comparable
advantage
being
given
for
this
impairment
of
contract.
Mr
gallagher.
C
Second,
if
there
is
no
offset
for
the
economic
disadvantage,
is
the
purpose
of
applying
the
sections
of
the
laws
justify
the
impairment
of
pension
rights?
Here
we
believe
that
this
is
being
motivated
by
an
improper
purpose,
and
there
are
several
factors
that
we'd
like
to
point
out
to
you.
Why
we've
reached
that
conclusion
and
make
that
assertion.
C
First
of
all,
I
think
that
it's
been
a
while,
since
mr
gallagher
has
started
receiving
his
particular
pension
benefits,
so
the
issue
becomes
why
now
what
happened
and
based
on
my
review
and
research?
What
happened
is
that
mr
ricardo
mayor
licardo
was
contacted
by
cnn
and
it
was
right
on
the
heels
of
the
derrick
chauvin
conviction
where
the
public
was
up
in
arms.
That
someone,
like
mr
chauvin,
who
has
committed
murder,
may
still
be
entitled
to
his
pension,
his
public
pension.
There
was
a
lot
of
concern
and
issues
regarding.
C
He
says
that
it's
an
atrocious
waste
of
taxpayer
money
deprives
our
retirement
form
of
dollars
constitutes
an
embarrassment
to
the
city.
Tax.
Paying
residents
deserve
better,
it's
a
symbolic
importance
and
addressing
the
inevitable
public
outbreak.
These
are
all
part
of
this
memo
that
we
understand
was
circulated
to
you
as
well
as
circulated
to
other
parts
of
the
city,
and
it
was
the
city
and
him
wanting
to
say
we
need
to
revisit
this
issue
under
the
law.
C
Our
other
reason
is
that-
and
I've
noted
kind
of
hinted
on
it
before-
is
that
it's
a
breach
of
contract
for
failure
to
pay
compensation
which
has
been
earned.
The
background
is
public.
Employment
gives
rise
to
certain
obligations
which
are
protected
by
the
contract
clause.
I
cite
miller
there
in
terms
of
what
are
earned
services,
so
it
is
our
position
that
mr
gallagher
did
his
part.
C
That
later
is
the
retirement
allowance
that
he
has
been
receiving
for
10
years
and
to
take
that
away,
we
believe,
is
a
breach
of
the
contract.
He's
done
his
part
of
the
bargain.
We
need
you
as
the
retirement
board
to
ensure
that
the
employer
does
their
part
of
the
margin
and
continues
to
allow
him
to
receive
what
he
has
earned
and
what
he
was
promised.
C
C
Here
we
have
mr
gallagher,
who
has
a
stellar
employment
record,
had
never
no
prior
disciplinary
actions
did
his
full
22
years
and
basically
showed
up
to
work
every
day
and
basically
performed
his
duties.
If
you
were
to
look
into
any
of
his
employment
records,
you'd
see
a
number
of
accolades
and
he'll
be
able
to
describe
him
when
he
talks
and
speaks
today.
C
C
I
know
that
a
lot
of
the
case
law
that
we've
been
looking
at
has
to
do
with
interpretation
of
pepra,
as
well
as
other
types
of
systems
when
we
talk
about
wilmot
and
wallace
and
several
other
cases
that
I'll
kind
of
go
into,
and
I
think
that
there
is
a
specific
provision.
Your
council
pointed
out
that
pepero
is
not
binding
on
its
other
system,
but
we
believe
that
the
case
about
interpreting
provisions
similar
to
a
3.36.830
is
instructional
and
provides
guidance
on
how
the
court
may
view
the
board's
action.
C
Applying
this
section
to
gallagher.
In
all
the
cases
cited
by
your
counsel,
it's
important
to
know
that
it
all
involved
a
crime
committed
in
carrying
out
official
data.
C
And
we
also
believe
that
pepper
is
not
only
instructional
but
more
than
guidance,
because
it's
the
state,
that's
spoken
on
very
similar
issues.
When
you
look
at
the
law
on
the
forfeiture
status,
it's
just
not
a
lot
out
there
and
what
is
out
there
sets
forth
clear
guidance
on
how
you
are
to
apply
these
particular
types
of
forfeiture
statutes.
What's
the
parameters,
what's
the
notion
that
you
can
exercise
your
discretion?
C
Is
it
unfettered
or
is
it
modified
by
what
the
court
has
already
spoken
in
looking
at
very
similar
statutes
and
our
position
is
we
encourage
you
to
look
at
what
these
cases
say
on
applying
these
types
of
forfeiture
statutes
and
how
it
would
apply
gallagher's
situation
and
why
it
does
not
apply?
C
One
of
the
factors
is
that
it
has
to
be
a
job-related
felony
and
it's
constitutionally
permissible
because
it's
materially
related
to
the
purpose
of
the
successful
operation
of
a
public
pension
system.
So
I
think
that's
a
finding
that
you
have
to
make
somehow
or
another
aid
that
the
felony
that
mr
gallagher
committed
was
job
related,
which
we
contend.
It
was
not
and
two
that
it
you
know,
is
materially
related
being
able
to
forfeit
that
is
maturely
related
to
the
purpose
of
the
successful
operation
of
a
public
pension.
C
Okay,
when
I
look
at
some
of
the
case
law,
we
look
at
an
employee
that
fails
to
devote
his
full
time
and
effort
to
his
job.
Duties,
uses
public
resources
in
the
commission
of
a
job-related
felony,
the
provision
of
full
retirement
benefits
to
that
employee
notwithstanding
criminal
conduct,
okay,
threatens
the
integrity
and
core
purpose
of
the
pension
system.
We're
here
saying
to
you
that
that
is
not
the
case
here
with
mr
gallagher.
C
As
I've
indicated,
when
we
look
at
some
of
the
court
cases,
they
have
held
forfeiture
of
portions
of
public
pensions,
where
the
board
of
retirement
has
made
a
finding
after
a
due
process,
proceeding
that
the
felony
was
committed
in
the
course
of
and
arose
from
the
performance
of
the
employee's
retiree's
official
job
duties.
C
Now,
if
you
were
to
exercise
your
discretion,
we
believe
that,
under
these
circumstances
of
mr
gallagher,
it
would
be
an
abuse
of
the
voice
discretion
to
do
so
and
certainly
subject
to
further
litigation.
One
of
the
issues
is:
why
apply
the
statute
now,
when
the
board
has
not
applied
it
before
I've?
C
Looked
at
all
your
minutes,
I
didn't
see
it
being
applied
before
and
although
there
have
been
other
instances
of
felony
convictions,
there's
a
number
of
people
in
your
fire
department,
as
well
as
in
your
police
department,
who
have
had
convictions
and
continue
to
receive
their
pension.
Why
now
we
believe
it's
because
it
is
popular
and
a
political
issue.
It
is
something
that,
if
it
was
that
important,
it
would
have
been
a
something
on
the
application
for
retirement.
C
There
will
be
a
process
where
your
staff
is
screening,
these
applications
for
retirement,
for
law
enforcement,
individuals
who
have
committed
a
felony,
none
of
that
seems
to
be
in
existence.
In
fact,
you
only
came
up
with
a
process
to
understand
the
due
process
of
hipster
just
in
april,
so
we
believe
this
very
suspect
as
to
why
this
is
coming
up
now.
We
believe:
that's
motivated
by
public
concern
public
outrage,
the
general
climate
of
dealing
addressing
law
enforcement
officers
who
commit
crimes,
and
that
is
not
a
proper
purpose.
C
Another
issue
is
sort
of
the
idea
that
the
board
just
got
noticed
in
in
the
letter
dated
september,
8th
2021,
that
mr
gallagher
received
the
board
indicated
that
they
just
had
been
notified
of
the
conviction.
C
C
In
addition,
he
was
on
the
board
as
a
city
council,
member
and
second,
the
motion
to
approve
his
pension
so
to
say
that
you're
just
now
finding
out,
we
just
feel
like
that
is
not
really
a
correct
assertion.
I
think
the
real
issue
is
you're
just
now
applying
it,
because
there's
some
kind
of
pressure
coming
from
somewhere
to
now
look
at
this
statue
and
apply
it
to
these
particular
individuals
and
mr
gallagher
has
relied
on
this.
He
did
not
pay
into
social
security.
C
This
is
his
only
source
of
income,
and
he
is
believing
that
his
promise
that
he
made
for
his
20
years
would
give
him
this
pension
and
to
take
you
right
now,
I
think,
would
be
a
substantial
hardship,
as
you
would
hear
from
mr
gallagher.
C
Again,
this
is
more
detrimental
reliance.
I
relied
on
the
promise.
I've
been
receiving
it
for
a
decade
and
we
can't
understand
the
justification
that
can
support
terminating
the
retirement
benefit
that
he's
been
receiving
for
all
these
years
now.
Do
you
have
discretion
to
do
it?
The
statute
says
you
does,
but
is
that
an
abusive
discretion?
Is
it
fair?
Is
it
equitable?
C
So
the
other
issue
is,
we
believe
there
has
to
be
some
concern
with
the
constitutionality
of
the
1504,
as
well
as
the
municipal
code
section.
It
is
broad,
I'm
not
sure
how
you
can
decide
how
you
can.
Second
guess
the
pension
system
and
say:
oh,
this
is
the
kind
of
felony
we
want
to
terminate
or
cancel,
but
not
this
one,
because
it
doesn't
necessarily
bother
us
as
much
or
bother
the
public.
We
think
that
particular
type
of
analysis
has
some
constitutional
problems.
C
So
in
conclusion,
I'd
like
to
just
summarize
real
quick
and
be
able
to
give
you
an
idea
of
what,
in
summary,
our
position
is
so
using
the
legal
standards
articulated
by
the
courts.
C
Why
do
we
believe
that
we
believe
that,
because
the
evidence
shows
that
there
is
an
improper
purpose,
there
seems
to
be
a
lack
of
material
relation
to
the
theory
or
operation
of
a
pension
board.
It
appears
that
the
board
is
seeking
to
enforce
a
second
punishment.
Mr
gallagher
has
done
his
time
paid
his
debt
to
society.
C
He
has
completed
parole
done
everything,
that's
a
penal
system.
That's
addressed!
That's
designed
to
address
criminal
behavior
has
done.
He
did
not
work
any
longer
after
the
conviction
or
the
commission
of
the
felony,
and
so
there's
no
employment
issue.
The
issue
is
the
retirement
contract
and
that's
a
different
analysis
than
whether
you're
trying
to
lose
your
job
or
convicted
of
a
crime.
That
analysis
has
to
do
does.
Can
I
change
the
contract
that
we
promised
mr
gallagher
when
he
provided
faithful
service?
C
Can
I
change
the
contract
at
this
time
because
of
his
felony
and
the
code
says,
and
the
constitution
says
it
has
to
be
for
a
proper
purpose
and
we
don't
believe
there
is
evidence
of
any
kind
of
proper
purpose
other
than
political
reasons,
such
as
taxpayers
concerns
and
all
of
those
items
that
mayor
lucardo
put
in
his
memo.
C
If
you
eliminate
mr
gallagher's
pension,
you
have
to
provide
him
some
kind
of
comparable
new
advantage,
and
in
this
case
we
have
nothing
in
the
correspondence
from
you
that
you're
going
to
impair
his
contract
and
take
something
away
that
was
promised
to
him,
but
not
give
any
corresponding
or
comparable
new
advantage
to
offset
that.
We
believe
that's
a
constitutional
problem.
C
We
also
think
that
the
law
supports
that,
if
you
want
to
make
modifications
to
a
person's
attention,
not
only
just
to
the
plan
and
again
remember,
my
position
is,
as
it
is
being
applied.
It's
a
modification
even
though
it
existed
before
it's
still
a
modification
because
it
was
not
enforced
and
I
don't
think
it's
ever
been
enforced
up
until
this
time.
But
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
you
have
to
do
that
before
the
pension
becomes
payable.
C
And
here
I
don't
think
the
evidence
shows
that
he
received
the
pension
for
10
years.
So
to
come
back
and
change.
It
now
certainly
is
has
a
detrimental
impact
and
we
don't
believe
that
will
pass
court
scrutiny
had
if
we
were
able
to
have
a
court
review
it
for
him
having
his
pension
taken
or
or
removed
after
he
has
already
began
to
pay,
and
you
know
again
it's
because
he's
already
performed
the
public
employment,
which
gave
rise
to
the
city's
obligation
in
exchange
for
his
services.
C
And
finally,
we
believe
the
statute
is
as
I've
hit
on
several
times
during
this
presentation.
The
statute
is
inapplicable,
because
the
guidance
that
is
given
to
us
by
the
courts
is
that
it
be
related
to
his
job,
and
this
particular
felony
conviction
was
not
within
the
course
and
scope
of
his
employment
at
all.
C
So
we
would
just
ask-
and
I'm
going
to
give
mr
gallagher
an
opportunity
to
speak,
but
we
would
ask
that,
should
you
whatever
decision
you
make
we'd
actually
codified
or
memorialize
it
in
some
kind
of
statement
of
decision,
letting
us
know.
You
know
why
you
felt
this
was
appropriate.
C
The
reasons
for
the
decision
and
the
description
of
what
evidence
you
relied
on
for
that
decision
and
I
think
that's
important,
because,
based
on
my
knowledge
and
I
stand-
you
know
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
didn't
find
where
this
has
been
applied
before
I
didn't
see
where
this
has
been
done
before,
and
so
this
is
sort
of
a
first
impression
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
truly
understand
this
and
protect
mr
gallagher's
rights.
Should
he
have
to
seek
further
appeal,
and
I
I
just
see
a
typo.
C
I
apologize
for
that
as
part
of
our
rushing
getting
things
done
at
this
time.
I'd
like
to
ask
mr
gallagher
to
make
a
certain
statements.
Is
there
a
desire
of
the
board
to
ask
questions
before,
or
can
we
wait
until
after
he
makes
a
statement.
B
Why
don't
you
and
maytag
hold
the
floor?
Ms
eating
me
until
you're
both
done.
B
Yeah
a
line
clear
when
you
speak,
mr
gallaher
put
your
head
roughly,
where
miss
eaton
may's
head
was.
She
was
coming
through,
live
clear.
J
B
C
J
I
had
a
of
issues
I
want
to
discuss
with
you.
One
is
the
the
course
and
scope
of
employment.
The
felony
that
I
was
committed
or
convicted
of
was
not
in
course,
and
spoke,
and
I
in
several
cases
I'm
incited
about
that.
The
first
case
was
hipster.
J
J
J
Wilmot
wilmont
was
a
firefighter,
I
believe
in
contra
costa,
who
was
had
been
stealing
from
the
firehouse
and
he
retired
in
the
under
using
the
prepress
standards.
He
eliminated
his
retirement
from
the
day
that
the
crime
was
discovered
ten
years
prior
now.
Finally,
wallace
was
the
chief
of
police
in
fresno.
A
J
When
mr
pena
contacted
me
back
last
summer
and
he's
very
helpful
in
that
he's
said
that
he
didn't
know
that
that
I've
been
committed
of
a
felony,
and
I
totally
believe
him
because
he
wasn't
working
here
17
years
ago.
I
think,
however,
former
district
attorney
sam
licardo
was
on
the
prosecution
team
in
my
case,
and
he
also
was
represented
people
at
the
restitution
hearing.
J
So
he
knew
about
my
conviction,
nick
bustillos,
who
was
personnel,
knew
of
my
conviction
and
no
one
raised
this
issue
at
that
time,
and
so,
in
my
opinion,
this
is
a
done
deal
and
my
retirement
was
granted
without
a
six
to
nothing
vote,
including
mayor
le
cardo.
J
So
I
don't
understand
why
mayor
licardo
was
claiming
that
he
had
no
knowledge,
because
it's
a
small
world
and
he'd
certainly
have
knowledge.
So
I
think
he's
either
has
amnesia
or
he's
being
dishonest
about
this
whole
thing
he's
put
this
on
you
to
revisit
something
that
had
been
settled
12
years
ago.
J
So
to
do
that,
I
believe,
would
you
know
kind
of
erode
public
trust
in
in
the
board's
decisions,
because
they're
going
back
on
what
they've
already
been
committed
to
do
your
predecessors,
I
should
say
for
me:
it'd,
be
a
substantial
detriment
to
my
lifestyle,
because
I'm
it's
the
only
income
I
have.
I
don't
have
social
security,
in
fact
I'm
paying
out
of
pocket
for
my
part
b
medicare.
J
I'm
I'm
also
paying
child
support
to
my
adult
daughter,
because
she
still
hasn't
completed
high
school.
If
I
lose
that
that
will
be
a
detrimental
impact
on
her
as
well
as
myself,
I
I'm
my
health
is
not
in
the
best
condition
and
I
really
can't
re-enter
the
job
market
at
you
know
in
my
mid
to
late
60s.
J
So
in
conclusion,
I'd
have
to
say
that
if
the
board
chooses
to
withdraw
my
benefits,
I
guess
we'll
have
to
to
litigate
further,
but
to
claim
that
my
felony
conviction
was
not
known
as
known
as
ridiculous
in
the
face
and
the
evidence
provided.
Your
shows
this
action
would
erode
public
trust
on
the
board,
among
workers
and
citizens
to
withdraw
pension
rights
for
an
incident.
That
is
not
within
course,
and
scope
of
official
duties
would
not
only
be
unlawful.
J
B
C
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
what's
going
on,
I've
shifted
and
unplugged
and
plugged
everything,
and
I
do
apologize
for
this
mishap,
but
I
did
want
to
put
just
a
few
things
on
the
record
with
mr
gallagher.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
this
because
of
the
speaker
situation.
F
And
chair
lanza,
as
she's
getting
ready,
I
do
want
to
just
reserve
a
few
rebuttal.
Another
battle
points
response
points
is
when
she's
done.
C
F
My
understanding,
sorry
miss
eaton.
May
we
couldn't
hear
the
beginning
of
your
question.
If
you
could,
please
sit
a
little
closer,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
board
has
full
question
and
answer
before
it.
Thank
you
absolutely
no
problem.
J
F
Yeah
sure
council
ian
may
are
you
intending
to
question
the
witness
before
the
board?
Yes,
I
am
for
chair
lanza.
May
I
recommend
that
we
have
a
court
reporter
place
the
member
under
oath,
so
that
the
question
and
answers
are
sworn
under
a
penalty
of
perjury.
B
Yes,
I
see
the
court
reporter
there
guest
will
give
you
your
music
may
right.
Yeah.
C
J
And
completed
them
well,
I've
never
had
any
problems
in
my
work
and
also
faithless
duty
and
police
work
and
firework
is
more
than
just
showing
up
and
doing
your
job.
I
spent
a
long
considerable
amount
of
my
off-duty
time
preparing
for
the
job
through
studies
and
also
physical
exercise,
to
be
prepared
for
the.
J
That's
my
only
source
of
income
other
than
a
few
shares
of
stock.
It
would
impact
me-
and
in
fact
I
couldn't
meet
my
mortgage
payments
and
car
payments,
because
I
encountered
myself
under
the
faith
that
I
was
going
to
receive
my
pension
for
life.
I
also
provide
child
support
to
my
adult
daughter
and
I
intend
to
put
her
through
college
when
she
elects
to
go,
but
that
would
also
be
impacted.
C
Mr
gallagher,
do
you
believe
that
the
felony
conviction
that
you
were
assessed
was
job-related.
J
Not
why
well
first,
it
was
a
a
private
family
matter.
It
did
not
occur
within
the
jurisdiction,
san
jose
and
I
was
not
in
employ
or
working
at
that
time.
It
was
in
my
off-duty.
F
I'm
sorry
counseling,
I
couldn't
hear.
Are
you
concluding
your
comments
at
this
time?
That's
all
I
have
right
now.
Yes,
okay!
Thank
you.
I
do
have
a
few
response
points
that
I
want
to
make.
F
Therefore,
I
have
no
recommendations
to
the
board
on
whether
to
apply
the
forfeiture
provisions
to
mr
gallagher
under
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
My
job
here
today
is
to
provide
the
board
the
a
summary
of
the
materials
that
both
the
member
and
the
planned
council
has
submitted,
as
well
as
the
state
of
the
law
and
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
board
may
have
regarding
those
legal
issues.
F
As
you
guys
may
recall,
many
years
back,
there
was
prop
8,
which
made
a
marriage
between
same-sex
couples.
Illegal
and
mayor
gavin
newsom
at
the
time,
had
declared
that
prop
8
statute
unconstitutional
and
refused
to
enforce
it.
In
the
city
of
city
of
san
francisco's
jurisdiction,
the
california
supreme
court
said
that
mayor
gavin,
newsom
and
the
administrative
body
did
not
have
jurisdiction
to
declare
the
statute
unconstitutional.
F
And
here,
as
member
members
council
ian
may
has
admitted
the
city
charter
provision
and
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provision
before
this
board
in
this
matter
were
on
the
books
and
in
existence.
At
the
time,
mr
gallagher
entered
the
force
as
a
officer
for
the
san
jose
police
department
and
has
been
on
the
books
ever
since
then.
The
fact
of
whether
or
not
those
provisions
were
enforced
is
immaterial
under
a
vested
rights
doctrine.
Analysis
because
there
has
been
no
legislative
change
to
substantially
or
materially
affect
his
benefits.
F
Therefore,
this
board
does
not
need
to
consider
whether
a
comparable
advantage
was
provided
to
mr
gallagher,
because,
if
it
so
decides
to
apply
the
provisions,
because
there
has
been
no
legislative
change.
Third
one
other
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
this
board
is
separate
from
the
city.
We
are
trustees
of
the
plan
and
we
are
fiduciaries
of
the
plan.
F
Any
comments
made
by
mayor
licardo
in
his
capacity
as
a
mayor
and
rep
in
representation
in
representation
of
the
city
are
not
imputed
to
this
board,
though
the
board
may
consider
those
comments,
as
as
counsel
for
member
gallagher
has
made,
has
noted
for
the
record
ors
did
become
aware
of
this
felony
conviction
for
mr
gallagher.
At
the
same
time
that
mayor
ricardo
was
contacted
by
a
cnn
reporter
regarding
his
conviction
now.
F
One
thing
I
want
to
note
for
this
board
and
as
we
discussed
at
our
prior
meeting
when
we
did
the
overview
for
the
pension
forfeiture
law,
the
city
of
san
jose
does
not
have
a
felony
conviction,
reporting
structure.
So
if
a
member
convicts
a
felony,
there's
no
way
for
that
information
to
be
collected
and
reported
to
this
board,
and
this
board
and
ors
does
not
have
a
reporting
mechanism
to
capture
that
information
either.
F
Now,
once
the
board
does
become
aware
of
a
felony
conviction
of
one
of
its
members,
the
board
does
have
a
duty
to
consider
whether
or
not
to
proceed
and
apply
the
san
jose
municipal
provisions
and
the
charter
to
the
member
though
it
does
not
need
to.
It
simply,
must
consider
the
matter
and
hear
from
both
the
plan
council
and
any
interested
parties,
including
the
member
and
its
council.
F
Now.
Another
issue
that
I
would
like
to
raise
for
the
board
is
that
the
city
charter
and
the
san
jose
municipal
code-
let
me
just
share
my
screen-
do
not
require
a
hearing.
F
Does
not
require
by
law
in
the
text
of
the
statute
that
a
hearing
is
required
before
the
board
takes
action,
and
the
same
is
true
with
the
city
charter,
because
there
is
no
hearing
required
by
law.
This
board
is
not
required
to
issue
any
statement
of
decisions,
and
this
matter
is
a
is
a
pure
writ
of
mandate
issue
where
the
board's
actions
will
be
judged
based
on
its
application
of
the
law.
F
It's
not
and
one
other
issue
that
I
want
to
raise
in
regards
to
mr
gallagher's
comments.
Is
that
a
lot
of-
and
let
me
just
take
this
down.
F
Okay,
so
another
issue
I'd
like
to
raise
before
this
board
is
that,
as
council
ian
may
has
acknowledged,
and
as
mr
gallagher
himself
had
mentioned,
the
hipster
and
wilmot
cases
were
brought
under
the
pepper
statue,
and
the
pepper
statute
does
not
apply
to
this.
This
board
and
under
the
pepper
statute,
service,
connection
or
job-relatedness
is
a
required
element
in
the
statute
itself,
and
that
is
why
those
cases
consider
job-relatedness
in
terms
of
their
holdings.
The
same
is
true
of
dancer,
which
was
the
obstruction
of
justice
case
in
dancer.
F
It
was
a
a
judge
who
was
letting
dr
parking
tickets
and
driving
tickets
off
the
hook
exchange
in
exchange
for
certain
kickbacks,
and
so
it
was
an
abuse
of
his
office
which
and
the
related
sorrow
provision
governing
the
county
employees,
retirement
systems.
F
Now
here,
as
as
I
mentioned
earlier
today,
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provision
does
not
include
any
requirements
of
job
relatedness
as
a
consideration
for
the
board,
though
the
board
may
exercise
its
discretion
to
consider
that
it's
not
a
required
element,
but
it
is
a
discretionary
element
that
the
board
may
consider.
F
The
central
question
in
making
that
determination
is
whether
or
not
mr
gallagher
committed
faithful
service,
meaning
that
did
he
discharge
his
agreement
to
the
terms
of
his
employment
set
by
the
city
charter
and
the
municipal
code
to
allow
him
to
receive
a
full
retirement
allowance
from
this
plan,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mrs
eaton
may.
If
she
has
any
responses.
B
C
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
When
I
raise
the
issue
of
the
constitutionality
of
those
provisions.
I'm
sorry,
ms
eaton,
may
I'm
having
a
lot
of
difficulty.
Okay,
thank
you.
Is
that
better
trying
to
find
that
spot?
C
C
I
just
think
that
that
is
something
when
you
have
a
statute,
that's
been
on
the
books
as
long
as
those
have,
and
you
have
pepra
and
some
of
the
courts
that
are
interpreting,
forfeit
your
statutes
and
you're.
Looking
at
that
statute
as
being
applied,
that
constitutionality
is
a
factor
that
you
want
to
look
at
because
that's
something
that
will
be
raised
should
this
matter
be
able,
you
know,
have
to
go
further
to
court.
C
That's
one
issue
that
would
be
raised
and
I
was
just
bringing
it
up
to
have
you
take
a
look
at
it
now
to
say
you
know.
Maybe
this
isn't
the
time
to
enforce
and
apply
this
statue.
There
may
be
some
more
work
that
needs
to
be
done
to
ensure
this
statute
and
the
code
will
file,
will
pass
court
muster,
and
so
that
was
my
impetus
in
addressing
that.
F
C
I
believe
what
I
said
was
that,
in
looking
at
the
application
of
the
charter
provision
and
the
code
section
that
one
of
the
factors
you
would
look
at
in
a
statute,
that's
been
on
the
books
as
long
as
that
has
to
see
if
it
does
have
any
vague
or
ambiguous
or
overbroad
provisions
before
you
seek
to
enforce
it,
especially
in
a
situation
where
the
retiree
has
already
began
to
receive
retirement
allowances.
C
There
is
a
vested
right
issue
and
mishin
and
I
will
respectfully
disagree,
but
I
believe
that
applying
it
at
this
time
certainly
creates
a
deprivation
to
the
retirees
that
I
believe,
creates
a
vested
right
issue.
C
C
3.36.830
automatic
instead
of
discretionary
by
le
cardo,
and
I
think
the
reasons
for
that
request
and
the
impetus
behind
that
was
his
interview
with
the
cnn
reporter,
as
well
as
the
items
that
he
enumerated
in
his
july
2021
memo,
which
I
did
include
in
my
exhibits.
I
Come
so
when
you
speak,
when
you
speak
directly
to
the
screen
in
the
microphone,
we
can
hear
you
correctly
whenever
you
have
to
look
down
at
the
notes
or
you
look
any
other
place.
That
is
not
straightforward.
We
lose
the
voice.
That's
that's.
C
What's
happening,
okay,
all
right!
I
will
just
pause
and
take
a
look
at
my
notes
and
then
speak
rather
than
speak
from
reading
yeah.
C
C
Should
you
decide
to
cancel
or
terminate
his
retirement
and
we
believe
that
on
the
hipster
there
are
some
process
requirements
and
that
under
the
law
before
you
can
take
away
or
modify
a
busted
right,
it
should
be
some
due
process,
and
so
that
was
the
basis
of
why
I
wanted
to
ask
this
board,
if
possible,
to
have
some
kind
of
decision
outlining
the
basis
for
its
decision
so
that
it
can
be
clear
going
forward
whether
mr
gallagher
has
to
seek
further
redress
from
the
courts
or
try
and
submit
any
additional
information
that
might
color
or
be
relevant
to
the
board
at
that
time.
C
So
with
that
and
with
our
connection
problems,
I
am
going
to
submit
and
see
if
the
board
has
any
questions.
F
F
This
we
have
adopted
a
due
process
policy
earlier
this
year,
which
provides
the
basics
of
due
process
as
outlined
in
hipster,
and
which
we
have
also
provided
to
mr
gallagher
in
this
matter,
which
are
one
and
notice
sufficient
notice
of
the
provision
that
we're
seeking
to
apply
and
the
basis
for
that
application,
which
we
provided
with
the
materials
and
also
which
I
had
shown
to
the
board
earlier
at
the
onset
of
this
matter
and
to
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
which,
as
you
have
seen
here,
mr
gallagher
has
had
retained,
counsel
and
has
also
provided
his
own
comments
to
the
board
before
the
board
makes
those
decisions.
F
All
the
way
down
to
the
lacera
board
to
try
again
to
provide
the
adequate
notice
and
opportunity
to
be
heard,
and
so
with
that
this
board,
in
my
opinion,
has
satisfied
the
due
process
under
hipster
and
with
regard
to
the
statement
of
decision,
I
note
for
the
board
that
this
matter
is
being
transcribed,
and
so
any
of
the
board's
discussion
and
consideration
and
materials
submitted
to
this
board
will
be
a
part
of
that
record.
Thank
you
and
I
submit
to
the
chair
and
the
board
for
any
questions
as
well.
B
So
that
means
you
and
mzma
are
ready
for
the
board
to
jump
in
a
ticket
good
all
right.
So,
let's
proceed
as
follows:
let's
break
the
board's
actions
into
three
discrete
pieces:
okay,
let's
as
miss
eaton
man
and
and
and
council
chin
just
said.
Let's
take
questions.
First,
not
comments
from
the
board
questions.
Let's
try
to
get
all
the
facts
out
then
we'll
see
if
the
public
has
any
questions
and
then
we'll
do
the
second
of
three
rounds
in
the
board.
B
B
Let's
open
the
floor
up
and
see
if
we
can
generate
emotion
of
how
we
should
proceed
so
I
I
gave
to
roberto
and
linda
earlier,
I
opened
up
excel
and
I
generated
random
sequences,
so
there's
no
bias
in
how
we're
going
to
be
around
the
board.
This
first
round
of
questions,
only
not
comments,
will
be
andrew
franco.
Dick's
need
to
dave
myself
as
sean
howard.
B
So,
starting
with
you
andrew,
do
you
have
any
questions
for
either
the
councils.
H
I
do
thank
you,
drew
and-
and
thank
you,
council,
eden
may
and
and
council
maytag
and
mr
gallagher
for
being
here
and
answering
all
these
questions.
Just
a
couple
questions
for
you
and
this
first
one
it
could
be
for
anybody
it
hasn't
been
talked
about,
and
that
is
for
police
officers
when
they
get
sworn
in.
Is
there
an
oath
that
they
take?
That
is
part
of
their
employment,
and,
if
so,
is
there
anything
in
there
that
discusses
conduct
outside
of
work.
F
So
you
want
to
go
first
sure,
because
I
have
the
document
open.
There
is
with
the
board
materials
that
I
have
provided.
I
did
include
the
oath
of
office,
so
let
me
go
ahead
and
share
it,
so
you
guys
can
see
it
when
members
do
become
a
part
of
the
the
force
they
do
take
an
oath
of
office
and
sign
something
which
is
provided
here.
So
let
me
know
if
the
board
can
see
this
sorry,
I'm
just
trying
to
make
it.
So
you
can
see
the
entire
thing.
F
And
so
this
is
exhibit
owed
to
the
materials
that
plan
council
has
provided
now.
This
is
the
oath
of
office
that
the
board,
I'm
sorry
that
the
member
takes,
but,
as
I
understand
it,
there
is
also
a
handbook
of
the
duties
of
for
the
police
officers
and
one
of
those
in
the
handbook.
C
If
I
may
respond
in
answer
to
your
question,
vice
chair,
there's
nothing
in
the
oath
that
says
anything
about
outside
conduct,
we're
not
aware
of
the
handbook
it
wasn't
produced.
I
think
in
this
particular
exchange,
but
there's
nothing
that
indicates
in
the
old
about
off-duty
conduct.
H
F
J
Yeah,
I
think
what
vice
chair
gardner
is
referring
to.
Is
the
law
enforcement
code
of
ethics?
It
is
in
our
duty
manual
and
the
phrase
he's
looking
for
is.
I
will
keep
my
private
life
unsullied
as
an
example.
To
all
does
that
sound
about
right?
C
Sorry
go
ahead,
it's
our
position
that
the
relevant
information
and
guidance
to
this
board
is
from
the
courts
and
the
court's
decision
and
right
now,
all
of
the
cases
that
have
considered
any
type
of
forfeiture,
whether
it's
under
paper
or
something
different,
have
used
that
standard
with
respect
to
the
felony
being
job-related
and
if
it's
off-duty
and
unrelated
to
the
job
there's
been
no
forfeiture.
So
that's
our
position.
H
Thank
you
and
then
just
one
one
other
questions
and
I'll
I'll
have
more
for
them
for
the
other
rounds.
In
regards
to
mr
gallagher
and
his
comments
about
you
know,
hardship
and
how
this
would
affect
him
personally
and
his
family.
What
is
that
process?
I
know
in
our
policy
that
we
adopted
there
was
discussion.
If
something
was
was
reduced
or
you
know,
benefit
reduced
family
could
come
back
and
file
for
hardship.
H
F
So
I
can,
I
can
take
that
on
and
let
me
again
share
my
screen.
I
was
just
pulling
up
the
relevant
provisions
so
here
as
you
here
under
the
municipal
code,
the
san
jose
municipal
could
provision
at
issue.
Let
me
see,
let
me
know
if
you
can
see
my
screen.
F
So
that's
what's
provided
specifically
in
the
text
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
because
it
requires
an
application
to
be
made
to
the
board
after
the
board
has
made
a
decision
for
the
cancellation
or
termination
of
payments
to
the
member.
This
will
require
a
secondary
proceeding
for
that
application
to
be
considered.
F
So
to
your
question:
in
some:
it's
not
a
required
element,
but
it
may
be
a
discretionary
one
to
determine
whether
or
not
you
know
payments
made
to
a
spouse
or
a
minor
may
be
implicated,
but
is
not
a
required
one
and
to
the
extent
and
the
the
issue
of
whether
the
application
is
made
only
applies.
If
the
board
does
decide
to
apply
this,
the
municipal
code
provision,
if
it
if
the
board,
decides
not
to
apply
the
municipal
code
revision.
There's
no
question
regarding
the
spouse
or
minor.
H
Okay
and
then
one
more
question
and
I
promise
I'll
be
done
I'll,
save
all
my
comments
for
them,
like
I
said
the
next
round
in
regards
to
time
elapsed,
you
know
it's
been
it's
been,
you
know,
multiple
years
since
the
conviction
was
occurred
since
he
started
collecting
his
pension.
F
Sure,
certainly,
that
is
one
of
the
discretionary
considerations
like
I
said
it's
not
a
required
consideration.
You
know
to
the
gravity
of
the
felony
or
felon
felonious
conduct,
sorry
tongue,
twister,
the
passage
of
time
whether
the
members
serve
their
punishment,
the
member's
health,
their
financial
conditions.
These
are
all
equitable
considerations
within
the
board's
discretion
to
consider
and
they're
not
required
elements
under
the
statute,
but
they
are
discretionary.
B
I
have
no
questions
thanks
dick
do
you
have
any
questions
for
either
council.
G
Yes,
thank
you
drew
first
of
all
I
drew.
I
will
ask
the
questions,
but
I
want
to
commend
you
and
both
counsel
and
how
you're
conducting
this.
It's
really
helpful
because-
and
it's
a
I
want
to
say
like
as
the
world
turns-
this
is
a
really
complicated,
complex
issues,
because
so
many
issues
have
been
brought
up.
It's
not
just
cut
and
dry.
So
let's
go
back
to
whether
you're
on
duty
or
off
duty.
G
G
C
The
issue
of
carrying
a
firearm
is
different
than
carrying
out
your
responsibilities
as
a
employee
of
the
city
of
san
jose
as
a
police
officer,
and
so
we
do
not
take
the
position
that
you're,
a
police
officer,
24
7
all
the
time,
and
that
you
know
your
duties
and
responsibilities
of
booty
can
be
scrutinized
for
purposes
of
forfeiting
your
that's
just
not
the
law
and
that's
our
position.
G
Well,
I
would
say
that
we
need
to
we
need
to
check
that
out
as
far
as
the
san
jose
pd
during
those
years
and
what
was
the
issue
at
the
time
where
you
want
to
do
the
off
duty
to
make
a
difference.
You
carried
a
firearm,
so
I'm
just
questioning
that
that's
what
this
round's
about
and
that
needs
to
be
looked
into
with
the
police
policy
or
whatever
they
have
during
that
time.
F
Well,
trustee
santos,
before
you
go
on,
I
did
want
to
pull
up
the
duty
manual
for
police
officers
that
trustee
wilson
had
mentioned.
If
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
board
to
review
that.
Thank
you.
F
It
is
traditionally
noticeable-
and
it
was
put
at
issue
based
on
one
of
the
questions
made
by
the
the
trustees,
but
the
the
substance
of
it
has
already
been
attested
to
you
by
trustee
wilson.
So
it
does
not
need
to
be
shown
to
the
board
because
it
has
already
been
attested
to.
C
F
Yes,
council
eaton,
may
I
also
note
for
the
record
that
the
mock
demonstratives
that
were
presented
to
the
board
via
your
powerpoint
were
not
exchanged
to
the
board's
plan
council
prior
to
this
proceeding,
and
so
the
same
objection
goes
to
your
powerpoint
presentation.
So
it
wasn't
handed.
F
C
You're
you're
visibly
showing
a
document
that
you
are
using
as
a
basis
to
get
clarity
on
the
board.
As
to
you
know
this
particular
the
relevance
of
it
and
we
haven't
seen
it.
I
don't
know
anything
about
it,
whereas
my
argument
was
simply
argument,
it
was
just
the
presentation
and
that's
the
basis
of
my
objection.
B
Why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
let's
go
ahead
and
not
pull
it
up?
Maytag,
I
think
dave
did
read
the
relevant
section
as
part
of
his
question,
so
I
think
we're
okay.
I
do
you
have
an
answer
to
dickson's
question.
G
F
Trustee
santos,
on
behalf
of
the
plan,
the
plan
was
not
given
any
information
regarding
mr
gallagher's
felony
conviction
prior
to
being
notified
last
fall
in
2021.
G
D
I
I
have
just
one
clarifying
question:
council
may
tag
you
in
your
memo.
It
says
that
the
felony
conviction
was
on
february
9th
and
the
separation
was
march
7th,
but
I
also
heard
that
the
felony
was
happen
after
separation
from
city
service.
I'm
a
little
confused
about
the
facts.
F
Sure
so
the
facts
I
I
think
what
you're
referring
to
is
a
reference
to
the
sentencing
in
miss
eaton
may's,
brief,
submitted
to
the
the
board.
Here
mr
gallagher
entered
a
guilty
plea
which
forms
the
basis
for
his
felony
conviction
in
february
of
20.
I
believe
it's
2010..
Let
me
just
pull
up
the
exact
the
memo
that
has
the
exact
dates
on
it
and
share
it
with
you
as
well.
Let
me
know
if
you
see
this,
it
takes
a
minute.
F
F
Mr
gallagher
was
later
sentenced
in
may
of
2017
may
on
may
17,
2005.,
sentencing
and
conviction
are
two
separate
things
and,
as
you'll
see
here,
mr
gallagher
was
convicted
before
he
separated
from
service.
But
the
main
important
issue
here
is
that
he
was
convicted
before
his
retirement
application
was
approved.
C
J
F
That's
I
don't
have
that
in
your
criminal
record,
maybe
place
the
member
under
oath
to
have
that
presented
to
the
board.
I
note
that
the
that
the
members
brief
has
no
citation
for
that
particular
conviction
date
so
that
that's
an
unsubstantiated
date.
B
You're
in
the
wrong
place
again:
counselor
try
again.
C
At
this
time-
and
he
is
correcting
the
record
based
on
his
personal
knowledge-
that
he
was
not
convicted
in
february,
there
was
a
change
of
tweet
that
he
did
resign
in
march
of
2005
and
was
convicted
2005.
and,
I
believe
believe
the
entire
criminal
record
was
presented.
And
if
we
look
at
that
total
record,
it
would
reflect.
F
B
Thanks
cj
dave
you're
up
next
any
questions.
J
No
questions
at
this
time.
I'll
probably
have
some
comments
later,
though,
thank
you.
B
So
god,
next
so
we're
throwing
around
precedence.
So
let's
imagine
there's
three
boxes.
We
want
to
check
when
we're
looking
for
a
precedent.
I'm
not
sure
I've
heard
this
yet
and
the
first
box
is.
Was
this
a
serious
felony
committed
by
a
policeman,
and
I
think
we,
let's
define
serious
felony
as
something
for
which
you
do
time
in
prison
could
be
right,
could
be
wrong.
It's
my
question.
What
the
hell
right
check
box
one!
B
Do
we
have
a
precedent
where
a
police
officer
committed
a
felony
off
duty
check
box,
two
police
officer
committed
a
felony,
did
prison
time
did
it
while
they
were
off
duty
and
then
here's
the
magic
third
check
box?
It's
not
pepper,
either,
because
it
happened
before
the
pepper
statutes
or
because
that
officer
worked
for
a
charter
city
and
the
charter.
Cities
are
not
held
to
that
standard
and,
probably
not
part
of
pepper,
says
right
in
the
first
paragraph
pepper.
B
So
again,
do
we
have
a
press
on
it,
not
pepper,
either,
because
before
pepper
chard,
a
city
of
an
off-duty
officer
committing
a
felony
serious
enough,
they
did
prison
time.
Do
any
mizit
may
of
your
presidents
or
miss,
and
do
any
of
your
precedents
cover
something
like
that?
Do
we
have
a
pressure.
F
F
Has
not
been
applied
in
such
circumstances
and
there
is
a
matter
of
first
impression
before
this
board
and
so
and
there
is
no
precedent
from
a
published
court
decision
or
otherwise
for
this
application.
F
Secondly,
one
other
point
I
want
to
make
clear
to
the
board
is
that
this
board
is
bound
to
apply
the
text
of
that
san
jose
municipal
code
provisions.
Now
each
charter
city,
each
you
know,
pepper
the
pearl
applicable
to
calpers-
may
all
have
different
language
in
their
particular
felony
forfeiture
provisions
for
pension
benefits,
and
so
whatever
applicable
provisions
apply.
The
board
is
bound
to
apply
those
as
they
apply
to
their
systems.
F
B
Yeah,
hang
on
one.
Second,
let
me
follow
up
with
maytag
and
then
we'll
turn
your
seat
nick.
So
that's
kind
of
a
rather
long-winded
way
of
saying
you
don't
know
of
any
precedent
of
a
serious
felony
that
did
prison
time
from
someone
off
duty
as
a
police
officer
and
was
not
covered
by
pepper.
I
looked.
I
couldn't
find
one
correct
back
back
back
to
you
me.
Do
you
know
the
precedent
that
matches
those
three
check
boxes.
C
No,
I
don't
I
I
was
going
to
say
you
know
when
you
say
president.
I
automatically
my
legal
mind
goes
to
peace
law,
and
so
I
think
I
have
looked
at
nausea
to
find
something
related,
and
I
did
not
find
where
a
police
officer
has
a
law.
Enforcement
officer
has
committed
a
serious
felony
and
did
not
did
time
and
was
not
talk
about
a
preference.
C
Now
we
still
feel
that
pepper
is
instructional,
and
for
that
reason,
because
there
is
no
law
and
particular
precedent
on
this
particular
situation,
the
guidance
and
looking
at
where
we
go
and
how
we
apply
would
be
those
cases
that
were
decided
are
similar
for
future
statues,
maybe
different
language
but
they're
similar,
and
they
aimed
at
the
same
goal
and
the
criteria
that
the
legislature
was
using
and
trying
to
fill
the
gap
by
enacting
pepperoni,
as
well
as
the
case
law,
is
kind
of.
B
Great,
thank
you
counselors
that
that's
a
great
answer
did
somebody
else
want
to
jump
in
on
top
of
us?
No,
so
I
just
went
ashfar
you
and
then
howard
last
go
ahead.
Ashvar.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
drew,
so
it's
a
couple
of
questions
for
council.
Chin.
First
is
just
to
clarify
that
this
discussion
and
decisions
be
made
you're
going
to
be
guided
by
the
san
jose
charter
and
the
discretion.
It
gives
us
correct,
correct,
okay,
and
I
think
you
just
said
that
the
san
jose
the
code
does
not
differentiate
between
on-duty
or
off-duty
behavior
in
terms
of
felony.
F
A
A
And
to
be
in
this
discussion
have
to
consider
constitutional
issues.
That
council
eaton
may
mention
is
that
part
of
our
responsibility.
F
No,
it's
not
part
of
your
responsibility
under
the
california
supreme
court's
jurisdiction
or
case
juris
prudence
under
lockheer.
This
board
is
without
authority
to
determine
the
constitutionality
of
this
of
a
statute.
That's
currently
on
the
books.
A
Well,
well,
thank
you,
council,
eaton
may
and
and
councillor
chen
and
also
mr
gallagher.
I
appreciate
your
coming
to
this
hearing
and
I
I,
as
as
trustee
santos
said
it's
there's
a
lot
to
absorb
here
and
it's
very
very
complicated.
I
just
have
a
cup
just
two
questions.
One
is
a
detailed
question
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
quick
answer.
Maybe
there
is,
I
read
in
the
retirement
application
that
there
is
a
san
jose
municipal
charter
3.36,
forty
one,
six,
four:
zero.
A
That
says
that
when
you
sign
the
retirement
package
that
you've
met
all
the
requirements
of
that
whatever
that,
whatever
that
rule
is-
and
I
just
didn't
know
what
those
requirements
were
when
you
sign
that
application
at
that
time
with
does
anybody
know
I
couldn't
find
anything?
C
We're
looking
out,
but
I
think,
if
it's
applicable
within
mr
diagram,
we
were
looking
at
meeting
the
criteria
of
the
plan,
all
of
the
criteria
for
which
they
would
be
entitled
to
a
retirement
use
of
service
etc
in
age.
But
we
don't
have
that
section
in
front
of
us
in
the
neighborhood
to
take
a
look
and
see
if
there's
additional
requirements
that
are
assumed
at
the
time
that
the
application.
F
Assigned
sure
and-
and
I
and
I
can
agree
with
council
in
may-
that
the
requirements
there
that
you
meet
all
the
requirements
for
service
retirement,
meaning
that
you've
met
the
requisite
age
and
that
you
met
the
requisite
years
of
service
if
it'd
be
helpful
to
review
the
application
for
retirement.
I
can
certainly
pull
that
up
at
the
board's
requests.
A
Yeah,
I
would
just
like
to
know,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
times
with
these
applications,
maybe
there's
something,
and
this
might
explain
why
there
was
no
disclosure
of
any
other
information.
Maybe
it
wasn't
listed,
or
maybe
it
was
listed.
I
just
don't
know
sure.
F
So
here's
the
application
for
retirement
submitted
to
ors
by
mr
gallagher
as
you'll,
see
here
it
indicates
which
plan
they're
in
what
retirement
date
they
seek
to
be
provided
the
type
of
requirement
here
he
had
deferred
vested
because
he
had
separated
and
later
met
the
age
requirement
and
to
retire
their
information
about
the
age
as
you'll
see
here.
The
years
of
service,
the
two
central
requirements
for
service
retirement,
any
sort
of
benefit,
information
related
to
any
survivors,
other
beneficiaries,
dependent
spouses.
F
This
is
the
retirement
application
that
is
submitted.
So
to
your
point,
whether
felony
conviction
information
is
collected
in
the
application.
It
was
not
one
of
the
requirements
of
the
retirement
application
at
the
time
mr
gallagher
retired.
A
A
I
I
thought
that
might
go
to
the
the
issue
of
why
it
was
never
disclosed
to
begin
with,
and
the
other
question
to
have
was
is
because
this
occurred
before
pepra.
Does
that
mean
the
the
inclusion
of
pepper
considerations
is
is
also.
F
Discretionary
two
points-
one
pepper,
does
not
govern
this.
Proceeding
at
all,
there's
a
particular
provision
in
pepper
that
clarifies
that
charter
cities
that
have
their
own
retirement
plans
organized
under
the
city
charters
are
not
subject
to
pepper
provisions.
F
C
Thing
I
was
going
to
add
is
our
position
is
because,
like
we
talked
about,
there's
no
precedent
that
where
the
state
has
visited
this
area
in
similar
statutes,
we
believe
it's
instructional
and
certainly
something
the
board
should
consider
in
looking
at
how
it's
going
to
apply
this
statute.
You
still
have
your
discretion,
but
we
look
at
it
as
instructional
guidance.
B
Kind
of
remember
the
answers,
so
I've
been
on
this
board
now
about
10
years
and
pepper
happened
during
what
when
was
it
harvey
like
2013?
That
happened
right
after
I
joined
this
board?
Do
you
do
you
remember
guys?
It
was
january
1st
of
2013.
yeah.
Like
first
year,
I
started
joining
the
board
yeah
thanks
the
board.
B
Does
not
govern
the
system
at
all
well,
but
I
think,
if
I
can
jump
in
for
howard,
howard
was
pointing
out
that
it
had
not
yet
been
born
at
the
time.
All
of
this
happened
he
retired
before
pepper,
right
right,
so,
okay,
hey,
hey
the
floor
is
actually
let's
do
this
floor
is
open.
Are
there
any
follow-up
questions
from
any
of
the
trustees
floors
open?
If
you
have
one,
I
have
one
yeah
go
jump
in
sunita.
D
Again,
this
is
for
consulting.
I
guess
I'm
a
little
confused
about
whether
the
board,
the
board
today
is
needs
to
take
into
consideration
that
in
2010,
when
the
board
composed
of
different
trustees
at
that
time,
granted
retirement
benefits
didn't
didn't.
Take
this
information,
they
didn't
know
about
it,
but
they
didn't
take
this
information
into
consideration.
Is
that
relevant
to
our
consideration
today
as
a
fresh
set
of
trustees.
D
F
As
far
as
I'm
aware
and
as
far
as
the
records
for
ors
have
as
far
as
the
records
for
our
ors
excuse
me,
there
was
no
information
before
the
board
regarding
this
felony
conviction
that
was
not
presented
to
the
board
and
it
was
not
within
ors's
knowledge
that
this
felony
conviction
occurred
in
2010
the
first
time
this
mr
gallagher's
felony
conviction,
came
to
ors
attention
and
thus
this
board
was
in
2021.
C
You,
if
I
can.
C
I
think
it
is
relevant
because,
irrespective
of
whether
there's
a
new
set
of
trustees
that
are
sitting
on
the
board,
the
board
is
bound
by
the
prior
existing
board's
decisions
and
so
to
the
extent
that
the
board
made
that
decision.
I
think
it
is
relevant
to
look
at
you
know
when
they
made
that
decision
and
they
granted.
It
was
this
information
available.
C
Our
position,
of
course,
is
that
it
was
common
knowledge
that
the
if
there
was
ample
information
available.
In
fact,
I
think
mr
gallagher
indicates
that
the
prior
ceo
was
aware
at
the
time
that
he
retired,
so
I
think
it
is
relevant
how
you
use
it.
Your
council
can
advise
you,
but
I
do
think
it's
relevant
to
taking
consideration.
B
F
Going
to
jump
in
dick,
I'm
sorry
may
make
one
response
comment
so
just
to
clarify
the
board
did
not
make
a
determination
regarding
mr
gallagher's
felony
conviction
because
it
had
no
knowledge
of
it
at
the
time
it
approved
a
service
application
in
the
in
the
record.
Thank
you.
B
Sorry,
just
to
be
clear:
that's
a
bit
like
splitting
hairs.
What
you're
saying
is
per
mr
gallery
no
reason
to
just
believe
him.
There
were
members,
there
were
trustees
that
knew,
but
they
didn't
bring
it
to
the
attention
of
the
board
is
what
you're
saying
maytag
and
those
are
different
things
right.
B
F
B
Yeah
all
right
yeah
I
looked
through
the
minutes.
I
didn't
see
it
all
right
board
sold,
go
ahead,
dick
you're
up.
G
Well,
that
was
gonna,
be
my
my
question
and
you
guys
are
talking
about
that.
They
put
potential
conflict
of
interest
with
mayor
le
carter
being
a
prosecutor
and
then
as
a
council
person.
So
that
would
be
a
question
because
later
on,
if
it
gets
to
constitutional
issues,
is
that
a
conflict.
C
A
Yeah
yeah:
let's.
A
To
go
back
to
the
the
information
disclosure
who,
who
has
the
obligation
to
disclose
or
to
uncover
any
information?
Is
it
the
the
member
or
is
it
the
the
board
or
is
it
the
city
to?
Is
the
member
obligated
to
disclose
information.
F
So
I
can
answer
that
trustee
lee
under
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provisions
and
city
charter,
there
is
no
disclosure
obligation
on
the
part
of
the
member
and
there's
no
reporting
obligation
from
the
city
if
it
determines
or
learns
of
a
felony
conviction
of
one
of
our
members.
This
is
distinctly
different
from
pepra
under
pepra.
There's
a
specific
provision
there
that
requires
the
employer
to
obtain
any
information
to
report
to
the
retirement
board,
any
felony
conviction,
and
so
that's
the
reporting
and
notice
provision.
That's
found
in
pepper.
B
Go
once
going
twice
all
right:
let's
enter
the
second
of
three
phases.
Let's
now
make
comments,
and
you
can
ask
questions
too,
of
course,
and
then
the
third
phase
will
be
we'll
see
if
somebody
can
to
untie
this
gordian
knot.
So
on
this
on
this
round,
I've
got
look
like
it's
random
numbers,
howard,
you're
up
first
and
then
andrew
ashford,
dick
day,
franco,
myself
and
then
sunita
so
howard,
more
questions,
comments,
jump
in.
A
I
I
guess
my
one
one
thought
I
had
was
yeah:
if
this
information
were
available
in
2010,
what
would
be
different,
and
I
don't-
I
really
don't-
have
the
answer
to
that,
but
just
it's
just
sort
of
a
comment
and
then
the
the
question
on
the
handbook
to
me
in
terms
of
conduct
off
duty
is
the
conduct
off
duty
in
any
way.
A
Is
there
an
expectation
in
any
way
in
the
handbook
that
it
would
have
to
be
above
a
a
higher
standard
than
say
a
city,
employee
or
a
higher
standard
than
any
other
type
of
employee,
that's
employed
by
the
government?
A
B
Why
don't
we
do
this,
this
time,
sort
of
reverse
missy
may
and
miss
jim?
Why
don't
you
hold
your
questions
until
we're
all
the
way
around
the
trustees,
because
trustees
may
ping
off
each
other?
That's
fair!
Okay,
missy
may.
B
Yeah
and
then
you
guys
can
maybe
sum
up
what
we've
said
next
in
the
list
andrew
go
ahead
comments
or
maybe
questions
yeah.
H
I
got
no
additional
questions
right
now.
Thank
you.
B
That
is
great
ashfar
europe.
A
No
additional
questions,
I
guess
you
know,
I
guess
my
my
comment
is
that
I
guess
you
know
we
do
have
the
discretion
for
the
san
jose
charter
and-
and
you
know
I
guess
in
terms
of
what
we
do
and
I
think
the
fact
that
this
was
considered
before.
But
it
looks
like
there
is
no
record
that
all
the
details
of
the
information
where
available
means
that
we
need
to
consider
this
in
making
a
decision.
G
G
Some
of
the
comments
I
have
is
that
you
know
our
position
was
as
fiduciary
is
to
make
sure
people
paid
their
premium
and
you
provided
them
with
benefits
and
investments,
and
now
I
see
we're
looking
at
other
things.
Do
we
let
it
on?
Do
we
start
looking
at
the
serious
felony?
Is
this
murder
worse
than
something
else?
I
don't
know
what's
going
to
open
up
here
and
do
we
go
back
to
who
submits
what
for
potential
back
felonies
that
were
committed,
so
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff?
G
I
thought
that
the
board
handled
those
things
in
the
past
properly
by
just,
even
though
it
was
on
the
books
that
I
never
heard
of,
but
we
just
took
took
business
and
people
earned
their
retirement,
they
got
their
retirement
and
if
people
wanted
to
sue
them
later
on
for
civil,
that's
what
they
did.
So
those
are
comments.
B
B
Not
that
we're
aware
of-
and
you
may
be
pointing
out
that
as
dick
just
said,
somebody
just
opened
pandora's
box
here,
and
I
think
this
board
is
very
aware
of
that
that
we
don't
have
the
obligation
to
seek
them
out,
but
we
probably
have
the
obligation
once
they're
pointed
out
to
deal
with
them
and
I'll
address
that.
In
my
comments,
when
my
time
comes
dave
over
to
you
any
comments,
any
more
questions.
J
Yeah,
I
think
one
of
the
things
we're
looking
at
that
I'm
struggling
with
is
the
time
between
retirement
and
and
now
that
when
ors
is
notified,
I
think
we
talked
about
it
in
the
past
when,
on
one
of
the
past
board
meetings,
possibly
having
the
associations,
the
bargaining
units
and
the
and
the
people
involved
crafting
some
sort
of
guidelines
that
the
city
would
be
willing
to
accept.
That
could
help
guide
the
retirement
board
and
the
applicability
of
this
particular
municipal
municipal
code
section.
J
I
do
know
that
that
is
in
process
right
now,
and
I
wonder
if
we're
not
better
off
putting
off
a
decision
on
these
cases
until
we
have
some
sort
of
guidelines
or
if
it's
or
if
that
ship
is
sailed
and
we're
just
on
pace
for
this
today.
B
Yeah,
that's
really
interesting.
I
thought
about
that.
That's
that's
right!
Franco,
you're
up
any
comments.
Any
questions.
H
H
This
could
be
something
that
comes
to
us
more
frequently.
We've
had
the
conversation
about
local
230
poa
and,
to
the
extent
that
they're
at
least
involved
in
the
in
the
conversation,
the
retirees
association,
their
attorneys,
including
the
city
attorneys,
coming
up
with,
as
they've
said,
guidelines
or
guidance.
I
know
that
there
was
a
request,
and
I
could
let
dave
speak
to
that
more
of
potentially
adding
some
of
those
guidelines
to
the
unicode.
B
And
you
too
messy,
may
we
like
you
a
lot
too.
I
will
go
and
then
sunita.
B
So
I
sort
of
have
an
unusual
badge
on
my
chest.
I
probably
have
more
experience
with
contracts
than
anybody
here,
including
the
attorneys.
So
as
a
vc
with
startups,
not
a
week
has
gone
by
in
the
last
30
or
40
years,
I
haven't
written
a
contract
every
offer
letter.
I
wrote
many
of
myself
as
a
contract.
B
Every
time
we
raise
a
round
of
money,
it's
a
contract.
I
mean
I
I
I
practically
have
a
law
degree
in
contracts.
So
you
you
raised
my
commentary
fund.
You
raised
three,
you
really
did
a
great
job
in
z
makers.
You
really
helped
focus
us
down
you.
You
kept
going
to
three
things
in
your
brief
and
in
your
oral
stuff.
B
Is
this
constitutional?
Well,
look
man!
That's
at
a
much
higher
pay
grade,
I
think
than
any
board
member
here
and-
and
I
think
you
you
have
good
points
and
and
council
council
chen-
has
good
points.
You
went
to
the
point
of
prejudice.
Well,
I
can
tell
you
until
this
past
sunday
I
didn't
know
much
about
this.
B
I
knew
there
was
something
coming
down
the
pipe
of
felony,
but
roberto
can
tell
you
you
know
I
we
would
meet
monday
and
say,
don't
tell
me
anything,
I
didn't
know
the
names
I
didn't
know
the
nature
of
the
crimes
and
I'll
bet
most
of
trustees
feel
the
same.
I
don't
work
for
mayor
licardo
and
he
doesn't
work
for
me.
We
really
are
independent,
the
city's
pretty
good
about
that.
I
can
tell
you,
from
my
standpoint
as
chairman:
there's
been
zero
talk
about
this
zero
pressure
put
on.
B
I
can
also
tell
you
and
you're
not
going
to
want
to
hear
this.
Ms
eaton
may,
every
now
and
then,
and
in
my
10
years
here
it's
happened
twice
with
disabilities.
Somebody
raises
a
red
flag.
We
had
a
case
we
heard
a
year
or
two
or
three
ago
about
somebody
that
we
let
off
on
disability,
who
then
went
on
a
tv
show
and
did
something
very
physical.
B
B
So
I
can
tell
you
that,
unfortunately,
and
that's
why
I
had
the
osh
blank
blank
moment
when
you
did
that
when
things
get
raised
to
us,
we
are
a
very
professional
board
and
we
take
it
seriously.
I
think,
unfortunately,
for
you,
mr
gallagher,
your
name
was
the
one
that's
drawn
out
of
the
hat,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
that
we're
not
treating
him
differently
than
we
treat
any
other
person
that
was
called
to
our
attention.
B
Now
that
doesn't
mean
we
do
decide
to
do
anything
about
it
right,
but
we
do
follow
through.
So
that's
unfortunate.
There
is,
I
don't
feel
you
use
the
words
public
outrage
and
political
purposes.
Well,
I
don't
feel
the
politics
and
I'm
not
sure
the
public
really
is
outrage.
I
so
I
don't
know
about
that.
But
here's
the
piece
of
the
badge
I
wear,
so
we
talk
about
contract
me
personally
drew
lanza,
not
chairman.
B
B
The
international
association
of
chiefs
of
police,
of
which
san
jose
is
a
card-carrying
member,
says
unbecoming
conduct
officers
shall
not
conduct
themselves
in
manner
on
or
off
duty
that
blah
blah.
Okay,
that's
one
you
go
to
the
doj
and
the
doj
looks
for
things
that
have
a
nexus
to
official
duty
and
the
doj
says.
Well,
some
things
go
beyond
the
nexus
to
official
duty
and
they
talk
about
things
off
duty
and
sexual
misconduct
is
on
their
short
list.
B
Well,
the
oath
to
the
constitution
doesn't
say
on
duty
or
off
duty,
just
like
our
felony
forfeiture,
while
it
didn't
say
on
duty
or
off
duty,
pepper,
says
on
duty
you're
off
duty
right,
but
I
think
that's
a
shift
over
time.
I
have
been
sworn
in
on
more
than
one
occasion
against
all
enemies,
foreign
and
domestic.
One
time
is
to
administer
a
wedding
from
one
of
my
god
children.
B
I
don't
think
they
wanted
me
to
take
the
oath
for
30
minutes,
standing
on
the
beautiful
bluff
looking
out
over
the
pacific
right.
I
think
they
were
saying
during
some
period.
You
are
an
officer
of
the
state
and
while
you're
an
officer
of
the
state,
you
will
defend
the
constitution,
I
sure,
as
hell,
don't
think
you're
supposed
to
defend
the
constitution
while
you're
on
duty
and
then
plant
bombs
when
you're
off
duty.
B
I
would
also
point
out
that,
in
the
very
first
section
of
the
california
constitution,
it
guarantees
people
the
state
guarantees
people
which
mr
dowley
or
I
am
now
today-
an
agent
right
safety.
It's
in
it's
in
the
second
sentence
of
the
constitution.
Those
are
now
implied
contracts
right.
International
states
should
place
why
it
doesn't
apply.
That's
something
voluntary
doj!
Well,
we're
not
talking
goj
california
constitution.
Well,
we
took
a
note,
it
doesn't
say,
on
dude
you're
off
duty.
So
now,
let's
get
to
explicit
contract.
B
Well,
there
was
this
thing
in
in
the
san
jose
charter
from
way
way
back
that
says,
our
contract
with
you
can
be
broken.
If
you
commit
a
felony,
doesn't
say
on
duty
or
off
duty,
so
that
didn't
break
the
contract,
but
your
client
had
he
read
the
37
000
pages
would
have
been
aware
of
that.
So
I
went
surfing
the
internet
man.
I
must
have
spent
five
hours
on
monday
and
I
found
what
dave
and
franco
know
I
found
you.
You
have
to
find
the
right
terms.
B
You
keep
searching
for
off
duty
and
I
found
in
the
police
department
duty
manual
and
I
don't
know
if
it
applied
in
2005
or
2000.,
but
this
is
the
code
of
conduct
manual
that
mr
gallagher
agreed
to
contractually.
I
would
assume-
and
it
says
I
will
keep
my
private
life
unsullied
as
an
example.
It's
all.
I
give
you
three
examples
implied
contract.
We
do
implied
contracts
all
the
time.
It's
valid.
It's
been
upheld
in
many
courts
and
two
explicit
things.
B
So
I
gotta
tell
you,
ms
eaton,
a
your
defense
of
constitutionality,
makes
perfect
sense
to
me.
It's
way
above
my
pay
grade.
I
don't
know.
I
can
only
speak
personally
that
I
feel
no
political
influence
or
pressure,
but
your
arguments
that
we
are
breaching
the
contract.
Don't
hold
water
with
me
and
and
you'll
have
a
chance
in
just
a
minute
to
come
at
me
on
this.
B
D
That
was
amazing,
chair
jim,
how
to
go
after
that,
but.
D
I
guess
I
might
say
echo
a
little
bit
of
what
others
have
said
it
is.
It
is
hard
as
a
trustee
to
bear
their
the
responsibility
to
think
of
things
like
statue
of
limitations
on
on
on
things
like
this,
but
but
that's
what
we've
been
handed?
It's
a
it's
a
it's
a
you
know
it's
a
complicated
issue,
so
I
I
guess
in
my
mind
the
the
thing
that
that
I'm
grappling
that
I
was
grappling
with
was:
is
it
the
politics?
That's
influencing
this?
D
This
new
set
of
information
coming
to
the
board
or
is,
is
that
even
relevant,
and
so
where
I
came
out
of
this,
is
that
it's
a
new
piece
of
information.
What
the
source
was
is
irrelevant.
D
The
decision
we're
making
should
not
be
politically
biased
and
so
that
so
I'm
separating
the
two,
whether
it
should
have
been
there
before
or
not,
is
not
relevant.
It
is
now,
and
so
it's
a
material
piece
of
information
to
make
the
decision
as
a
trustee
today.
So
that's
sort
of
where
I
would.
B
Yeah,
I
think
your
comment
directly
goes
what
franco
and
dave
are
saying,
which
is
so?
Yes,
that's
true,
and
now
there
may
be
a
freight
train
of
seven
more
coming
our
way
right
and
do
we
treat
them
all
the
same.
If
if,
if
this
is
something
missy
may's
right,
it's
never
happened.
Miss
chandra!
It's
never
happened
before
I've
been
on
this
board
for
almost
as
long
as
dick
has
and
in
in
that
entire
time,
we've
only
seen
two
cases
of
people
we
thought
might
be
faking.
B
C
Okay,
can
you
hear
me:
am
I
honorable
no
you're
good
okay,
so
I
think,
in
response
to,
I
think
it
was
howard's
comment
where
he
talked
about
whether
the
information
was
available
in
2010,
and
I
think
there
was
some
discussion
of
who
should
supply
that
information.
I
think
that's
the
whole
point.
C
There's
no
guidelines
set
up
here
to
find
out
we're
going
to
say
it
was
common
knowledge.
Whenever
a
law
enforcement
officer
is
convicted
of
a
crime,
especially
a
felony,
the
police
department
jumps
on
it.
Now,
why
didn't
the
you
know,
pension
plan
didn't
either
find
out
about
it.
We
believe
that
there
were
people
that
didn't
know
about
it.
It
just
didn't
come
up.
There's
nothing!
No
mechanism,
that's
in
place
to
enforce
this
particular
provision
as
it
is
in
pepper.
That's
why
they
put
it
in
purpose.
C
C
What's
the
criteria,
how
do
you
determine
who's
supposed
to
do
it
nothing's
there?
So
I
think
if
you
had
those
guidelines
in
effect
or
something
in
effect
at
the
time,
the
board
would
have
looked
at
at
the
time
that
a
law
enforcement
officer
makes
an
application
and
do
the
screening
or
the
employer
would
have
the
duty
to
report
here.
There's
nothing
and
that's
what
makes
it
so.
C
You
know
hard
and
difficult
and
unfair
in
the
sense
that
this
person,
even
though
this
code
was
on
the
book,
there
was
nothing
to
indicate
that
there
was
even
a
possibility.
This
was
going
to
be
enforced
because
it's
never
been
enforced
before
it's
never
been
adhered
to.
It's
never
been
pushed,
and
I
think
to
do
it
now.
Our
position
is
to
do
it
now
would
work
a
tremendous
hardship
on
individuals
who
are
now
in
their
60s
who
have
no
choice
to
try
and
find
other
types
of
of
income
of
which
they
they
did
rely.
C
That's
better:
okay,
court
reporter.
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
good,
so
I'm
gonna
go
into
the
chair's
comment.
C
I
think
that
what
where
the
confusion,
a
lot
of
time
occurs,
is
when
a
law
enforcement
officer
engages
in
misconduct
now
just
kind
of
couch.
My
concerns.
By
my
background.
I
was
a
prosecutor
with
the
attorney
general's
office
for
almost
15
years,
and
so
when
a
law
enforcement
officer
engages
in
misconduct
off
duty
is
looked
at
in
an
employment
context.
C
C
C
Probably,
but
did
he
do
anything
that
would
preclude
him
from
getting
the
benefit
of
his
bargain
that
he
served
that
he
earned
to
to
lose
that
at
this
time,
under
the
guidance
that
we
have
now
our
position
is,
he
did
not
breach
that
contract
and
all
we're
saying
is
take
a
look
at
that.
That's
going
to
be
the
parameters
that,
if
we
have
to
have
a
court
look
at
these
situations
as
this
train
is
coming
down
towards
you
guys.
I
think
those
are
the
criteria.
The
court's
going
to
look
at.
C
That's
there,
that's
been
put
there
to
give
some
kind
of
structure
and
not
allow
a
board
this
confederate
discretion,
to
sit
as
a
judge
and
put
on
a
black
robe
to
decide
who
gets
it,
who
doesn't
who
breached?
Who
did
not,
and
so
our
position
and
and
we're
encouraging
you
to
just
see
those
as
your
instructional
guides
as
to
whether
there
has
actually
been
a
breach
of
contract
under
the
law,
despite
the
fact
that
those
provisions
are
there?
Another
factor,
is
you
never
enforce
them?
C
Nothing's
never
happened.
When
was
it
a
when
was
a
retirees
to
challenge
it
if
they
haven't
been
applied,
there's
never
been
they've
never
been
aggrieved
by
that,
and
so
I
I
respectfully
disagree
with
care
in
terms
of
that
breach
analysis.
C
I
think
mostly
other
comments
you
know
were
were
valid
and
certain
things
that
you,
you
have
a
large
order
in
front
of
you
and
I
think
I've
done
my
best
to
present
the
issues
from
mr
gallagher's
perspective,
so
that
you
can
weigh
that
in
making
your
determination.
Thank
you.
F
Yes,
I
have
a
few
brief
comments
in
response
to
council,
eaton
may's
closing
and
before
the
board
takes
any
motion
or
goes
to
further
deliberation.
I
also
would
like
to
do
a
few
administrative
things
for
the
for
the
record.
First,
I
in
regards
to
the
board's
discretion.
It
is
not
unfettered,
it's
guided
by
the
parameters
set
by
the
san
jose
municipal
code
and
the
city
charter,
as
well
as
existing
case
law
as
the
materials
to
the
board.
F
In
exhibit
a
that.
The
plans
council
provided
to
you
outlines
two
regarding
the
employment
contract,
as
council
ian
may
had
started
her
presentation.
F
The
employment
contract
guarantees
the
member
compensation
in
in
two
forms:
one
salary
and
two
deferred
compensation
regarding
the
in
the
form
of
retirement
benefits,
and
so
for
her
to
now
say
that
retirement
benefits
are
not
a
part
of
the
employment
contract
is
at
odds
with
what
she
began.
Her
presentation
with
two.
You
know
one
thing
that
I
want
to
mention
for
the
board:
it's
been
referenced
a
number
of
times
and
I
understand
missing
may's
objection
to
the
document,
though
I
do
believe
that
it
is
the
best
source
of
doc.
F
F
62
of
the
manual
you'll
see
here
law
enforcement
code
of
con
of
ethics.
Within
that
it
states.
I
will
keep
my
private
life
unsullied
as
an
example
to
all,
and
it
further
states
an
honest
thought.
Indeed,
in
both
my
personal
and
official
life,
I
will
be
exemplary
in
obeying
the
laws
of
the
land
and
the
regulations
of
my
department
and
so
just
to
put
a
finer
point
on
it.
F
This
does
impose
a
duty
on
all
sworn
officers
to
maintain
lawful
conduct
in
their
private
life,
as
well
as
in
their
on
duty
service,
so
that
does
impose
a
slightly
higher
standard
for
police
officers
than
it
does
for
any
other
civil
servant.
F
With
that,
I
do
want
to
close
with
a
few
administrative
things
just
for
the
transcript
I
would
like
to
attach
as
exhibits
all
materials
that
have
been
presented
to
the
board,
as
exhibit
a
I
would
like
to
attach-
and
I
will
send
to
the
court
reporter
with
the
agreement
of
missy
in
may,
as
exhibit
a
the
plans,
memo
and
exhibits
attached.
F
There,
too,
submitted
to
the
board,
as
exhibit
b,
I
would
like
to
submit,
attach
and
submit
with
the
transcript
the
opening,
brief
and
exhibits
provided
by
member
stephen
gallagher's
council
that
were
provided
to
the
board,
and
I
would
like
to
attach,
as
exhibit
c
the
powerpoint
presentation
that
ms
eaton
may
has
presented
to
the
board
at
this
in
in
this
meeting.
And
lastly,
I
would
like
to
attach,
as
exhibit
d,
the
duty
manual
for
the
san
jose
police
department,
and
I
will
send
these
to
the
court
reporter
following
this.
This
meeting.
B
Okay,
good
good,
miss
miss
floor's
open,
go
ahead,
whatever
you
need.
Okay,.
C
Thank
you.
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
in
the
right
spot
court
reporter.
Can
you
hear
me,
and
so
I
think
we
assumed,
with
the
transcript
that
the
exchange
of
information
that
mr
chen
has
identified,
as
exhibit
a
and
b,
would
be
part
of
the
record
and
would
be
with
the
transcript.
C
This
exhibit
directed
your
suspect
to
xc.
I
did
not
intend
to
have
that
as
part
of
the
board
record,
but
I
have
no
objection
to
that
on
exhibit
b.
I
think
there
is
a
problem
my
client
has
not.
I
mean,
there's
no
evidence
that
my
client
signed
that,
or
was
a
part
of
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
This
is
the
first
time
we're
seeing
it,
and
so
I
you
know
would
object
to
that
being
able
to
be
a
part
of
the
record.
C
Oh
one
more
thing,
sorry
about
that
when
I
was
discussing
with
you
the
analysis
with
respect
to
off-duty
conduct
for
law
enforcement
officers,
I
wasn't
saying
that
the
compensation
wasn't
part
of
the
contract.
C
I'm
saying
that
the
analysis
that
you
utilize
when
you're
looking
at
it
from
an
employment
context
as
opposed
to
a
pension
context,
is
different
and
that's
exactly
what
I
was
trying
to
convey
that
you
know
the
parameters
around
looking
at
when
you
can
forfeit
cancel,
terminate
a
pension
is
much
different
than
when
you're
looking
at
whether
an
employee
has
engaged
in
conduct.
That's
a
violation
of
the
particular
rules.
This
subject
disciplinary
action,
whether
they
undermine
their
ability
to
be
effective.
C
B
C
B
So
I
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
you,
but
I
need
10
or
15
minutes
to
gather
my
thoughts
before
we
really
make
a
motion
or
debate.
I
am
showing
11
11.
Why
don't
we
take
a
break
until
is
that
right?
Is
it
that
late?
Oh,
my
god,
11
25,
let's
take
a
break
until
11
25.
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
And
so,
if
I
can
take
a
straw
poll
of
the
board
to
see,
do
you
think
we
should
do
nothing
or
do
you
think
we
should
do
something
and
something
could
be
really
small.
It
could
be
really
big
to
be
decided
if
you
think
we
should
do
something.
So
the
order
for
this
third
round,
as
determined
by
a
random
number
generator
is
dave.
Then
me
then
eshfar,
then
franco,
then
dickton,
howard,
then
sunita
and
andrew.
B
J
B
Okay,
I'm
next,
I
think
we
should
do
something.
Although
I've,
my
my
english,
is
something
small
ashfar.
Do
you
think
we
should
do
something
or
nothing.
A
For
some
reason,
a
video
is
not
working,
but
let
me
I
think
we
should
do
something
I
think
you
know.
I
think
people
have
talked
about
the
risk
that
this
is
just
going
to
start
an
avalanche
of.
You
know
other
claims.
I
guess
I
don't
know.
If
that
is
true,
I
don't
know
if
they
have
any
information
that
says
that
there
are
a
lot
of
felonies
which
have
not
been
dealt
with.
A
The
second
is
this:
you
know,
even
if
that
is
the
case,
this
may
be
the
standard
where,
if
you
don't
do
anything
here,
you
know
do
we
do
it?
Can
we
do
anything
in
the
future
right
and
do
we
just
say
that
we
don't
do
anything
at
all?
So
on
that
measure
I
would
say
we
should
do
something.
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
disconnect
and
come
back
drew
just.
Oh.
B
G
Let
me
let
me
make
a
comment
when
we're
talking
about,
and
I
again
things
bother
me
when
you
were
supposedly
wearing
a
black
robe.
Just
does
not
resonate
with
me
at
all,
because
it's
like
double
jeopardy,
but
I
also
consider
what
about
the
victim?
What
about
restitution?
So
something
should
be
done.
Yes,.
H
A
I'm
in
general
agreement,
I
think
we
we
should
do
something
only
because
I
think
if
you
do
nothing,
then
you
may
actually
start
to
set
a
precedent
for
for
other
things.
So
I
I
think
it's
worth
to
do
something.
D
B
D
I
mean,
I
think,
I'm
in
the
I'm
going
towards
the
consensus,
which
is
that
I
think
we
have
to
do.
We
are
obligated
to
do
something
and-
and
it
just
we
have
to
be
thought,
we
have
to
think
through
what
precedent
it
sets
and
it
feels
a
little
rushed
to
be
able
to
do
that.
At
this
point,.
B
All
right
well
good
news
board,
at
least
for
your
nana's.
We
should
do
something
so
maytag
and
and
jump
into
mizzetman
harvey,
so
franco
and
dave
were
saying:
can
we
delay
until
we
get
more
clarity?
Is
that
an
option
we
can
take.
F
Yeah
I
can
take
that
on
so
the
laws,
the
laws
at
the
time
that
were
on
the
books
in
any
standards
or
guidelines
at
the
time
mr
gallagher
retired
in
2010,
are
the
gov
are
the
governing
laws
and
guidelines.
F
Now,
if
the
unions
in
the
city,
subsequently
after
he
retired,
come
up
with
guidelines,
those
guidelines
do
not
govern
his
case.
What
is
governing
to
our
case
is
the
existing
case
law
and
the
text
of
the
san
jose
municipal
charter
and
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
C
Yes,
I
I
think
that
we've
talked
exhaustively
here
about
the
fact
that
there's
no
guidelines
and
trying
to
make
a
decision
without
some
kind
of
parameters
based
on
the
language
in
your
particular
code
and
section,
I
think,
will
lead
to
trouble.
It
will
definitely
get
you
down
the
line
where
you're
going
to
be
in
litigation
for
a
long
time.
C
So
I
am
not
aware
of
anything
that
does
not
give
you
the
authority
to
defer
your
decision
on
this
particular
matter
until
a
time
in
which
you
feel
you
have
sufficient
information,
sufficient
guidance,
sufficient
direction
on
how
you
want
to
proceed
and
what
you
want
to
do
at
that
time.
C
I
know
that's
probably
difficult
for
my
client,
because
then
they
have
to
continue
to
live
on
this
expense
of.
What's
going
to
happen
in
my
what
my
life
with
my
my
my
income,
but
in
terms
of
your
authority
to
defer
a
decision
until
some
later
time
or
and
take
any
additional
information
that
would
also
be
you
know,
maybe
comments
on
any
kind
of
guidelines
or
anything
like
that.
I'm
not
aware
of
anything
that
would
preclude
you
from
doing
that.
B
A
Miss
chin
was
correct.
Any
change
in
the
law
and
ms
eaton
may
has
even
raised
his
with
regard
to
the
matters
that
she
was
arguing
this
morning.
Any
change
in
the
law
after
somebody
retires
can't
be
applied
to
them.
So,
while
might
make
sense
for
people
in
the
future
to
have
some
guidelines,
if
you
will
placed
in
the
text
of
the
law
itself,
we
could
not
apply
those
changes
to
these
gentlemen
who
we
are
considering
today,
the
but,
but
I
I
would
want
to
make
this
comment.
A
A
It's
not
it's
not
a
an
unfettered
discretion.
You
have
to
go
by
some
book
that
has
three
or
four
specific
provisions
that
you
check
boxes
off
on.
It's
not
structured
that
way,
but
it's
not
as
if
the
board
has
no
guidance
whatsoever.
A
A
Whatever
comes
up
through
that
process,
however,
can
affect
future
retirees,
but
not
people
who
retired
under
the
law
that
exists
at
the
time
they
retired.
So
postponing
this
for
collective
bargaining
to
continue
to
take
place.
B
Would
not
assist
the
board
in
making
decisions
in
these
cases,
so
so
franco
dave.
You
want
to
debate
that
point
with
harvey
or
maytag.
H
H
We,
you
know
if
if
someone
is
73
years
old
and
they
have
dementia
or
alzheimer
and
in
a
you
know
a
care
facility,
we're
going
to
take
that
pension
from
him
so
he's
out
of
that
care
facility,
and
now
you
know
board
of
the
state.
I
mean
there's,
there's
so
many
different
criteria
that
apply
to
this.
So
I'm
just
talking
about
them
saying
look.
H
We
all
came
to
agreement
yeah
we're
going
to
do
something
or
you're
going
to
do
something,
but
these
are
some
parameters
that
we
think
are
reasonable
as
to
when
you
would-
and
I
don't
think,
that's
any
different
than
what
we're
looking
at
now,
it's
a
lot
of
the
things
that
you've
mentioned.
We
could
use
some
of
the
pepper
stuff
or
we
don't
have
to
because
we're
not
bound
by
it.
We
could
consider
a
timeline,
but
we're
not
bound
by
it.
That's
all
I'm
talking
about.
J
Yeah,
I
don't
have
an
exact
timeline.
I
don't
I
do
know
the
outline
that
the
poa
came
up
with
is
currently
with
their
council
and
once
he
signs
off
on
it
and
legalizes
language
puts
it
into
lawyer,
speak
as
word,
then
we're
going
to
share
it
with
or
the
poa
is
going
to
share
it
with
local
230
and
then
the
retirees
association,
but
as
to
a
definitive
timeline.
J
B
B
B
B
By
most
estimates,
it
caused
over
2
billion
dollars
in
damage
and
some
of
that
to
city
buildings,
federal
boeing,
state
buildings.
So
the
reputation
of
police
matters
and
upholding
that
reputation,
matters
and
we
may
disagree-
and
I
agree
with
you
very
friendly
mizzi-
may
have
whether
there
was
or
wasn't
a
breach
of
contract.
But
it's
a
debate
just
like
you
say
it's
a
debate
is
a
constitutional
life.
There
are
real
debates
here.
B
B
So
my
idea
comes
from
my
world
vc.
So
this
is
civil.
This
is
damages
how
about
we?
Let
harvey
and
maytac
negotiate
with
ms
eaton
may,
mr
gallaher,
to
figure
out.
What's
something
and
I
looked
in
my
ancient
history
of
textbooks
and
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
I
wouldn't
be
directing
a
harvey
or
maytag
or
ms
may
there's
this
notion
of
a
tithe.
B
You
know
it
through
the
bible,
but
it
goes
way
back
thousands
of
years
before
to
babylon
to
mesopotamia,
and
there
is
this
kind
of
notion
that
maybe
mr
galler,
we
might
impose
upon
mr
gallard
here's
your
pension
check.
We
haven't
touched
it,
but
we
will
touch
it
unless
you
tithe
some
portion
of
your
money
to
a
civic
program
for
youth.
B
So
here's
a
screwy
motion,
I
wrote
it
down
and-
and
you
guys
are
feel
free
to
shoot
holes
in
this,
but
here's
a
screw
motion.
B
Yeah,
okay,
so
floor's
open,
feel
free
to
tell
me
that's
stupid
and
screwy.
But
mr.
G
Mr
chair,
I
just
said
I
second
that
in
the
comment
that
could
include
that
could
include
restitution
to
the
victim.
So
what
I'm
saying,
I
think
that's
a
good
discussion,
because
we
have
done
that
with
overpayment
underpayment.
We
have
done
things
about
finances.
We
also
had
a
person,
as
you
know,
a
couple
years
ago,
over
their
wife's
death
didn't
pay
certain
premiums,
and
so
we
have
done
things
like
that.
I
second
that
motion.
I
think
it's
a
good
start,
so
dick.
B
Do
you
want
me
to
amend
the
motion
to
say
it
could
be
a
civic
youth
program
or
restitution
to
the
victim,
or
I
think
we
should
keep
that
open,
sir
okay,
so
so
the
secondary
suggested
a
change
to
the
motion.
The
measure
will
add
or
restitution
to
the
victim
on
your
plate
of
what
you
can
negotiate
may
tak
and
mizzit
may
dick.
Do
you
agree
to
that
change?
That's
my
second.
F
On
the
comment
on
restitution,
it
is
unclear
to
me
whether
or
not
mr
gallagher
has
fully
met
that
obligation
in
the
criminal
proceeding
or
not.
I
do
think
that
is
a
criminal
matter.
I
would
prefer
to
keep
the
criminal
aspect
of
it
out
of
it.
With
regards.
E
F
The
victim,
because
it's
unclear
whether
or
not
he's
already
met
restitution.
B
C
Well,
I
think
it
has
some
attractiveness
in
the
sense
that
it
you
know,
allows
my
client
to
sort
of
keep
his
pension.
I'm
I
probably
would
have
to
work
with
with
harvey
and
and
maytag
about
the
logistics
of
how
it
would
work.
That
would
probably
be
the
the
main
concern
like
I
like
I
said
I
did
about
20
something
years
of
public
service
and
sometimes
you're
not
able
to
use
private
money
to
fund
public
programs.
C
C
A
lot
of,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
logistics
that
would
mr
lederman
and
mr
ken
and
I
would
kind
of
have
to
figure
out
to
make
to
make
it
worse,
and
I
just
haven't
done
the
research
on
you
know
whether
a
person
can
donate
as
a
charitable,
maybe
a
charitable
deduction
to
someone
else
as
an
obligation
or
condition
of
keeping
their
pension.
I
I
just
don't
know
I
don't
know
if
maytag
or
harvey
has
any
for
my
world.
B
A
B
A
Thanks,
I'm
I'm
wondering
whether
the
motion
contemplates
hey
what
will
happen
in
the
event
that
an
agreement
along
these
lines
is
not
prepared
for
the
board's
approval
at
the
august
meeting.
Does
that
mean
the
board
is
a
maker
of
the
motion
in
the
second
intent
that
if
we
can't
reach
agreement
by
the
august
meeting
to
present
to
the
board
that
the
board
will
then
reconsider
the
matter.
B
Is
that
part
of
the
motion?
Well,
what
do
you
think
harvey
and
maytag
I
mean
really
the
time
the
onus
is
on
you.
What
do
you
think.
F
Sure
I
agree
with
harvey
on
this,
so
with
regard
to
the
motion,
as
it's
been
teed
up
it,
it
essentially
forms
a
settlement
agreement
where
the
board
agrees
not
to
cancel
or
terminate
in
exchange
for
an
agreement
to
provide
a
certain
donation
to
a
specified
charity.
That's
a
that's
an
agreement
that
the
member
and
the
board
may
certainly
enter
into
harvey
does
raise
a
good
point
that
if
that
agreement
does
not
consummate,
then
we
shall
reserve
the
right.
We
should
reserve
the
right
to
revisit
the
matter
at
a
later
date.
I.
B
I
think
that's
correct
and
I
said
provided
so
I
think
the
motion
con.
I
should
I
actually
got
my
thesaurus.
I
just
choose
that
word
carefully
right,
so
so
floors
open
andrew
franco
dave
is
this
screwy
or
does
this
make
sense.
J
This
is
dave,
I
will
say:
well
it's
different.
It's
not
something
I
thought
of,
although
when
it
comes
to
disciplinary
actions
within
the
department,
which
is
my
only
point
of
reference
on
this,
we
do
do
settlement
agreements
all
the
time.
So
I
could
see
us
whether
that
be
applicable-
and
you
know
the
damages
would
still
be
awarded
in
the
fact
that
his
pension
would
be
reduced
by
a
negotiated
amount.
J
The
other
thing
I
would
probably
add
to
that
is
put
a
time
limit
on
negotiations
so
that
it's
not
unduly
drawn
out
for
a
long
period
of
time.
B
Well,
that's
why
I
said
august.
The
reason
I
kind
of
like
this
idea
is
because
I'm
listening
to
you,
franco
and
dave-
and
this
way
you
guys
we're
not
deciding
today,
you
guys
get
a
bite
of
the
apple
by
talking
to
harvey
maytac
and
giving
them
your
input
as
to
your.
What
you
guys
are
essentially
doing
is
predicting
the
future,
and
I
would
think
if
I
was
harvey
and
or
and
maytag
and
ms
eaton,
I
would
want
to
know
what
that
future
is.
B
H
This
is
andrew
yeah.
No,
I
I
feel
comfortable.
You
know
with
this
approach.
You
know
having
basically
both
parties
that
could
come
to
some
type
of
settlement.
If,
if
we
find
out
legality
wise
that
we're
not
able
to
do
contributions
to
you
know,
you
know
to
an
organization
or
something
like
that.
You
know
it's.
H
It's
basically
in
the
sentence,
a
sense
that
if
we,
if
they
deduct
to
contribute
to
an
organization,
but
we
can't
do
that,
we
could
just
deduct
this
paycheck,
then
that
same
amount,
the
dollar,
a
dollar
at
the
bottom
line,
is
going
to
be
the
same.
It's
just
we're
trying
to
do
a
good
cause.
At
the
same
time,.
B
B
I
listen
carefully
what
you
said
and
this
board
doesn't
have
the
capacity
to
really
work
with
you
and
understand
your
hardships,
but
I'm
guessing
our
council
and
your
council
and
you
can
really
sit
down
over
a
long
day
and
sort
through
that,
and
I
was
listening
to
you
and
I
you
and
I
are
probably
about
the
same
age.
So
I
get
it
sure.
I
saw
you
on
the
way
in.
A
Yeah,
I
think
you
know
what
andrew
said
about
you
know.
I
guess
the
the
other
approach
is
you
reduce
the
amount
of
the
pension
and
I
was
going
to
ask
the
question:
we
reach
an
agreement
and
what
happens
if
there's
a
breach
of
the
agreement
in
the
future
where
those
donations
are
not
being
made,
or
does
it
come
back
to
the
board
and
how
do
we?
How
do
we
deal
with
that.
F
Yeah,
so
any
any
sort
of
reach
provisions
to
the
agreement
can
be
included
as
a
remedy
in
the
settlement
agreement
and
that's
something
we
may
consider
in
negotiations.
B
Yeah
franco,
is
it
wacky
or
does
it
work
for
you,
it's
it's
wacky,
but
it
works
next.
Beer's
on
you,
franco.
Anybody
else,
floors
open,
maybe
go
around.
Take
a
vote.
Okay,
yeah.
J
Just
more
of
a
technical
question
on
how
it
could
work,
maybe
for
roberto
to
answer.
Is
there
any
way
that
the
whatever
deduction
is
agreed
upon
could
be
taken
out
on
the
retirement
side
and
then
paid
directly
so
that
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
an
oversight
on
whether
or
not
the
payments
are
actually
being
made?.
I
So
anything
anything
can
be
done
dave.
My
preference
is
that
it's
not
done
that
way.
You
don't
want
to
hear
what
I
think
about
the
whole
discussion,
but
the
bottom
line
here
the
bottom
line
here
is,
I
think
it
would
be
easier,
and
I
think
you
that's
not
your
point.
I
Your
point
is
like
you
don't
know
do
that
if
we
leave
it
to
the
member
to
make
the
donation
directly
and
of
course,
I
think
that
he
will
need
to
provide
us
with
supported
recommendation
every
year
that
that
donation
has
been
done
right
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
that's
happening,
because
this
is
my
concern,
I
I
think
we
could
send
a
check
to
some
charity
organization
that
is
designing
a
contract,
but,
as
you
mentioned,
if
we
do
have
more
cases
in
the
future,
I
I
really
do
not.
I
I
would
prefer
not
to
put
the
staff
in
a
position
to
keep
track
of
charitable
organizations
related
to
specific
conventions
where
they
have
to
be
making
checks.
Out
of
you
know,
17
10
12
members,
so
I
just
don't
want
to
open
that
door.
If
that's
what
we
have
to
do,
we
will
stand
ready
to
get
it
done,
but
my
present,
my
preference,
will
be
that
we
do
not.
Did
I
ask
you
a
question.
B
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
guess
if
I
were
to
apply
what
I
heard
earlier
from
others
and
myself,
that
we
don't
want
to
set
a
precedent
or
we
want
to
think
through
the
implications
of
a
precedent.
I'm
not
sure
this.
This
motion
necessarily
allows
us
to
do
that.
I
I
like
the
principle
that
you
know
there
is
a.
We
are
taking
action
and
it's
it's
in.
D
You
know
from
a
fairness
perspective,
it
seems
very
balanced,
but
I
do
worry
about
the
unintended
consequences
of
every
future
action
where
we
have
a
settlement
and
then
there's
a
monitoring
process,
whether
it
actually
happens
and
also
creating
an
incentive
for
the
rest
of
the
pension
retirees.
D
You
know
I'm
just
thinking
aloud
here,
so
I
just
worry
about
it
yeah.
I.
B
G
Want
to
sure
yeah
they've
been
enough
payments
to
ex-wives
and
you
name
it
to
last
a
lifetime.
So
you
know,
let's
get
back
to
square
one,
look
at
reality.
This
is
an
organization
you're
being
the
most
fairest
man.
I
can
understand
right
now.
This
is
a
great
way
to
solve
this
issue
and
set
the
president.
B
F
B
F
Atlanta
cheerleading-
I
just
want
to
reiterate
in
the
point
that
harvey
and
I
made
earlier
that
any
guidelines
that
may
come
out
of
this
negotiation,
while
we
understand
it
may
come
from
the
unions,
will
also
require
input
from
the
city.
Those
guidelines
are
input
but
are
not
controlling
in
any
way.
We
understand
that,
subject
to
meet
and
grow
negotiations
for
members
moving
forward
now
this
number
that
is
I'm
coming
before
those
guidelines
were
issued.
So
while
we
may
receive
them,
they
do
not
govern
our
settlement
negotiations.
No.
B
I
did
what
well
said
and
for
the
record
again,
the
the
maker
of
the
motion
didn't
intend
that
to
happen.
It
is
input
we
we
are
it.
You
know
it's
that
classical
maytag
we've
sort
of
got
two
or
three
things
going
on
in
parallel:
helpful
parallel
tracks,
talk
to
each
other,
don't
have
to
do
it
they're
in
parallel
they're,
not
linked
yet
forced
open.
Any
other
comments,
mr
chair.
I
Yeah,
I'm
not
involved,
I
would
not
be
involved
in
the
negotiations.
That's
up
to
council
and
obviously
our
member
and
his
attorney,
and
I
ventured
to
say
that
when
you
made
your
comments,
everybody
had
a
sense
of
what
you
meant
by
a
small
portion,
and
I
don't
want
to
step
on
anybody's
toes
here,
but
if
I
was
they
want
to
be
negotiating.
I
I
would
ask
the
board
to
give
me
some
for
lack
of
a
better
word
guidelines
right,
because
a
small
portion
to
you
may
look
different
to
counsel,
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that's
the
case,
but
the
last
thing
that
I
would
like
was
counsel
to
work
very
hard
on
an
agreement
to
come
back
and
the
board
almost
unanimously
will
say:
gee,
that's
not
what
we
were
thinking
about
small
or
vice
versa.
I
I
don't
know-
maybe
maybe
it's
not
important.
Maybe
council.
A
B
No,
I
did
mention
that
I
really
did
look
in
the
history
books.
A
tithe
was
always
a
small
enough
number
that
the
farmer
wouldn't
die,
but
a
big
enough
number
that
it
was
counted
so
historically
in
ancient
mesopotamia.
It
started
about
10,
but
it
could
be
anywhere
from
5
to
20,
historically
so
somewhere
in
the
high
single
digits
or
low
double
digits.
That's
now,
that's
me
and
and
and
maybe
others
agree
or
disagree.
B
C
Well,
I
guess
I
was
going
to
say
I
hoping
you
can
hear
me,
there's
probably
a
lot
of
legal
issues
that
that
harvey
and
miss
tim,
and
I
have
to
look
at
when
we're
if
you
decide
to
if
this
motion
passes,
yeah
and
one
of
them
will
be
certainly
part
of
an
attorney's
duty-
is
when
we're
negotiating.
C
A
C
Opportunity,
usually
council
will
confer
with
you
before
the
deal
is
final,
so
to
speak.
B
C
B
C
I
think
the
legal
issue
of
whether
the
you
can
touch
a
pension,
a
person's
pension
after
it's
been
issued
to
give
it
to
charity,
and
how
that
I
just
think,
there's
more
that
we
need
to
look
at
on
that
particular
level
as
we
are
in
negotiations
and
I
plan
to
do
my
homework
and
research
and
share
it
with
harvey
and
maytag.
And
I
know
they'll
do
the
same
and
we'll
make
sure
that
we
have
an
agreement
that
is
tight
if
we're
able
to.
If
this
motion
passes
right.
F
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
piggyback
on
this
ian
may's
comments.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
you
know.
I
understand
that
the
board's
motion
is
for
the
member
to
contribute
a
portion
to
a
particular
charity
subject
to
negotiations.
Whatever
portion
we
negotiate,
I
think
should
take
into
consideration
the
hardships
and
other
equitable
considerations
that
we
may
need
to
address.
That's
fact
specific,
so
I
do
not
believe
that
having
a
specified
amount
as
a
settlement
authority
as
a
part
of
the
motion
would
do
us
justice.
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
thank
you
for
all
the
thoughtful
comments
drew.
Thank
you
for
the
framework
I
agree
doing
contracts
and
deals
gives
you
the
idea
of
just
settling,
and
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
here,
because
we
can't
go
backwards
and
look
at
2010
and
act
as
if
we
were
there,
and
I
think
I
think
something
has
to
be
done
in
this
case,
because
it's
a
first
time,
I
guess
at
least
as
far
as
I
could
tell-
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
something.
That's
both
constructive.
A
Those
members
that
are
that
are
working
today
that
are
retired
as
well
as
mr
gallagher,
I
think,
would
be,
I
think,
would
be
extremely
unfair
to
sort
of
hand
out
a
punishment
that
would
have
occurred
in
2010
at
this
point
in
time.
So
yeah,
I
think,
there's
some
some
work
to
be
done
with
the
negotiation,
but
I
I
support
it.
D
Just
make
sure
I
understand
the
motion,
it's
it
is
that
it
it
is
to
let
maytag
and
the
two
councils
figure
out
what
that
amount
will
be,
or
is
the
board
going
to
weigh
in
on
what
that
amount
is
going
to
be?
I'm.
B
A
little,
oh,
I
think,
mizzen
may
said
right.
The
chair
is
giving
guidance,
it's
a
small
number
and
nobody's
really
objected
to
that.
So
high
low,
high
single
digits,
low,
double
digits
and
the
charity
to
be
picked
and
then
working
with
roberto
the
mechanism
to
be
decided
per
howard.
Having
done
this
forever,
the
the
rule
of
thumb
is-
and
I
think
mazique
may
allude
to
this-
is
to
give
the
councils
very
broad
latitude
and
very
general
high-level
direction
because
they
got
a
hammer
down
so
right.
B
D
B
A
What
a
question
here
drew.
A
Are
there
no
other
examples
where
something
similar
happened?
I
guess
it's
a
felony
and
I
would
say
not
a
light
felony,
it's
a
serious
felony
in
my
view
and
how
maybe
a
pension
board.
F
Sure,
if
we're
going
to
use
pepra
as
a
guidance
in
cases
that
have
been
litigated
under
pepra,
the
forfeited
period
or
forfeited
amount
is
measured
with,
along
with
the
years
of
service
that
are
covered
from
the
felonious
conduct
for
which
it
was
committed.
So
the
first
earliest
date
of
the
commission
of
the
felony
that
was
convicted
through
the
conviction
date.
F
So
every
year
in
between
is
a
forfeiture
period
and
any
services
credits
that
were
accumulated
during
that
forfeiture
period
are
then
subtracted
from
the
members
calculation
of
their
benefit,
and
so
that
is
one
way
to
do
it
and
that's
how
pepper
has
done
it?
That's
not
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
Provision
here
says
any
or
all
it
does
not
have
that
specific
metric.
A
Me
add
some
color
to
that.
Also,
we
don't
have
good
precedent
for
how
a
board
acts
in
these
circumstances,
because
the
most
recent
precedence
that
we
have
both
under
the
judge's
retirement
system.
The
case
I
handled
for
calpers
against
the
judge
in
santa
clara
county
and
the
pepper
cases
that
our
office
has
handled
and
ones
that
we
haven't
handled
are
all
those
decisions
are
all
required
by
the
statute.
A
A
A
So
it's
hard
to
look
at
what
other
boards
have
done,
because
the
other
boards
have
done
it
by
the
numbers
and
the
numbers
were
dictated
by
the
legislature.
We
don't
have
a
checklist
of
numbers
dictated
by
the
city.
We
have
a
discretionary
grant.
That
says,
we
may
do
something,
but
we're
not
obligated
to
do
something.
A
A
A
A
D
Is
when
we
started
this
conversation,
it
was
either
do
nothing
or
do
something
we
never
talked
about.
Taking.
Do
something
didn't
talk
about
zero
or
a
hundred
percent
or
one
percent
to
100,
and
I
think
that's
my
discomfort.
D
The
second
second
consideration
which
I
hear
from
you
know
dave
and
franco,
which
really
resonates
and
is
the
bargaining
units
and
what
guidance
they
might
give
us
that
will
probably
help
us
benchmark
what
this
number
should
be.
I
I,
I
guess,
I'm
I'm
personally
uncomfortable
with
the
motion
to
be
that
vague
at
this
point.
A
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
guess
I
I'm
just
thinking
about
what
harvey
said
that
you
know.
I
guess.
Maybe
the
board
is
going
too
easy
relative
to.
You
know
what
some
of
the
comparisons
are.
Should
we,
you
know,
I
guess
defer
to
the
next
month
next
board
meeting.
So
we
can.
All
kind
of
you
know,
form
judgments,
because
I
I
guess
it's
it's
a
new
something
very
new
we've
not
dealt
with
this
before
and
you
know
I
I
mean
you
did
you
know
we
did
talk.
A
There
was
a
breach
of
trust
and
question
is:
what
is
the
penalty?
We
should
impose
something
we've
not
dealt
with
before.
So
that's
what
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable,
whether
we
rush
into
judgment
but
but
ultimately
I'll
defer
to
you
drew
no.
B
F
Well,
here's
here's
my
take
on
it
the
motion
as
it
stands:
instructs
the
council
between
the
two
parties
to
see
if
we
can
reach
a
settlement
agreement
on
what
we're
going
to
do
with
the
application
of
the
statute
to
the
members
retirement
benefits,
and
if
that
settlement
negotiation
falls
through
that
the
board
reserves
the
right
to
re,
revisit
and
determine
how
it
will
apply
the
statute,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
two-part
alternative
motion
where
it
allows
the
council
and
the
and
the
member
to
reach
an
agreement.
F
If
we
can
and
present
that
to
the
board
with
the
members
agreement,
and
if
we
are
not
able
to
make
that
agreement,
then
the
board
will
then
reconsider
and
determine
what
percentage
and
how
it
will
make
that
metric
harvey.
Do
you
have
anything
to
add.
B
A
A
We
do
them
over
two
board
meetings
to
give
the
board
an
opportunity
to
to
consider
those
serious
consequences.
A
Members
may
wish
to
make
other
motions
as
well,
but
I
think,
given
the
gravity
of
the
situation
and
the
fact
that
the
board
has
been
deliberating
for
several
hours
on
this,
that
it
would
be
prudent
and
appropriate
for
the
board
to
have
an
opportunity
to
consider
this
without
taking
a
vote
today
and
if
you're
comfortable
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
I
would
make
that
recommendation.
B
B
B
So
the
maker
of
the
motion
will
table
the
motion
until
the
june
board
meeting
and
then
harvey
you
and
and
and
ms
may
and
maytag
will
come
back
with
a
lot
more
for
us
to
consider,
and
we
also
I
like
kenny,
was
saying
we
also
get
to
hear
the
second
case,
and
that's
compelling
to
me
too,
because
I
knew
there
are
some
similarities
or
some
differences,
so
does
that
all
have
to
just
say
tablet
for
a
month
darby.
B
B
A
I
I
think
there
has
to
be
some
something
that
takes
care
of
that,
because
you'd
hate
to
have
more
situations
where
so
much
time
has
elapsed
between
the
discovery
of
a
felony
and,
and
so,
if
there's
a
way,
I
don't
know
how
this
happens
with
the
city
or
with
the
council.
If
there's
some
way
of
initiating
some
sort
of
movement
to
have
that
worked
out.
That
way,
we
in
the
position
as
the
board
have
to
deal
with.
Hopefully
many
cases
like
that
coming
into
the
future.
B
Didn't
you
tell
me
maytag
when
I
talked
to
you
a
couple
weeks
ago
that
that
roberto
and
staff
are
working
on
putting
that
on
the
thing
that
gets
signed
or
was
that
you
were
to
told
me?
Are
you
working
on
that?
We
were.
A
B
Sounds
like
it
sounds
like
it's
in
the
works,
ms
emery
court
reporter
want
you
to.
F
I'm
sorry
trustee
wilson
has
his
hand
up
chair,
alonzo.
J
That's
all
right,
there's
two
pages
of
people
on
this
meeting,
so
I'm
just
going
to
let
you
guys
know
that
the
current
outline
that
the
poa
is
drafted
does
include
a
notification
process.
So
if
all
parties
agree
and
the
city
adopts
it,
it
will
be
in
there.
B
That's
great
to
hear
so
great
so
great,
so
you
win
the
second
great
minds
thinking
like
prize
for
today.
Maytag.
Are
we
free
to
let
ms
emery
go
to
lunch.
F
Yes,
madam
court,
reporter,
we
will
excuse
you
for
the
next
20
minutes
for
a
lunch
break.
During
that
time,
the
board
will
continue
with
its
matters
and
once
you
return,
we
will
take
up
item
3f
for
kenneth
williams.
Thank
you
great.
B
A
E
Thanks
prabhu,
so
sachin
go
ahead
and
share
the
document,
so
we're
going
to
present
the
private
markets
pacing
plan,
as
purdue
mentioned
at
the
outset
of
the
meeting.
This
was
discussed
and
approved
by
the
investment
committee
last
month.
This
is
an
annual
process
that
we
kick
off
after
the
asset.
E
Allocations
are
approved
by
the
board
and
the
objective
is
to
model
how
we
can
reach
and
maintain
the
private
markets,
asset
allocation
targets,
the
reason
being
that
private
funds
are
drawdown
vehicles
and
we
as
investors,
don't
control
the
exact
timing
of
when
capital
gets
called
in
and
out
of
different
investments
that
we
make.
So
a
lot
of
assumptions
go
into
producing
the
pacing
plans,
so
we
revisit
annually
to
recalibrate
the
models
and
the
plan
is
that
I'll
talk
about
what
we've
done
over
the
past
year?
E
Some
changes
in
the
market
environment
briefly
and
I'll
be
followed
by
sachin
sedan,
who's,
a
member
of
our
private
markets
team,
who,
I
think
you
all
haven't,
had
a
chance
to
to
meet.
He
joined
us
in
october
of
last
year
and
he'll
go
through
the
actual
pacing
plan
results
using
some
of
the
output.
That
was
produced
by
our
consultants,
makita
and
newburger
berman,
who
did
all
the
modeling
for
us
and
we'll
wrap
up
with
our
recommendation.
J
E
E
The
deployment
so
far
has
been
mostly
as
expected,
so
the
private
markets
program
has
matured
to
the
point
where
we
have
a
stable
foundation
of
managers
that
we
have
invested
with
in
the
past
are
currently
monitoring
and
continue
to
invest
with,
as
it
makes
sense.
There
are
some
cases
where
we
look
to
scale
those
relationships,
such
as
when
a
manager
offers
other
strategies
that
are
a
fit
for
us
or
might
be
launching
new
ones
that
that
could
be
interesting
as
well.
E
What's
equally
as
important
as
the
existing
relationships
that
we
have
is
keeping
a
strong
bench
so
that
we
can
potentially
replace
or
supplement
the
existing
managers
that
we
have.
So
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
understanding
the
merits
and
considerations
of
other
investments,
even
though
we
might
not
officially
make
an
investment
with
those
groups
in
the
past.
E
The
next
point
is
that
now
that
we
have
diversified
portfolios,
there's
different
ways
that
we
can
add
value,
we
went
into
it
a
little
more
detail
in
the
ic
but,
for
example,
in
real
estate
by
adding
sector
specialists
that
can
add
value
instead
of
investing
in
diversified
funds
where
managers
may
invest
across
different
sectors.
But
if
there's
a
sector
such
as
the
multi-family
or
industrial
sector
that
we
have
conviction
in
want
to
gain
exposure
to
it
can
make
sense
to
invest
in
specialists.
That
can
add
value
within
that
sector.
E
The
last
item
is
the
informational
advantage.
This
helps
us
keep
as
wide
a
funnel
as
we
can
to
look
at
a
lot
of
opportunities
and
get
benefits
in
other
ways,
such
as
having
office
references
that
we
can
call
upon
when
we're
doing
due
diligence,
our
current
positioning
is
18,
which
is
exactly
what
we
anticipated
in
the
previous
spacing
plan.
We
are
about
seven
percent
underweight
the
private
market
spacing
plan
target
and
the
main
reason
is
the
asset
allocation
change
that
was
approved
by
the
board
in
march.
E
So
you'll
see
that
all
of
the
five
private
asset
classes
were
increased
for
target
allocations.
The
market
environment
has
changed
even
the
level
of
volatility
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
two
days.
The
things
that
are
more
specific
to
private
markets
are
that
valuations
are
elevated,
still,
fundraising,
cycles
have
shortened
and
funds
are
continuing
to
grow
larger,
so
we'll
share
some
charts
over
the
next
few
pages
that
showed
some
of
these
dynamics
visually
go
to
the
next
page.
E
So
here
at
the
top,
we
show
that
valuations
are
rising
and
have
been
a
contributor
to
the
strong
performance
that
we've
seen.
What's
important.
To
also
note
is
that
public
markets
have
also
had
high
valuations
and
on
a
relative
basis.
Private
valuations
are
actually
less
overvalued
than
public
investments.
So,
if
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
the
page,
this
takes
public
over
private
and
when
it's
greater
than
one,
it
means
that
public
markets
are
relatively
more
expensive
than
private
investments.
E
So
some
areas
that
we
highlighted
ic
was
that
we're
being
disciplined
in
this
valuation
environment,
not
taking
on
incremental
risk
to
chase
returns
and
trying
to
be
able
to
produce
good
results
across
different
market
environments,
moving
to
the
next
page
on
the
compression
of
fundraising
cycles.
So
a
few
factors
at
play
here
so,
first
being
the
strong
performance
that
funds
have
seen,
the
upper
left
chart
shows
the
performance
of
buyout
investments
over
multiple
vintage
years
in
the
dark,
blue
vars,
and
it
compares
to
the
public
markets
equivalent.
E
If
those
cash
flows,
when
private
markets,
investor
investors
were
calling
capital
or
distributing
capital,
were
invested
in
public
equities.
How
would
they
have
done
and
there's
a
wide
margin
of
outperformance
there's
also
been
a
swift
number
of
exits
that
have
taken
place
so
managers
that
have
made
investments
that
have
been
successful
being
able
to
liquidate
those
and
continue
to
make
new.
E
As
the
upper
right
chart
shows,
and
ultimately,
what
this
led
to
is
what's
shown
at
the
bottom
of
the
page
is
that
the
average
number
of
years
between
the
closings
of
different
funds
has
shortened
significantly.
So
what
might
have
been
five
years
between
funds
back
in
2014
has
become
nearly
three
years
in
the
current
environment.
E
H
E
Matching
our
investment
pacing
to
the
opportunity
set
of
different
investments,
and
not
just
that
we
have
a
certain
set
level
of
capital
that
we
feel
pressured
to
deploy.
E
The
next
page
shows
where
capital
is
being
raised,
and
the
highlight
here
is
that
the
dark
red
bars
are
funds
greater
than
5
billion
dollars
in
value
and
you'll,
see
in
the
upper
left
that
they
have
been
taking
the
lion's
share
of
capital
raising
over
the
last
few
years
in
the
upper
right
chart.
They're
also,
the
the
group
that
has
the
largest
amount
of
dry
powder,
available,
dry
powder
being
capital.
That's
been
raised
and
hasn't
been
invested
into
underlying
investments.
E
E
So
we've
been
spending
a
lot
of
time,
understanding
the
behaviors,
the
intentions
of
fund
managers
and
not
not
so
much
relying
on
public
markets
so
that
they
need
to
rely
on
the
ipo
market
for
their
exits
because
their
assets
are
so
large
and
as
an
example,
our
buyout
portfolio
within
private
equity
about
60
is
in
mid
cap
type
of
investment.
So
the
smaller
middle
market
end
of
the
spectrum
with
that
I'll
pass
it
to
such
and
to
go
through
some
more
information.
J
Hey
everyone.
Can
you
all
hear
me?
Yes,
wait
awesome.
So
essentially,
here
is
what
we
see,
which
is
our
pacing
plan
from
our
last
year,
on
the
left
hand
column
relative
to
our
actual
deployments
in
each
of
the
five
different
asset
classes
here.
So
the
main
message
here
is
that
we've
deployed
greater
than
100
percent
or
100
of
our
pacing
plan,
as
we're
allowed
to
do
in
our
ips
in
all
the
five
different
asset
classes,
over
anywhere
from
three
to
eight
investments,.
J
So
so
now,
here
what
we
see
is,
on
the
left
hand,
this
table
right
here
is
our
expected
nav
at
the
end
of
this
fiscal
year,
which
is
june
30th
2022,
based
on
our
previous
pacing
plan
versus
our
current
estimates.
Now,
and
so
we
see
that
there's
there's
a
bit
of
a
forecaster
here,
as
we
would
expect
I'm
going
to
quickly
touch
on
some
of
these
forecast
errors.
J
So
so,
for
example,
this
this
current
estimate
of
buyout,
we
are
actually
we
believe
we
are
lower
in
buyout
at
our
year-end
fiscal
year
and
nav
relative
to
our
previous
estimate,
because
of
some
secondary
sales
that
we
have
made
from
our
legacy
bio
portfolio
for
venture.
We
have
had
faster
deployment
of
our
investments
in
venture,
so
so
we
are
actually
higher.
We
forecast
venture
to
be
higher
than
we
previously
forecasted
for
private
debt.
We
have
had
quicker
distribution,
so
our
nav
is
actually
lower
relative
to
our
previous
pacing
plan.
J
And
what
we'll
see
here
is
that
our
our
previous
base
and
plan
relative
to
our
estimates
are
almost
exactly
in
line
and
then
finally,
we
see
our
current
estimates
relative
to
our
target,
which
we
have
the
the
difference
here,
and
that
is
mainly
driven
by
our
venture
program
as
we
work
to
build
up
our
vets
program,
as
well
as
our
private
debt
and
our
real
assets
programs,
and
also
we'll
note
that,
because
we
had
the
increases
in
the
allocations,
that's
also
why
we
have
a
larger
difference
here.
J
This
next
slide
is
the
actual
plan,
level,
navs
and
essentially
I'll
first
take
a
step
back
and
say
how
we,
how
we
forecast
now
so
we'll
essentially
come
out
with
the
we'll
start
with
our
beginning,
nav
and
we'll
take
into
account
actuarial
assumptions,
benefit
payments
and
employer
and
employee
contributions,
as
well
as
our
expected
rate
of
return
for
the
plan.
And
so
what
we
see
here
on
this
line
is
our
previous
nav
forecast
relative
to
our
and
this
bolded
line
up
here.
J
Our
current
nav
forecast,
and
so
essentially
the
main
takeaway
here-
is
that
there's
a
very
small
difference,
but
there
is
some
difference
in
future
years.
So,
for
example,
right
here
and
this
difference
is-
is
driven
by
the
fact
that
we've
had
a
very
strong
performance
recently
in
this
past
fiscal
year
and
that
that
leads
to
lower
employer
contributions
to
the
plan
in
future
years,
which
will
thus
reduce
our
nav.
J
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
lower
forecasted
knife
here
relative
to
our
previously
forecasted
now
right
here
we
just
show
our
target
weightings,
which
are
our
new,
updated
weightings
per
asset
class
rel
and
their
corresponding
navs
as
what
we
would
expect
by
june
30th
of
this
year,.
J
So
this
is
a
really
cool
chart
here
and
what
this
shows
is
high
level,
where
we're
showing
how
our
actual
exposure
to
the
plan
in
terms
of
nav
trends
toward
our
target
exploiters.
So
these
dark
bars
over
here
will
show
the
our
actual
expected
exposure
on
whatever
date
we're
looking
at.
J
So
let's
take
a
look
at
this
right
here,
for
example,
this
8.8
percent
is
showing
that
we
expect
our
buyout
portfolio
to
actually
be
at
an
8.8
percent
of
our
total
plan
on
june
30th
of
2031.,
and
so
the
the
light
the
lightly
colored
regions
in
the
background,
show
our
target.
So
essentially,
what
we
see
is
that
we
are
approaching
target
for
various
asset
classes,
so
so,
for
example,
for
private
real
assets
here,
the
gray
bars.
J
We
would
continue
to
approach
our
target
over
time,
and
this
will
be
driven
by,
for
example,
for
venture
for
private
real
assets,
increased
contributions
to
to
these
asset
classes,
as
we
build
up
our
navis,
build
up
our
programs,
especially
for
venture
so
essentially
net
message.
Here
we
will
be
in
line.
We
expect
to
be
in
line
with
our
targets
in
all
of
our
asset
classes
in
the
coming
year
now.
Finally,
this
is
our
liquidity
liquidity
requirements,
essentially
we're
showing
our
flows
for
the
private
markets
program.
We
expect
to
be.
J
We
start
to
have
a
net
distribution
in
2023,
with
some
net
contributions,
as
we
as
I've
mentioned,
work
to
build
up
our
our
venture
and
our
our
reveal
assets.
Programs
so
we'll
be
contributing
to
these
plans
and
then
to
get
asset
classes
and
then,
from
these
contributions
we
will
receive
net
distributions
in
2028
onward,
and
we
see
the
cumulative
cash
flows
here
so
yeah
I'll
pass
it
on
to.
A
E
And
we're
modeling
out
well
into
the
future.
So
this
is
something
that
we
plan
to
revisit
annually,
as
I
mentioned
before,
the
highlighted
amounts
are
what
we're
seeking
approval,
for,
which
is
a
total
of
334
million
dollars
of
commitments
and,
in
addition
to
this
there's
another
item
that
goes
hand
in
hand
with
this,
which
is
the
item
2c
next,
so
I'll
just
preview.
E
This
was
a
oversight
that
we
wanted
to
make
consistent
with
the
other
private
asset
classes
and
understand
that,
there's
years
that
we'll
do
more
or
less
than
the
pacing
plan,
it's
not
intended
to
be
a
strict
box
of
what
we're
forced
to
stick
to
and
like,
like.
I
said
before,
that
there's
clustering,
sometimes
of
good
managers,
that
we
want
to
be
investing
with
their
fund
strategies
and
there's
cases
where
we
potentially
want
to
do
more.
E
So
venture
was
excluded
from
this,
and
now
we're
going
to
make
a
venture
consistent
with
the
other
private
asset
classes.
Important
to
note
on
the
next
page
is
that
the
venture
approval
process
remains
exactly
the
same,
so
the
investment
committee
and
board
still
retain
the
approval
rates
for
all
venture
capital
investments.
If
we
go
to
the
next
page
quickly,
so
that
highlighted
section
shows.
Yes,
the
investment
committee
and
board
still
maintain
approval
rights
for
that.
E
So
now
we
can
go
back
to
slide
13
see
if
there's
any
questions
on
the
pacing
plan
and
perhaps
to
make
it
easier.
Do
a
separate
motion
for
this
item
to
be
for
the
pacing
plan,
followed
by
a
motion
for
2c,
which
we
can
show
the
the
specific
attachment
next.
A
As
dinesh
suggested
drew,
so
if
trustees
have
a
quest,
any
questions,
we're
happy
to
take
it,
if
not.
If
so,
if
you
can
make
a
motion.
B
B
Okay,
great
so
the
floor
is
open
to
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
the
private
market's
pacing
plan.
Okay,
I'll
move
the
motivation.
B
Yes,
franco
hi
dave
hi,
I'm
chairlines
I
as
well
back
to.
A
You
peru,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
2c
is
exactly
what
dinesh
spoke
about
was
the
tweak
to
the
ips
language
and
we
are
happy
to
take
questions.
If
not,
hopefully,
someone
can
make
a
motion
on
that.
A
D
What
does
that
mean
from
a
practical
standpoint?
150
stands
out
like
a
big
number
from
variation.
A
Yeah
yeah,
it
is
and
it
so
we
we
actually
ran
into
this
problem
this
year.
Right
as
dinesh
said,
sometimes
funds
raise
capital
in
clusters
and
that's
got
to
do
with
the
environment,
and
so
we
have
some
top
tier
firms
that
you
all
have
approved
and
several
of
them
came
to
the
market,
and
so
we
had
to
actually
at
some
point
say
no
to
some
of
those,
because
we
did
not
have
this
approval
so
with
this
it
actually
lets
us.
A
It
gives
us
some
flexibility,
so
the
board
and
the
ic
as
dinesh
mentioned,
still
have
the
ability
to
say
yes
or
no
to
these
vc
firms
and
we'll
still
bring
that
list
to
the
board.
It
just
gives
us
flexibility
if
they
all
come
to
the
market.
At
the
same
time,
it
allows
us
to
invest
with
them
and
there
will
be
years
when
we
are
less
than
100,
just
depending
on
the
fundraising
cycle.
A
D
B
F
Hi
is
council
eaton
may
on
the
line
as
well.
F
Yes,
I
see
her
there
so
so
I
received
a
a
request
from
a
council
ian
may
with
regards
to
the
kenneth
williams
matter,
guys
for
as
item
4f
yeah,
mr
williams
will
not
be
able
to
participate
today.
Our
meeting
went
a
little
bit
longer
than
the
time
certain
notified
on
our
agenda,
and
so
I
have
a
request
from
missy
in
may
to
continue
and
defer
item
4f
so
that
the
member
and
nazi
may
can
present
at
a
later
date,
subject
to
me
and
confer
between
council
on
the
available
date
and
availability.
B
Well,
let's
hope
on
the
floor.
Does
anybody
object
to
that?
I
don't
it's
all
your
fault,
ms
eaton,
may
you
ran
us
long,
no
seriously.
I
think.
That's,
that's
fine!
B
That's
fine
and
that's
actually
a
good
opportunity
for
you
to
work
with
with
harvey
and
maytag,
and
you
may
that
may
bring
some
light
to
the
williams
case
too.
Okay,
basically,
we
let
the
court
reporter
know
then
that
we
don't
need
her
anymore.
F
Yes,
I
see
the
madam
court
reporter
on
the
line
and
I'm
not
sure
if
she's
present,
because
she's,
muted
and
unseen,
but
I
can
email
her
to
let
her
know
that
she's
relieved
for
the
rest
of
the
day.
B
B
B
All
right:
we
we
don't
have
any
old
business
god.
I
so
roberto,
unfortunately,
is
one
don't
pass
away
he's
on
the
meeting
anymore
and
he
was
he
and
I
made
a
little
pocket
bet
that
the
meeting
would
go
past
three.
Unfortunately,
I
made
the
pocket
bet
that
would
go
past
her
and
he
made
the
pocket
pets
that
would
be
done
by
three.
So
I'm
gonna
owe
him
dinner.
Well,
we
can't
oh
dinner.
We
will
split
it
harvey's,
sending
me
a
text
probably
now,
so
we
guys
are
all
update.
B
C
C
So
after
the
board
approves
the
resolutions,
we
will
start
working
on
sending
the
letters
to
the
members
to
inform
them
of
the
new
contribution
rates.
It's
pretty
straightforward,
but
I
am
happy
to
take
any
questions.
B
Thanks
benji
floors
open
any
questions.
It's
really
just
a
formality.
Any
questions,
if
not,
I
will
move
that
we
approve
sending
these
out.
Is
there
a
second.
B
Great
motion
by
lands-
the
second,
my
garden
here
in
item
4c:
let's
go
around
the
room
andrew.
How
do
you
vote
hi,
sunita,
hi,
howard,.
B
A
B
Franco,
hi
dave,
hi
all
right
sure,
well,
good
job,
benji,
who's
covering
4d.
D
So
good
afternoon,
this
memo
is
requesting
approval
to
negotiate
and
execute
a
third
amendment
to
the
agreement
with
marty
boyer
and
the
communications
advantage
to
extend
the
term
of
the
agreement
through
june
30th
2023,
with
no
additional
budget
being
requested
at
this
time,
and
the
services
provided
by
ms
boyer
are
related
to
the
board
strategic
communication
plan
and
the
board
adopted
that
plan
in
may
2020,
and
the
communication
plan
includes
such
things.
D
As
you
know,
the
newsletter
social
media
posts
and
blogs
an
educational,
video,
scripts,
etc
and
and
per
the
board's
policy.
The
ceo
is
authorized
to
enter
contracts
up
to
a
value
of
50
000
and
any
contract
above.
This
amount
requires
board
approval
and
board
approval
is
required
for
any
contract
that
would
result
in
a
cumulative
contract
value
with
a
single
vendor
above
50
000,
which
is
the
case
for
this
vendor.
D
B
Great
thanks
barbara.
It's
going
well
right.
B
I
mean
I
think
it
was
pretty
happy
overall
any
questions
for
barbara.
B
I
thought
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
this.
B
B
Yes,
franco
hi
dave,
hi,
I'm
chair
lanza,
I
vote
I
as
well
that
was
item
4d.
We
took
item
4e
of
the
gal
of
her
matter
at
the
gallagher
mata
rather
at
the
top
of
our
meeting.
So
four
f
has
already
fort
user
you're
done.
We
just
heard
that
4f
is
being
delayed
to
june.
Our
we
ran
over,
so
williams
had
to
go
somewhere
else.
F
B
Thank
you.
You
did
a
great
job.
We
really
appreciate
you
being
with
us
today.
Thank
you
so
much
bye,
okay,
may
tech,
we're
on
to
the
factual
findings
for
ab361.
My
agenda
says
you
go
first
and
then
I
go.
F
As
you
guys
are
aware
here,
thank
you,
trustee
lanza,
based
on
the
governor's
proclamation
for
the
state
of
emergency
due
to
the
covet
19
pandemic.
There
is
a
current
ongoing
state
of
emergency
and
the
city
council
for
the
city
of
san
jose
continues
to
recommend
social
distancing
in
city
facilities
based
on
those
two
factual
findings
based
on
the
materials
provided
to
you.
This
board,
if
adopted,
those
two
factual
findings,
may
continue
to
meet
virtually
under
av
361's
abbreviated,
teleconferencing
procedures.
Thank
you.
B
F
F
B
Yeah
all
good
all
right,
based
on
the
information
presented
by
council
and
provided
with
our
board
backup
materials.
It
appears
the
following
factual
findings
justify
the
continuation
virtual
meetings
in
gravy
361.,
one
as
matec
said,
governor's
proclamation
of
state
of
earth.
She
continues
due
to
the
ongoing
pandemic
and
two
san
jose
council's
recent
resolution
continues
to
impose
the
recommended
measures
to
promote
and
city
facilities.
I
cannot
read
faster
than
this.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
adopt
these
two
factual
findings
for
the
election,
to
use
the
ab361s
abbreviated
teleconferencing
procedure
for
the
next
30
days?
B
Got
a
motion
by
santos.
Second,
my
gardener:
let's
go
around
andrew
hi
sunita
hi
howard,
yes,
hi,
dick,
yes,
franco,
hi,
dave,
hi,
I'm
chair
lanza
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
Don't
forget
the
end
of
the
meeting.
We'll
have
to
do
the
committees
too,
so
stick
around
at
the
end,
all
right!
A
Howard,
if
I
had
a
question
just
to
one
question,
to
go
back
to
the
case
of
gallagher
in
general,
if
I
can
ask
one
question:
is
this
the
right
time.
F
No,
I
I
do
not
believe
that
this
is
the
right
time.
Counsel
for
mr
gallagher
is
not
present,
and
so
I
would
reserve
your
question
for
when
the
matter
comes
back
before
the
board.
At
the
june
meeting.
A
The
question's
just
about
the
actual,
the
the
san
jose
municipal
charter,
whatever
it
is,
13.36
something
if
it's
just
about
that
and
nothing
new
about
him
in
specific.
Can
I
can
I
ask
that
question.
F
I
would
counsel
that
we
would
reserve
that
question
so
that
missy
may,
to
the
extent
she
has
any
responses
to
whatever
I
say
in
response
in
response
to
your
question:
has
the
equal
opportunity
to
respond.
B
I
am
sorry
you
know.
Howard
mayjack
has
cautioned
me
again
and
again.
This
case
has
fingerprints
all
over
it.
That
might
trigger
an
appeal.
So
we
want
to
be
squeaky,
clean
all
right,
yep,
okay,
announcing
the
service
requirements
of
jorge
gutierrez
police,
lieutenant
police
department,
effective,
may
15
2022
with
27.73
years
of
service
good
for
you,
jorge
anson
g,
sorry,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
may
15
2022
with
25.69
years
service
and
manuela
rodriguez,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective,
may
16
2022
26.6.
B
One
year's
service
motion
to
approve
some
of
those
things.
I
have
a
motion
by
dave,
a
second
by
santos.
Let's
go
around
the
room
andrew.
B
Hi,
dick
yes,
franco,
hi
and
dave
hi,
you
guys
won't
say
anything
about
any
of
these
guys.
J
Yeah,
this
is
dave,
I've
worked
with
all
three
of
them
and
ants
and
kaku,
and
I
started
the
police
department
and
we're
in
the
same
academy.
25
years
ago,
they're
all
great
outstanding
tops
and
I
wish
them
the
best
in
their
future
retirement.
B
Great
we've
only
wanted
one
deferred
best.
I
should
have
read
along
the
other
ones,
deferred
vested
julio
c
morales,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective,
may
31st,
22
2022
with
22.32
years
of
service
a
lot
of
two's
in
there
I
will
move
to
prove.
Is
there
a
second
second
motion,
my
lanza
second
by
santos,
andrew
hi,
anita.
A
B
Yes,
franco
hi
dave
hi.
You
want
any
comments
on
mr
morales.
B
I
thought
we
wish
him
the
very
best
in
in
retirement.
B
Now
we
will
read
off
those
who
are
members
who
passed
on
since
our
last
meeting
of
a
moment
of
silence:
notification
of
the
death
of
kenneth
j,
guarino
police
officer,
retired
march
3rd
1981
died
march,
27,
2022,
good
night's
retirement,
survivorship
benefits
to
ann
peterino's,
spouse,
notification
of
the
death
of
virgilio,
hernandez,
firefighter
retired
august
24th
2007
died
march,
17th,
2022,
survivorship
benefits
to
veronica
or
nando's
spouse,
a
notification
on
the
death
of
david
mosley
fire
captain
retired
august
3rd
1995
died
march,
25,
2022
survivorship
benefits
the
ginger,
mosley
spouse
notification
of
the
death
of
donna,
tonry
police
officer,
retired
july
28.
B
2008
died,
feb,
7,
2022,
survivorship
benefits
the
stephen
culver
wall,
spouse
and
notification
of
the
death
of
orville
yarbrough
police
officer,
retired
feb
2091
died
december
12th
2021
survives
your
benefits
to
mary
yarborough's
spouse.
Well,
we've
left
a
lot
of
spouses
behind.
Let's
have
a
moment
in
silence.
B
Thank
you
any
guys
want
to
say
anything
about
these
folks.
Let
please
go
first.
G
G
Yeah,
this
is
dick
santos.
Virgil,
hernandez
was
a
good
friend,
good
crew
member.
I
work
with
dave
mosley
the
best
of
their
families.
Thank
you.
B
Thanks
dick
all
right
now
we're
going
to
go
through
the
committee's
investment
committee.
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
guess
we
have
the
minutes
from
the
february
of
both
the
joint
committee
and
the
police
and
fire
ic
committee,
and
we
also
had
a
meeting
last
month
during
which
we
discussed
the
private
market
pacing
plan,
which
we
discussed
here
today
and
also
discussion
of
a
public
market
equity
presentation
about
christina.
B
Thanks
eshwar
I'll
look
for
the
record,
we're
receiving
and
filing
the
minutes
as
this
first
set
of
feb
22
joint
and
I
see
and
the
minutes
from
march
3rd
audit
risks.
Anita.
D
We
haven't
really
had
a
meeting
except
about
the
ab.
I
always
forget
the
number,
the
guidelines
for
meeting
or
remotely
so
nothing
to
report.
B
H
Yeah
I'll
call
to
order
the
governance
committee
meeting
no.
B
No
offers
you're
you're
done
you're
right
you're
like
sunny.
I
will
not
for
the
record.
We
received
the
minutes
of
the
the
two-minute
meeting
on
march
3rd
to
extend
baby
361.
disability,
dick.
G
B
That's
great
dick
dixon
san
macino
franco.
We
receive
and
file
the
minutes
for
the
abbreviated
meeting
on
march
3rd.
There
is
action
on
on
jpc.
I
forget.
As
far
as
you
chair,
the
jpc.
I
forgot.
H
Yeah
we
haven't
had
a
regular
meeting
since
march
4th,
but
7.5
b
is
an
item
that
we
discussed
at
our
last
full
board
meeting
in
in
april,
but
the
only
thing
that
we
forgot
to
do
was
to
vote
on
it.
So
so
that's
why
this
is
back
on
the
agenda.
We
needed
to
take
action
on
it
for
approval.
H
B
Yeah,
in
fact,
I
met
with
the
chair
of
federated
spencer,
horowitz
and,
as
andrew
says,
we're
ready
to
kick
off
this
new
process.
So
we've
got
to
prove
this
I'll
move
that
we
approve
the
new
process.
Is
there
a
second
second
santos,
great
mushroom,
mylanza?
Second,
by
santos,
let's
go
around
andrew
hi
sunita.
B
B
Dave
hi,
I'm
chair
lanza,
I
vote
I
as
well.
We
are
almost
done,
but
don't
leave.
I'm
gonna
think
about
this.
For
a
minute
hey,
linda
can,
can
they
switch
tapes
earlier?
Do
they
have
to
wait
till
one
o'clock
to
switch.
B
All
right,
so
we
may
squeeze
in
one
ab
360
one
we'll
have
to
take
a
one
minute
break
right
on
the
hour.
Are
there
any
proposed
agenda
items
for
next
meeting.