►
From YouTube: Public Pension Oversight Board (1-30-23)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Well
good
afternoon
and
we'll
get
the
meeting
started,
Madam
clerk.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
C
A
D
A
We'll
get
our
meeting
started.
Today's
meeting
was
set
aside
primarily
to
hear
bills
that
would
be
heard
in
this
this
session
we
have
three
bills
on
the
docket.
We
will
have
a
another
meeting
on
February
the
13th
at
one
o'clock.
We
have
several
bills
that
we
had
a
couple
that
did
not
get
on
the
agenda.
That
was,
the
deadline
was
Thursday
for
that
and
and
they
got
in
late
late-
had
a
late
call
on
those.
A
So
we
have
that
and
then
we
have
a
a
couple
that
need
Actuarial
analysis,
so
we
will
have
a
follow-up
meeting
on
the
13th
and
all
the
bills
that
have
been
heard
that
have
heard
today
last
month
and
on
the
13th
are
the
bills
that
we
will
hear
during
this
session.
A
First
up
today
is
the
representative
Tipton
and
has
to
do
with
the.
A
C
D
C
C
It
said
that,
as
of
let
me
get
this
figure
here,
as
of
July
1
21,
according
to
the
lrp
website,
there
were
43
members
of
the
legislature
that
were
in
the
defined
benefit
plan
and
66
members
of
the
legislature
that
were
in
the
hybrid
cash
balance
plan,
so
that
bill
very
similar
to
the
day's
bill
would
just
transfer
any
of
those
members
over
from
the
legislative
retirement
plan
into
the
kers
non-hazardous
plan.
C
It
would
not
change
their
benefits,
they're
identical
plans
that
would
just
be
in
the
oversight
of
them
and
I
asked
the
question
last
month.
Should
we
also
include
the
members
of
the
Judiciary
retirement
system,
because
again
we
have
a
very
small
number
of
members
in
that
there
are
more
than
the
legislature,
but
still
relatively,
very
small
compared
to
all
the
members.
Essentially,
what
the
impact
of
this
would
be
is
basically
good.
C
Repels
would
be,
and
it
could
be,
a
house
substitute
to
114
if
we
choose
to
go
that
route,
but
I
wanted
to
get
input
from
this
oversight
board.
Any
any
judge
who's
been
come
into
service
after
January
1st
2014..
C
Their
account
balance
would
be
transferred
from
the
legislative,
judicial
judicial
retirement
system
plan
over
to
the
Kentucky
Employee
Retirement
System
non-hazardous
plan.
So
at
some
point
in
time,
when
all
the
legislative
members
who
are
in
the
defined
benefit
plan
and
all
the
judicial
members
are
in
the
defined
benefit
plan,
all
those
benefits
are
paid
out.
We
would
no
longer
have
that
system.
There
would
no
longer
be
any
need
for
that
system.
C
In
my
in
the
point
for
doing
this
is
do
we
really
need
a
separate
system
for
the
legislators
and
the
judges
for
a
small
number
of
people
and
I
I
felt
for
a
long
time
that
it
was
non-productive.
I
want
to
be
quite
honest
for
us,
as
legislators,
I
think
the
Optics
of
us
having
a
separate
legislator
plan
is
not
good
to
the
General
Public
and
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
that
come
out
of
that
now.
We're
not
changing
anybody
in
the
defined
benefit
plan.
C
This
would
just
like
the
I
presented
last
month
in
House
Bill
114.
If
we
go
this
right,
if
I
do
this
committee
sub,
we
will
just
add
members
of
the
Judiciary
to
that
it
doesn't
impact
those
historical
members
that
are
part
of
the
DB
plans.
They
would
not
be
changed,
they
would
not
be
impacted,
we're
not
making
any
changes
to
those
plans
whatsoever,
so
I
just
defer.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
comments,
any
thoughts
on
that.
C
A
C
That
are
still
in
the
legacy
plan
now
I'm,
not
for
sure.
If
those
are
retired
members
there
are
also
maybe
some
current
members
who
would
qualify
for
that
so
I.
Might
we
might
need
explanation
on
that?
A
number
does
seem
a
little
small
actually
to
me.
I
suspect
there
are
current
members
who
would
qualify
for
that
legacy
plan
that
may
not
be
included
in
that
number
because
they
have
not
retired
yet.
A
A
Our
next
step
is
deferred
retirement,
option,
plan
drop,
representative,
Walker,
Thomas
and
Company.
A
While
they're
coming
to
the
table,
I'd
like
to
recognize
some
new
members
we
have
to
the
committee
Center
Berg
is
new.
Welcome
to
ppob
represented
both
canals.
Let
me
get
that
right
now:
okay,
I'll,
get
it
one
these
days,
I
I
have
it
if
I,
don't
have
to
say
it
yeah,
but
welcome.
Welcome
to
the
committee
also
co-chairman,
the
representative
DJ
Johnson,
as
new
Mr
co-chair.
E
Yeah,
just
very
briefly,
I'll
limit
my
comments
to
less
than
an
hour.
If
that's,
okay
with
you
go
right
ahead,
just
it
is
a
pleasure
to
be
back
on
ppob
I've,
been
here
before
I,
had
a
little
break
and
I'm
excited
about
being
back
here
again
and
generally
speaking,
I
just
I
wanted
to
say
how
much
I
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done
by
this
board
and
the
different
committees
to
start
the
process
of
getting
our
pension
plans
healthy
financially.
E
Once
again
and
that's
that's-
been
a
tough
road
to
go,
but
a
lot
of
the
good
works
that
have
happened.
I've
started
in
this
board
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
that
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
the
priority
efforts
to
get
our
boards
even
more
financially
healthy,
and
that
that'll
be
my
focus
as
a
member
of
this
board
and
I
look
forward
to
it.
Mr
chairman
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
Thank.
A
You
we
also
have
Senator
Danny
Carroll,
as
as
new
to
the
committee,
welcome
Senator,
Carol,
okay,
representative,
Thomas,
I,
guess
introduce
yourself
to
the
record
and
and
those
Folks
at
the
table
with
you
was
I.
Guess
as
they
speak,
they
can
introduce
themselves.
F
We
can
go
right
down
the
line
in
just
a
sec.
Thank
you,
sir,
for
having
us
and
and
getting
us
in
such
short
notice.
We
wanted
to
get
this
topic
out
there:
I'm
chairman
Walker
Thomas
from
District,
eight
and
I,
chair
veterans,
military
Affairs
and
public
protection.
Hence
my
concern
for
these
guys
and
and
girls
that
serve
for
us,
so
I'll.
Let
these
guys
introduce
themselves
and
then
we'll
kind
of,
let
maybe
Brianna's
take
the
topic
there.
F
Mr,
chairman,
a
few
years
back,
we
had
some
of
our
officers
in
Hopkinsville
Kentucky
come
up
to
me
and
say
you
know,
guys
we're
I'm
looking
at
retiring
here
soon.
Is
there
anything
you
can
do
to
help
or
anything
like
that.
Then
one
of
them
mentioned
the
drop
program.
That's
been
used
in
other
states,
I.
Think
it's
been
around
for
quite
a
while.
F
So
I
told
him
I'd
look
into
it
and,
and
we
kind
of
researched
it
some
and
then
mentioned
it
to
the
Kentucky
League
of
cities
and-
and
they
said
that
was
something
that
they've
always
been
very
interested
in
doing
too.
Since
then,
these
four
or
five
officers,
including
our
chief
of
police,
has
has
retired.
F
This
is
something
that
we
were
hoping
that
maybe
they
could
extend
their
stay
with
us
a
little
bit
if
we
can
offer
something
along
this
line
so
kind
of
in
a
rough
draft
right
now,
but
I'll,
let
Miss
Carol
go
ahead
and
explain
it
a
little
bit
and
then
we'll
open
it
up.
If
you
all
have
any
questions,
we
appreciate
you
at
least
taking
the
time
to
hear
this
in
front
of
us.
D
We've
been
working
on
a
drop
which
is
a
deferred
retirement
option,
plan
draft
with
staff
for
almost
a
year,
I
think
and
it
they
vary
across
the
nation
in
different
ways.
Some
some
plans
have
been
successful.
D
We
know
that
we
have
an
issue
with
competing
against
private
employers,
and
so
retention
is
an
issue
that
we
are
dealing
with,
and
so,
but
it's
not
just
On
the
Hazardous
side,
it's
it's
non-hazardous
as
well,
and
so
we
are
looking
at
as
we're
drafting
this
bill
different
different
options.
We
have
a
meeting
this
week
that
we're
scheduling
with
the
systems
and
and
some
other
people,
but
one
thing
we
want
to
make
sure
is
that
it
is
neutral.
D
There
is
some
neutrality
for
our
system
that
the
risk
is
that
is
limited,
but
that
one
thing
that
I
know
that
the
employees
will
want
once
they
elect
and
they
notify
their
employer
of
retirement,
that
there
is
a
lump
sum
at
the
end
of
their
retirement
so
that
when
they
continue
to
work
at
the
end
of
their
period,
that
there
is
some
benefit
for
them
to
when
they
maintain
employment,
that
they
have,
whether
it's
three
or
five
years
that
they
are
able
to
have
a
lump
sum
at
the
end
of
that
period
as
well.
D
So
I'll,
let
them
speak.
But
one
thing
I
will
point
out
too,
is
when
an
employee
maintains
employment.
They
are
still
even
though
they're
considered
retired,
with
the
for
for
future
pension
calculations.
They
are
still
employees
so
they're.
They
still
maintain
health
insurance
benefits
with
the
employer,
and
that
was
something
that
we've
been
working
out
to
make
sure
that
the
employees
have
as
well.
H
Butler
with
the
Kentucky
police,
Chiefs
Association
I'm,
the
executive
director
from
the
police
chief's
perspective.
The
way
we
are
looking
at
this
it's
a
retention
issue
is
I'm
sure
many
of
you
are
aware.
We
are
struggling
in
our
field
right
now
to
get
qualified
applicants
and,
by
the
day,
we're
losing
more
and
more
qualified
applicants.
H
When
I
leave
here
today,
I'm
headed
to
Murray
Kentucky,
the
12-year
police
chief
of
Murray
is
retiring
tomorrow
and
that's
a
wealth
of
knowledge
that
you
cannot
replace,
but
there's
also
on
the
patrol
level
in
the
mid,
mid
manager
level,
we're
losing
them
everywhere
and
I'll.
Give
you
an
example
in
Covington
Kentucky
last
year
they
tested
120
odd
officers.
H
They
had
10
people
that
showed
up
for
the
test,
that's
what
they
had
and
they
pay
well,
and
we
are
trying
to
look
at
just
other
options
to
enhance
and
see
if
we
can
get
our
people
to
stay
to
stay
in
this
field
and
obviously
I
I
agree
wholeheartedly
with
Brianna.
You
know
we
want
to
make
sure
this
is
neutral.
H
I
All
right
once
again,
Brian
O'neill
legislative
director
for
the
Kentucky
professional
firefighters.
The
drop
program
is
something
that
we
have
been
hearing
about
from
our
own
members.
For
for
many
years
as
Brianna
alluded
to.
This
is
something
that
a
lot
of
different
states
have
some
form
or
fashion
of,
and
we've
heard
of,
some
that
have
been
very
successful
and
some
that
have
had
to
be
changed
so
certainly
not
going
to
try
to
hide
from
that
yeah
some
of
the
ones
out.
There
are
not
good.
I
So
we
can
use
their
experience
to
make
sure
that
we
draft
something
that's
going
to
be
useful
cost
neutral
to
both
the
employer,
as
well
as
to
the
state
system
and
beneficial
to
the
members
just
to
give
another
option.
This
isn't
something
that
every
person
is
going
to
jump
on,
but
it's
another
option
that
can
hold
on
to
people,
and
we
can
only
speak
to.
We
have
a
lot
of
meetings
of
our
retirees,
a
lot
of
gatherings.
I
We
have
a
lot
of
gatherings,
as
the
chief
mentioned,
some
of
just
our
our
current
members
and
we're
hearing
quite
a
few
people
that
that
have
left
in
the
past
five
years
that
had
they
had
this
option,
they
would
have
stayed
as
we've
been
kind
of
talking
this
up
at
some
of
our
Statewide
meetings.
I've
keep
hearing
that
it's
like
gosh
I
wish.
I
You
had
gotten
that
done
three
years
ago,
because
I
would
have
stayed
for
that
and
we're
hearing
the
same
thing
from
some
of
our
members
that
are
close
to
that
retirement
bubble
that
are
like.
Okay,
what's
gonna
hold
me
here,
what's
going
to
keep
me
what's
going
to
make
me,
go
and
again
we're
hearing
quite
a
bit,
it's
like
that'd
be
a
great
option.
I
I
hope
you
can
get
that
so
that
maybe
I
can
stick
around
keep
getting
a
paycheck,
keep
serving
keep
doing
what
I've
been
doing
and
what
I've
been
skilled
and
giving
back
to
my
community,
but
knowing
that
after
a
few
years,
I
can
have
a
little
nest
egg.
At
the
end.
F
All
right,
so
that's
kind
of
the
outline
of
what
we're
looking
at
we're
still
working
on
some
of
the
details
and
got
a
world
of
knowledge
up
here
at
this
table.
So
Mr
chairman.
If,
if
there's
any
questions,
we'll
be
glad
to
try
to
answer
them,
we
realize
this
is
still
still
a
work
in
progress
and-
and
we
appreciate
you
taking
the
time.
Hopefully
we
will
have
something
that's
a
little
bit
more
finalized,
even
if
it
does
need
some
changes
towards
when
we
go
back
next
week.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
I
do
have
a
would
you
mind
explaining
you
talk
about
successful
plans
and
unsuccessful
plans
or
bad
plans?
Can
you
kind
of
tell
us
give
us
some
examples
of
What's
a
bad
plan
and
a
good
plan.
D
A
bad
plan
would
be
one
that
has
too
high
of
a
guarantee,
so
one
like
Dallas,
guaranteed
I
think
it
was
eight
percent,
so
when
their
employees
they
what
they
contributed
I
believe
it
was
eight
percent
which
is
unrealistic
really
to
to
return.
D
There
are
several
plans
that
are
Ohio.
Has
a
plan
that
I
know
our
friends
here,
like
Arizona
Baltimore,
we've
looked
at
several
plans
that
are
successful
now.
A
H
H
You
know
that
that
would
be
it,
it
would
be
dependent
on
the
market
and-
and
it
also
is
a
choice
that
you
would
potentially
make
is
a
retiree
or
if
you
decided
to
participate
in
the
program,
we
don't
Envision
that
everybody
would
participate
in
this.
We
think
it
will
be
some
we
hope,
but
you
know
we
strive
to.
You
know
every
one
of
us
that
are
tier
one
tier
one,
B
tier
two.
H
We
all
want
to
make
sure
the
pension's
solid
we
and
I
don't
think
there's
any
one
of
us
that
would
want
to
do
anything.
That
would
risk
that
and
that's
why
this
has
taken
so
long
and
I.
You
know
try
to
work
on
it
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
plan
that
matches
our
system
and,
and
that
is
does
what
we
needed
to
do
without
coming
back
and
having
any
issues
with
the
pension.
A
You
might
have
mentioned
this
if,
if
you
did
I'm
sorry
I
missed
it,
but
who
do
you
envision
operating
his
plan
or
overseas?
Will
this
be
with
kppa
or
where
would
cers?
Where
would
this
be.
D
So
that's
a
good
question
and
that
is
when
you
look
at
other
plans.
They
run
the
gamut,
we're
we
are
having
a
meeting
this
week
and
to
figure
out
the
best
way,
because
we
don't
want
to
add
an
administrative
burden
to
anyone,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
good
for
the
systems
as
well
for
also
the
employee
to
make
sure
that
it's
that
it's
easy
for
them.
Other
systems
have
as
we've
as
we've
researched.
They
run
through
another
administrator.
D
There
are
several
plans
that
have
contracted
out
so
like
a
nationwide
or
other
other
programs
or
their
or
their
own
pension
system
runs
it.
So
it's
it's
across
the
board
and
and
that's
so
we've
designed
right
now
we
have
a
draft
but
we're
going
to
meet
with
the
systems
and
and
Deferred
Comp
to
see
how
we
can
make
it
run
smoothly.
Okay,.
A
D
So
I
can
tell
you
in
the
draft
that
we
have.
One
idea
hypothetically
would
be
that
you
could,
you
would
send
an
employee
contribution
would
go
into
their
drop
account.
Employer
contribution,
employer
contribution
would
continue
to
go
into
the
pension
system
to
pay
down
the
unfunded
liability
and
the
employees.
J
J
D
H
Be
glad
to
try
to
explain
it
and
I'm,
not
a
very
good
10
cent
person,
so
essentially
what
it
would
do
is
you
would
retire.
Your
pension
would
be
what
it
is
today
so
say:
I've
retired
I
had
30
years.
My
pension
would
be
locked
at
that
30-year
mark
my
pension
at
that
point,
I
would
stay
on
as
an
employee.
My
actual
pension
would
go
into
a
deferred
account
where
I
couldn't
have
access
to
it
and
then,
at
the
end
of
whatever
the
term
may
be
one
through
five
years.
You
know,
however,
you
choose.
H
However,
the
bill
bill
is
ultimately
set
up.
Then
I
would
have
access
to
my
pension.
I
would
start
drawing
my
pension
like
normal,
but
those
years
that
I
was
in
the
Deferred
program.
That
would
all
land
in
that,
and
that's
where
you
would
talk
about
a
lump
sum
and
where
we
think
that
is
kind
of
important,
especially
to
our
tier
two
folks,
as
a
health
insurance
fund.
J
Thank
you,
sir.
So
what
goes
that's
their
own
money
being
vested
being
invested
for
them
and
they
get
the
return
on
that
I'm,
not
sure
where?
How
does
that
make
you
more
whole,
you
could
have
taken
your
own
money
and
invested
it
yourself.
I
So,
by
having
that
option
so
I'm,
you
know
I'm
going
to
say:
okay
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
and
drop,
but
I'm
still
going
to
continue
to
work
for
my
employer
for
those
three
years.
So
I've
got
my
salary
to
take
care
of
myself
and
it's
essentially
like
a
little
nest
egg
that
I
don't
think
about
that
gets
set
aside
into
an
account
whether
it
be
a
a
deferred
account
or
a
savings
account
or
a
mason
jar
that
they
bury
in
a
field
that
money
sits
there
and
builds
and
I
continue
to
work.
I
J
H
A
The
Centerburg
that
was
a
very
good
question,
I'm
sure
some
people
in
the
room
and
and
watching
on
KET
wondering
the
same
thing.
So
a
very
good
question,
representative,
Tipton.
C
Thank
you
Mr
chair
in
Canada,
following
along
the
line
of
thanking
Sandra
Berg.
We
currently
have
retirement
re-employment
options
and
recently,
during
the
covet,
we've
shortened
that
three-month
period
to
one
month
period.
Could
you
explain
the
differences
between
somebody
considering
retirement
re-employment
and
this
drop
plan,
and
what
the
what
the
thought
process
would
be
about
the
benefits
of
which
way
to
go.
H
The
difference
would
be
the
one
month
because
you
you
go
back
to
work,
but
the
other
difference
is
if
you're
on
a
contract,
you're
drawing
your
pension
and
you're
coming
back
to
work
and
you're
drawing
the
salary
whatever
I
come
up
with
in
the
contract.
Under
this
you're,
not
leaving,
you
know,
you're
still
drawing
your
salary,
but
that
pension-
you
don't
get
it's
set
aside,
you're
not
allowed
to
access
that
pension.
That
would
be
the
difference.
In
my
estimation,
sure.
C
I
understand
that
now
the
individual
would
basically
stay
out,
probably
stay
on
in
their
current
position
at
their
current
salary
rank
or
if
somebody
retired,
and
was
re-employed,
they
might
come
back
in
in
a
different
position.
So
that's
that's
another
consideration.
One
question
I
just
had
when
you're
accumulating
this
balance
over
a
period
of
years
or
say
five
years,
one
of
the
tax
consequences.
Have
you
all
looked
into
the
tax
consequences
to
taking
that
lump
sum?
C
Would
the
taxes
be
allocated
on
an
annual
basis
or
if
somebody
wore
two,
for
example,
right
now
in
Kentucky
we
have
an
exemption
of
31
one
per
year.
If
somebody
I
mean
is,
is
that
going
to
be
allocated
for
tax
purposes
on
an
annual
basis
versus
where
they
took
it
out
five
years
and
they
had
a
very
large
sum
there
may
be
tax
consequences
there.
That's
just
something
you
might
want
to
look
into
and
get
some
get
some
answers
on
and.
H
We
have
looked
at
that,
essentially,
what
it
would
be
is
you
would
have
an
option
to
draw
roll
it
over
to
a
401k
or
whatever
you
choose
under
the
federal
statutes.
You
know
essentially
be
capital
gains
taxes,
because
you're
you're
you're
in
a
deferred
balance
account
and
that
we
look
at
that's
going
to
have
to
be
the
individual's
choice,
but
for
the
time
you're
in
the
drop
program,
it
would
operate
just
like
deferred
compensation
and
you
would
not
be
taxed.
H
D
That
he's
correct
and
this
program
it
would
be
an
option
you
will,
when
you
notify
your
employer,
that
you
want
to
participate
and
and
retire
you
have
a
maximum.
So
in
the
bill
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
we
are
providing
a
maximum
time
period.
So
I
think
what
we
were
originally
drafting
was
five
years.
D
Some
some
states
have
eight
years
some
some
five
I
think
Ohio
is
five
Arizona's,
eight
and
so
I
think
we
were
looking
at
putting
five,
because
you
don't
want
someone
to
go
on
in
perpetuity,
so
we
so
making
sure
that
someone
someone,
but
when
I
think
you
made
a
point
about
what
what
happens
to
the
individual,
they
aren't
retiring
and
then,
where?
Where
does
that
individual
go
in
terms
of
employment?
D
They
continue
in
their
position
because
they're
still
an
employee,
so
I
hope
that
makes
that
part
clear,
because
it's
not
like
they
retire
and
then
come
back.
They
maintain
employment.
D
So
it's
good
for
the
employer
because
they
know
when
that
employee
is
leaving
and
they
retain
that
employee
and
it's
good
for
the
employee
because
they
are
electing
to
participate
in
this
and
in
creating
a
lump
sump
account
at
the
end
of
it
where
their
retirement
contribution
or
their
retirement
payment
pension
payment,
plus
their
employee
contribution,
is
going
into
the
account
for
interest
accrual.
C
One
brief
one
additional
brief
question:
if
I
may
Mr,
chair
and
I
think
you
stated
this
just
to
be
clear,
when
somebody
makes
this
decision
they're
actually
retiring,
their
critical
compensation
is
determined
in
their
retirement.
Benefit
is
retirement
at
that
time.
So
if
they
continue
work
and
that
position
has
an
increase
in
salary,
those
increases
in
salary
will
not
impact
that
at
all,
that's
just
part
of
their
salary,
but
the
retirement
is
based
on
their
credible
compensation
based
on
the
day.
They
make
the
decision
to
retire,
correct
yeah.
L
H
Departments
are
offering
it's
about
nothing,
some
departments,
that's
that's
a
choice
by
the
city-wide,
but
I'm
not
familiar
with
many
that
do
that,
usually
it's
just
here's
your
contract,
you're
on
a
one-year
contract.
You've
got
your
pension
and
we
renew
you
annually.
Now
there
may
be
Senator
they're,
possibly
or
some
out
there
that
do
that.
But
it's
not
the
norm.
Okay,.
L
And,
and
do
you
all
know,
what
percentage
of
officers
that
retire
go
back
not
not
necessarily
well,
including
at
the
same
agency
or
at
another
agency,
because
I
I
know
a
lot
that
that's
exactly
what
they
do
and
if,
if
the
department
they
go
back
to
does
have
some
type
of
401k?
That's
basically
the
same
thing
that
you
all
are
talking
about.
L
L
Okay,
so
so
there
is
a
concern
of
how
how
much
this
really
would
help,
because
the
officers
that
are
likely
to
go
back
are
going
to
go
back.
Anyways
is
as
an
SRO
or
with
if
your
city
going
to
the
to
the
so
I
mean
it.
You
and
I.
Both
know
that
happens
a
lot,
and
it
would
be
nice
to
see
those
numbers
and
also
be
nice
to
know
what
agencies
actually
offer
some
type
of
retirement.
H
And
I
agree
Senator
we're
just
trying
to
look
at
just
as
another
tool
and
and
you're
right.
You
do
see
many
that
go
back,
but
we
are
starting
to
see
that
pool
dry
up
some
too,
you
know,
I
can
tell
you
in
the
northern
region
of
this
state,
it's
probably
the
same
30
officers
that
go
out
and
with
the
sros
and
we're
not
necessarily
gearing
this
towards
the
soo,
at
least
not.
In
my
estimation,
this
is
going
to
be
more
for
your
rank
and
file
for
your
mid-level
management
and
your
upper
management.
L
So
I
see
what
you're,
saying
and
I
see
what
you're
saying,
also
that
we
really
have
to
look
at
the
numbers
on
this
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
hurt
the
bottom
line
for
the
system
itself
and
you
know
I
all
my
time,
I,
don't
guess
I've
really
ever
thought
about
this.
Was
this
common
back
at
some
point
within
law
enforcement
across
the
country
or
it
is.
D
Think,
as
the
newer
programs
or
those
that
were
in
the
beginning,
as
they
were
set
up,
there's
a
backdrop.
Programs
they've
failed
those
that
were
guaranteed
a
really
high
interest
rate.
Those
are
problematic,
Baltimore
had
a
program
that
that
was
closed
and
then
they
reopened
a
program
that
is
working
now
so
you've
seen
newer
programs
that
kind
of
like
what
we
are
doing
that
have
watched
those
that
failed
and
trying
to
create
something
in
place
that
have
have
safeguards
what
we're
looking
at.
E
Johnson
Mr
chairman
first
I,
want
to
thank
Senator
Berg
for
asking
the
question.
I
was
going
to
ask
and
she
probably
asked
it
in
a
much
more
coherent
manner.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I'll
just
make
a
real,
quick
comment
and
we've
touched
on
this
a
couple
of
times,
but
but
we've
talked
about
this
guaranteed
benefit
and
I
would
just
caution
you
if
you
think
you
have
to
put
some
kind
of
guaranteed
benefit
in
make
sure
that
it
works
financially
for
the
the
plans
themselves.
E
It's
if
I
think
we
look
back
historically
over
our
pension
plans.
One
of
the
major
things
that
has
gotten
us
in
trouble
is
making
guaranteed
benefits
without
a
clue.
What's
going
to
happen
in
the
future,
I
would
hate
to
see
us
do
that
yet
again
with
this
plan.
So
please
keep
that
in
mind.
I
think
it
is
just
another
tool
in
the
tool
belt
for
you
guys
and
any
tool
we
can
offer
that
doesn't
negatively
impact
the
plans.
We
should
very
seriously.
E
M
Yes,
thank
you
just
kind
of
thinking,
because
I'm
a
teacher,
so
would
this
be
a
system
that
you
could
see
would
also
work
in
kers
or
TRS.
F
We're
going
to
try
it
at
this
level
if,
if
we
can
get
it,
you
know
worked
out,
you
know
we'd
invite
any
other
of
the
others
to
look
at
it.
Also
at
that
point,
so.
M
H
M
I
So
really
quick.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
add
to
what
the
chief
had
said.
The
police
are
the
only
ones
that
can
re
retire
and
rehire,
so
any
other
professions
are
not
able
to
do
that.
So
that's
certainly
might
change
a
little
bit.
I
understand
that
wasn't
the
the
Crux
of
your
question,
but,
to
your
point
of
why
not
just
retire,
some
people
will
again.
This
is
not
for
for
everyone.
Quite
a
few
of
our
members
will
probably,
if
it's
time
for
them,
they
think
they
want
to
be
done.
I
They
retire
start
drawing
their
pension,
but
there
are
a
number
of
people
and
I
can
speak
to,
and
actually
this
goes
to
to.
One
of
the
other
questions
earlier
about
some
of
the
success
in
other
systems.
I
can
speak
to
the
Arizona
system.
Talking
to
the
firefighters
out
there,
a
significant
percentage
of
people
will
start
really
thinking
about
this
drop
because
they
want
to
work
a
few
more
years
and
really
they
just
want
the
option
of
that
Nest
Egg.
I
We
have
500
members
over
100
of
which
can
retire
tomorrow
and
we
don't
know
every
year
how
many
will
with
something
like
the
drop
program?
Again,
it's
not
for
everybody,
but
at
least
they
say
they
can
look
at
those
numbers
say
well.
We've
got
17
people
in
the
drop
that
are
leaving
this
August
and
now
it
helps
them
to
plan
that
they
at
least
know
some
of
the
numbers
not
all
of
them,
but
some
that
are
going
to
be
leaving.
A
Just
for
clarification,
you
talked
about
that
police
were
the
only
ones
that
could
retire
and
and
and
participate
in
this
program
or
to
continue
or
would
it
be
eligible
to
I,
guess,
retire
and
then
go
to
work
at
another
another
job,
that's
any
of
the
systems
you
can
retire
and
go
back
to
work.
There's
a
waiting
period
right.
I
Correct
no
I
was
just
speaking
specifically
to
the
the
retire
and
rehire
in
the
same
position.
The
same
job,
the
same
like
Department,
the
police
are
the
only
ones
currently
that
do
that
the
firefighters
cannot,
but
firefighters
can
leave,
wait
that
waiting
period
and
go
get
rehired
at
a
different
department.
So
that
does
happen
sometimes,
but
it's
it's
a
little
bit
different
okay,
but
that
doesn't
deal
with
what
we're
proposing
here.
Yeah
thanks
for
the
clarification.
A
Yes,
sir,
another
question
that
that
I
had
do.
They
need
to
stay
at
the
same
job,
to
qualify
for
this
or
can
like
you
mentioned,
going
from
a
police
officer
going
to
an
SRO.
A
Do
you
have
to
stay
in
the
same
position?
Because
if
you're,
a
police
officer,
you
know
that's
your
your
that's
not
the
same
as
SRO.
That's
a
different!
That's
a
completely
different
job!.
I
The
what
we're
looking
at
and
again
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
chief,
but
it
would
be
staying
in
the
same
job
because
really
we're
looking
this
as
a
retention
tool.
So,
if
you've
got
someone,
I
could
speak
for
the
firefighters
you've
got
somebody
who's
a
battalion
chief,
25
years
of
experience
that
decides
to
stick
around
a
few
more
years.
You
want
them
to
keep
being
a
battalion
chief.
You
want
to
hold
on
to
that
that
experience
to
keep
them
doing
that
profession.
A
A
Okay,
when
you
do
this,
is
there
any
commitment
that
the
if
the
retiree
has
to
make
or
as
far
as
how
long
they
will
stay,
do
they
have
to
stay
a
year
or
they
do
this
and
a
few
days
later
decided
it
was
a
bad
bad
call.
D
Yeah,
there's
you
typically
when
there's
a
minimum
and
a
maximum,
and
we
are
looking
at
a
maximum
of
five
years.
D
Maximum
maximum
amount
of
time
and
and
you
would
have
to
State
when
you,
when
you
elect
to
participate
into
the
drop
program,
the
amount
of
time
that
you
are
going
to
be
in
there.
So
if
you
say
I
am
going
to
work
another
three
years,
then
it's
three
years
or
five
years,
but
a
minimum
of
one
year
up
to
five
years.
J
You,
sir
I
I'm,
still
really
trying
to
wrap
my
my
head
around
this
from
a
financial
perspective.
If
I
was
the
employee
and
I
mean
it
seems,
if
we're
going
to
keep
this
Revenue
neutral
for
the
state
or
for
whoever
that
governing
body
is,
then
you
cannot
offer
more
of
a
rate
of
return
than
what
the
market
can
offer
and
what
your
job
is
to
try
to
predict
what
that
rate
of
return
is
going
to
be
make
it
a
little
bit
less
so
that
you
make
sure
you
don't
lose
money,
a
good
bit
less.
J
If
I
was
doing
the
financial
I
mean
I
for
my
purposes.
I
will
not
let
my
accountants
go
above
a
four
percent
annual
rate
of
return,
because
I
don't
want
to
put
everything
on
that.
So
you
can't
offer
a
rate
of
return
higher
than
the
market.
In
fact
to
be
fiducially
responsible.
You
really
have
to
offer
a
rate
of
return.
This
can
be
a
little
bit
less.
What
is
the
incentive
for
the
employee?
I?
Just
don't
get
the
financial
incentive,
they
could
take
this
same
money
and
invest
it
themselves.
J
J
H
A
H
H
However,
that
matures
out
or
whatever
the
rate
is
that's
where
you
draw
The
Nest
Egg,
you
could
apply
this
if
I
retired
and
want
somewhere
else
to
work
or
whatever,
but
we're
looking
at
it
from
the
retention.
It's
more
important
to
us
to
keep
some
of
these
folks
where
they're
at
you
know
in
that's
kind
of
the
way
we're
looking
at
it.
J
J
I
I
think
I
might
be
able
to
give
you
a
scenario
that
that
would
help
so
say:
we've
got
employee
a
that
makes
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year.
They
can.
They
have
the
choice
right
now
to
either
retire
and
no
longer
get
that
50,
000
and
and
maybe
stay
home
or
maybe
work
somewhere
else,
but
now
they're
going
to
start
collecting
a
pension
of,
let's
just
say,
two
thousand
dollars
a
month.
I
What
that
employee?
That's
those
are
the
only
two
options
that
employee
has.
They
either
leave
and
draw
their
pension
or
they
stay,
and
they
do
not
get
that
pension.
This
gives
them
the
option
to
stay
continue
to
make
that
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
while
they're
making
that
that
two
thousand
dollars
a
month
pension
now
goes
into
an
account
to
sit
there
for
him.
I
They
can't
touch
it
they're,
still
just
going
to
continue
to
work,
say
three
more
years
making
their
fifty
thousand
dollars
a
year
and-
and
so
everything
is
the
same
for
their
bank
account,
but
then,
when
they
do
retire
in
three
years
and
start
drawing
two
thousand
dollars
a
month,
there's
also
thirty
six
thousand
dollars.
That's
now
been
sitting
in
this
account.
I
D
Top
of
their
employee
contribution
that
would
have
been
go
that
was
going
into
that
they
were
also
contributing
for
their
retirement
account
that
is
going
in
there
as
well,
and
also
note
that,
as
an
employee,
your
pension,
even
though
you're
making
fifty
thousand
dollars
when
you
retire
after
27
years,
your
pension
isn't
twenty
fifty
thousand
dollars.
If
you
retire
at
20
years
and
you're
making
fifty
thousand
dollars
yeah
it's
it's,
not
your
full
amount.
So
it's
not
always
advantageous
to
retire
right
when
you
hit
20
or
25
or
27
years.
A
Thank
you,
sister
Byrd.
You
made
a
comment
that
you
could
just
give
you
an
option
to
keep
some.
It
sounds
like
when
you
said
that
you
had
the
option.
If
somebody
wanted
to
stay,
you
can
tell
them
no.
A
I
guess
I
guess
I
would
have
asked
that
anyway,
but
you
opened
the
door
is
do
you
you
know.
If
there's
you
know
we'll
face
it,
there's
an
employee
that
that
that
somebody
doesn't
want
to
keep
or
they've
been
waiting
for
27
years
for
them
to
quit.
I
A
A
H
Hopefully,
you
would
do
your
work
and
and
terminate
them
according
to
the
law,
and
that
problem
would
not
be
there
in
27.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
that's
just
too
small
one.
Is
there
an
additional
benefit
to
the
individual
from
a
health
insurance,
especially
a
family
health
insurance?
Because
can
you
have
health
insurance
paid
for
for
the
family
as
well,
when
they're
retired,
so
is
there
like
an
additional
I
mean
benefit
to
the
employee,
so
they
can
maintain
family
coverage.
K
K
Right
right,
no,
no!
No!
No!
That's
what
I
mean
that's
one
extra
thing
as
a
retention
tool
for
them
to
keep
Family
Health
Care
coverage.
That's
what
I'm
saying
and
then
the
other
question
is
in
any
of
these
other
states
that
they've
used
this
particular
program.
Have
they
looked
into
the
possibility
of
rolling
these
funds
into
a
sep
or
something
to
when
they're
done
they're,
not
paying
a
bunch
of
taxes
on
it?
Is
that.
D
So
you
yes,
there's
an
option.
There
is
an
option
you
can,
you
can
elect
to
take
it
as
a
lump
sum
or
you
can
elect
to
roll
it
over
into
an
into
an
account
for
so.
D
F
A
Any
other
questions:
okay,
CNN.
Thank
you
all
appreciate
you
being
here
today.
Central
Mills
is
up
next
we're
going
to
talk
about
fiduciary
duties
and
ESG
proxy
voting
issues,
and
why
he's
getting
settled
there?
I
know?
A
lot
of
retirees
were
were
concerned
about
representative
Graham's
bill
being
heard,
and
that
will
be
on
the
agenda.
February
the
13th
he'll
be
prepared
to
present
it.
G
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
I
apologize
for
being
late
today
at
Travel
issues,
but
I'm
here
so
I
got
here
just
in
time
before
I
get
started.
I
really
want
to
thank
Jennifer
Hines
black
for
all
the
work.
If
you
haven't
worked
with
or
state
government
staff
and
ppob
staff,
they
do
a
great
job
of
of
really
making
a
complicated
issue
more
understandable
and
I
want
to
thank
her
for
that
and
thank
Brad
as
well
for
those
things
my
bill
today.
G
I
know
you
don't
have
anything
in
front
of
you,
but
we've
been
talking
or
I've,
been
looking
at
ESG
issues
over
the
last
couple
years.
It's
a
big
concern
to
me
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
Pension
funds,
when
you
roll
everything
in
all
the
funds
that
we
have
under
management,
it's
a
big
dollar
amount.
G
We
want
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
Pension
funds
are
being
invested
for
with
the
pensioneers
best
interest
in
mind
and
that
there's
not
mixed
other
mixed
issues
that
come
into
the
investment
of
these
Pension
funds
and
my
bill
today
is
going
to
do
or
that
we're
talking
about
today.
We'll
do
two
different
things:
it
will
clarify
who
a
fiduciary
is,
and
it
will
also
address,
require.
Oversight
of
the
voting
shares
or
proxy
votes
gives
some
oversight
to
proxy
votes.
G
So
let
me
explain
to
you
real
quick,
a
fiduciary
is
is
really
three
things.
It
is
someone
who
has
who
must
act
in
the
sole
interest
of
the
members
of
the
beneficiaries.
A
fiduciary
must
act
for
the
exclusive
purpose
of
that
member
or
the
beneficiary,
such
as
maximizing
profits,
and
a
fiduciary
must
act
with
the
care,
skill,
Prudence
diligence
of
a
prudent
person
acting
in
that
capacity
under
that
that
circumstance,
I
believe
what
we
have
is
a
mixed
bag
of
who
is
a
fiduciary
and
who
isn't
a
fiduciary.
G
So
my
bill,
which,
by
the
way
is
going
to
be
68
pages
and
I'll,
be
happy
to
get
this
summary
out
to
everybody
on
the
committee
as
well.
My
bill
is
going
to
require
the
clarification
of
who
a
fiduciary
is
so
three
things
that
it
will
do.
G
It
will
amend
statutory
language
to
require
Conformity
and
ensure
all
necessary
parties
under
the
fiduciary
duty
to
assist
our
under
fiduciary
duty
to
the
system
and
its
members
and
beneficiaries,
including
as
fiduciaries,
are
trustees
or
board
members
investment,
Committee
of
the
board,
investment
managers,
advisors
and
consultants
and
any
other
person
who's.
A
fiduciary,
that's
defined
through
this
bill.
G
Throughout
this
bill,
it's
going
to
apply
for
all
systems
to
provide
that
fiduciaries
act
in
a
core
accordance
to
federal
and
state
laws,
require
fiduciaries
to
acknowledge
the
fiduciary
right
duties
in
writing
so,
in
other
words
in
a
contract
and
prohibit
any
waiver
restriction
or
limitation
of
their
fiduciary
liability
by
contract
or
agreement.
So
in
other
words,
they
can't
waive
the
fiduciary
duty
for
each
system.
It
also
will
Define
what
a
fiduciary
is,
a
person
who
is
appointed,
employed
engaged
or
under
otherwise
under
board
action.
G
The
second
thing
that
this
bill
is
going
to
do
is
is
address
proxy
and
proxy
voting.
As
you
know,
when
you
own
a
lot
of
stocks
and
Investments,
you've
got
a
lot
of
votes
that
take
place
and
our
pension
systems
employ
proxy
companies
that
vote
proxy
votes,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they
are
being
that
they
are
voting
with
a
fiduciary
interest
at
heart.
So
so
the
question
is:
what
is
a
proxy?
G
What
is
what
is
proxy
voting
I,
just
kind
of
explain
that
proxy
voting
by
State
Retirement
Systems
occur
when
the
system,
as
an
Institutional
shareholder
or
publicly
traded
company
delegates
its
voting
power
to
a
representative
to
enable
its
share
vote
to
be
cast
in
its
absence.
Each
of
Kentucky's
systems
use
proxy
voting
services
and
and
provide
some
of
the
capacity
for
these
proxy
votes,
but
there
is
no
consistent
or
statutory
approach
and
proxy
voting
services
are
not
necessarily
bound
as
fiduciaries
by
the
law.
G
Right
now,
systems
have
voting
proxy
policies
in
place,
but
the
policies
are
subject
to
change
so,
in
other
words,
they
can
change
from
proxy
voting
company
to
or
organization
to
organization.
So
the
second
part
of
my
bill
will
require
oversight
of
the
voting
of
these
shares.
It's
going
to
require
the
board
to
adopt
written
proxy
voting
guidelines
consistent
with
the
fiduciary
guidelines
that
were
outlined
just
a
few
minutes
ago,
before
board
May
adopt
recommendations
of
a
proxy
advisor.
G
It's
going
to
require
proxy
advisor
to
acknowledge
in
writing
its
fiduciary
duty
and
commit
to
following
the
board's
adopted
proxy
voting
guidelines.
It's
going
to
require
all
shares
owned
by
the
system,
be
voted
according
to
the
board's
adopted
proxy
voting
guidelines
and,
finally,
it's
going
to
require
transparency
by
reporting
proxy
votes
to
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
each
system,
at
least
quarterly
and
publicly
on
their
system
post.
Those
votes
on
the
website.
G
So,
as
you
can
see,
basically
we're
trying
to
just
close
up
any
loopholes,
any
openings
related
to
proxy
voting
and
who
represents
us
and
who's
making
investment
decisions
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
using
any
other
ideology.
No
other
mixture
of
ideology
and
and
financial
management
we're
just
talking
about
numbers
dollars
and
cents
to
best
provide
a
return
for
our
pensioners,
foreign.
A
J
Governance,
yes,
okay,
okay,
so
we
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
have
no
ESG
in
our
pension
plants,
correct,
okay,
sir,
so
so
you
know,
as
you
were
speaking,
you
know
when
you,
when
you
build
an
argument,
you
build
it
on
certain
premises.
Certain
basis
and
I
had
a
big
disagreement
honestly
with
one
of
your
premises,
which
was
that
maximizing
profits
is
the
only
responsibility
of
a
fiduciary.
You
named
it
as
one
of
the
three
basic
tenets
of
what
a
fiduciary
does
is
to
maximize
profits
right
all.
J
Maximize
return,
which
is
profits
I'm,
an
extremely
wealthy
woman,
I,
have
a
lot
of
fiduciaries
working
for
me
right
and
with
my
money.
My
goal
is
not
just
to
maximize
profit
but
to
make
sure
that
my
money
is
not
supporting
bad
causes
and
not
being
used
to
support
things.
That
I
think
are
wrong.
Okay,
I
have
that
right
as
a
personal
person
to
tell
my
fiduciaries
that
they
have,
that
is
part
of
their
fiduciary
responsibility
to
me
right,
you're,
taking
away
that
right.
G
J
The
oversight
I
mean
they
can't
speak
for
their
own
for
the
people
they
represent.
Well,
we're
you're,
saying
no
you're
not
allowed
to
right.
As
a
group,
we
decide
that
we
don't
want
to
invest
in
Russia,
even
though
profits
are
soaring
and
you're
saying.
No,
because
prophets
are
soaring.
You
have
to
invest
in
entities
even
if
it
is
not
working
for
your
own
good
I.
G
Yes,
I
I'm,
saying
that
the
that
the
pensioners
that
we're
trying
to
get
away
from
making
decisions
based
on
environmental,
social
and
and
and
political
ideologies
and
be
more
focused
and
Laser
focused
on
return.
It's
not
it.
You
know
this
focus
on
social
governance
in
investment.
Funds
has
just
been
rising
over
the
last
10
or
15
years,
and
it
is,
it
is
causing
pensioners
money
to
be
invested
in
ways
that
does
not
maximize
their
return.
In
my
opinion
and
I
think
in
a
lot
of
people's
opinion,
that's
that's!
G
What's
occurring
these
ESG
investment
portfolios
are
not
returning.
What
regular
investment
portfolios
are.
J
A
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
Senator
appreciates
you
bringing
this
particular
Bill,
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
issue
for
those
who
need
a
little
primer
on
it.
I
would
encourage
you
just
Google
our
money,
our
values,
to
take
a
look
at
it.
K
You
know
some
of
the
biggest
concerns
that
I've
seen
of
course,
right
now
and
I'm
sure
you're
familiar
with
this
President
Biden
and
under
his
administration,
is
actually
changing
the
fiduciary
rules
on
the
federal
level
to
actually
allow
for
ESG
investment
and
not
to
the
investment
of
the
the
fullest
extent
to
maximizing
those
from
a
state.
Our
state
law
already
requires
to
invest
as
fiduciary,
but
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
to
Clarity.
Will
our
particular
your
bill
makes
sure
that
our
rules
supersede
the
federal
guidance
on
this.
That.
G
K
Very
good
and
I
appreciate
that,
and
it's
important
a
lot
of
people
forget
you
know
when
we're
investing.
Our
state
is
investing
the
tax,
it's
the
retirement
plans,
but
a
lot
of
people
forget
that
if
the
pensions,
as
we
have
seen
time
and
time
again,
if
the
pension
investment
fails
or
does
not
produce
sufficient
Revenue,
the
people
that
end
up
the
taxpayers
end
up
picking
up
the
difference.
K
So
if
someone
wants
to
invest
their
own
money
for
ESG
I'm,
all
supportive
of
that,
but
when
it
comes
to
investing
the
pension
plans
and
those
retirees
who
are
dependent
on
this
and
the
taxpayers
that
are
dependent
on
not
having
to
continue
to
fund
a
pension
system,
then
I
think
your
bill
is
very
good.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
thank.
M
Yes,
can
you
give
an
example
of
a
decision
that
has
been
made?
That
was
not
in
the
best
interest
in
the
members
and
then
just
to
kind
of
follow
up
from
that?
How
do
you
disaggregate
what
a
decision
that
may
have
and
say
an
environmental
impact?
How
do
you
disaggregate
the
the
just
the
environmental
aspect,
from
the
fact
that
that
then
may
end
up
leading
to
higher
returns.
G
Well,
I,
don't
I
mean
I,
don't
serve
on
the
on
the
board,
but
you
know
we're
giving
we're
giving
policy
we're
setting
policy
for
the
boards
to
follow,
and
so
you
know
a
lot
of
these
questions
are
around
environmental
issues
right
now.
Some
of
them
are
going
toward
social
issues
as
well,
but
almost
any
stock
that's
invested
in
you
know
petroleum
fossil
fuels
when
solar
are
all
ESG
type
Investments
that
may
or
may
not
give
the
best
return
for
our
pensioners.
G
So
we
want
you
know
we
want
the
stock
to
be
the
investment
to
be
evaluated
by
the
return
that
it
gives
not
by
some
social
or
environmental
score.
That
is
a
part
of
the
decision
to
buy
or
sell
a
trade
and
then
we're
giving
guidance
to
make
sure
that
the
proxy
votes,
the
people
that
are
voting
on
our
behalf,
aren't
making
those
decisions
in
that
way,
I
don't
have
a
specific.
You
know
targeted
stock
or
trade
or
anything
of
that
nature.
G
But
if
you
read
investment
news,
you
know
30
to
35
percent
of
the
Investments
are
ESG
type
funds
and
they're
more
and
more
heading.
That
way,
and
as
auditor
Harmon
said
you
know,
the
federal
government
is
actually
even
impressing
that
on
investments,
so
I
just
don't
think
that
it's
the
best
interest
to
our
pensioners
to
evaluate
and
put
another
set
of
Standards
into
investment
other
than
returned
on
our
investment.
M
G
G
G
C
There
are
people
who
are
taking
proxy
votes
on
behalf
of
our
Retirement,
Systems
and
you're
just
saying
they
have
to
follow
the
fiduciary
responsibilities
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
the
members
and
the
beneficiaries
of
a
retirement
system.
Among
k-e-r-s,
non-hazardous
is
funded
at
18.4
percent
and
we
have
the
billions
and
billions
of
dollars
so
I'll
find
a
liability.
I
think
this
is
an
excellent
idea
that
we
impress
what
a
fiduciary
responsibility
is.
It's
a
licensed
real
estate
broker
I
have
a
fiduciary
responsibility
to
what's
the
best
interest
in
my
clients.
C
G
Thank
you
and
we're
not
saying
that
that's
not
happening
we're
just
saying
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
consistent
across
all
of
our
funds
and
that
this
is
very
clear.
This
is
from
ppob
standpoint
from
the
legislature's
standpoint.
This
is
how
we
want
our
investment.
This
is
how
we
want
our
proxy
boats
to
be
handled.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
Senator,
Mills
I
was
going
to
give
you
one
of
those
examples
that
was
requested.
Basically,
BlackRock
used
the
proxies
available
in
their
portfolio
to
basically
take
over
or
have
a
a
large
number
of
Exxon
board
members
that
they
worked
to
divest
from
guess
what
oil
exploration,
which
is
their
primary
source
of
Revenue
and
their
primary
goal
of
their
company.
So
that
is
one
example
of
using
the
proxies
in
a
manner
that
is
negative
towards
that
particular
investment.
So
thank
you.
Mr
chairman.