►
Description
City of San José, California
Police & Fire Department Retirement Plan Board of April 7, 2022
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda pending https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=954163&GUID=3D293D63-C8F0-4696-9BEC-B2E0AB0B680F
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
It's
meeting
to
order,
let
me
go
through
the
roll
andrew.
Are
you
here.
B
Great
sunita
are
you
here.
B
Right,
howard,
are
you
here.
A
B
Great
dick
are
you
here,
yes,
great
franco,
how
about
you.
B
B
B
That's
great
and
I'm
here,
chair
lonza,
so
we
we've
got
seven
out
of
nine
again
for
the
record.
No
we've
got
a
vacancy
after
vince
left.
We
we
usually
go
through
formalities
with
any
luck.
B
B
B
B
All
right
thanks
and
dave
sorry
hi,
I'm
chair
lonza.
I
vote
I
as
well
drew
zooming
through
this
investments
up
over
to
you,
provo.
E
Great
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
We
have
a
very
short
agenda
on
the
investment
site
this
morning,
but
before
I
get
to
that,
I
do
have
pro
forma
performance
and,
as
of
april
5th
fiscal
year
to
date,
the
pension
plan
is
up.
1.79
percent,
a
slight
improvement
over
last
month's
one
percent
and
the
healthcare
trust
is
down.
One
percent
also
a
slight
improvement
over
negative
one
point
six
percent
last
last
month,
and
these
are
of
course
unaudited
estimates
from
makita
as
of
april.
E
Fifth,
the
market
does
continue
to
confront
a
host
of
issues,
including
inflation,
geopolitical
risks
and
fed
actions
and
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
what
happens
over
the
next
few
weeks
before
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year.
E
We
do
have
one
item
for
the
board
to
discuss
and
take
action
on,
and
that
is
strategic
asset
allocation
for
the
healthcare
trust.
We
usually
follow
the
pension
plan
saa
with
a
look
at
the
health
care,
trust
and
suggest
changes.
If
any,
we
did
have
a
chance
to
to
talk
to
the
ic
chair,
trustee
mainen
about
this,
and
he
made
some
recommendations
and
suggestions
and
we've
come
up
with
with
one
mix
that
we'd
like
the
board
to
consider
and
of
course,
I'm
always
looking
for
feedback
from
all
trustees.
E
F
Good
morning,
everyone
I'm
wondering
if
there's
someone
on
the
investment
team
who
might
be
able
to
share
the
the
document,
I'm
having
some
technology
sharing
screen
issues,
I'm
working
on.
E
F
A
Before,
if
you
give
me
a
sec,
I'll
pull
it
up
and
if
you
could
just
direct
me
we'll
go
through
it.
F
Just
to
sort
of
lay
the
groundwork,
while,
while
we're
pulling
the
document
up
so
as
we
discussed
when
we
talked
about
the
pension
asset
allocation,
there
were
some
prior
years
where
we
adopted
a
new
asset
allocation
for
the
pension
and
didn't
quickly
update
the
the
healthcare
trust
analysis,
and
we
think
it
makes
sense
to
have
the
same
sort
of
strategic
sort
of
philosophy
for
the
healthcare
trust.
Even
though,
as
you
all
know,
the
healthcare
trust
cannot
invest
in
illiquid
assets,
also
a
difference.
Historically.
F
If
we
want
to
go
to
the
introduction
page
historically,
the
healthcare
trusts
sometimes
have
the
same
actuarial,
assumed
rate
of
return
target
return
as
the
pension,
but
that
has
changed
in
recent
years,
which
is
more
consistent
with
what
we
see
for
other
institutions,
and
now
the
expected
actuarial,
assumed
rate
of
return
is
six
percent
so
lower
than
that
of
the
pension.
F
The
good
news
is
that
the
health
care
trusts
long-term,
expected
rate
of
return
that
we
expect,
based
on
our
2022
capital
market
expectations,
is
remains
above
that
six
percent,
so
there's
no
need
to
make
a
change
in
asset
allocation
based
on
you
know,
a
lower
probability
of
hitting
the
expected
return.
However,
we
wanted
to
offer
you
an
additional
scenario
to
take
a
look
at
for
comparison
in
case
you
did
want
to
make
some
changes
similar
to
those
that
have
been
made
in
the
pension.
F
So
if
we
want
to
skip
to
page
three,
you
know
we've
we've
talked
about
this
chart
before,
but
the
basic
message
is
that
your
job
is
harder
than
it
used
to
be,
as
you
know,
so
we
can
go
ahead
here.
F
Let's
go
to
the
the
slide
that
compares
the
different
asset
allocations.
Two
more,
I
believe
there
we
go.
Oh
back
one!
Thank
you
very
much
michelle
okay,
so
we
have
here
the
comparison
of
your
healthcare
trust.
Current
allocation
in
the
left
column
compared
to
mix
a
which
is
the
other
one
that
we
worked
with
your
internal
investment
team
and
the
chair
of
your
investment
committee
to
to
develop.
F
We
also
compare
it
to
a
60
40,
60
percent,
global
equity
and
40
investment
grade
bond
allocation
as
well,
and
if
we
take
a
look
at
the
bottom
here,
you
can
see
that
the
makita
expected
return
for
20
years,
which
is
what
we
prefer
to
focus
on
in
the
long
term,
remains
at
6.4
percent
for
the
current
allocation
and
also
is
the
same
for
mix
a.
F
However,
the
difference
here,
if
you
take
a
look
at
mix
a,
is
that
the
standard
deviation
or
the
volatility
is
lower
for
mix
a,
and
you
can
see
that
the
difference
here
is
mainly
that
you're
taking
money
out
of
emerging
markets
equity.
So
you
can
see
that
emerging
markets
equity
right
now
you
have
a
15
allocation
and
when
you
look
at
mix
a
we've
lowered
that
to
12
percent
and
that
three
percent
that
we
took
out,
you
can
see,
two
percent
went
to
develop
markets,
equity
and
one
percent
went
to
short-term
investment-grade
bonds.
F
F
We
then,
if
we
skip
ahead
to
the
scenario,
analysis
and
the
risk.
Actually,
let's
stop
here.
On
page
eight
page,
eight,
you
have
the
peer
allocations
and,
as
we've
discussed,
you
know
most
funds
that
have
a
health
and
welfare
trust
are
investing
in
a
much
more
conservative
fashion
than
their
pension.
F
So
you
can
see
here
that
the
median
total
equity
allocation
for
peers
is
27,
so
you
all
in
the
healthcare
trust,
have
a
much
higher
allocation
to
equity,
mainly
because
you
have
a
situation
where
you
have
that
six
percent
actuarial
assumed
rate
of
return.
F
F
You
can
see
that
there's
not
a
huge
difference
here
between
the
healthcare
current
allocation
and
mix
a
mix
a
given
that
lower
volatility
number
that
we
just
talked
about
would
be
a
little
bit
less
likely
to
experience
negative
returns
or
have
as
much
of
a
negative
return
for
these
different
time
periods
that
we're
looking
at,
but
the
probability
of
achieving
at
least
a
six
percent
return
would
be
very,
very
slightly
lower,
not
anything
that
we
probably
notice
a
difference
on
in
the
real
world.
F
We
look
at
positive
scenarios
historically,
and
you
would
have
up
returns
that
are
are
very
close
to
what
the
current
is.
Actually,
if
we
could
go
back,
one
slide
to
slide
10.
Let
me
just
point
out
here:
stagflation,
stag.
F
Inflation
is
something
that
we
haven't
seen
since
the
1970s,
but
that's
the
scenario
where
we
have
inflation
but
low
growth,
which
is
a
very
difficult
environment
for
assets
to
you
know
for
financial
markets
to
have
a
positive
return,
not
a
huge
difference
here
between
the
current
allocation
and
mix
a,
but
you
would
see
some
protection
from
mix
a
in
a
stagflationary
environment
and
then
also
the
rate
spike,
the
1994
calendar
year.
F
We
don't
have
too
many
historical
scenarios
where
there's
been
a
rate
hike,
but
you
would
see
slightly
higher
returns
for
mix
a
here
going
ahead.
Two
slides-
and
we
have
stress
testing
here
and
I'll-
just
mention
that
you
know
in
a
broad
equity
market
decline.
You'd
still
see
negative
returns
across
the
board.
However,
mix
a
should
protect
a
bit
and
looking
at
page
13,
we
see
positive
markets
and
again
not
a
huge
difference
here,
but
mix
a
would
be
slightly
behind
the
current
in
a
strongly
rising
environment.
F
Economic
regime
management
is
the
next
section
a
couple
pages
ahead.
One
more
please
here
we
see
systemic
risk
is
the
biggest
risk
to
the
portfolio.
This
is
like
a
global
financial
crisis
type
environment
and
you
can
see
that
the
current
and
mixed
a
are
quite
close
together
in
terms
of
how
they
would
return.
F
So
moving
ahead
to
the
summary,
as
I
mentioned,
you
know,
you
did
update
this
asset
allocation
relatively
recently.
It
is
still
expected
to
outperform
your
actuarial,
assumed
rate
of
return,
and
so
we
don't
think,
there's
a
major
necessity
to
make
a
change,
but
we
also
think
makes
a
is
quite
reasonable,
so
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions.
E
Michelle
can
we
go
back
to
slide
seven
if
you
will.
E
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
believe
the
current
allocation
act
as
laura
mentioned
looks
fine,
but
we
did
have
it.
We
did
discuss
internally
within
the
investment
team,
along
with
ic
chair
trustee
mainen,
and
we
made
a
couple
of
tweaks.
E
B
Let
me
let
me
go
first,
laura
sort
of
on
the
philosophical
level
we
said
remember
going
back
laura
that
we
would
pick
our
discount
rate,
both
sort
of
grading
on
a
curve
and
absolute,
so
grading
on
a
curve
we
said.
Well,
we
should
be
probably
slightly
below
the
median
of
our
peers
and
absolutely
we
picked
that
that
12,
ball
number
and
you've
now
said
laura.
Well,
look
these
these
asset
allocations
meet
the
vol
number.
I
can
tell
you
that
we
are
below
our
peers
in
in
setting
our
discount
rate.
B
You
guys
just
said
last
month,
but
you
said
laura.
The
expected
return
is
still
higher
than
our
discount
rate.
I
don't
mean
you
put
you
on
spot,
lord.
Does
your
instinct
florida
tell
you,
we
should
maybe
slightly
raise
our
discount
rate
or
just
instinct
say
nah,
just
keep
it
where
it
is.
Do
you
have
an
answer
to
that?
Laura.
F
You
know
that's
really
an
actuarial
question
and,
and
I
hate
to
infringe
on
bill,
hallmark's
expertise.
You
know,
I
would
say
six
percent,
you
know
if
we
were
to
look
at
it
in
the
range
of
other
health
trusts
is
still
on
the
higher
end.
Okay,
you
know
I
this
is
my
understanding.
Is
this
is
a
pretty
well-funded
plan?
F
B
That
that
exactly
it's
as
always,
laura
you're,
thorough
and
very
well
thought
out
that
exact
same
question.
Hey
floor
is
open.
If
anybody
wants
to
ask
laura
for
doing
anything,
good
and
jump
in
yeah.
G
Drew
dick
santos
yeah
go
dick
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
laura.
I
know
this
is
the
number
one
question
you
know
with
the
war
going
on.
Is
everything
more
at
risk?
More
volatile,
it's
obviously
things
that
can't
be
stable
and
no
one
could
predict
and
so
any
comments.
You
know
I
get
these
questions
all
the
time
and
I
don't
have
the
answer.
I'm
like
everyone
else.
I
wish
it
wouldn't
happen
and
I
wish
everybody
was
safe,
but
it's
a
it's
a
tough
time
and
I'm
sure
in
the
investment
world.
It's
very
iffy.
F
Yeah
you're
right,
there's,
certainly
even
more
unknowns
than
there
have
been
in
recent
years,
given
war
and
inflation
as
well.
You
know
we,
like
you,
said
it's
very
difficult
to
predict
how
things
are
going
to
go.
You
know,
it
seems
like
a
global
pandemic
should
have
depressed
returns
and
did
not
and
our
you
know,
institutions
that
did
go
more
conservative
because
of
that
that
situation,
you
know,
missed
out
on
return.
So
we
we
we
try
not
to
make
too
many
short-term
tactical
moves.
F
That
said,
you
know
you
do
have
in
your
current
allocation.
A
high
emerging
markets,
equity
allocation-
and
you
know
it's
15
of
the
portfolio
being
affected
by
moves
in
emerging
markets
is,
is
you
know
probably
on
the
riskier
end?
So
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
consider
mix
a
and
lowering
that
emerging
markets,
equity
allocation.
A
Yeah,
I
have
a
question.
Is
this
anything
so
I
mean
I
was
trying
to
desperately
pull
up
our
the
pension
plan
asset
allocation
we
approved,
but
my
recollection
was.
We
went
almost
to
zero
on
long
bonds
and
you
really
shortened
duration,
trouble
or
v.
I
should
say
so.
I
don't
know
what
was
the
logic
in
keeping
long-term
bonds
at
five
percent
in
this
portfolio.
F
Yeah
important,
you
know
it's
always
a
trade-off
between
protecting
the
assets
relative
to
worrying
about
duration,
changes
and
whatnot.
So.
F
You
know
that
is
a
change
that
we
considered
here
as
well,
given
that
you
have
no
ability
to
invest
in
private
debt
and
some
of
the
private
assets
in
this
plan.
There's
not
a
lot.
You
can
do
to
sort
of
protect
against
equity
market
downturn.
Risk
and
long-term
government
bonds
historically
have
been
the
only
positive
asset
class
when
you've
had
major
equity
market
drawdowns.
F
You
know,
of
course,
now
we
also
have
a
different
interest
rate
situation
than
we
have
in
some
of
those
scenarios,
but
you're
now
at
I
believe,
three
percent
on
long
bonds
or
maybe
maybe
down
you,
know
one
and
a
half
on
the
new
pension
asset
allocation,
but
once
we
sort
of
gross
up
all
of
these
numbers
for
the
lack
of
private
markets
in
the
fund,
this
isn't
a
vastly
different
percentage.
E
A
Yeah
point:
so
where
is
the
three
percent
reduction
in
em
equity
going.
F
Two
percent
to
developed
markets,
equity
and
one
percent
short-term
bonds
yeah.
So
the
additional
percent
of
short-term
bonds
is
sort
of
a
recognition
of
the
interest
rate
environment.
A
Yeah
drew
so
just
I
you
know,
I
echo
what
laura
and
prabhu
said.
I
agree
with
sunita.
I
think
the
thinking
when
we
discussed
this
was
you
know
we
moved
in
a
certain
direction
in
in
the
fund.
C
And
maybe
we
should
do
the
same
thing
and
personally,
I
think
for
emerging
markets.
You
know
compared
to
a.
A
Though
x
anti
the
returns
look
better,
sometimes
they
realize
it's
really
not
paid
out
right,
so
exposed
returns
have
been
lower
with
the
additional
risk,
and
I
think
you
know
so
lowering
the
risk
and
you
know
not
really
giving
up
much
in
terms
of
expected
returns.
I
think
you
know
mix.
B
I
have
a
question
by
ashford
second,
by
santos
left.
The
record
show
I
think,
andrew
you're
here
now
right.
Yes,
I.
I
A
B
Dave
hi,
I'm
chair,
lanza,
I
vote
I
as
well,
and
let
me
flip
back
to
so.
I
got
a
note
from
roberto.
I
think
you're
right
roberto,
it's
it's
kind
of
a
function
of
the
way
we
organize
our
agenda
that
we
break
out
old
business
items
into
category
number
three
and
new
business
category
number
four,
but
it's
roberto
wisely,
pointed
out
sometimes
items
and
and
the
four
felony
forfeitures
example.
This
are
both
old
business
and
new
business
because
we're
continuing
something
we
started
and
there's
something
new.
B
We
pick
up
so
roberto
suggested
that
we
put
together
items
3a
and
3c
and
then,
after
that
items
3b
and
4d.
So
I
I
guess
roberto.
Do
you
want
to
jump
in
and
drive
3a
and
for
4c?
Do
you
want
us
to
make
any
preference
any
preferably
remarks.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
yeah.
My
suggestion
is
to
have
the
discussions
right
after
the
other
because
they
are
related
items
so,
as
you
indicated,
share
lansa
3a,
which
is
the
revised
valuation
results
by
chiron,
to
be
discussed,
sort
of
in
conjunction
with
the
sega
audit,
on
again
on
the
opec
evaluation
report
and
in
fact
I
think
some
of
the
changes
on
the
report
by
kyron,
which
is
stating
the
new
revised
report.
C
C
He
enjoys
this
meeting
so
much
that
he
is
on
vacation
in
hawaii,
but
this
they
say
he
wasn't
going
to
miss
this
for
anything
so
he's
here
with
us
this
morning
I
suspect
a
little
earlier
in
hawaii
time
and
so
I'll
turn
that
over
to
to
bill.
So
he
can
make
any
comments
that
prepare
statements
regarding
their
device
valuation
result
and
then
after
them
it's
a
share,
I
think
granted.
If
there
are
any
questions
they
can
be
discussed,
then
we
can
turn
it
over
to
seeker
for
their
presentation.
C
On
the
audit
results
for
the
op
evaluation
report,
thank
you.
J
So
the
the
reason
for
this
revised
report
is
that
there
were
about
3
million
dollars
in
benefit
payments
for
fire
members
that
were
charged
to
the
police
accounts
and
so
benji,
provided
us
with
some
revised
asset
statements
that
corrected
that
three
million
dollars.
And
so
we
just
wanted
to
issue
a
revised
report
to
get
everything
in
the
right
buckets.
It
does
not
change
the
the
overall
numbers
at
all.
J
It
doesn't
change
the
liability
numbers
at
all
doesn't
change
the
overall
city
contribution,
but
it
shifts
some
of
it
shifts
about
three
million
of
the
assets
from
fire
to
police,
and
so
it
reduces
the
city's
contribution
to
the
police
fund
by
about
sixty
thousand
dollars
and
increases
it
to
the
fire
by
the
exact
same
amount.
J
D
F
J
Any
of
the
liability
numbers
that
siegel
reviewed,
but,
as
roberto
alluded
to,
we
had
already
sigel's
report
on
the
federated
opeb
and
they
had
made
some
recommendations
on
disclosures
which
we
anticipated
they
would
make
on
the
police
and
fire
report
as
well,
and
so
we
went
ahead
and
enhanced
some
of
the
disclosures
in
accordance
with
their
recommendations
and
changes
we
made
on
the
federated
side
as
well.
I
won't
go
into
those
I'll.
Let
andy
do
the
presentation
from
from
siegel,
but
I
think
they're
good
changes
to
the
disclosures
in
the
report.
C
I
want
to
thank
the
staff
and
kyron
for
working
throughout
the
process
and
obviously
seagull
as
well
working
with
karen
and
staff
during
the
audit
work,
and
I
just
want
to
also
mention
to
the
board
this.
This
issue
about
the
mishap
between
the
police
and
fire
funds
were
actually
stated
or
raised
at
a
prior
meeting,
and
so
staff
is
already
working
on
the
requirement
changes
not
only
on
an
accounting
standpoint,
but
also
from
the
legal
standpoint.
C
So
we
are
having
conversations
with
council
make
sure
that
everything
is
correct,
but
I
think,
as
as
bill
indicated,
it's
not
overstating
understanding
the
liabilities,
it's
just
making
sure
that
they
are
recorded
in
in
the
right
section
right,
but
it's
fire
to
be
fired.
What
is
police
to
be
police
so
with
that
again
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
C
C
We
need
to
make
a
motion
by
the
board
to
to
approve.
J
The
change
was
made
in
the
401
h
account.
There
are
some
details
to
that
that
that
don't
really
matter
for
the
valuation
where
the
valuation
is
based
on
the
total
assets,
and
so
but
internally
we
made
the
change
to
the
401h
account
assets,
that's
where
the
benefit
payments
had
been
made.
But
there
is
the
issue
of
tier
one
versus
tier
two
in
the
fire,
but
that
does
that
issue
does
not
affect
the
valuation
at
all.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Any
other
questions.
Floors
open
thanks
for
reminding
me
roberto.
It's
not
I
and
accept
the
revised
zop
evaluation
results.
Is
there
a
second
for
my
motion?
Second,
by
santos,
a
move
motion
by
lance
sent
by
santos
around
the
table,
andrew
sunita.
B
Hi
dave
hi
and
I'm
chair
lanza,
I
vote
I
as
well
that
was
item
3a
for
those
of
you
just
joining
us
in
progress.
We're
going
to
skip
forward
to
item
4c
because
we've
got
andy
young
from
siegel
here
so
ann.
Do
you
want
to
take
us
into
item
4c.
K
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
chairman
this
is
andy
young.
I'm
joined
by
my
partner
sample
stanley.
Are
we
here
to
present
to
you
the
audit
findings
from
the
june
30
2021
all
the
reports,
so
with
that
I'll
just
share
my
screen
of
the
evaluation
report
that
the
other
report
pull
up
as
you
can
see
from
the
page
one
of
our
other
report.
This
is
really
a
very
clean
audit.
I'm
trusting
that
you
can
see
a
copy
of
the
report
page
one
right.
It's
just
one
to
confirm.
K
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
as
we
have
indicated.
The
most
important
reason
why
you
want
to
do
an
audit
is
to
make
sure
that
we
can
confirm
the
results
of
the
actuarial
valuations
prepared
by
chiron,
based
on
the
june
30
2021
membership
data
as
well
with
financial
experience,
and
then
for
that
that
you
have
received
the
the
good
clean
view
of
hell
from
seagull.
K
I
have
to
mention,
though,
that
as
part
of
this
audit,
we
were
still
looking
at
the
results
from
the
report
data
january
of
2022,
so
in
other
words,
even
though
we
have
not
looked
at
the
revisions
that
the
board
has
just
approved,
but
we
nonetheless
agree
that
it
really
had
no
material
impact
on
our
other
findings,
because
in
a
lot
of
other
place
in
other
places,
in
our
evaluation
audit
report,
we
tend
to
be
looking
at
the
financial
system.
The
valuation
benefits,
as
well
as
the
actuarially
determined
contribution
for
the
system
as
a
whole.
K
Now
that
we
have
gotten
the
clean
bill
of
health
from
the
auditor
of
the
auditing
actually
out
of
the
way
we
do
notice
a
couple
of
small
improvements
that
chiron
and
the
board
can
consider
for
the
next
actuarial
evaluation
coming
up
in
2022,
that
that
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
in
the
audit
we
noticed
that
there
are
some
tier
one
and
tier
two
members
that
are
currently
enrolled
in
and
covered
by,
the
reba
trust
and
those
are
the
members
who
would
be
expected
to
get
a
catastrophic
disability
benefits.
K
So
our
understanding
is
that
when
those
members
retire,
they
will
be
eligible
to
receive
a
maximum
health
subsidy
based
on
what
would
be
required
to
provide
the
members
with
the
single
party
premiums
under
the
health
plan,
and
we
confirmed
with
chiron
that,
instead
of
using
the
single
party
premium
cost
for
those
members
who
are
expected
to
be
married,
they
have
actually
picked
up
a
slightly
higher
premiums
corresponding
to
those
who
are
married
or
those
with
a
family
coverage.
K
We
don't
think
that
it
is
a
material
change,
but
nonetheless
we
want
to
point
out
to
the
board
that
there's
a
slight
overstatement
in
the
present
value
benefit
and
therefore
the
actuarially
determined
contributions.
So
those
amounts
again
not
very
big
on
a
present
value
basis,
we're
looking
at
about
six
million
dollars
and
on
a
actuarially,
determined
contribution
basis.
There
have
been
some
slight
overstatement
of
about
coming
in
about
five
hundred
eighty
thousand
dollars
and
then
like
percentage
of
payroll
basis
about
0.22
percent
of
pay.
K
So
if
we
keep
the,
if
you
keep
all
these
amounts
in
mind,
when
you
go
through
and
look
at
the
rest
of
the
report,
it
more
or
less
explain
really
the
difference
between
chiron's
results
and
seagulls
result.
And
again,
we
don't
think
that
this
is
something
that
is
worth
revising.
The
report,
for
example,
for
that
matter,
but
definitely
something
that
we
would
recommend
that
chiron
take
into
account
when
they
develop
the
liability
and
therefore
the
contribution
rates
in
the
next
valuations
process.
K
So
other
than
that,
we
talk
about
the
actuarial
assumptions
that
we
have
basically
pick
up
and
utilize
in
the
valuation,
and
we
have
not
been
asked
to
take
a
look
at
the
non-economic
assumptions.
So
that
would
include,
for
example,
how
all
the
active
members
are
when
they
retire
from
the
plan
and
how
long
the
active
members
would
live
after
they
start
collecting
a
benefit.
But
as
part
of
this
evaluation,
we
do
have
taken
a
look
at
the
healthcare
related
actuarial
assumptions.
K
So
now,
I'm
going
to
just
jump
to
the
towards
the
end
of
at
least
the
part
of
my
presentation.
I
want
to
again
show
the
board
how
close
we
are
to
matching
the
present
value
of
benefits.
So
this
would
be
the
amount
that,
if
available
on
hand,
would
be
sufficient
to
pay
for
all
the
benefits
so
using
chiron's
numbers
and
again
this
is
not
impacted
by
the
revision
of
the
assets.
As
bill
hallmark
has
indicated,
they
have
come
up
with
a
liability,
prison
value
benefit
of
850
million
dollars.
Seagull's
numbers
was
841
million
dollars.
K
The
difference
is
nine
million
dollars
and
out
of
this
nine
million
dollars,
as
I've
indicated,
six
million
of
those
numbers
can
be
explained
by
the
difference
in
in
the
catastrophic
disability
benefit
that
I
was
talking
about
early
on,
and
then
we
also
mentioned
in
this
report
that
our
actuarially
determined
contributions
were
coming
in
at
around
97
of
the
number
that
chiron
has
indicated
so
in
dollar
terms.
I
just
want
to
go
to
this
page
before
I
turn
it
over
to
be
up.
K
I
mean
to
my
partner
sam,
so
the
contributions
that
we
have
calculated.
K
So
I'm
going
to
cheat
and
look
at
the
paper
copy
18th
b,
just
bear
with
me
when
I
turned
okay,
so
the
contributions
that
chiron
has
calculated
in
total
for
the
planet,
again
not
impacted
by
the
revised
assets
coming
in
about
29.1
million
dollars.
Siegel
has
come
in
at
28.4
million
dollars,
so
the
difference
between
the
two
numbers
about
600,
700
000
and
of
which
about
580
000
could
be
explained
by
the
variance
due
to
the
disability.
The
catastrophic
distribute
benefit
that
I
just
talked
about.
K
So
I
think
with
that.
Why
don't
I
just
stand
over
to
sam
and
maybe
as
sam,
you
can
walk
us
through
some
of
the
reviews
that
you
have
done
specifically
on
the
health
care,
related
assumptions
and
items
of
notes
in
reviewing
kyron's
evaluation
report.
D
Okay,
so
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
talk
about
the
healthcare
assumption
that
we're
using
the
chiron
report
2021
here
I've
I've
mentioned
this.
I've
discussed
this
when
we
presented
on
the
federated,
so
these
are
similar
notes
and
and
comments.
So
on
the
claim
cause.
The
claim
costs
were
based
on
fully
insured
premium
charge
of
the
city
in
the
yeah.
D
The
the
cars
were
developed,
using
combined
data
for
police,
fire
and
and
the
federated
employee,
which
makes
sense,
given
that
these
all
these
groups
are
underwritten
together,
pre-medicare
claim
costs
also
were
loaded
for
child
cost.
D
D
So
we
do
believe
that
the
health
care
costs
the
disaster
assumptions
are
reasonable
and
the
the
second
item
is
the
health
care,
cost
trend
assumption,
and
we
do
also
believe
overall,
they
are
reasonable.
D
Typically,
the
assumptions
start
by
by
short-term
trend
rate,
which
are
typically
a
projected
near-term
experience,
and
they
do
grade
down
over
time
to
an
ultimate
trend
rate.
You
know
over
a
long
period
of
time.
Typically
the
trend
assumption
here
we
use,
we
develop
using
the
2021
gets
in
model.
This
is
a
very
common
model.
You
know
used
by
many
practitioners
out
there.
D
The
initial
trend
rate
for
pre-medicare
was
eight
percent
for
the
medicare
four
percent.
Again,
all
the
stuff
are
within
ranges
used
by
most
firms,
including
siegel.
However,
the
ultimate
trend
that
I
mentioned
is
3.78
percent
and
happened
to
be
a
bit
on
the
on
the
low
end.
D
You
know,
based
on
our
experience
and
the
trend
for
most
firm,
that
we
you
know
we
we
observed
are
within
the
range
of
four
to
four
point:
five
percent.
Having
said
that,
we
do
believe
that
the
assumption
overall
trend
assumption
are
reasonable.
D
Any
question
on
the
the
healthcare
assumption
review
before
I.
G
D
D
Again,
I
don't
think
it's
a
concern.
It's
just
an
observation
that
we're
making
here.
J
Yeah,
let
me
just
clarify
a
little
bit
what's
going
on
here,
so
this
getzen
model
is
a
standard
model,
that's
published
by
the
society
of
actuaries,
and
it
has
a
baseline
set
of
assumptions
on
the
ultimate
trend.
J
The
their
baseline
assumption
is
two
and
a
half
percent
which
would
increase
you
by
25
basis
points
from
the
3.78
and
so
that
that's
the
current
difference,
and
I
I
do
think
given
where
inflation
is
now.
This
is
something
that
we
will
be
reviewing
the
next
time.
We
do
the
economic
assumptions,
and
so
it
would
affect
items
in
the
pension
valuation
and
the
health
care
valuation
going
forward
if
we
change
the
price
inflation
assumption,
but
we
will
certainly
be
reviewing
that
with
the
next
review
of
economic
assumptions.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah,
I
don't
think
they
had
any
comments
on
the
the
mortality.
B
L
I
have
one
question
or
one
thing
I
want
to
highlight
to
the
board:
please
go
to
page
six
of
the
seagull
report.
L
Thank
you
here.
It
has
a
recommendation
that
the
board
consider
the
pros
and
cons
of
whether
or
not
to
use
a
five-year,
smoothing
amortization
or
to
keep
with
the
market
value
of
the
assets.
I
just
note
this
here
for
a
future
presentation
for
the
board
to
consider,
since
it
is
siegel's
recommendation
that
we
consider
that
and
have
educational
pieces
on
it
for
a
future
agenda
item.
B
Oh
great
thanks,
mate
tech.
You
guys
can
pick
that
up
floors
will
open
anybody
public,
if
not
we'll,
go
back
to
you,
sam
and
then.
D
All
right,
so,
if
we
go
back,
I'm
going
to
quickly
just
go
over
page
15,
I'm
going
back
to
very
quickly
items
of
note
and
just
some
comments
here,
an
observation
again
based
on
the
discussion
with
chiron.
D
Finding
look
at
the
report
again
similar
comments
we
had
when
we
presented
the
federated
audit,
the
the
the
cost
trend
is
disclosed.
The
report
on
a
on
the
calendar
year
basis
between
the
valuation
is
on
a
plan
year
basis
july
1
through
june
at
30..
So
what
we
are
kind
of
suggesting
here
is,
for
you
know,
better
transparency
for
readers
and
users,
so
maybe
kind
of
disclose
the
trend
assumption
on
a
plain
year
basis.
D
The
report
disclosed
that
the
amount
of
the
new
credit
is
based
on
tier
of
coverage,
and
so
what
happened
is
you
know
we
we
needed
to
kind
of
rely
on
other
documents
and
discussions
to
kind
of
understand
how
this
the
credit
amount
is
determined
which
happened
to
equal
25
of
the
subsidy
for
the
coverage,
the
retiree
they
qualify
for.
D
What
we're
suggesting
here
for
cairo
is
kind
of
clearly
disclosed.
This
information
in
the
report
on
the
viba
and
the
service
connected
disability
edd
touch
on
early.
The
viva
members
on
service
connect.
Disability
receive
benefit
from
the
health
care
plan
once
the
viba
funds
are
exhausted,
the
report
doesn't
address
how
the
funds
are
built
up.
D
I
think
we
understood,
based
on
other
information,
that
the
member's
contributions
are
based
on
higher
tier.
What
we
do
suggest
we're
going
to
add
this
information.
Clearly
in
the
report.
D
Also,
the
report
is
not
explicit
in
respect
of
how
the
viva
funds
are
drawn
down
again.
I
think
this
should
be
disclosed
clearly
in
the
report
as
well.
D
The
other
item
to
note
very
quickly,
is
you
know,
disclosure
for
different
spouse
assumption
for
some
various
benefits.
We
do
suggest
these
to
be
more
explicit
in
the
in
the
report.
You
know,
for
instance,
the
spouse,
assumption
medical
versus
dental
and
other
observation.
Next
one
is
that
we
just
noticed.
Look
at
the
the
report.
Another
advice
report-
I
haven't
looked
at
this
one
yet
that
there
was
some
inconsistency
between
some
of
the
numbers.
You
know
I'm
just
giving
an
example.
D
Member
counts
on
page
23
doesn't
match
a
lot
of
amount
of
accounts
on
page
35
and
so
forth.
So
what
we're
saying
is
you
know?
We
suggest
that
chiron
address
those
inconsistency
and
to
prevent
confusion
in
the
next
evaluation.
D
So
these
are
the
items
of
notes.
I
wanted
to
kind
of
go
over
with
you
with
a
group
here.
Any
questions.
B
Yeah
floors
open
any
questions
for
bill
or
sam
or
andy
any
anything
from
the
public
for
bill
or
sam
or
andy
so
roberto.
I
think
maytag
really
hit
good
job.
Maytag
had
a
nail
on
the
head,
so
there's
really
two
steps
here
right
richard.
B
I
wanted
to
accept
this
and
we're
about
to
I'll
I'll
make
that
motion
in
a
minute,
but
the
other,
I
suppose,
is
roberto
for
you
and
and
bill
to
sit
down,
and
maybe
the
next
board
me
and
june
board
meeting
kind
of
do
what
sam
just
just
did
part
of
and
kind
of
go
through
the
places
where
the
audit
suggests,
as
maytag
said,
to
the
board.
Maybe
they
should
consider
I'm
discussing
with
bill
a
change
to
current
practice.
B
J
Well,
I
think
I
haven't
gone
through
the
inconsistencies
that
they
identified,
but
the
other
disclosure
items
we
reflected
in
the
revised
report,
because
those
are
the
same
comments
they
made
on
the
federated
report
and
we
agreed
that
those
those
disclosures
could
be
improved.
J
I
think
the
there's
one,
the
change
to
the
catastrophic
disability
we
agree
with,
and
we
agree
that
it
should
be
reflected
in
the
2022
report,
the
issue
maytac
raised.
We
agree
that
we
should
revisit
that
with
the
board
and
review
that
that
part
of
the
funding
method,
but
our
recommendation
will
be
to
continue
what
we
have.
B
Yeah
that
that's
what
I
thought
would
be
so
roberto
how
about
next
meeting
or
june
you
come
back
just
as
bill
did
verbally
with
a
list
of
here's
something
the
actual
report
in
and
chiron
says
yep.
Let's
do
it
or
it's
already
been
done
in
the
revised
and
here's
some
stuff.
The
board,
as
matec
said,
should
dig
into
maybe
and
and
learn
more
about
and
noodle
over
with
bill.
Can
we
do
that
roberto.
C
Yes,
certainly
we
can
I'll
reach
out
to
bill
and
we'll
get
back
to
the
board
whether
it
is
the
mayor,
the
june
meeting
and
I'm
fine.
I
think
we
were
planning
on
doing
so
anyway.
C
My
only
question
to
be
will
be,
I
think,
certainly
we
can
do
it
now,
because
it's
fresh
on
everyone's
minds,
usually
I
think
in
the
past.
What
we
have
done
is,
as
we
kick
off
the
the
actual
evaluations
process
in
the
fall.
J
Yeah
that
works
fine.
I
I
do
think
the
the
issue
about
the
amortization
and
asset
smoothing
for
the
opeb.
I
might
be
good
for
a
separate
educational
session
just
so
we
can
go
through
all
the
the
background
and
the
pros
and
cons
of
the
difference.
Certainly.
C
And
I
agree
with
that-
I
think
that
one
I
think
we
both.
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
I
think
that
made
more
sense
to
do
it
closer
to
the
kickoff
in
the
fall.
So
that
is
phrasing
everyone
minds
when
they
start
making
those
choices
for
both
evaluations.
Does
that
make
sense.
B
Great
so
in
that
case
let
me
go
right,
hey
so
let
me
go
and
make
the
motion.
Then
I
move
that
we
accept
sigel's
actual
audit
and
would
note
that
there
are
a
few
items
in
there
that
we
are
going
to
continue
further
discussion
on
and
we
may
accept
their
suggestions
or
deny
them,
but
but
bill's
gonna
help
and
lead
us
through
that.
So
I
move
that
we
accept
the
audit.
Do
I
have
a
second
for
that
motion?
B
Dave
hi,
I'm
chair,
lands,
overlay,
hey
siegel,
chiron,
absolutely
fantastic
work
of
the
fir
of
the
highest
order.
Thanks
andy
thanks
bill
thanks
sam
this
is
this
is
really
helpful
and
it's
good
we're
going
to
talk
about
smoothing
bill.
I
know
it's
it's
a
subject
that
comes
up
over
and
over
again
we're
probably
due
for
another
review
that
bill
go
enjoy
kawhi
and
andy,
and
sam
you're,
not
in
kauai,
but
I'm
sure
you
wish
you
were
yeah
so.
K
I
I
I
know
that
we
say
that
multiple
times
in
our
report,
but
again
I
want
to
the
record
to
reflect
that
siegel
thanks
kyron
and
bill
hallmark
in
particular,
and
also
roberto
and
his
staff
for
all
the
cooperation
assistance
we
have
received
during
the
audit.
So
thank
you
so
much.
B
Thank
you
so
much
andy,
all
right,
great
okay,
you
guys
can
sign
off
bill
now
we're
look
we're
going
to
be
moving
on
now
to
the
felony
forfeiture
stuff,
I'm
going
to
turn
over
to
maytag
in
just
a
minute.
But
before
that,
let
me
let
me
get.
Let
me
go
to
see
you
there.
Hello
green
is
from
austin
texas,
hey!
Let
me
drive
the
screen
for
a
minute.
Will
you,
ladies?
You,
can
take
the
agenda
off
I'm
going
to
just
make
a
couple
of
preferred
perfectory
remarks.
B
So
the
old
italians
have
a
saying,
I'm
I'm
I'm
23
of
me
says
I'm
97
italian.
So
I
consider
myself
a
and
the
saying
I
forget
what
is
in
time
is:
don't
get
ahead
of
the
pasta
and
what
that
means
is
you
put
the
pasta
in
the
water
boiling
water,
and
that
means
seven
or
eight
minutes
before
dinner
and
and
there's
this
instinct
to
put
the
dinner
on
the
table
when
the
pasta
goes
in
and
the
saying
is
no
wait.
B
Hang
on
you
get
six
seven
more
minutes,
don't
pull
it
out
of
the
oven
yet
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
a
theme
for
what
maytag
is
going
to
say
is:
let's
all
be
real,
conscious
of
where
we
are
in
this
process
right.
So
I
would,
I
would
say,
a
couple
of
preparatory
remarks
and
I've
got
a
little
chart.
I
just
put
up
so
first
of
all,
look
with
tremendous
authority
comes
tremendous
responsibility.
B
You've
all
had
a
chance
to
read.
What's
in
the
san
jose
city
code
as
it
comes
to
felony
forfeiture
and
and
maytag
rightly
points
out,
we've
been
given
an
enormous
amount
of
authority,
and
so,
as
maytac
has
almost
been
working
on
this
for
a
year
now,
we
are
going
to
exercise
an
enormous
amount
of
proper
responsibility.
B
As
we
look
look
at
this,
it's
been
a
year
in
the
making.
It
has
been
literally
dozens,
if
not
hundreds
of
lawyer
hours
by
harvey
and
maytag,
mostly
by
maytag.
B
Is
this
notion
that
we
make
absolutely
certain
that
we
grant
all
the
constitutional,
both
u.s
and
california,
rights
of
due
process
to
the
folks
will
be
discussing
now
the
idea
I'm
going
to
put
a
little
chart
in
just
a
minute,
I'm
I
want
everybody
to
think
of
the
words
can
should
and
will
what
can
we
do?
What
process
can
we
run?
What
should
we
do?
What
process
should
we
run
and
what
will
we
do?
B
B
Well,
I
can't
I
can't
show
it
right
now,
because
I'm
on
I'm
on
my
ipad
and
not
yeah,
it's
fine,
hey!
So
right
now,
today,
there's
the
actual
hearing
we'll
decide
what
we
should
do
the
pensions
of
these
folks
that
have
committed
felonies
we're
not
going
to
talk
about
that
today.
That's
for
a
future
meeting.
What
we
are
talking
about
today
is
what
can
we
do
with
the
process?
What
should
we
do
with
the
process,
and
I
think
maytag
would
like
us
to
vote
today
on
what
will
we
do
with
the
process?
B
The
process
will
run
at
the
next
board
meeting
when
we
actually
have
these
hearings,
the
hearings
will
be
run
very
formally.
I've
been
working
away
in
the
background
with
maytag
narvin
roberto,
to
make
sure
I
understand
my
responsibilities
as
as
the
chairman
final
thought.
Before
I
turn
over
to
maytag.
B
There
are
times
when
boards
should
not
agree.
We
have
a
very
high
function
board.
We
usually
agree
because
we're
smart
folks
and
we're
well
prepared
in
my
world
in
startup
companies,
there
are
two
times
where
you
don't
want
the
board
to
agree.
There
are
decisions
that
are
such
importance
that
it
would
be
unusual
to
everybody
agree.
One
is
when
you
replace
the
ceo,
basically
fire,
a
ceo.
B
If
you
get
that
decision
wrong,
it
can
destroy
a
company
and
the
other
one
is
when
you
go
to
sell
a
company,
because
some
people
want
to
say
no,
let's
wait
to
sell,
it
will
be
worth
more
and
some
people
say
no.
I
think
that
value
is
going
to
decline
and
in
those
meetings
we
we
really
debate
and
really
struggle.
We
have
a
vote.
It's
never
100,
it's
never
unanimous!
Then
we
all
go
out
and
have
beer
and
and
pat
ourselves
on
the
back
for
disagreeing
but
reaching
consensus.
B
Maytag
will
probably
point
out
shortly
that
we
will
not
all
agree
on
what
we
should
do
and
therefore
will
do
after
emotions
made
and
voted
at
the
next
meeting
in
terms
of
how
we
treat
these
people
that
have
committed
felonies-
and
I
think,
that's
good
so
as
we
as
we
all
prepare
hard
for
that
next
meeting
by
reading
all
the
materials
made
tax
already
sent
out
and
we'll
send
out
it's
okay
to
come
up
with
a
harsher
or
a
more
lenient
decision.
B
I
don't
think
we're
all
going
to
agree
over
to
you
maytag
by
the
way,
maytag
first-rate
job
on
all
these
materials.
I
I
really
enjoyed
reading
everything
over
to
you.
Maytag.
L
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
kind
words
chair
lanza.
One
thing
I
want
to
do
before
we
start
out.
I
know
we've
got
the
two
items
put
together
for
items
3b
as
well
as
3d,
but
I
want
to
keep
them
separate
and
distinct,
because
I
don't
want
a
conflation
of
the
issues
that
we're
discussing
today.
On
one
hand,
the
felony
forfeiture
provisions
that
are
grant
the
authority
to
the
board.
There
are
two
things
to
consider.
One
is
the
procedural
due
process,
which
is
the
the
how
how
things
come
to
the
board.
L
It
is
strictly
the
procedure
and
not
the
substantive
application
of
the
law
and
that's
related
to
item
3b,
which
is
the
proposed
due
process,
policy
and
procedures
of
how
we
are
going
to
provide
notice.
If
there
are
opportunity
for
these
members
to
come
before
the
board,
this
is
strictly
procedure.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
substantive
application
of
the
law.
Now,
that's
in
bucket
one.
The
second
issue
before
the
board
that
I
am
going
to
present
today
has
to
do
with
the
substantive
application
of
the
law.
L
That
means
how
the
board
will
exercise
its
discretion
once
the
matter
has
come
before
the
board
so
think
about
it
in
two
phases.
One
phase
is
how
the
case
leads
up
to
the
board
and
the
procedures
that
the
that
ors
and
this
board
will
take
to
afford
minimum
due
process.
Procedurally
for
the
members
which
is
represented
in
our
proposed
policy,
and
the
second
issue
would
be
the
substantive
application
of
the
law,
which
would
be
the
board's
exercise
of
discretion.
So
please
keep
those
two
concepts.
Distinct
in
your
mind.
L
L
Perfect,
so
the
city
council
has
had
on
its
books
since
1916
a
forfeiture
provision
of
pension
retirement
allowances
for
members
of
this
plan
who
are
convicted
of
treason
or
a
felony,
and
so
this
charter.
This
provision
has
been
in
the
city
charter
since
1916..
L
Now
the
city
council
has
delegated
authority
to
this
board
to
determine
whether
and
how
to
cancel
and
terminate
retirement
allowances
for
members
who
are
convicted
of
the
felony
or
commit
treason
that
delegated
authority
is
found
in
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provisions.
There
are
two
provisions
in
the
san
jose
municipal
code
that
grant
this
board
the
authority
to
do
that.
One
is
related
to
service
retirement
and
the
other
is
for
those
who
retire
on
disability.
So
I'm
just
scrolling
down.
So
you
can
see
the
two
provisions.
L
The
provision
related
to
the
service,
retirement
cancellation
and
termination
for
members
who
commit
a
felony
or
treat
convicted
of
a
felony
treason
is
found
at
san
jose
municipal
code
3.36.830,
and
this
is
the
full
text
of
the
provision.
So
you
can
see
here
it
provides
the
board
discretion
and
it
tells
you
how
how
to
deal
with
survivor
and
death
benefits,
and
it
also
provides
how
the
board
shall
deal
with
spouses
and
minor
children.
So
this
is
the
scope
of
the
delegated
authority
to
this
board.
L
But,
as
you
see
here
in
the
text
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
it
has
nothing
to
it
says
nothing
to
do
on
what
due
process.
Procedurally,
these
members
are
owed.
It's
completely
silent
on
that
now,
I'm
going
to
turn
down
to
the
disability,
retirement
calculation
and
termination
provision
which
is
largely
identical
to
the
service
connected
or
the
service
retirement
provision,
with
the
only
difference
being
that
it's
for
disability
retirement
benefits
as
again
you'll
see
here.
L
It
provides
this
board
sole
discretion
to
determine
whether
to
cancel
or
terminate,
and
it
also
tells
us
what
to
do
with
survivor
benefits
and
death
benefits,
and
it
also
tells
us
what
to
do
about
payments
to
spouse
and
minor
children.
These
things
are
delineated
already
substantively
in
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
But
what
you'll
see
again
here
is
that
nowhere
in
the
san
jose
municipal
code
does
it
speak
to
the
procedural
due
process
of
how
this
board
should
deal
with
these
cases.
L
Now.
The
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
note
for
you
all
is
that
california
courts
have
long
held
that
public
retirement
boards
must
afford
due
process,
even
if
the
statute
is
silent.
The
most
recent
case
that
addressed
this
was
the
hipster
case,
which
was
decided,
I
believe
in
2020.
L
In
hipster,
the
court
looked
at
the
pepra
pension
forfeiture
statute
and
in
pep
in
hipster.
This
was
a
summary
of
the
facts.
Here's
is
that
the
member
was
a
firefighter.
He
was
running
a
gambling
ring.
He
had
a
felony
conviction
for
doing
that,
and
lacera
automatically
forfeited
his
pension
without
a
notice
or
an
opportunity
to
be
heard.
They
just
did
it
automatically.
L
The
case
was
then
litigated.
The
member
appealed,
as
well
as
the
his
association
and
the
retirement
board,
argued
both
at
the
trial
court
and
the
appellate
court
that
no
due
process
was
required.
Procedurally,
because
the
statute
was
silent
on
it
and
did
not
require
it.
L
We
are
in
a
similar
situation.
Our
municipal
code
does
not
say
anything
about
how
we
are
to
provide
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard,
and
so
that's
what
our
recommended
policy
here
seeks
to
do,
and
what
just
to
put
a
finer
point
on
what
is
procedural
due
process.
Now
I
mentioned
before
that.
There's
two
parts
there's
a
procedural
part
and
then
there
is
the
substantive
application
for
the
procedural
part.
The
procedures
are
focused
on
the
mechanisms
of
how
matters
come
before
the
board.
L
So
it's
how
these
things
are
presented
to
you,
and
so
the
required
components
of
procedural
due
process
are
twofold:
one
that
there
is
adequate
notice
to
the
member
that
this
is
going
on
and
two
I'm
sorry.
The
adequate
notice
to
the
member
that
the
board
intends
to
consider
the
application
of
these
cancellation
and
termination
provisions
to
the
retirement
benefits
and
two
to
provide
the
member
a
right
to
be
heard
to
come
before
the
board
and
make
their
case
before
the
board
makes
its
determination.
L
So
what
our
policy
seeks
to
do
is
to
provide
the
floor
for
these
members
to
guarantee
them
all
members
do
procedural
due
process,
given
that
the
statute
is
silent,
we
want
to
give
assurances
to
our
members
that
we
will
provide
them
a
procedural
due
process
now
here.
You'll
see
here,
as
exhibit
four
to
the
back
of
materials
that
I've
provided
to
the
board
is
the
version
that
was
proposed
to
the
governance
committee
on
february
3rd
2022..
L
This
was
a
version
that
the
governance
committee
considered
at
their
meeting,
and
then
the
governance
committee
made
slight
modifications
to
that
policy
and
and
approved
it
by
majority
vote.
I'm
sorry,
unanimous
vote,
and
so
the
changes
that
the
governance
committee
made
to
the
proposed
policies
are
reflected
in
red
line
here.
As
you
see,
they
added
in
language
for
notice
to
any
affected
beneficiary
of
the
member.
L
To
provide
the
mem,
the
the
beneficiary
notice
as
well,
that
this
proceed
procedure
is
to
occur
for
the
board
to
consider
whether
or
not
to
apply
the
san
jose
municipal's
cancellation
and
termination
provisions
to
a
member
who's
been
convicted
of
a
felony
or
commits
treason.
So
you'll
see
here
the
changes
in
orange,
adding
in
affected
beneficiary
to
allow
them
to
participate,
and
this
was
the
version
that
was
recommended
to
this
board
for
adoption
at
our
at
the
march
3rd
meeting.
I
understand
at
the
march
3rd
meeting
of
this
board.
L
We
did
not
actually
take
a
look
at
this,
so
I'm
showing
this
again
just
for
you
guys
to
take
a
look
to
see
what
was
changed
and,
lastly,
between
march
3rd
and
now
we
we,
as
planned
council,
took
another
look
at
the
policy,
and
so
as
this
is
the
policy
here,
which
is
that
exhibit
six
of
the
materials
I've
submitted
to
you
is
the
policy
that
plan
council
is
recommending
to
the
board
for
adoption.
L
Now
here,
you'll
see
the
recitals
which
state
that
the
san
jose
municipal
chart
or
the
san
jose
charter
provides.
This
forfeiture
provision
the
two
san
jose
municipal
code,
that
grants
the
board
the
authority
and
that
this
policy
seeks
to
add
in
the
procedural
due
process,
guidelines
for
for
the
for
members
who
fall
within
these
two
statutes.
L
Now,
as
you'll
see
here,
we
provide
written
notice
to
the
member
and
and
any
affected
beneficiary
of
the
member
to
the
extent
locatable
within
at
least
40
days
of
advance
notice.
I
get
some
sufficient
time
to
find
councils
they
so
wish
to
and
prepare
their
case.
The
reason
why
plan
council
has
added
into
the
extent
locatable
is
that
my
understanding
from
ors
is
that
we
do
not
collect
beneficiary
contact
information,
and
so
it
may
prove
difficult
to
provide
notice
to
beneficiaries
of
the
member.
L
If
you
don't
already
have
that
information
on
record
and
the
only
another
change
that
we
have
here
is
that,
instead
of
having
the
plan
and
the
member
provide
information
about
whether
or
not
to
apply
the
forfeiture
provisions
from
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
we
have
added
in
to
allow
the
city
and
other
interested
parties
to
present
at
the
discretion
of
the
board.
This
would
include
any
bargaining
units,
retiree
associations
and
the
like
to
come
and
discuss
and
present
their
their
views
on
the
the
matters
at
stake.
L
It
also
provides
the
board
the
power
to
subpoena
anyone.
They
believe
is
useful
for
the
determination
of
whether
to
apply
it.
It
discusses
issues
with
rules
of
evidence.
It
states
that
the
proceedings
shall
occur
in
publicly
agendized
meetings,
in
that
it
should
be
video
and
audio
recorded
center.
Graphically
for
the
preservation
of
the
record
and
the
board
chair
or
sesame.
Should
the
board
share
not
be
available
shall
preside
over
the
proceeding
once
the
board
has
made
a
determination,
we
have
an
appeal
provision.
The
member
should
we
apply.
L
The
provision
to
the
member
shall
have
the
right
to
appeal
the
decision
in
the
superior
court
under
a
ccp,
10,
85,
rit,
and
so
the
this
is
the
the
policy
that's
being
put
forth
before
this
board
for
adoption.
L
This
policy,
like
I
said
before,
is
recommended
in
light
of
the
burlington
hipster
that
require
a
minimum
floor
due
process,
a
procedural
due
process
of
one
notice
to
be
heard.
I
mean
notice
and
two
right
to
be
heard
with
that.
I
open
the
floor
for
questions.
B
Thanks
matex,
so,
as
may
tech
said
we're
taking
this
in
two
parts,
this
is
the
earlier
part
process,
not
what
we're
actually
going
to
do
to
these
folks.
But
what
can
we
do
in
terms
of
procedure
next
month?
What
should
we
do?
Maytag
suggestions
here,
insurance
procedure,
and
if
we
approve
this,
that
is
what
we
will
do
in
terms
of
procedure
so
floors
open.
Any
trustees
want
to
jump
in.
A
Yeah
drew
this
is
franco
thanks,
frank,
you're,
good.
I
just
I
just
want
to
make
a
comment
in
looking
at
this
policy
and
trying
to
put
myself
as
someone
who
would
be
going
through
it.
I'm
not
sure
that
the
45
days-
and
I
understand
it,
says
at
least
45
days-
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
necessarily
sufficient
time.
A
Someone
were
to
get
this
they'd
have
to
process
it.
My
guess
is:
they'd
probably
make
an
appointment
with
one
of
the
executives
at
the
poi
come
down
talk
to
them,
get
the
recommendations
on
attorney,
get
a
hold
of
an
attorney,
have
the
attorney
review
the
documents
and
then
have
to
work
with
the
attorney
and
their
schedule?
I
don't
know
that
45
days
is
necessarily
going
to
be
enough.
If
someone
or
the
entity
on
the
board
is
pushing
it.
I'm
thinking
more
like
a
90
day.
B
A
No,
I'm
I'm
thinking
in
general
for
the
policy.
You
know
10
12
years
from
now,
you've
got
some
people
on
a
board
who
maybe
are
anti
one
organization,
whether
it's
local,
230
or
poa,
and
they're
pushing
it
because
they
don't
like
it.
I
you
know,
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
I'm
just
thinking
in
process
if
45
is
really
enough.
If
the
board
were
to
push
it.
B
L
So
for
the
two
members
that
we
are
considering
for
the
main
meeting
they
have
had
noticed
since
last
october,
so
the
notice
provisions
we've
already
we've
already
been
dealing
with
these
two
members
council.
They
have
two
councils
that
are
councils
that
they
have
retained
in
terms
of
so
the
only
procedures
that
we
would
be
applying
for.
That
would
be
in
the
actual
proceeding
section.
But
I
do
hear
what
frank
our
trivado
is
saying
is
that
40
at
least
45
days
is
maybe
insufficient.
L
90
days
may
be
a
more
favorable
measure
to
provide
the
the
notice
to
the
extent
the
member
seeks
a
continuance
when
they
retain
counsel
or
need
more
time
to
collect
their
materials
more
likely
than
not
council
plan
council
will
grant
them
that
extension
out
of
due
process,
because
we
want
them
to
be
able
to
retain
counsel
and
adequately
represent
themselves
at
the
proceeding
before
the
board,
but
either
way
45
or
90
days.
It
works.
L
Well
for
these
two,
I
want
to
be
careful
here,
because
I
don't
want
to
learn
what
and
have
any
exported
communications
with
this
board
without
their.
H
L
So,
let's
stick
with
the
particular
topic
here,
which
is
just
the
procedural
due
process
policy
before
this
board
moving.
B
B
E
G
Yeah
and
everybody
just
just
relax
for
a
minute
when
I
ask
these
questions
because
it's
like
the
chicken
and
egg,
you
know
I've
been
on
the
board
for
like
24
years,
12
active
and
now
this
and
and
there's
nobody
that,
I
believe,
is
more
fair
than
the
chair.
We
have
now
and
we
have
a
great
board
of
trustees.
I
have
no
problem,
but
the
first
question
that
comes
to
me
to
the
city
council
is
this
still
needed?
G
I
don't
know.
Did
we
ask
those
questions,
I'm
asking
for
a
legal
opinion
now
you're
saying
well,
you've
been
delegated.
There
is
no
recourse,
because
do
we
do
the
same
thing
for
farmers,
pharmacists,
doctors,
you
know
laborers,
so
why
is
police
of
fire
be
pointed
out?
Is
this
still
needed?
G
If,
if
it
is
and
there's
no
recourse,
then
fine
we'll
deal
with
it?
I
really
like
what
maytag
and
harvey's
doing
here.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
fair
process.
I
think
franco's
got
a
good
point,
but
the
first
question
that
comes
to
my
mind:
why
is
firefighters
and
police
officers,
have
a
double
standard?
G
Is
this
a
state
code
because
we're
a
private
system?
So
that's
the
first
thing
that
comes
to
my
mind.
Have
we
considered
asking
the
city
council?
Is
this
still
needed
because
the
worst
scenario
would
be?
Does
it
become
political?
I
believe
with
this
board,
it
would
not
and
probably
be
a
better
process
than
have
a
city
council
deal
with
it.
So
those
are
just
things
that
come
to
my
mind,
being
a
member
for
33
years
being
very
active.
G
L
Yeah
and
if,
if
I
may,
respond
to
trustee
santos,
yeah
good.
L
So
it
is
a
good
point.
I
will
say
the
san
jose
municipal
code
does
not
delegate
authorities
similar
to
this
to
the
federated
board.
So
the
city
council,
for
at
least
for
federated
members,
retains
the
authority
to
determine
and
apply.
However,
they
they
will
under
the
city
charter
any
pension
forfeiture
provisions.
This
board
is
unique
in
a
sense
that
the
city
council
has
delegated
that
authority
to
the
board.
L
Now,
given
that
the
on
the
question
of
whether
it's
needed
or
not
that's
a
larger
policy
question
but
as
the
law
currently
stands
and
as
the
san
jose
municipal
is
currently
written,
that
authority
is
delegated
solely
to
this
board,
and
so,
if
the
matter
does
arise
and
is
presented
to
the
board
and
the
board
has
knowledge
of
it,
the
board
should
using
chairland's
link
language
here.
Consider
it
it
does
not
mean
it
has
to
apply
it,
but
yeah
at
a
minimum
should
consider
it.
G
G
You
know
it
shouldn't
be
done
and
then
today
we
start
talking
about
the
word,
treason
and
felonies,
and
then
what
may
be
a
felony
in
1960
is
not
a
felony
in
2022
and
one
could
be
more
severe.
There's
many
many
questions
that
come
up
now,
I'm
just
like
all
of
you.
I
just
want
to
see
a
fair
process,
but
again
I'm
going
to
ask
that
same
question.
How
do
we
know
it's
needed
in
the
governing
board
of
this
city?
G
G
B
Dick
I've
struggled
with
that
myself
and
here's
how
I
kind
of
look
at
it.
Maybe
mayjack
you
can
correct
me:
we
have
a
contract
and
disability
committees,
for
example,
we
have
a
contract
with
folks.
If
you
apply
for
a
disability,
the
contract
says
you
really
are
disabled
and
you're
telling
us
the
truth.
We
have
a
contractual
agreement
with
our
policemen,
firefighters,
it's
in
the
code
that
they
will
not
commit
a
felony
and
then,
as
maytag
says,
when
they
do
break
that
contract.
Our
board
has
the
right
to
figure
out.
B
If
we
want
to
do
something
about
it
now.
I
agree
with
you
that
maybe
the
city
should
modify
this,
but
I
think
that's
not
our
board's
job.
We
try
to
stay
out
of
the
middle
of
these
things.
I
I
would
have
no
problem.
Did
the
unions
want
to
go
to
the
city
and
say
hey?
This
is
a
little
strange
little
harsh.
Why
don't
you
change
it?
B
I
I
wouldn't
weigh
in
either
way,
but
just
like
in
disability,
we
had
a
contract
with
all
of
our
policemen
and
firemen,
all
of
our
members
and
and
these
guys
broke
that
contract
and
I
think,
just
like
people
who
fake
a
disability.
I
think
this
is
a
big
deal
now,
whether
we
will
do
anything
to
them
again
is
up
for
another
meeting,
that's
a
subsequent
thing,
but
I
think
we
should
just
like
remember
that
guy
in
the
ellen
show
disability,
we
heard
that-
and
I
think
we
should
hear
this
as
well.
G
Well,
I
mean
you're
giving
a
point
of
view
and
again
I
rather
question
the
people
who
make
the
laws
in
our
city
and
say
this:
do
you
still
want
this
on
the
books?
I
have
no
problem
dealing
with
it.
I
understand
my
fiduciary
responsibility
and
I
take
those
very
seriously
along
with
you
one
more
time.
G
B
Well,
so
I
would
ask
you,
let
me
just
ask
you
a
direct
question
maytag.
You
know
we
tried
to
stay
out
the
step
between
our
policeman
environment
in
the
city,
but
we
are
in
this
because
in
the
code
do
we
have
any
right
to
play
in
the
question
dick's
asking.
L
You
know
there's
a
case
out:
there
called
lockyer.
It
was
the
city
of
san
jose
city
and
county
of
san
francisco
and
lockyer.
In
that
case,
mayor
gavin
newsom
refused
to.
If
you
can
recall,
there's
prop
8
a
number
of
years
ago
that
prohibited
the
marriage
of
the
same-sex
couples,
and
so
gavin
newsom
said
that
law
was
unconstitutional,
I'm
not
going
to
apply
it
in
my
jurisdiction.
L
That
case
went
all
the
way
up
to
the
california
supreme
court.
The
california
supreme
court
says
if
the
law
is
currently
on
the
books.
The
administrative
agency
must
follow
the
laws
that
are
currently
in
play.
Now
I
understand,
there's
a
question
of
whether
or
not
the
city
council
should
go
back
and
amend
the
provisions.
L
This
policy
is
has
has
no
bearing
on
what
the
city
council
may
or
may
not.
Do
we
have
no
authority
over
the
city
council.
What
this
policy
here
seeks
to
do
is
to
provide
the
floor
of
due
process
in
absence
of
any
changes
currently
to
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
So
until
and
when
until
the
city
council
revisits
the
these
two
san
jose
municipal
code
provisions,
we
still
need
to
do
something
for
these
members
and
to
guarantee
their
due
process,
and
this
policy
tries
to
seek
to
do
that
in
the
interim
period.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
maytag.
That
does
make
sense
to
me.
I
I
understand
that
I
was
just
questioning
the
political
part
of
it,
but
if,
like
you
said
until
the
city
council
reacts
differently,
here's
what
we
have
to
do
so
I
do
understand
that
and
I'm
really
proud
to
be
part
of
this
process,
because
I
believe
that
again
one
more
time
the
chair
and
the
board
we
have
here
will
do
a
fine
job
and
our
legal
counsel.
So
thank
you.
B
A
Thanks
drew
just
to
chair
or
sorry
trusty
scientist's
point,
the
poa
does
have
a
meeting
and
first
set
up
with
the
city
to
discuss
the
applicability
of
this.
These
two
statutes,
so
we
will
be
discussing
that
further.
Having
one
other
commented
question
from
maytag
from
the
due
process,
part
on
the
page,
one
under
purpose
of
policy.
It
says
that,
if
convicted
of
felony
or
treason,
then
any
portion
of
that
member's
retirement
allowance
may
be
canceled
or
terminated.
A
If
you
go
under
the
community
codes,
it
doesn't
say
anything
about
a
reduction.
It
says
that
has
any
or
all
disability
retirements
that
any
or
all
is
that
the
portion
that
allows
us
to
reduce
it
versus
cancer.
Correct.
L
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
we,
the
poa,
has
had
a
chance
to
review
the
due
process
and
realize
what
we
see
so
far
simply
for
the
due
process
setting
up,
especially
for
the
next
upcoming
may
5th,.
B
Yeah
and
he
hey
dave,
I
think
I
speak
for
mate.
Zach
and
harvey
maytag
has
counseled
me
numerous
times
drew.
Let's
get
this
right.
Let's
do
this
really
perfectly
so
we're
not
embroiled
in
in
in
some
appellate
court
supreme
court.
So
if,
if
the
poa
has
any
issues
at
all
dave
reach
out
to
maytag
brad
and
harvey
right
away,
we
definitely
will.
Thank
you
great.
The
floors
open
any
other
trustees
want
to
weigh
in.
A
Yeah
hi
this
is
this
is
howard.
I
I
have
just
a
general
question
and
with
respect
to
other
municipalities,
how
have
they
handled
this
and
to
trustee
santos's
point?
Do
they
also
specifically
have.
A
L
I
I
don't
know
off
top
all
the
municipalities
in
terms
of
what
we
have
in
terms
of
felony
forfeiture.
I
can
speak
to
these
state
provisions
the
way
they
have
it.
There
is
guided
by
hipster
that,
like
I
said,
the
state
provisions
for
forfeiture
of
pension
benefits
do
not
specify
due
process
and
so
for
those
provision
for
those
systems
they
follow.
The
the
letter
of
the
law
stated
in
the
hipster
case
now
that
had
a
different
statute.
That
was
a
pepper
version
of
the
statute,
but
the
same
principles
here
apply.
L
M
No,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you,
know,
council,
maytag
and
harvey,
and
everybody
that's
been
working
diligently
on
this
policy.
I
think
it's
everything
in
here,
I
think,
makes
sense.
I
like
everything,
including
the
revision
that
franco's
recommended
changing
45
to
90
days.
I
could.
I
could
support
that
so,
but
anyways
I
want
to
just
thank
everybody.
I
Yeah
all
right
thanks,
drew
ray
storm's
here,
president
police
sounds
jose
police
fire
and
fire
retirees
association.
I
don't
know
if
this
question
should
be
in
this
section
or
if
it
should
be
in
4d,
and
it
has
to
do
with
who
is
eligible
for
this.
I
looked
at
the
pepper
and
basically
it
said
you
had
to
be
employed
and
and
not
retired
or
away
you
had
to
commit
the
crime
prior
to
retiring
is
the
way
I
read
it.
I
L
That
that
question
is
more
suited
for
our
discussion
in
item
4d,
because
that's
a
question
of
substantive
application.
The
law
here
we're
just
considering
the
procedure,
so
I
will.
B
No,
no,
that's
fine
great!
So
it's
a
grey
line,
any
other
members
of
the
public,
any
other
comments
from
the
public
floors
open.
Maybe
I
want
to
jump
in
if
not,
he
may
text
up
sharing
the
screen
and
I'll
put
my
little
thingy
up.
B
B
M
B
Oh
great,
so
here's
my
point,
look
matec's
right
right
now.
We're
talking
about
process
can
maytag
has
told
us
what
we
can
do.
She
suggested
very
explicitly
what
we
should
do
and
and
and
franco's
got
a
good
suggestion
for
a
change
that
may
tax
things
make
sense.
So
we
can
vote
right
now
to
say.
Will
I
put
in
your
main
meeting
because
who
knows
dave,
franco,
maytag
might
come
back
in
a
month
before
the
hearing
and
say
hey.
We
we
talked
to
council.
B
B
Blue
maizex
is
going
to
start
us
today
by
opening
up
what
we
can
do
right
and
then,
when
we
meet
next
month,
we
will
be
very
explicit
on
how
we
should
deliberate
over
what
we
should
do
and
then,
of
course,
we
may
or
may
not
next
meaning
reach
emotion
of
what
we
will
do
in
terms
of
impacting
their
pensions.
B
So
a
franco.
Do
you
want
to
make
the
motion
to
accept
the
process
piece
with
the
90-day
change?
Do
you
want
to
go
and
make
that
motion
franco.
A
Yeah
I'll
move
that
we
accept
the
language
with
the
amendment
that
it's
a
90-day
minimum
notification
period
I'll.
Second,
that
motion.
B
H
B
H
B
Yeah
good
good
point
harvey
I
put
mayman
here
and
again
this
strange
color
to
say:
yeah,
we
don't
know
yet
there
may
be
a
formal
document
that
outlines
can
that
we
want
to
accept
and
approve,
and
we
don't
know
that
yet
do
we
maybe.
H
We're
anticipating
that
at
the
may
meeting
the
should
and
will
will
be
discussed
with
regard
to
two
of
the
individuals
who
have
been
in
the
queue
on
this
since
october.
L
Now
the
municipal
code
also
provides
specifically
what
to
do
about
survivor,
benefits
and
death
benefits
in
the
provision.
It
provides
that
survivor,
benefits
and
death
benefits
are
unaffected
by
the
forfeiture
as
applied
for
or
unaffected.
If
the
board
decides
to
apply
the
forfeiture
to
the
member,
if
those
benefits
would
otherwise
be
payable,
so
these
are
the
general
contours
dictated
by
the
pure
text
of
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
With
regard
to
service
retirement
allowances.
L
L
So
the
board's
discretion
is
not
unbridled.
It's
guided
by
existing
case
law
from
the
courts,
so
the
existing
case
law
from
court
decisions
more
or
less
provide
the
guard
brailles
for
this
board's
exercise
of
discretion.
So
here
are
a
couple
things
that
come
out
from
the
case
law:
these
are
the
the
guard
rails.
One
appeasing
public
opinion
alone
is
not
is
insufficient
justification.
L
L
Another
thing
to
be
in
mind,
mindful
of
is
that
pensions
are
awarded
for
faithful
and
conscientious
service.
The
forfeiture
is
appropriate
for
a
breach
of
public
trust.
This
is
a
a
theory
of
a
pension
consideration
that
the
courts
have
upheld,
that
for
pensions
that
violate
faithful
and
conscientious
service.
The
forfeiture
for
the
breach
of
trust
is
appropriate.
L
Another
thing
to
keep
in
mind
in
terms
of
guardrail,
set
by
case
law,
is
that
the
felonious
or
treasonous
act
must
occur
before
retirement.
So
this
goes
to
mr
storm's
question
earlier
today,
which
is
that
what
is
the
timing
of
things
here
so
to
to
put
a
finer
point
on
it?
There
are
three
keep
time
periods
or
three
key
markers
in
time
that
the
board
must
take
into
consideration.
L
L
L
That
sort
of
conduct
is
subject
to
the
board's
discretion
under
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
Now
take
another
example
to
demonstrate
the
flip
side
of
things
say:
the
felonious
retreats
and
misconduct
occurred
after
the
member
is
in
retirement
status.
That
scenario
the
met.
The
board
is
without
authority
to
apply
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provisions
to
that
member,
because
the
california
supreme
court
has
long
held
that
if
a
member
is
already
in
retirement
and
commits
a
felony
going
forward
after
the
date
of
retirement,
that
is
not
fair
game.
L
L
Another
key
consideration
for
the
board
is
to
determine
whether
it
will
return
some
or
all
of
the
members
contributions
if
it
determines
that
it
will
forfeit
any
portion
of
their
benefits.
One
thing
to
keep
in
mind
with
that
is
you
know
with
our
san
jose
municipal
code
provision
for
survivor
and
death
benefits.
It
provides
that
those
benefits
are
unaffected
by
any
sort
of
forfeiture.
So
should
the
board
decide
to
forfeit
benefits,
we
would
still
need
to
consider
how
we
will
make
up
in
funding
to
fund
those
benefits.
L
And
for
a
point
of
comparison,
the
the
california
legislature
has
passed
the
public
employees,
pension
reform,
act
of
19
or
2013.,
sorry
known
as
pepper
for
those
less
familiar
with
the
law,
and
so
the
california
courts
have
consistently
held
that
the
pepper
pension
forfeiture
provisions
are
constitutional,
and
so
the
pepper
pension
forfeiture
provisions
provides
a
useful
guidance
for
the
board's
exercise
of
discretion
and
though
one
thing
I
would
caution,
the
board
is
that
the
pepper
provisions
are
not
binding,
but
they
are
persuasive
authority
and
so
take
that
into
consideration,
you're
not
bound
by
the
law
of
capra,
but
it
provides
a
useful
guide.
L
So
here
are
the
key
provisions
for
the
pepper
forfeiture
provisions.
One
is
the
type
of
conviction
in
the
pepper
felony
forfeiture
law.
It
provides
for
the
specific
type
of
qualifying
conviction,
so
it
limits
the
convictions
that
the
board
falls
within
the
board's
jurisdictions
to
those
that
are
job-related
and
involve
conduct
arising
out
of
in
the
or
in
the
performance
of
the
members
official
duties.
L
It
provides
that
the
forfeiture
forfeited
portion
of
the
member's
retirement
allowances
should
be
commensurate
with
the
felonious
conduct
that
the
member
was
convicted
and
it
provides
that
the
forfeiture
period
be
from
the
earliest
date
of
the
commission
of
the
convicted
felony
through
the
conviction
date.
So
that's
the
period
of
time
that
if
the
member
accrued
any
sort
of
service
credits
would
be
forfeited
in
their.
H
One
in
this
was
the
hipster
case
and
in
hipster
the
firefighter
was
running.
A
gambling
ring
out
of
the
firehouse
when
the
courts
decided
that
that
was
job
related.
It
involved
conduct
in
the
performance
of
his
official
duties
and
it
went
on
for
about
eight
years.
I
think,
and
so
the
forfeiture
period
was
that
period
that
he
was
committing
felonies
that
he
was
later
convicted
for,
while
he
should
have
been
giving
honest
services
to
this
to
the
county
of
los
angeles.
H
The
other
was
the
wilmot
case
that
maytag
has
talked
about,
and
we
were
involved
in
for
the
pension
system
on
that
one
wilma
was
also
a
firefighter
wilmot
for
a
period
of
12
years,
stole
property
guns,
axes,
equipment,
kitchen
utensils,
any
number
of
things.
For
12
years.
He
stole
property
out
of
the
firehouse
that
he
was
assigned
to
the
court
again
found
that
that
was
a
job-related
felony.
H
So
those
are
two
recent
key
examples
of
what
we're
talking
about.
When
we
talk
about
what
what?
What
is
the
nature
of
the
conviction?
Was
it
related
to
job
or
did
it
arise
out
of
something
totally
unconnected
with
the
job
and
what
was
the
period
during
which
they
were
employed
that
the
felonious
activity
took
place
during?
H
Was
it
a
year?
Was
it
two
years?
Was
it
four
years?
Those
are
the
factors
that
we're
talking
about
in
the
first
two
bullet
points
on
this
slide.
Thanks
mate.
L
Yeah
and
and
to
reiterate
harvey's
point
here:
the
type
of
convictions,
although
the
peppered
statue
itself
makes
fairly
clear
that
the
conviction
must
be
job
related
and
involve
conduct
arising
out
of
or
in
the
performance
of
their
official
duties.
The
job-relatedness
issue
is
often
a
key
issue:
that's
litigated!
L
In
these
cases,
so,
for
example,
we
had
another
case
called
bustamante
where
it
was
a
sexual
harassment
case
where
it
was
off
hours,
but
on
property
premises,
and
so
that
that
issue
is
often
litigated
and
is
within
the
board's
discretion
to
determine
whether
or
not
for
for
public
pension
boards
governed
under
pepra
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
conviction
was
job
related.
L
That's
one
of
the
key
factual
findings
that
the
board
must
make
so
moving
on
here
to
another
key
provision
in
the
text
of
the
pepper
statute
is
refund
of
member
contributions.
L
Unlike
our
provisions
in
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
that's
completely
silent
on
whether
and
how
to
deal
with
member
contributions.
Should
the
board
decide
to
forfeit
contrary
to
that,
the
pepper
statute
provides
very
explicit
terms
of
what
to
do
under
the
pepper
provisions.
The
employee
contributions
collected
for
the
forfeited
years
of
service
are
refunded
to
the
member,
and
any
amount
of
funds
returned
to
the
member
shall
be
transferred
to
an
account
of
the
member
in
a
con
manner
consistent
with
the
internal
revenue
code.
L
Another
key
provision
of
pepra
stated
in
his
actual
text
of
the
statute
is
that
a
reduction
in
sentence
or
later
expungement
of
the
conviction
does
not
affect
the
pension
rights
that
were
forfeited.
The
pension
rights
in
terms
of
the
service
years
remain
forfeited,
even
if
the
member
is
later
receives
a
reduction
in
sentence
or
has
the
cr
the
felony
or
treason,
conviction
expunged
from
their
record.
L
The
only
instance
provided
in
the
text
of
the
pepper
statute
that
deals
with
returning
any
sort
of
unwinding
and
forfeited
benefits
is
only
upon
the
final
reversal
of
a
conviction,
meaning
the
the
member
must
have
received
a
final
reversal
of
their
felony
conviction
before
the
public
retirement
system
can
unwind
any
sort
of
forfeiture
that
they
have
applied,
and
so
it
provides
that
what
to
do
with
the
redeposits.
L
How
to
it
recommends
to
the
board
to
work
with
the
actuaries,
to
make
sure
that
the
return
of
contribution
is
accurately
sound
and
to
restore
their
benefits,
and
what
to
do.
In
that
instance,.
L
And
here
is
what
I
think,
in
my
mind,
are
the
required
findings
for
the
board's
exercise
of
discretion.
Think
of
these
as
threshold
matters
that
the
board
must
determine
before
it
can
go
into
any
sort
of
discretionary
considerations.
The
required
findings
are
one
that
the
member
was
indeed
convicted
of
a
felony
or
treason.
It's
not
enough
to
be
charged
with
a
felony
or
charged
with
the
with
treason.
It
must
be
a
conviction,
so
the
board
before
it
can
even
exercise
this
discretion
must
meet
this
first
requirement.
L
The
second
required
finding,
as
I
mentioned
before,
is
related
to
the
timing
of
the
conduct.
The
convicted
conduct
must
have
occurred
before
the
member
attained
retirement
status,
so
anything
the
member
did
before
it.
He
or
she
obtained
retirement
status
is
fair
game.
Anything
that
occurred
after
the
member
achieves
retirement
status
is
beyond
the
board's
authority
and
then,
if
the
board
decides
yes
on
both
these
two
findings
at
one
the
member
was
convicted
of
a
felony
or
treason,
and
the
convicted
conduct
occurred
before
retirement
status.
Then
the
board
can
go
into
these
discretionary
considerations.
L
Three
equitable
considerations,
such
as
the
gravity
of
the
felony
or
treason
misconduct,
the
passage
of
time,
whether
the
member
has
served
their
punishment,
the
members,
health
and
financial
conditions,
etc.
This
is
not
a
full
list
of
equitable
considerations,
but
these
are
some
of
them
that
come
to
mind.
When
I
think
about
this
issue
and
for
whether
all
or
report
a
portion
of
the
service
or
disability
retirement
allowance
should
be
canceled
and
terminated
and
effective
as
of
what
date.
So
this
this
discretionary
consideration
goes
to
trustee
wilson's
question
earlier
today.
L
Regarding
do
we
have
to
do
all
a
portion?
What
what
is
the
reduction?
That's
within
the
board's
discretion,
five,
whether
to
return
member
contributions
and,
if
so,
and
what
amount
and
with
or
without
interest,
that's
within
the
board's
discretion
to
do
and
six
how
to
fund
survivor
or
death
benefits?
That
may
be
due
if
member
contributions
are
returned
now
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provides
that
survivor
and
death
benefits
remain
unaffected
if
otherwise
payable.
L
L
The
boards
exercises
discretion
as
applied
to
spouses
and
mind
dependent
minors.
The
san
jose
municipal
code
provides
express
text
on
what
to
do
in
those
circumstances
and
what
standard
the
board
shall
apply
again.
The
board
has
the
discretion
to
continue
to
award
a
member
spouse
and
or
dependent
minor
the
forfeited
benefits
if
two
requirements
must
be
met,
one
the
applications
made
to
the
board
for
such
payment
and
two
that
the
payment
is
required
for
the
necessities
of
life
for
the
spouse
and
or
the
minor
dependent.
L
B
Oh
sorry,
I
was
on
mute,
so
floor
is
open
for
trustees,
harvey
roberto
too
any
questions.
My
my
reading
of
this
I've
I've
sent
you
miss.
Maytag
is
oh
great.
We
have
absolute
authority.
We
can
do
anything
we
want,
which
probably
makes
our
meeting
next
month
a
lot
tougher.
Any
questions
comments
from
any
of
the
trustees.
M
Drew
this
andrew,
I
got
a
question
yeah
maytag,
so
back
to
slide
12
the
last
one
that
you
discussed
and
it
actually
sort
of
coincides
with
slide
five
in
regards
to
what
it
talks
about
the
medicinal
code
and
what
spouses
could
potentially
get
if
these
two
criterias
are
met
on
slide
12..
So
my
question
is:
is
there?
Is
there
a
history
or
case
study
that
that
ex
that
talks
about
what
the
spouse
would
get?
M
M
Is
there
any
language
or
talk
that
that
delves
into
that.
L
No
it's
the
answer,
because
the
san
jose
municipal
code
provides
specifically
that
these
are
the
two
requirements,
and
so
I,
as
far
as
I
understand
there,
has
been
no
case
a
published
case
law
that
has
applied
this
forfeiture
provision
at
all,
so
there's
no
case
law
on
whether
or
not
and
how
to
determine
necessities
of
life,
for
example
as
the
standard
under
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
L
But
that
being
said,
you
know
how
much
what
formula
you
know,
what
the
what
the
spouse
and
or
dependent
minor
need
is
within
the
discretion
of
the
board
so
and
it
would
be
based
on
the
showing
that
the
spouse
or
the
dependent
minor
puts
forward.
B
Any
other
trustees
harvey
roberto
anybody's
staff
on
the
way
in
anything.
G
Mr
chair,
dick
santa
just
a
comment:
I've
had
these
conversations
in
the
past
the
years
with
harvey
and
he's.
Given
me
examples
that
he's
been
through
and
his
knowledge,
I
sure
appreciate
it
and
today
maytag.
Thank
you
both
for
your
due
diligence.
G
Prior
to
this
meeting,
I
had
a
lot
of
tension
and
apprehension
because
I've
never
been
involved
with
it
and
all
the
tenure
that
I
have
been
on
the
board,
but
you've
really
helped
me
to
be
able
to
make
better
decisions
because
of
the
thorough
research.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
very
much.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
dick.
You
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
for
the
board
is
to
give
you
the
skeleton
of
what
is
possible
to
consider
in
exercising
your
judgment
on
these
things,
and
the
judgment
is
broad,
but
there
are
some
guidance
at
the
time
of
any
consideration.
The
hearing
that
we
have
to
consider
this,
that's
when
the
meat
and
the
flesh
and
the
muscle
will
be
put
on
the
skeleton.
H
This
is
more
of
a
almost
a
checklist
if
you
will
of
considerations
that
you're
able
to
make
and
things
to
look
for
when
the
proceeding
comes
before
you
and-
and
you
can
use
this
also
to
ask
questions
at
that
time
of
council
and
members
and
their
council,
so
that
you
have
a
full
picture
of
those
that
skeleton
elements
that
you
want
to
consider.
H
Part
of
this
is
also
to
demonstrate,
remember
we're
trying
to
demonstrate
that
the
board
is
exercising
its
judgment
dispassionately
and
fairly
in
an
open
process
that
is
based
on
facts,
not
on
passion
and
so
we're
trying
to
give
you
the
checklist
of
facts
for
you
to
consider
and
ask
for
and
to
explore
at
the
time.
One
of
these
things
come
before
you,
so
I
hope
you
find
it
useful
in
that
regard
and
if
there
are
gaps
we'll
help
you
fill
in
the
gaps
as
well.
H
This
is
a
process
by
which
the
board
has
been
granted
broad
authority,
but
not
unfettered
authority.
So
we're
going
to
keep
you
inside
the
chalk
lines,
but
what
you
know
the
torture,
the
metaphor,
what
what
play
you
call
is
going
to
be
based
on
the
conditions
on
the
field
that
you
see
them
at
the
time
hope
that's
helpful.
Thanks.
B
Sorry,
you
know
to
pay
a
compliment
back
to
you,
dick.
You
know.
You've
done
such
a
great
job
running
those
disability
committee
meetings
over
all
the
years
and,
as
I
said
earlier
and
before
this
notion
of
due
process
is
not
something
our
board
sees
often,
but
it's
something
that
dick
adheres
to,
along
with
the
help
of
council
recada
at
all
the
disability
committee
meetings.
They
are
run
they
they
can
bring
witnesses
they're,
given
due
notice
and
so
on.
B
So
while
it's
felony
forfeiture
is
new
to
us
due
process,
dick
you've
done
such
a
good
job
with
disability
committee.
We've
got
a
good
stage
here
on
which
to
act.
Any
other
trustees
want
to
weigh
in.
L
Actually,
chair
alonzo,
if
I
may
respond,
I
just
had
to
ask
your
thoughts,
trustee
gardner's
question.
One
thing
that
going
back
to
the
board's
discretion.
You
know
there
is
no
case
law
that
has
been
published
with
regards
to
the
spouse
or
the
minor,
or
that
how
the
boards
exercise
its
discretion,
specifically
under
the
san
jose
municipal
code
to
any
members
either
now
one
thing
I
will
caution
the
board
going
back
to.
I
believe
it
will
slide
here.
We
go
slide.
Four.
L
Is
that
whatever
exercise
of
discretion,
the
board
does
any
action
the
board
takes
will
be
judged
under
this
abusive
discretion
standards,
so
any
sort
of
benefits
provided
or
taken
away
must
not
must
be
supported
with
evidence.
It
must
be
supported
based
on
evidence
provided
to
the
board
and
based
on
the
record
before
the
board.
If,
if
it's
not,
then
there
may
be
room
for
an
argument
of
abusive
discretion
that
there's
no
evidentiary
support
for
the
board
to
make
that
determination.
B
B
L
L
There
must
be
evidence
provided
in
the
record
before
the
board,
to
determine
the
necessities
of
life
for
the
spousal
and
or
the
minor
for
the
board
to
decide
to
exercise
its
discretion
to
continue
to
award
public
retirement
benefits
to
the
spouse
or
the
minor,
even
if,
in
the
circumstance
that
it
has
applied.
The
forfeiture
to
the
member.
M
Now
this
let
me
tag
this.
That
makes
all
sense,
and
I
definitely
appreciate
what
you
and
harvey
have
done
here
and
presented
here.
You
know
as
harvey
was
saying,
this
is
just
providing
the
skeleton
and,
and
we
we
all
know
that
each
case
is
going
to
be
completely
different
and
we
have
to
take
them
independently,
and
so,
if
we're
trying
to
put
a
lot
of
guard
rails
in
well,
it's
unfortunate.
We
can't
do
that,
but
I
think
what
you
have
provided
here
is
you
know
some
criteria
that
we
have
to.
M
You
know
jump
over
and
then
all
the
then
other
criteria
is
to
consider
when
making
a
decision,
and
I
think
this
spells
it
out
pretty
well.
So
thank
you.
D
A
Is
this
is
howard,
maytag
and
harvey?
Thank
you
very
much.
This
has
been
very
educational
and
very
comprehensive
maytag.
Going
back
to
that
slide,
which
I
thought
was
pretty
important
in
terms
of
the
criteria
which
is
evidentiary
support
and
then
the
other
part
that's
mentioned
there
is
that
conforming
to
the
procedures
as
required
by
law.
So
I
guess
mike
my
question
here
is
you
you
mentioned
the
guard
rails.
You
mentioned
pepper
and
guidelines
are
guidelines,
the
same
thing
as
conforming
to
procedures
required
by
law.
L
No,
this
part
here
conformed
to
procedures
required
by
law,
is
to
do
process
issues
that
we
had
addressed
in
item
three
b
earlier
today.
So
the
procedures
here
are
a
procedural
due
process.
L
And
then,
in
terms
of
your
other
question,
in
terms
of
you
know,
I
think
tell
me
if
I'm
misunderstanding
you,
but,
for
example,
there's
case
law
out
there
about
pepper
and
what
pepper
means
and
the
law
of
pepper,
for
example,
is
binding.
It's
not
binding
on
this
board.
It's
discretionary.
It
could
be
persuasive
authority
that
the
board
may
consider
okay.
So,
even
though
it's
a
law
out
there,
it's
not
binding
on
this
board.
A
Okay,
I
understand,
and
and
and
I
and
I
guess
I'm
not
aware
of
the
main
meeting
is-
is
there
going
to
be
a
a
presentation
of
of
some
sort
of
issue?
That's
related
to
this.
L
There
are
two
members
that
we
have
notified
and
been
working
with
their
counsel
about
the
board's
potential
application
of
these
two
felony
for
of
the
service
retirement
felony
forfeiture
provision,
I'm
not
at
liberty
to
speak
of
any
more
than
that.
A
I
Hi
ray
storms
again,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
of
miss
chin
and
mr
leaderman
excellent
job
on
what
I
see
so
far.
My
other
question
would
be
how
far
back
do
you
go?
I
L
So,
unlike
the
papr
statute
in
the
pepper
statute,
the
employer
has
an
affirmative
duty
to
notify
the
public
retirement
board
of
any
felony
that
falls
within
the
purview
of
the
statute.
The
senate,
san
jose
municipal
code,
does
not
provide
any
sort
of
reporting
requirement
to
the
board
of
any
sort
of
felony
conviction.
L
Now,
the
in
terms
of
how
far
back
we
go.
I
think
that,
to
the
extent
the
board
becomes
aware
of
a
felony
conviction
falling
within
the
terms
of
the
statute.
It
is
incumbent
on
the
board
to
consider
that
case,
but
the
board
is
under
no
obligation
to
go
back
and
create
a
project
and
do
an
investigation
of
cases
in
the
past
now
moving
forward,
the
board
may
decide
to
take
some
sort
of
administrative
action
to
gather
information
from
new
retirees,
but
that
remains
to
be
seen.
L
So
it
may
be
that
the
board
may
consider,
for
example,
including
on
the
service
retirement
application,
whether
or
not
a
member
has
been
convicted
of
a
felony.
L
H
Well,
I
know
we
don't
get
noticed
right
now
of
there's
no
mechanism
to
notify
the
board
and
trigger
this
process.
H
But
it's
certainly
the
length
of
time
is
one
of
those
equitable
considerations
that
the
board
can
take
account
of
when
it's
deciding
whether
it's
fair
and
reasonable,
under
the
circumstances
to
forfeit
someone's
pension
years
into
their
retirement.
Certainly
that's
within
the
board's
authority
to
to
consider
the
evidence.
I
On
that
yeah,
you
answered
one
of
my
questions
earlier
about
that
had
to
happen
during
your
career
prior
to
retiring.
So
that's
going
to
put
a
lot
of
my
retirees
at
ease
in
case
they
mess
up
later
in
life
after
they've
retired.
Then.
The
other
question,
like
I
said,
was
how
far
back
do
you
go?
Yeah,
I'm
gonna
mention
one
thing
that
was
said.
I
Or
written
in
the
notes
at
the
last
meeting,
and
it
was
that
the
stakeholders
should
be
involved
or
contacted,
I
forgot
how
the
wording
was
just
let
you
know
nobody
ever
contacted
me
after
a
after
meeting
last
month.
I
was
not
contacted
for
discussion
or
input.
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there,
because,
if
we're
going
to
do
these
things-
and
we
make
a
statement
that
there's
going
to
be
contact,
there
should
be
that's
all,
not
a
problem.
I
don't
know
who
I
don't
know
who
should
have
or
was
supposed
to.
I
But
if
you
go
back
to
the
notes
or
it
it's
in
there-
and
I
was
kind
of
surprised
that
I
hadn't
heard
anything
and
I
got
on
on
to
look
at
the
agenda-
knew
it
was
coming.
I
knew
it
was
coming
this
month,
so
I
went
and
went
through
and
looked
at
everything
with
the
prep
work,
and
I
appreciate
all
that
work
that
you
you
two
did
it's.
I
B
Thank
you.
So
one
of
the
reasons
I
really
like
you
raised
you're,
really
smart
guy
and
that
that
question
is
what's
been
weighing
on
my
mind
and
it's
why
I
did
that
can
should
and
will
thing
you
know
ray
over
the
summer.
It
wouldn't
surprise
me
and
I'm
not
saying
ruler,
wouldn't
surprise
me.
If
the
board
came
back
in
the
wake
of
the
hearing
and
and
wrote
down
some
guidelines
around,
should
you
know
we
might
decide,
I'm
not
saying
well,
we
might
decide
you
know
it's.
I
failed
as
franco
or
dave
said
you
know.
B
We
don't
think
the
board
should
hear
those
cases
in
the
future
or
if
it
does
hear
them
it
should
it
should
be
lenient
because
again,
as
I
keyed
this
up
and
it's
maytag
shown
we've
enormous
authority
here-
and
I
think
that
means
part
of
our
responsibility
should
be
to
signal-
and
I
think
your
smartray,
how
we'll
use
those
authority-
I
don't
know
what
the
people
have
done
this
time.
I
don't
know
if
it's
jaywalking
or
murder,
I
haven't
heard
right,
but
right,
you're,
right,
there's,
probably
something
coming
in
the
future.
B
B
Yeah
and
we'll
loop,
the
members
in
obviously
on
that
discussion.
You
know
if
you
hear
from
your
members
some
of
the
concerns.
Like
you
just
said,
I
I
think
it's
it's
relevant
because
I
could
see
a
feeding
frenzy
starting
in
the
wake
of
this,
and
nobody
wants
that.
I
don't
know
if
maytag
or
harvey
you
want
to
weigh
in
and
tell
me
heads
across
the
line,
but
that's
my
thinking.
L
Well,
I
think
if
it's
a
qualif,
well,
here's
one
thing.
I
want
to
make
sure
I
made
clear
to
the
board.
You
know
when,
when
the
matters
come,
these
are
complicated
matters
and
they're,
very
fact
intensive
and
there's
a
lot
at
stake,
but
for
the
member-
and
so
you
know
the
board
when
a
matter
comes
before
the
board
at
a
particular
meeting,
the
board
is
not
required
to
render
a
decision
at
that
meeting.
L
The
board
may
consider
it
if
it
needs
further
investigation,
they
can
defer
the
matter
and
the
members
can
come
back
and
you
know
plan
council
could
come
back
with
any
information
or
further
investigation
or
legal
research
on
an
issue.
It
should
not
be
a
hasty
procedure
that
or
proceeding
excuse
me
that
the
board
should
undertake.
B
Well,
I'm
sure
what
baytech,
when
you
write
your
memoirs
in
20
years,
you're
going
to
point
out.
This
is
how
you
spent
the
last
12
months
of
kovid
was
working
on
this
yeah
yeah
floor's
still
open,
and
he
there's
no
vote
here.
As
maytag
said.
Any
more
comments.
N
Great,
thank
you.
It's
matt
tuttle,
I'm
president
with
local
230.
N
The
what
I'd
like
to
bring
up
is
more
not
sure
if
it's
kind
of
the
right
time
right
place
and
it's
more
of
a
hypothetical,
but
I
think
it's
a
an
issue
that
we're
rapidly
approaching
in
the
fire
service
that
may
become
a
future
concern
for
the
retirement
board,
but
currently
the
state
utilizes,
convict
crews,
so
folks
that
are
currently
incarcerated
on
a
variety
of
different
charges,
some
even
including
felonies,
but
there's
been
movement
at
the
state
level
to
create
pathways
for
these
individuals
to
get
hired
by
full-time
fire
agencies.
N
Once
you
know
upon
their
release,
how
that
specifically
is
going
to
look
in
the
future.
That's
that's
anybody's
guess,
but
I
think
the
reality
that
we're
starting
to
live
in
is
would
we
potentially
have
a
a
felon
that
gets
hired
by
the
san
jose
fire
department
in
in
the
future
and
how
would
their
you
know,
retirement
look?
How
would
would
they
go
through
the
same
type
of
procedure
for
review?
N
You
know
I.
I
there's
there's
probably
there's
a
lot
of
different
what
ifs
that
you
can
throw
into
it,
but
the
fact
that
we're
kind
of
seeing
it
as
as
as
a
strong
possibility,
moving
forward.
How
would
it
get
handled
by
the
retirement
board?
N
So
I
think
it's
more
of
it,
it's
more
of
a
throwing
it
out
there
and
making
you
all
aware
of
it,
rather
than
a
demand
for
a
an
immediate
answer,
or
anything
like
that,
so
whether
there's
case
law
on
this
or
or
whether
it
has
happened,
I
can't
say
for
sure,
since
typically
our
background
investigations
are
pretty
stringent
but
but
yeah.
I
I
just
want
to
also
just
take
the
chance
to
thank
you
all,
because
this
is
not
an
easy
undertaking
to
to
do
at
all.
So
thank
you.
L
Thank
you,
mr
tuttle.
In
response
to
that,
you
know
that
that
sort
of
consideration
fact
pattern
would
fall
under
discretionary
considerations,
and
so
one
of
the
discretionary
considerations
is
faithful
service,
while
employed
with
the
city
of
san
jose.
So
if
it
was
a
felony
that
occurred
before
employment
that
was
totally
unrelated
to
their
employment
period
with
the
city
of
san
jose,
the
board
may
exercise
its
discretion
to
determine
whether
or
not
to
grant
or
allow
those
services.
Those
years.
B
Yeah
sounds
like
that
touches
on
what
I
just
mentioned
too,
and
you
know,
can
we
put
out
some
guidelines,
we're
not
saying
we'll
ruin,
but
that's
exactly
on
the
questions
where
you
might
say
you
know
we
we
we're
talking
to
these
guys
we
might
hire
them.
B
Can
you
give
us
some
assurances
you're
not
going
to
come
after
them
in
the
future
and
and
while
we
don't
want
to
bind
future
boards,
I
think
we
can
write
some
some
logical
statements
that
our
council
says
make
sense
and
we
vote
on
that
future
boards,
hopefully,
will
take
into
account.
There's
always
this
this
dangerous
thing.
You
never
want
to
really
bind
a
future
board,
but
it's
okay
to
give
them
wisdom
from
the
past.
I
don't
know
harvey
may
tell
him
if
you
don't
weigh
in
on
that.
L
H
I
think
the
same
reasoning
and
the
wallace
decision
from
the
supreme
court
that
applied
there
to
post-retirement
would
apply
to
pre-retirement
as
as
well.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
case.
That's
come
down
on
that,
but
how
contrary
would
that
be
to
the
idea
of
a
fresh
start
for
someone
who
may
have
been
convicted
previously
to
then
saddle
them
with
this
threat
that
they
get
a
fresh
start
with
the
city
of
san
jose
and
work
in
safety
and
20
years
later,
the
benefit
they
thought
they
were
going
to
earn
is
taken
away
from
them.
H
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
the
one
handling
that
particular
man.
B
Yeah
floors
still
open
anybody,
public
trustees,
anybody.
A
Yeah
dick
this
is
franco:
oh
good,
franco
yeah.
I
just
you
know.
I
I
understand
that
it's
going
to
be
our
responsibility
here,
but
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
important
for
local
230,
the
poa
and
the
retirees
association
to
have
some
conversations
amongst
themselves
and
with
the
city
then
maybe
present
us
with
you
know
some
a
guide
or
some
you
know
basic
concepts
on
how
they
believe
this
should
apply,
and
then
that's
really
where
we're
gonna.
You
know
begin
to
start
discussing
this
stuff.
B
A
Just
follow
up
with
andrew,
you
know
for
local
230,
obviously,
and
then
you
know
we'll
lose.
B
Well,
yeah,
you
know
you
and
I
talked
to
dave
and
you
and
I
briefly
in
san
diego
about
this
and
boards
are
made
of
constituent
representatives
and
you
guys
represent
our
members,
and
so
your
voice
in
this
discussion
is
significant.
I
suspect
you
know
we're
representing
the
system.
That's
our
fiduciary
duty.
You
are
too,
you
know,
but
we're
also,
I
guess
to
some
extent
we
represent
the
citizens,
the
taxpayers,
and
so
I
think,
yeah.
I
think
all
these
voices
need
to
be
heard,
including
you
know,
the
voice
counsel
for
them.
B
I
think
maytag
and
harvey
done
a
great
job
of
of
lining
this
up
as
about
a
thousand
flowers
bloom,
while
also
saying,
but
it's
our
fiduciary
duty
and
we
have
great
latitude
for
how
we
exercise
it.
I
like
that
dichotomy
may
tech
that
that
we're
listening
to
everything
and
we're
and
but
we're
retaining
the
right
to
do
as
as
we
will
right
is
that
well
said.
L
That's
under
the
current
municipal
code
statute,
so
if
the
san
jose
municipal
code,
as
it
currently
right
is
written,
is
that
the
board,
the
board
alone
has
a
sole
discretion
in
determining
whether
and
how
to
apply
the
cancellation,
determination
of
the
of
a
member's
retirement
allowance
based
on
convicted
felony
or
treason.
L
Now,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
this
authority
is
delegated
to
the
board
by
the
san
jose
municipal
code.
Should
the
unions
in
the
city
want
to
provide
guidance
on
how
the
board
should
exercise
its
discretion,
it
will
need
to
amend
the
municipal
code
provisions
that
govern
this
board
because
because,
as
it
stands
now,
the
board
has
a
sole
discretion
based
on
the
language
there
on
how
it
will
exercise
that
discretion.
B
L
Yes,
we
can
consider
it:
it's
not
binding,
it's
persuasive
information
if
the
guidelines
were
provided,
but
if
the
guidelines
were,
for
example,
agreed
to
through
bargain
bargaining
negotiations
and
amended
into
the
statute,
then
we
that
that
would
be
a
different
conversation.
H
B
Great
but
let's
let
those
be
the
last
words
we
heard
for
count
from
councilwoman
foley's
office
that
she's
traveling,
so
we've
only
got
three
items
left
and
they're.
All
yours
roberto
once
got
drives
through
4a,
4e
and
4f.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
going
to
start
with
my
other
report,
so
let
me
just
start
with
something
that
is
very
important
to
the
police
of
fire.
We
have
remembers
the
medicare
part
b,
reimbursement
project
which
deadline
was
april
first
for
eligible
police
and
fire
retirees
to
submit
applications
for
reimbursement
came
to
an
end
right
and
then,
on
april
1st
we
received
about
780
applications
about
600
of
those
have
already
been
processed
in
the
march
on
april
payrolls.
C
There
are
about
180
of
those
reimbursements
left
to
be
processed,
which
we
expect
them
to
be
processed
in
the
month
of
may.
So,
if
any
of
you
trustees
here
from
a
member
that
is
waiting
for
the
reimbursement,
some
are
going
to
be
coming
through
in
april,
the
rest
will
be
in
may
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
the
quality
newsletter
is
forthcoming.
It
should
be
going
on
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks
and
we
are
addressing
a
couple
of
issues.
C
The
newsletter
addresses
the
most
recent
valuations
and
the
evaluations,
audits,
the
investment
market
and
and
the
exposure
to
russia,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
we
had
as
an
office
a
kickoff.
A
hybrid
approach
or
having
staff
in
the
office
two
days
a
week,
obviously
we're
going
to
continue
keeping
track
of
the
pandemic,
and
although
the
office
is
actually
close
at
this
point,
we
do
open
the
door
for
members
that
come
in
from
time
to
time,
and,
of
course
we
continue
our
core
services
and
encourage
members
to
make
virtual
appointments
as
much
as
possible.
C
But
again
we
are.
We
have
staff
at
the
office,
in
fact
prabhu
and
I
are
taking
our
boy
meetings
from
the
office
every
month.
C
I
suspect
that
this
approach
is
going
to
continue
for
the
time
being
and
then
we're
going
to
revisit
this,
probably
most
likely
in
the
month
of
may
and
where
we
could
then
taking
next
steps
to
not
only
the
the
hybrid
approach
with
that,
but
also
the
eventual
opening
for
the
office
to
the
public
again,
assuming
that
there
are
not
new
cases
so
increases
cover
related.
I
also
wanted
to
share
the
good
news
that
we
do.
C
We
did
have
a
hire,
a
new
network,
technician
that
started
working
with
us
last
month
on
march
21st.
In
addition,
the
the
it
manager
interview
process
is
continuing.
I
think
at
that,
at
this
point
we're
hoping
that
we're
getting
to
the
end
of
the
process
and
we
are
obviously
making
a
decision
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we
can
reach
out
and
hear
from
improved
from
people
outside
the
office
on
private
experience
for
the
members
or
the
potential
candidates
that
we're
thinking
about.
C
Unfortunately,
in
terms
of
personnel,
we
also
just
recently
lost
an
account
clerk
in
accounting
who
was
running,
among
other
things,
making
sure
that
paychecks
went
out
for
the
retirees
and
the
payroll
for
the
office.
So
we
are
going
to
kick
off
that
recumbent
process
soon
and
in
terms
of
personnel.
Lastly,
we
are
welcoming
two
new
benefit
staff
to
the
office
with
a
very
good
experience,
one
which
actually
have
experience
with
the
united
nation
pension
fund.
So
their
name
are
tracy
tanner
and
tara
tran.
C
C
I
also
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
the
city
revised
the
masking
policy,
and
so
they
have
the
city
has
lifted
the
mandatory
masking
for
employees
and
guessing
facilities,
although
they
strongly
encourage
them
to
for
employees
and
visitors
indoors
to
wear
them
whenever
possible,
but
it's
not
required,
and
I
think
that
actually
concludes.
Oh.
C
I
want
wanted,
lastly,
wanted
to
mention
to
you
that
early
march
after
your
last
board
meeting
prabhu
and
I
attended
the
calipers
general
assembly,
and
so
did
you
chair
as
a
director
with
the
calipers
board,
I
was
moderating
a
particular
presentation
at
the
assembly
which
have
to
do
with
excuse
me
delegation
to
investment
staff,
and
so
we
have
members
from
various
boards
across
the
state
and
cios
and
a
consultant
to
speak
about
the
experience
and
in
terms
of
that
we
had
prabhupalani
our
cio
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
san
jose
experience
as
well
as
you
chair,
drew
lance.
C
B
Let
me
let
me
jump
in
real
quick.
Do
you
think
we're
going
to
be
back
in
person
for
the
may
board
meeting?
Is
that
your
read
right
now.
C
No,
I
do
not
actually
I
defer
to
council,
but
I
think,
as
as
you
know,
we
have
come
to
learn
about.
Maytag's,
show
the
assembly
building
361
that
what
does
a
proof
today
that
would
allow
us
may
think
if
I
misspeak
here,
please
correct
me
once
you
approve
that
today
it
will
allow
your
board
to
have
your
main
meeting
virtually.
Is
that
correct
maytag?
C
That
is
correct?
Yes,
and
so
I
I
fully
expect
unless
something
happens
in
the
next
30
minutes,
that
the
main
meeting
will
be
virtual,
and
actually
I
did
speak
to
council
yesterday.
I
don't
have
any
any
concrete
decision
on
the
matter,
but
from
meetings
that
I
have
had
at
the
city
level,
it
looks
unless
there
are
some
strong
changes
coming
from
the
state
down
to
a
city,
government
and
other
areas.
C
It
appears
that
it
is
likely
that
your
board
meetings
will
continue
virtually
through
june
and
most
likely
come
back
in
person
in
echoes
again,
I
I
can't
emphasize
enough.
That
is
my
understanding
right
now.
That's
the
way
it
looks.
Obviously,
we
will
keep
you
posted,
but
suffice
to
say
that
at
least
for
your
main
meeting
once
you
approve
ab361
this
morning,
it
will
be
a
virtual
meeting.
B
L
Well,
you
know
this
has
been
pending
for
the
members
for
quite
some
time.
I
do
think
we
owe
it
to
them
to
give
them
some
sort
of
confirmation
either
one
way
or
the
other
having
this
looming
over
their
head
has
been.
You
know,
understandably
troublesome
it
could
be
perceived
as
such
I've
been
working
very
closely
with
their
counsel
to
meet
and
confer
on
dates
that
are
available
to
council
as
well
as
the
board,
and
given
that
the
board
takes
recess
in
july.
L
I
do
believe
that
having
the
meeting
in
may,
as
agreed
to
through
meeting
confer
with
their
counsel,
is
appropriate
now
regarding
whether
or
not
to
meet
in
person
at
that
may
meeting
really
depends
on
how
covert
behaves.
I
don't
know
for
certain
how
it's
behaving
in
santa
clara
county,
but
at
least
in
new
york
there
is
an
uptick
of
code
cases,
so
you
know,
I
can't
really
tell
you
if
it's
safe
or
not
to
come
back
in
bay.
B
So
maytag
would
it
make
sense
to
postpone
the
decision
on
ab361
or
do
it
now
and
maybe
countermand
it
with
an
in-person
meeting?
If,
if
we
vote
on
navy
361,
can
we
counter-mandate
later.
L
Yeah
you
can
ab361
just
provides
you
the
election,
an
option
to
utilize
its
abbreviated
teleconferencing
procedures.
It
does
not
require.
F
B
C
Yes,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
if,
if
for
some
reason,
the
board
do
elect
to
have
this
as
a
in-person
meeting,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
are
able
to
have
it
at
the
usual
location
at
the
city,
because
they're
sort
of
working
making
some
maintenance
and
doing
some
work.
C
I
think
with
understanding
and
again
I
can't
speak
for
the
city
that
they
may
be
coming
to
have
personal
meetings
in
august,
so
they
said
a
good
chance
that
if
we
cannot
meet
at
the
city
location,
we
will
then
have
to
meet
at
our
offices.
So
but
again
I
I
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from,
I
think
from
a
I
think
from
an
administrative
standpoint.
C
I
don't
think
it
will
make
a
difference,
whether
it's
virtual
or
in
person,
but
I
certainly
respect
the
board's
decision
or
whatever
they
would
like
to
do.
I
I
also
would
like
to
know,
I
think,
maytag
you
can
correct
me
because
I
don't
remember
know
that
I'm
asking
you
to
tell
me
the
member's
addresses,
but
are
they
close
by
that
they
can
drive
to
san
jose
with
no
problems
or
they're
far
away.
L
That
that
I'm
not
certain,
I'm
not
certain
where
their
current
locations
are,
and
I
in
in
terms
of
the
question
of
whether
or
not
it
should
be
in
person
or
not
at
the
main
meeting.
We
do
need
to
meet
and
confer
with
their
council,
because
I'm.
L
What
their
comfort
is
for
an
in-person
meeting
so
far
to
date,
we've
only
discussed
zoom,
given
the
current
state
of
the
pandemic.
C
Yeah
I
mean
mr
chair.
We
certainly
will
entertain
whatever
the
board
decision
is.
Obviously
that's
what
we're
here
for,
but
if
I
may
respectfully,
I
would
recommend
that
we
consider
proceeding
on
a
zoom
approach
or
we'll
continue
change
that,
if
warranted
and
and
certainly
if
required,
that
would
be
my
recommendation,
but
certainly
I'm
open
to
a
different
view.
Yeah.
B
No,
no,
let's
go
and
do
that
worked
unless
the
trustees
run
away
in
I.
I
will
note
that
I'm
on
eight
or
nine
boards
now-
and
this
is
the
last
board-
that's
not
yet
meeting
in
person
so
and
it
in
person
is
a
little
bit
better.
Hey
floor
is
open.
Anybody
have
any
questions
on
this
issue
or
anything
else
for
roberto.
B
Oh
no
pam,
pam
pam
sent
us
a
note,
saying:
she's
traveling,
her
chief
of
staff
did
oh,
oh
c
in
4d.
No,
it's
fine,
you're,
fine,
so
yeah
we're
good
yeah.
She
said
senator.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
so
michelle,
if
you'll,
be
kind
enough,
see
that's
what
happens
when
you
plan
ahead.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
michelle.
So
sorry,.
C
And
so,
as
you
are
aware,
over
time,
we
have
spoken
to
you
boar
about
some
of
the
requests
by
grant
thornton
on
increase,
reasonable
increases
to
the
agree,
contract
amount
and-
and
it
has
been
a
a
work
that
is
really
from
from
management
standpoint
and,
from
my
personal
standpoint,
a
a
balance
right
where
we
certainly
could
hold
the
fee
to
the
fire
and
ask
them
to
do
the
work
at
the
original
amount.
C
C
Especially
since
years
back,
there
were
still
quite
a
few
years
left
on
the
contract,
and
this
is
going
to
be
the
final
year.
So
here
we
are
on
with
a
contract
and
given
the
increases
that
we
have
approved
over
the
years
in
order
to
be
able
to
make
their
final
payments
for
the
audit
work
that
is
going
to
take
place
in
june
for
the
june
30
2022
on
audi.
We
need
to
come
to
you
board
and
request
an
increase
of
about
50
000
dollars
to
the
latest
balance
of
500
000.
C
We
actually
need
just
a
little
less
than
forty
thousand,
but
we
asking
you
an
additional
fifty
in
the
event
that
anything
comes
up
so
that
we
don't
have
to
come
back
before
you
board,
but
rest
assured
that
at
this
point
our
intention
is
to
only
pay
the
amount
that
it
is
included
in
the
contract
and
in
the
memo
up
to,
I
believe,
547,
37,
000
and
change.
C
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
specific
questions.
I
think
the
the
memo
is
very
self-explanatory
and
straightforward,
and
it
explained
the
the
the
need
for
the
increases,
so
at
least
the
explanation
for
the
increases
that
requested
over
the
years
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you,
mr
chair
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Thanks
floors,
open
trustees,
harvey
maytag
any
questions
on
this
for
roberto.
B
Anything
from
the
public,
if
not
I'll,
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
this
santos
approved.
Second,
do
I
have
a
second
second?
Will
great
I've
got
a
motion
by
santos
second
by
wilson,
let's
go
around
the
table
andrew.
B
Andrew
there
buddy
hi
sunita.
A
B
B
L
You
guys
this
may
be
one
of
the
last
me
tech
shows
there
is
so
enjoy
every
minute
of
it.
So
going
to
the
comments
earlier
today,
the
materials
that
I've
provided
to
you
as
of
today,
the
proclamation
from
the
governor
of
the
state
of
emergency
for
coba
19,
continues
to
be
in
place
and
as
of
may
or
april
5th,
the
city
council
continues
to
recommend
social
distancing
and
has
passed
a
resolution
to
that
effect.
B
H
B
A
B
On
I'm
somewhere
in
process
here,
hey
good,
pull
up
the
agenda.
Will
you
for
some
reason
I
can't
pull
up
the
attachment
great.
This
is
to
now
service
retirements
of
brian
p,
mcdonald,
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
april
16
2022
with
26.07
years
service
and
vernon
l,
todd
police
officer,
police
department,
effective
april
30th
2022
with
25.14
years
service
do
have
a
motion
to
approve
those
two
retirements
santos.
G
B
I've
got
a
motion
by
santos
second
by
gardner,
go
round
andrew.
How
do
you
vote
hi
sunisha?
How
do
you
vote.
A
A
Yeah,
this
is
wilson.
I
I
work
with
both
of
them
they're
both
outstanding
gentlemen,
mr
officer
mcdonald
actually
happens
to
be
a
director
on
our
poa
board
and
he
will
be
sorely
missed,
as
he
moves
on
to
greener
and
greater
pasture.
B
Thanks
well
said:
dave
deferred
vested
scott
morishai,
marshy
police
officer
police
department,
effective
april
2nd
2022
at
23.21
your
service.
Do
I
have
a
motion.
B
Franco,
hi
dave
hi,
I'm
chair
lanza,
I
vote.
I
anything
you
want
to
say
about
this
gentleman.
B
That's
okay,
we
well!
We
we
we
have
a
good
month.
We
only
have
one
one
of
our
members
who
passed
and
before
he
was
able
to
enjoy
30
plus
years
of
retirement,
so
announcing
the
death
of
dwight
r
messimer
police,
sergeant
retired
april
5th.
1989
died,
24,
2022,
survivorship
benefits
to
renate
messenger's
spouse.
We'll
now
have
a
moment
of
silence.
A
Yeah
this
is
franco.
I
would
just
say
that
he
retired
six
years
before
I
got
hired,
that's
a
that's
a
pretty
good
life
in
retirement
and
control.
This
was
family.
B
Yeah,
my
I'm
in
austin,
because
I've
got
a
grandson.
My
daughter
was
born
after
he,
retired
god
bless
you,
mr
mr
messimer,
on
to
committee
reports,
investment
committee
over
to
you,
ashfar.
A
So
we
we've
not
had
a
meeting
since
the
march
meeting
drew.
So
it's
just.
B
Great
I'll
notice,
I'll
note
that
we
have
the
minutes
from
that
special
ib
361.
I'm
meeting
receiving
file
audit
risk
over
to
you
sunita.
B
Great
well,
we
I
poor
maytag
for
every
after
every
three
six
months
of
windows.
The
main
attack
show.
I
note
that
we'll
receive
and
file
those
minutes-
disability
committee
over
to
you,
dick,
oh
I'm
sure
governor,
is
over
to
you.
Franco.
A
B
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
As
you
can
see,
we
have
the
minister
on
the
about
the
committee
and
the
attachments
and
the
in
the
minutes
and
and
so
there's
the
our
next
disability
meeting
has
been
canceled,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
may.
B
Great
thanks
dick
we'll
note
that
we
got
the
minutes
from
the
feb
hang
on
hang
on
you're
going
to
get
me
fab.
Third
and
feb
7th
meetings
jpc
over
to
you,
andrew.
M
Yeah,
so
we
did
meet
the
jpc
early
march,
the
main
thing
that
we
went
over
so
the
previous
ones.
We
were
going
over
the
ceos
of
performance
process
feedback
and
last
month
march,
we
started
having
the
discussions
on
the
cio
performance
process.
So
attached
you'll
see
some
revisions
that
have
been
made
to
it.
That's
about
it
roberto
do
you
have
any
additions.
C
No,
no
other
than
obviously
your
joint
personality
committee
did
approve
these
changes
and
older
than
for
the
most
part
other
than
the
letters
from
the
ceo,
where
I
changed
to
cio
is
pretty
similar
in
both
cases,
and
I
think
that's
what
your
committee
has
been
working
on
so
again.
This
is
just
a
fun
information
to
the
board.
C
If
you
have
had
a
chance
to
to
look
at
information
and
review
it-
and
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
sure
we'll
be
happy
to
address
any
specific
issues.
But
the
committee
has
been
working
diligently
meeting
every
month
and
we
are
moving
forward
because
this
process
will
be
implemented
for
the
upcoming
performance
review
process
for
your
ceo
and
your
cio
for
the
fiscal
year
ending
june
30th
2022..
Thank
you
andrew.
M
Thank
you,
roberto
and
and
to
carry
on
what
roberto
is
just
saying.
This
will
be
implemented
for
this
upcoming
fiscal
year
evaluation,
and
the
committee
has
has
already
agreed
that
you
know
any
as
we
go
through
this
process.
If
there's
any
tweaks
that
need
to
be
made,
please
provide
the
feedback
and
we
will
revisit
as
a
committee
and
make
necessary
changes
if
needed.
B
L
Yeah
go
ahead.
If
I
may,
there
is
an
action
item
in
subdivision
d
of
7.5,
which
is
discussion
in
action
to
approve
the
performance
evaluation
revisions
at
the
jbc.
B
C
You
are
muted.
M
Thank
you
drew
we
did,
approve
and
voted
for
that
at
the
jpc
meeting.
So
it's
more,
I
guess
for
the
other
trustees.
If
they
have
any
questions
or
additions,
they
want
to.
You
know
make
that
we
can
make
those
or
take
those
into
consideration.
Otherwise,
let's
make
a
motion
to
approve
what
we
have.
B
Thanks
thanks
for
thanks
for
catching
that
maytag
does
any
any
trustees
want
to
weigh
in
on
this
any
public
members,
if
not
go
ahead
and
make
promotion
andrew.
M
Yeah
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
revisions
to
the
performance
evaluations
for
the
cio.
B
A
B
Jack,
yes,
franco,
hi
dave,
hi,
chair,
lanez.
I've
been
like
hey
thanks,
maytag
for
keeping
me
honest.
I
really
honestly
appreciate
it.
That
brings
us
near
near
the
end
any
proposed
agenda
items.
Anybody
want
to
say
anything.
G
B
G
G
This
is
different
yeah.
You
want
me
to
call
you
offline
about
with
their
discussion
about
the
issue
we've
been
talking
about
in
terms
of
back
in
206,
about
a
questionable
expense
account.
B
Yeah,
I
I
think
we
left
that
that
that
you
and
I
would
grab
lunch
with
roberto
after
this
meeting
and
thanks
for
tickling
me
I'll,
send
that
email
out
now,
dick
thanks
for
reminding
me.
Thank
you
yeah
many
of
the
comments
once
twice
twice.
We
are
adjourned,
and
now
it
is
up
the
left
at
the
that
time
for
the
maytag
show.
What
would
you
make.