[00:00:01]
[Roll Call]
MADAM RECORDING SECRETARY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? THANK YOU. THIS IS CONNIE SWISHER, RECORDING SECRETARY, TAKING ROLL.PRESENT. MONICA ALVAREZ-SELLERS.
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT.
WE'RE FOLLOWING LIVE VIDEO AND AUDIO STREAMING.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT CAN DO SO IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS: LIVE IN PERSON OR VIA THE ZOOM EXCUSE ME MEETING BY SUBMITTING AN EMAIL OR BY LEAVING A VOICEMAIL. THIS INFORMATION IS NOTED ON THE AGENDA LOCATED IN THE PARK DISTRICT WEBSITE EBPARKS.ORG.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEETING PROCEDURES, WE CAN BEGIN.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ON THE AGENDA, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I KNOW WE HAVE NUMBER ITEM THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENTS OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT PLEASE DON'T LET ME FORGET TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE OTHER ITEMS AS WELL THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO I GUESS THE FIRST ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
[Approval of Minutes]
I WAS NOT HERE. SO IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OR HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS.WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PETE VOLIN.
ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY NAYS? I'LL BE ONE ABSTENTION.
OKAY. LET'S SEE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
NOT AT THIS TIME. I DID INCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
NOW IS THAT, SO THAT WAS PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED SINCE THE LAST MEETING? CORRECT. DOES THAT NEED TO BE READ AT THE MEETING? NO. OKAY.
OH, THEY'RE NOT RAISING THEIR HAND ANYMORE.
MY MISTAKE, SUSAN GONZALEZ, I'LL PROMOTE HER TO PANELISTS, AND ARE WE ABLE TO SEE HER ON THE SCREEN? SUSAN, ARE YOU WITH US? SUSAN, DO YOU HAVE AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA? A PUBLIC COMMENT, NOT ON THE AGENDA.
OH, ARE YOU JUST OBSERVING, PERHAPS? YES. OKAY, LOOKS LIKE SHE'S JUST OBSERVING.
ARE WE AT SOME TIME IN THIS MEETING, GOING TO FORMALLY ADD SUSAN TO THE COMMITTEE? I THINK THAT'S UNDER ITEM FOUR.
[Action Items]
SO THE NEXT ITEM SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THESE ACTION ITEMS. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY ELSE DOES BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THE AGENDA BEFORE.YES, SO I WANTED TO TALK THROUGH MEMBERSHIP.
OKAY. THE FIRST THING IS A REVIEW OF THE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE WROTE INTO OUR BYLAWS THAT--I'LL SEE IF I CAN FIND IT IN THE PACKET--THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU BE AT ALL THE MEETINGS, BUT IF YOU MISS MORE THAN ONE THAT WE COULD REMOVE, THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD REMOVE THAT PERSON FROM THE COMMITTEE.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TAKE THAT VOTE, BUT I WANTED TO LIKE MENTION THAT IT'S IN OUR BYLAWS.
SO THAT WAS THE FIRST THING TO TALK THROUGH.
[00:05:04]
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SINCE YOU'RE REFERENCING THEM? YEAH, I DID NOT.YEAH, I VOTED AGAINST THEM, BUT THEY DID PASS.
THEY PASSED. THE COMMITTEE PASSED THEM.
YES. OKAY, SO THE BYLAWS, WE ARE NOW OPERATING UNDER THE BYLAWS.
YEAH, I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN THE BYLAWS THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO FINE TUNE, I'LL SAY, SURE THAT ONE OF THEM, I THINK BECAUSE IN HERE WE TALK ABOUT QUARTERLY MEETINGS AND NOW WE'RE DOING EVERY OTHER MONTH, AND SO ONE ABSENCE MIGHT BE AND I REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THE ONE ABSENCE, IT WAS LIKE, WHOA, IF YOU MISS ONE OF THE QUARTERLY MEETINGS LIKE OR TWO OF THE QUARTERLY MEETINGS LIKE YOU'VE MISSED HALF, YOU MISSED SIX MONTHS, BUT NOW THAT THEY'RE EVERY OTHER GOOD POINT, MAYBE MORE THAN ONE IS NOT SO BAD, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S EXCUSED.
SO FOR THE RETIREE SO THIS IS ON DOESN'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER, BUT IT'S AT THE TOP.
OH, SORRY. IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
YES IN THAT PACKET MAYBE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, THREE, FOUR PAGES IN.
YEAH IT SHOULD BE IN ORDER OF THE AGENDA JUST PAST THE MINUTES.
IS THERE A NUMBER ON THE PAGE ON THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER? NO. THERE YOU GO.
OKAY, AND THEN FLIP ONE MORE PAGE AND AT THE TOP IT SAYS DOES IT SAY APPOINTMENTS ON THAT.
I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE HAVE A VACANCY IN AFSCME AND WE HAVE A VACANCY IN PA OR ARE WE? WE'RE WAITING ON THAT STILL. WAITING ON THAT STILL? OKAY, SO I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAYBE TAKE STEPS TO FILL THOSE VACANT POSITIONS? YES. I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I'M PREPARED TO FILL MINE.
DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW, OR ARE YOU? WELL, I WAS GOING TO GO IN ORDER.
WHICH ONE ARE WE ON? SO WE DID REVIEW OF ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, ON THAT SUBJECT, IS THERE ANY RESTRICTION FROM, SAY, SUSAN OR ANY ALTERNATE MEMBER ACTUALLY ATTENDING THE MEETING IN THE FLESH AS OPPOSED TO BY ZOOM OR WHATEVER? SO THE DEFERRED COMP COMMITTEE, AS THE BOARD CREATED IT IS ONLY FIVE MEMBERS.
SO OUR ALTERNATES ARE THERE AS BACKUPS TO LEARN SO THEY CAN GET UP TO SPEED.
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK? IS THAT IN THE THEY CAN SPEAK AS PUBLIC COMMENT BUT NOT AS IS THAT IN THE I THINK IT KIND OF IS BECAUSE OKAY.
SO LIKE THINK OF IT LIKE A BOARD WHERE IT'S WRITTEN THINK OF LIKE A BOARD COMMITTEE, RIGHT.
IF YOU HAVE THREE PEOPLE ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SAY, AND THEN IF ANOTHER MEMBER JUST SHOWS UP, ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER JUST SHOWS UP AND STARTS TALKING, THEN IT'S LIKE, WELL, WAIT, SO IS THE COMMITTEE THESE THREE PEOPLE OR IS IT FOUR PEOPLE AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE THEORY BEHIND IT, BUT I THINK WE ORIGINALLY DECIDED TO DO ALTERNATES AS A WAY TO TRAIN PEOPLE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE PERSON IF THEY WERE ABSENT OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, AND HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE TO DO THOSE THINGS.
ANOTHER REASON WE DID IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS TOO MUCH WORK FOR THE FIVE OF US, AND SO WE THOUGHT, WELL, WE COULD MAKE SUBCOMMITTEES IF WE SORT OF HAD THESE ALTERNATES THAT COULD THEN DO THAT WORK AS WELL.
SO IT WAS KIND OF CREATING MORE PEOPLE, BUT NOT TEN VOICES WAS THE INTENTION.
WELL, MY QUESTION IS WHY I WAS AN ALTERNATE COMMITTEE MEMBER ON THIS MEETING FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND I SPOKE AT GREAT LENGTH AS ANYONE WHO WAS HERE COULD ATTEST, WHICH IS ONE OF MY FAILINGS, BUT I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN THE IN THIS DOCUMENT HERE THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER.
I'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE IT'S WRITTEN THAT.
IN ALTERNATE MEMBER IS RESTRICTED TO SPEAKING UNDER PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I NEVER SAW IT IN THE BROWN ACT.
THEORY IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT I IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'M SAYING SHOW ME WHERE IT'S WRITTEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EXACTLY, BUT UNDER ALTERNATES.
[00:10:05]
BEF PRIOR TO THIS BECOMING A BROWN ACT MEETING, WE DID HAVE THE ALTERNATES AT THE TABLE AND WE ALL DISCUSSED IT AND THAT WAS HOW IT WAS, BUT THEN WHEN IT BECAME A PUBLIC MEETING, I GUESS A LOT MORE OF THE RULES CAME UP.SO I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THAT.
WELL IF IT'S IN THE BOARD, IF IT'S IN OUR BYLAWS OR IF IT'S IN THE BROWN ACT SOMEWHERE, I'M ALL WELL AND GOOD WITH THAT, BUT IF IT ISN'T, I THINK THAT SUSAN OR ANY OTHER ALTERNATE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE AT THIS TABLE AND TO ADD ANY KIND OF REASONABLE INPUT, AND I ONCE AGAIN SHOW ME WHERE IT'S WRITTEN IN EITHER OF THOSE TWO PLACES, AND I WILL REST MY CASE.
I MEAN, I THINK MAYBE WE CHALK THIS UP TO ANOTHER AREA OF THE BYLAWS THAT WE COULD CLEAR CLARIFY, BECAUSE YEAH, IT'S A LITTLE IT COULD BE CLARIFIED IN HERE MAYBE.
YEAH. WELL, UNTIL WE CLARIFY IT IN THE NEXT MEETING, AND AT THIS MEETING, SHOULD SUSAN BE ABLE TO SPEAK HER PIECE AT ANY POINT IN THE TIME, OR IS SHE RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC COMMENTS? I DON'T THINK AN IMPLICATION CAN MAKE IT'S GOT TO BE WRITTEN SOMEWHERE IN ORDER FOR THAT NOT TO BE ABLE TO HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S BEEN DONE SO MUCH IN THE PAST. YEAH, [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT.
NOW WE ARE, AND SO THAT'S THE.
WELL THAT MAY WELL BE THE CASE, AND IF IT IS SO BE IT.
HOWEVER, WE WERE GIVEN BY JASON MATERIAL ON THE BROWN ACT, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THERE WHERE IT SAID THAT AN ALTERNATE MEMBER WAS RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I THINK IT'S JUST I DID SEE WHERE IT SAID THAT THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE COULD NOT MEET, WHICH THEY DID WHEN YOU HAD THE COMMITTEE THAT WENT OVER THE RFP, BECAUSE THAT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT, BUT THAT'S NOT TO THE POINT WE'RE TALKING HERE.
IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE BYLAWS, IF YOU COULD SHOW ME WHERE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE BROWN ACT, I WILL HOLD MY PEACE, BUT UNTIL THEN, I THINK THAT SUSAN OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED, AND ANY OTHER ALTERNATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK THEIR PEACE, NOT BE RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO NORMALLY IN A BOARD MEETING WE HAVE LEGAL ABLE TO GIVE US INPUT.
WE DO HAVE LEGAL HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE.
SO NORMALLY WE'RE ILLEGAL, RIGHT? I KNOW SO NORMALLY I WOULD DEFER TO LEGAL AND HAVE THEM PROVIDE THEIR OPINION ON IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A DECISION WE CAN MAKE TODAY.
I THINK WHAT WAS CONVINCING TO ME WAS THAT AT BOARD COMMITTEE MEETINGS IF OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO SPEAK THAT ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, AND THIS SAYS THAT ALTERNATES ARE NOT A COMMITTEE MEMBER UNLESS THEY'RE REPLACING SOMEBODY ELSE, THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL, AND SO I WAS LIKE, AS LONG AS THE RULES ARE THE SAME FOR ALL THE COMMITTEES, THEN THAT SEEMS CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE TO ME, BUT I UNDERSTAND WELL, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE LOOK AT IN REVISING.
IN THAT CASE I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW ALTERNATES TO SPEAK SUBJECT TO THE SAME.
THEY'RE MAKING A BIG COMMITMENT TO BE HERE AND ATTEND MEETINGS, AND I HEREBY MOVE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT THEIR SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC MEETINGS UNLESS IT COULD BE SHOWN DIRECTLY IN EITHER THE BYLAWS OR THE BROWN ACT, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
I DON'T WANT TO BE AGAINST THE LAW, BUT I AM MAKING THAT MOTION.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'M GOING TO SECOND IT JUST TO ENGAGE IN THE DISCUSSION AND PUT IT TO A VOTE.
IS THERE ANY, WELL, WE KIND OF HAD DISCUSSION.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING MORE TO ADD IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING.
[00:15:05]
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.HAS THERE EVER BEEN A PROBLEM WITH AN ALTERNATE INTERFERING OR DIMINISHING THE COMMITTEE IN ANY WAY BY SPEAKING NOT AT PUBLIC, NOT STRICTLY AT PUBLIC COMMENTS? HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY KIND OF PROBLEM WITH THAT IN THE PAST THAT ANYONE'S AWARE OF? ARE WE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? I THINK IT IS ON.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW, DIDN'T WE JUST SAY IT WAS ON NUMBER FOUR? IT IS, BUT TECHNICALLY SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING THE ALTERNATE, NOT SUSAN.
ALL ALTERNATES. YES, AND I'M NOT RESEARCHING THIS TO SUSAN IN ANY WAY.
WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S AMENDING THE BYLAWS.
I THINK IT'S BECAUSE I THINK THE BYLAWS ARE RELATIVELY.
SO WE WROTE THIS WITH ALL ALTERNATES PARTICIPATING.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT HIS POINT IS, IS THAT THEN WE IMPLEMENTED THE BROWN ACT AND WE CHANGED IT.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE BYLAWS, WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE PRACTICE OF, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE DID IT, AND SINCE I DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, SINCE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FROM THE BROWN ACT OR ANYTHING IN WRITING, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT POINT OF HIS, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO PUT IT TO A VOTE, AND CAN WE IF IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? I THINK ELECTION OF THE RETIREE ALTERNATE IS ON THE AGENDA, AND WHEN WE ELECT A RETIREE ALTERNATE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT PETE MOVED, THOUGH.
WELL, THEIR ROLE HAS TO BE CLEAR.
I MEAN, TO THE POINT, THAT'S A BIG POINT.
WE COULD PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WE WOULD DO.
WELL, IF THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDE TO DO.
IF THE MOTION FAILS, THEN WE CAN PUT IT ON ANOTHER AGENDA.
SO, YOU'RE MAKING A POINT OF ORDER.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I GUESS I'M MAKING A POINT OF ORDER.
A POINT OF ORDER. OKAY. THANK YOU.
VERY GOOD. OKAY, SO A POINT OF ORDER, AND PERHAPS A MOTION TO TABLE MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT IT CAN BE AGENDIZED.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE CLEANER.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO MOTION TO TABLE.
WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION.
I HAVEN'T HEARD I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT AND I PROMISE THIS WILL BE MY LAST ON THE SUBJECT IS THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, OR THAT IT'LL BE A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
IT'S UNFATHOMABLE TO ME WHY ANYONE WOULD OBJECT TO THIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON TABLING THE MOTION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THE MOTION TILL THE NEXT MEETING AND PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA SAY AYE.
I THINK I SHOULD PROBABLY DO A ROLL CALL.
THANK YOU. I'M USED TO JUST HANDLING IT MYSELF.
CONNIE SWISHER RECORDING, TAKING ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
OKAY. SO THE ELECTION OF THE RETIREE.
ONE LAST QUESTION. I'M SORRY, BUT WILL THERE BE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE OR ONLY ONE IN THE MEETING? I BELIEVE IT'S AT THE END OF EACH NUMBER.
GREAT. THANK YOU. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? YEAH. SORRY. SO AT THE END OF NUMBER FOUR, WE WILL DO PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY. SO THE ELECTION OF THE RETIREE ALTERNATE.
SO WE HAD TWO APPLICANTS, AND I GUESS I DID WANT TO.
OH SORRY. AGAIN, BACK TO THE BYLAWS.
SO IT SAYS FOR THE RETIREE MEMBER, THE COMMITTEE WILL NOTIFY THE EBRPD RETIREE ASSOCIATION.
A RETIREE ASSOCIATION CONTACT OF ANY VACANCIES AND REQUEST LETTERS OF INTEREST TO BE SUBMITTED.
SO WAS THAT DONE? YES, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
PERFECT. OKAY AND THEN WE HAVE THE TWO LETTERS.
I THINK EVERYBODY HAS THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE HAVE JIM TALLERICO, WHO WAS THE FORMER CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR 34 YEARS, AND WE HAVE SUSAN GONZALEZ, ALSO FORMER HR MANAGER.
[00:20:07]
A MOTION AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS OR I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WANT TO DO IT.OKAY. WELL, IN GOING TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE JIM TALLERICO ONE I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF DO.
WE NOW HAVE A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH LIST OF THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ALL RETIREES WHO ARE RECEIVING BENEFITS, INCLUDING DEFERRED COMPENSATION, OR DO WE NOT? I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE LEAVE THAT FOR FIVE B.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO TWO APPLICANTS.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR? WHO'S THE OTHER? WHO'S THE OTHER APPLICANT? JIM TELLERICO. SO YOU BUT HE'S YES, HE'S VOLUNTEERING TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
YES. I'M INTERESTED IN ONE OF THE POSITIONS REPRESENTING THE RETIREE GROUP.
SO, AND THEN FOR THE RETIREES, ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS WE NOTIFY THE RETIREE ASSOCIATION AND THEN WE GET LETTERS OF INTEREST, AND THEN THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ALTERNATE SHALL BE SELECTED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE.
THERE'S A VACANCY OF THE ALTERNATE.
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS WAS DECIDED AT THE LAST RETIREES ASSOCIATION MEETING, AT WHICH POINT JIM HADN'T YET VOLUNTEERED BUT SUSAN DID, AND I THOUGHT, AND MAYBE AT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
OR CAN WE JUST ASK SUSAN WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR WE CAN WAIT TILL PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ASK HER.
I THINK THE BOARD HAS TO AGREE.
SORRY, NOT THE BOARD, THE COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE, AND I REMEMBER WE DID THIS.
SO EACH GROUP AND I THINK THIS WAS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THESE BYLAWS, WAS THAT INITIALLY WE HAD AN AFSCME MEMBER, WE HAD A PA MEMBER, WE HAD WE HAD EVERYBODY, AND WE'RE LIKE, OH, WE NEED A RETIREE MEMBER, AND SO I THINK WE WROTE THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT LIKE SEVERAL LETTERS OF INTEREST AND WE WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE DO AND THEN THE RETIREE COMMITTEE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO DECIDE OR, YOU KNOW, SO WE WERE JUST LIKE, OKAY, WELL THEN WE'LL JUST DECIDE BY VOTE OF WHO WE PICK, I GUESS, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE DID IT. AGAIN, MAYBE WHEN WE REVISIT THE BYLAWS, PERHAPS WE WOULD HAVE IT THE SAME WAY WHERE THE RETIREES ASSOCIATION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK THE ISSUE WAS THAT NOT EVERYBODY'S IN THE RETIREES ASSOCIATION, AND SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT REPRESENTED ALL THE MEMBERS, AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE GAVE IT BACK TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE, BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE THAT'S ONLY ONE GROUP.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON OR.
I AGREE, BOTH BRING A CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE.
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A SORRY SUSAN FOR HER KNOWLEDGE OF H.R, AND HER BACKGROUND AND HER YEARS OF SERVICE WOULD BE A GREAT ASSET. JIM TALLERICO ALSO.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH DIRECTION TO GO.
WELL, I WOULD SAY I'M CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY'RE BOTH WONDERFUL PEOPLE, AND I, TOO HAVE KNOWN BOTH OF THEM FOR DECADES, BUT I WOULD ADD THAT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE LAST RETIREES ASSOCIATION MEETING IS THAT SUSAN VOLUNTEERED AND THE THEY ACCEPTED.
SO I'D LIKE TO THROW THAT OUT AS INFORMATION.
[00:25:01]
YEAH, I MEAN, MY FEEDBACK WOULD BE THAT I WAS GOING TO JUST DEFER TO PETE BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, IT'S NOT MY GROUP, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.YOU KNOW, HE'S A MEMBER OF THE RETIREE GROUP, SO I JUST WAS GOING TO DEFER TO WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION YOU HAVE.
WELL, ARE WE AT THAT POINT? I MEAN, ANYONE CAN MAKE A MOTION IF, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT, AND IT WILL EITHER PASS OR NOT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT SUSAN GONZALEZ BE THE ALTERNATIVE REP.
WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND THAT.
ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. OKAY, WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
CONNIE SWISHER, RECORDING SECRETARY, TAKING ROLL CALL VOTE.
SO SUSAN IS NOW THE ALTERNATE.
CONGRATULATIONS, SUSAN, AND PUBLIC COMMENT LAND.
NEXT UP DISCUSSION OF FINANCE MEMBER.
OKAY. SO MOVING FURTHER INTO THE BYLAWS AGAIN, LET ME GET TO THE RIGHT PAGE.
IT'S SOMEWHERE IN HERE. IT SAYS THAT THE MEMBER FOR FINANCE SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF THEIR CORRESPONDING DIVISION. YES.
SO I'M ACTUALLY APPOINTING KATIE DIGNAN TO BE OUR NEW FINANCE REP.
SHE'S HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND SHE ATTENDED OUR PREVIOUS MEETING AS WELL.
SO JUST AN EFFORT TO SPREAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEFERRED COMP AND HOW THE DEFERRED COMP PLANS WORK.
GREAT. JUST AS A POINT OF UNDERSTANDING YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT SHE'S GOING TO REPLACE YOU, ARE YOU? YEAH. OH, I SEE, SO OKAY YEAH, AND THEN DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE OR ARE YOU THE ALTERNATE? WE DON'T HAVE ALTERNATES FOR THE FOR THESE ROLES.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS YOU'VE MADE OVER ALL THIS TIME.
SO SHE'S GOT BIG SHOES TO FILL NOW.
OKAY. SO DOES THAT MEAN WHEN WE DO THE VOTE, SHE, LIKE, COMES UP HERE AND SITS AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING I WOULD FINISH OUT THE MEETING? I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF BIG STUFF ON THE AGENDA TODAY, SO, BUT YEAH, N NEXT MEETING, SHE'LL BE HERE.
OKAY, SO THEN YOU HAVE, THERE'S NO MOTION, I GUESS.
OKAY. SO SHE IS NOW, CAN WE JUST HAVE THE RECORD REFLECT THAT? CORRECT. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, AND THEN DISCUSSION OF ASFCME MEMBER AND ALTERNATE.
OKAY. SO AFSCME HAS A VACANCY AND ROSS MITCHELL WILL BE THE ALTERNATE FOR THIS MEETING.
HE'S IN ANOTHER MEETING RIGHT NOW.
SO YEAH ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT, WITH FOUR A? OKAY. OKAY, AND NOW WE HAVE THE ELECTION DEFERRED COMPENSATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR ELECTION FOR 2024.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS IN FEBRUARY, AND WE DIDN'T GET TO IT.
SO BOY, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE DONE THIS.
DO WE JUST TAKE NOMINATIONS? I THINK IS WHAT WE DO, SO, AND LET ME LET ME CLARIFY, THOUGH, BUT WE HAVE THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE ON OPPOSITE YEARS.
THE CHAIR IS ON EVEN NUMBERED YEARS.
SO THIS IS THE YEAR TO REPLACE THE CHAIR, AND THEN THE VICE CHAIR IS ODD NUMBERED YEARS.
I THINK HE REPLACED SOMEONE'S TERM, I KNOW.
SO ARE WE AT A POINT TO TAKE NOMINATIONS? YES, WE'RE AT A POINT TO TAKE NOMINATIONS FOR THE CHAIR.
MAY I NOMINATE YOU, MADAM? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
YOU HAVE TO SECOND YOUR OWN NOMINATION.
ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MAKE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? I ACTUALLY WANT TO NOMINATE BEN.
NOT ANYTHING AGAINST YOU, MEADOW.
I THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO TAKE THE CHAIR.
I DID IT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS.
[00:30:01]
VICE PRESIDENT CHAIR.SO I GUESS WE HAVE TWO NOMINEES AND THEN WE JUST VOTE.
[INAUDIBLE] I'M SORRY. I KNOW, WELL, NORMALLY YOU DO.
I'M NOT SURE IF HE WOULD WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
WELL, THE NICE THING IS AN ALTERNATE YOU WOULD HAVE THAT OPTION.
SO I WOULD STILL STAY WITH MY SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT I THINK WE SHOULD SWITCH AROUND, AND YOU MEAN HAVE LIKE THE PA MEMBER BE THE CHAIR? SO...
WELL, YOU'RE SO NEW TOO, THOUGH.
DON'T TRY TO TALK HIM OUT OF IT.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE VOTE NOW, NOT KNOWING? IT SEEMS THERE'S A NOT TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT CHANCE THAT BEN WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT HE ALSO DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO VOTE NOW? OR SHOULD WE TABLE THIS ONE, TOO.
YEAH, I MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE, LET'S MOVE IT ON.
OKAY. WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT IT THAT WAY? WE TOOK NOMINATIONS AND OH, SORRY. YEAH, WE CAN.
I THINK TABLING IT IS A GOOD IDEA.
OH SO WE DID HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE.
DID WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION ON TABLING THE MOTION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING? SEEING NONE.
OKAY. CONNIE SWISHER, RECORDING SECRETARY, TAKING ROLL CALL VOTE.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I'M WRITING DOWN ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE'VE TABLED.
WE SHOULD PROBABLY DO THAT IN THE BYLAWS, WHERE IT'S LIKE ONE MEETING IS NOMINATIONS AND THE NEXT.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO NEED A BIG TABLE.
OKAY. SO NOW I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TIME TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE MAKE VOTES, AREN'T WE? OKAY. IS YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT? I'LL BRING SUSAN IN.
SHE'S NOT RAISING HER HAND, BUT I'LL BRING HER IN JUST TO SEE AND SEE IF SHE'D LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE].
WE DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING OR IF YOU HAD ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ACTION ITEMS THAT WE JUST WENT OVER THE BE IT THE BYLAWS OR THE VOTING, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ATTEND AS AN ALTERNATE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT GOING FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO REVIEW A LITTLE MORE IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW, WHETHER A PERSON CAN SPEAK OR NOT.
I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT I WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE JULY MEETING, BUT OTHERWISE, I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH BEING ABLE TO ATTEND THE OTHER MEETINGS, AND THAT'S ALL.
JUST REMINDED ME OF ANOTHER THING ABOUT ALTERNATES.
ALTERNATES DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN PERSON AND MEMBERS HAVE TO BE IN PERSON.
SO THAT WAS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO NOT BE IN PERSON, DO THEY? NO, ALTERNATES CAN BE EITHER.
THEY CAN BE IN PERSON OR VIRTUAL, BUT MEMBERS ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE IN PERSON PER THE BROWN ACT, BECAUSE THEY TOOK AWAY THE COVID RULES WHERE YOU COULD DO VIRTUAL MEETINGS. OKAY. SO THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.
THAT CLEARS UP PART OF THE QUESTION.
YEAH, THAT'S VALUABLE INFORMATION.
[Informational Items]
OKAY. SO THE NEXT WE HAVE IS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. OKAY. SO THIS ONE IS COST TO PLAN MEMBERS OF EMPOWER VERSUS MISSION SQUARE.[00:35:04]
ALL RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO IF YOU WANT TO.SO I KNOW THERE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FEES THAT ARE CHARGED BY EMPOWER COMPARED TO THE FEES THAT WERE CHARGED BY MISSION SQUA RE. I PUT TOGETHER THE ATTACHMENTS HERE, LABELED FIVE A AND FIVE B, AND THEN WE HAVE THE FUND LINE UP HERE.
SO I'LL DELVE INTO THAT IN A SECOND, AND THEN THE OTHER PIECES OF THE PUZZLE THAT ARE INCLUDED, BECAUSE WE HAVE PAUL RANKIN HAD DONE A PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST, AND SO WE HAVE ALL THE EXCERPTS FROM THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN THIS PACKET.
SO WE HAVE THE BACKUP, I GUESS YOU CALL IT FOR THE ANALYSIS THAT I DID.
SO I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL, AND I GUESS I'LL SAY LIKE ONE MORE AS AN OVERVIEW.
THE THING THAT HAS BEEN WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING, FRUSTRATION FROM PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY RETIREES, IS THAT THERE ARE SOME FEES THAT ARE CHARGED BY EMPOWER THAT YOU NEVER SAW WITH MISSION SQUARE.
SO FOR DISTRIBUTIONS, AND THE MAIN ONE IS DISTRIBUTIONS THAT THERE'S A FEE FOR WHEN YOU'RE HAVING A PAYMENT COME FROM YOUR 457, AND SO AS A RETIREE YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHEN YOU HIT AGE 73 YOU HAVE A REQUIRED MANDATORY DISTRIBUTION, AND SO THERE'S A $50 FEE TO SET IT UP, A $25 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT WITH MISSION SQUARE, AND I GET IT.
SO THAT'S THAT LIKE HITS IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
THE FEES FOR EMPOWER ARE LOWER, AND I AND I, SO MAYBE I'LL NOW JUMP INTO THIS AND IT'S KIND OF SMALL FONT FOR ME EVEN, BUT WHAT PAGE ARE WE ON? I THINK IT SAYS FIVE.
YOU GOT IT. IT'S OKAY. THIS ONE HERE.
THANK YOU, AND THEN THE PAGE ON THE BACK IS EMPOWER.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS MISSION SQUARE.
OKAY. SO THIS ONE IS THE MISSION SQUARE PROPOSAL.
SO THESE ARE THE FEES THAT THEY PUT FORWARD IN THEIR PROPOSAL, AND I KNOW THAT WAS A CONCERN YOU HAD IS LIKE OH YOU'RE COMPARING THE FEES BUT YOU'RE USING THE OLD THE OLD MISSION SQUARE FUND LINEUP AND SO WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW IN THIS PACKET IS THAT ACTUALLY MISSION SQUARE PROPOSED USING THE SAME FUND LINEUP SO THAT IT IS A FAIR COMPARISON.
SO THIS IS NOW IN THE PAUL RANKIN PUBLIC RECORD, PUBLIC COMMENT.
NO PUBLIC RECORD, AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? SO HERE IT'S A DIFFERENT SO WE HAD IN OUR HANDOUTS.
YEAH, AND THE EXCERPTS FROM THE PROPOSALS OF THE FEES AND EXPENSES, AND IF YOU LOOK AT SO ON MINUSES, PAGE 26 AT THE BOTTOM, IF THAT HELPS.
I'M SORRY PAGE WHICH? IT SAYS 26, BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THAT'S NOT THE ACTUAL PAGE NUMBER, BUT I SEE IT SAYS MISSION SQUARE AT THE TOP.
SO BASIS POINT FEES CHARGED WITH FIXED FUND LINEUP.
WHICH IS THAT WAS LIKE THEIR MAIN PROPOSAL WAS THAT THEY SAID WE'LL KEEP OUR FUND LINEUP AS IS, AND IF WE DID THAT THEN, THEN THEY WOULD CHARGE 1.9 BASIS POINTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS MODEL HERE.
THE NOW FLIPPING BACK TO THIS GUY.
SO WE HAVE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 1.9 BASIS POINTS, AND THEN THE NEXT THING IS FEES BASED ON INVESTMENTS OFFERED, AND I ACTUALLY USED 49 BASIS POINTS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN WHAT THEY SAID, 50 BASIS POINTS, AND I DID THAT BASED ON THE I HOPE THIS ISN'T GOING TO CONFUSE PEOPLE TOO MUCH.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS NEXT THING, THIS IS A WEIGHTED A WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF THE FUND LINEUPS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY MISSION SQUARE AND BY EMPOWER, AND SO THE WAY IT'S A WEIGHTED FUND LINEUP IS EACH OF THESE FUNDS HAS A DIFFERENT EXPENSE RATIO.
[00:40:03]
SO IF YOU LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, I GUESS THE SO NOW I'M ON THE FOLD OUT.I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS. SO THE LIKE THE VERY FIRST LINE MSQ CASH MANAGEMENT FUND EXPENSE RATIO 46 BASIS POINTS, BUT SORRY, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND? SORRY. I'M JUST THINKING THAT FOR THE PUBLIC, IT MIGHT.
YEAH LIKE, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN FOLLOW ALONG? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CONNIE.
GREAT. THANK YOU, AND MAY I ASK, WAS THIS IN THE PACKET THAT I GOT LAST NIGHT OR YESTERDAY? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE.
IN BOTH OF THESE I JUST PRINTED IT OUT BIGGER.
SO THAT WAS ALL THIS INFORMATION IS IN WHAT I GOT.
I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE WHOLE THING.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAD THE FOLD OUT THOUGH.
THIS SEEMS NEW. OH, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU MADE IT BIGGER.
THAT'S RIGHT. I REMEMBER IT NOW.
SO WE SAY THE EXPENSE RATIO IS 46 BASIS POINTS BUT THEN YOU SAY OKAY WHAT PERCENT OF THE PLAN ASSETS WERE IN THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TOTAL PLAN ASSETS, SO ONLY 1% OF THE TOTAL PLAN ASSETS ARE IN THAT FUND.
SORRY. THIS IS GETTING LIKE MAYBE TOO MUCH MATH, AND THEN I DID THE SAME THING FOR EMPOWER.
SO EMPOWER HAS A FUND LINEUP ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT FUND.
SO IF WE TAKE THE CONVERSION THERE SO THEIR COMPARATIVE FUND HAS NO EXPENSE RATIO.
SO IT'S ZERO, AND SO YOU GO DOWN THE LINEUP AND SO WE HAVE A WEIGHTED BASIS POINT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PLAN PARTICIPANTS IN EACH OF THESE FUNDS, AND SO TO THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, I GUESS THE NEXT PAGE.
SO THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE IS 49 BASIS POINTS FOR MISSION SQUARE.
SO THAT'S BECAUSE SO REALLY THE FEES YOU PAY, IT DEPENDS WHAT INVESTMENT YOU CHOSE, AND I CAN'T CONTROL FOR THAT IN MY ANALYSIS, BUT OVERALL LOOKING AT LIKE THE AVERAGE PARTICIPANT.
THE AVERAGE PERSON IS PAYING A HIGHER COST FOR BEING IN THE MISSION SQUARE FUND LINEUP, BUT DIDN'T DIDN'T MISSION SQUARE REFUND ANYTHING PAST 0.04 BASIS POINTS? GREAT. I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT.
SO THAT WAS THE MODEL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN USING AND THIS IS GOING TO SOUND PEJORATIVE, BUT IT'S LIKE IT'S A VERY SMART WAY OF DOING IT BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY THEY'RE OVERCHARGING US, AND THIS IS THE WHOLE THING THAT WE DID TO, LIKE, GET RID OF THE EXTRA FEES IS SO THAT IT WAS A VERY THEY'RE THEY OVER COLLECT AND THEN THEY REFUND BACK THE EXCESS, AND THEY SHARE SOME OF THAT REVENUE WITH THE DIFFERENT FUNDS IN THE FUND LINEUP.
YES. SO IT WAS VERY HARD FOR US TO SEE WHAT IS THE REAL COST, BUT WE DID DO THE EQUITY RIGHT.
WE YEAH WE CHANGED IT TO EQUITY BASED OR.
NO. YEAH. WE CHANGED IT SO THAT THERE WAS NO MORE REBATE.
SO THEIR PROPOSAL HAD NO MORE REBATE IN IT.
WAIT, I THOUGHT I DON'T THINK WE CHANGED IT TO NO REBATES.
OKAY. SO OKAY. SO WE CHANGED THAT, AND THEN IN THEIR PROPOSAL THERE IS NO REBATE.
SO WHEN THEY MADE THEIR PROPOSAL THEY DID NOT PROPOSE.
CORRECT. SO THEY WERE JUST GOING TO CHARGE THE FEES AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE.
THERE WILL BE NO MORE NO MORE REBATE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ANALYZED HERE IS A 1.9 BASIS POINTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND THEN LOOKING AT THE FUNDS THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR FUND LINEUP THEY SAID 50 BASIS POINTS I USED 49.
SO LIKE A LITTLE BIT LESS BUT VERY, VERY SIMILAR, AND THEN I TRIED TO LOOK AT LIKE DIFFERENT IMAGINARY PARTICIPANTS. SO THE FIRST COLUMN, SOMEBODY WITH LIKE A $50,000 BALANCE, JUST, YOU KNOW, A REGULAR EMPLOYEE WHO'S PUTTING MONEY IN, MAYBE THEY'RE MIDWAY THROUGH THEIR CAREER. SO THEY HAVE LIKE A DECENT AMOUNT OF MONEY SAVED UP, BUT THEY'RE NOT TAKING ANY DISTRIBUTIONS AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL MANAGED ACCOUNT, AND SO THE COST FOR MISSION SQUARE IS I THINK THAT SAYS $254, AND IF YOU FLIP OVER TO THE EMPOWER PAGE. SO I DID THAT AND MODELED THE SAME SCENARIO, AND THE COST FOR THAT PERSON IS $164.
[00:45:04]
SO THE SAVINGS IS $90 PER YEAR FOR LIKE AN AVERAGE PERSON, AND SO THEN I DID THE SAME THING FOR THREE OTHER KINDS OF LIKE SAMPLES.SO HERE'S SOMEONE WITH 100,000.
NEXT PERSON IS $100,000 BALANCE, AND IF YOU HAD ADVISORY SERVICES SO THE MISSION SQUARE PROVIDES MANAGED ACCOUNT SERVICES, AND SO THEY HAVE THESE DIFFERENT FEES BASED ON HOW MUCH YOU HAVE IN YOUR ACCOUNTS.
WHERE IS THAT? IT'S THE SECOND COLUMN HERE.
ADVISORY SERVICES. SO YOU'VE GOT THE ADMIN FEE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FEES BASED ON YOUR INVESTMENTS.
THANK YOU, AND THEN WAS THAT IS THAT FOR YOUR SELF-DIRECTED OR NO? NO THIS IS IF YOU HAVE A MANAGED ACCOUNT.
SO THERE ARE ABOUT LIKE 100, I THINK IT WAS LIKE 155 PEOPLE THAT HAVE MANAGED ACCOUNTS.
MEANING THEY SELF MANAGE? NO. MEANING THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY FROM WAS MISSION SQUARE AND NOW EMPOWER WHO MEETS WITH THAT PERSON REGULARLY AND GIVES THEM ADVICE ABOUT HOW TO INVEST I SEE OKAY. SO MANAGED ACCOUNT SERVICES IS LIKE AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE THAT YOU CAN DECIDE TO HAVE, AND THEN THERE'S A FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SO I SAID, OKAY, HERE'S SOMEONE WITH $100,000 BALANCE, AND THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO HAVE ADVISORY SERVICES, AND SO THAT FEE IF YOU WERE WITH MISSION SQUA RE, IF YOU ADD UP THOSE THREE THINGS, SO THAT COST IS $1,009, AND IF YOU DID IT WITH EMPOWER, THE COST IS $778, BUT YOU SAID THERE'S 135 OUT OF HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS.
WE HAVE THAT LATER IN OUR PACKET.
HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS ARE THERE? I THINK THERE'S LIKE A.
[INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THAT'S JUST OUR ACTIVE EMPLOYEES, AND IT'S I THINK IT COULD BE RETIREES HAVE THAT.
I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY LARGE NUMBER.
I THINK IT'S LIKE I THINK IT'S LIKE 10% OF PARTICIPANTS.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE IT HAVE LARGER BALANCES.
IT TENDS TO BE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO WHERE THEY WANT SOME HELP WITH IT.
SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT SO IS THIS WEIGHTED THOUGH LIKE BECAUSE IN OTHER WORDS, IF ONLY 135 PEOPLE HAVE THIS AND WE GET DOWN.
SO THESE ARE JUST LIKE EACH ONE OF THESE IS LIKE A SAMPLE SCENARIO TO SEE.
THERE'S 1059 PLAN PARTICIPANTS.
RIGHT. LIKE, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, TIPPING THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO LIKE SHOW THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
SO ANYHOW, THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT A THE FIRST ONE IS 50,000 BALANCE.
WE COULD JUST DOUBLE THE 50,000, AND YOU'D SEE WHAT 100,000 BALANCE IS, RIGHT? LIKE WE COULD DOUBLE IT AND TRIPLE IT AND SEE LIKE HOW'S YOUR ASSETS GROW.
THE MORE MONEY YOU HAVE THE MORE FEES YOU'RE PAYING, BUT SO THEN I JUST ADDED IN LIKE, OH, IF YOU HAVE AN ADVISORY SERVICES IT'S AN ADDITIONAL $500, AND SO THEN THE NEXT COLUMN OVER IS IF YOU HAVE 500,000, WHICH IS MORE LIKE A RETIREE, AND MAYBE YOU HAVE MANAGED ACCOUNTS AND YOU HAVE A REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION, AND SO THAT TOTAL COST IS $4,445 WITH MISSION SQUARE, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO FEE, SORRY, THERE'S A ZERO THERE, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE IS NO FEE FOR DISTRIBUTIONS.
I MEAN, I THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO HAVE IT DISPLAYED OF LIKE EVERYBODY EXPERIENCES THE 1.9 BASIS POINTS MISSION SQUARE, AND THEN EVERYBODY EXPERIENCES THE 1.85 BASIS POINTS FOR MISSION SQUARE.
YES, AND THEN 135 PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN $90 SAVINGS BECAUSE IT'S MAKING IT AS THOUGH WE'LL SKIP OVER.
SO LIKE WHAT THE COST IS AND WHAT THE BENEFIT IS.
SO JUST PUTTING IN WHAT THE COSTS ARE.
SO IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE A MANAGED ACCOUNT.
BOTTOM LINE, IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE A MANAGED ACCOUNT WITH MISSION SQUARE THAN IT DOES WITH EMPOWER, AND I HEAR WHAT PAUL IS SAYING, PAUL RANKIN IS SAYING THAT THE MISSION SQUARE PROVIDED A CFP, A CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT WITH EMPOWER.
THEY'RE STILL LIKE HIGHLY TRAINED PEOPLE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A CFP CERTIFICATION, BUT IT COSTS LESS WITH EMPOWER.
YOU CAN'T UNDERESTIMATE THAT AND JUST THROW IT IN AS NUMBER THREE.
[00:50:03]
THAT'S A KEY PART OF THE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE RECEIVE, AND I HAVEN'T HAD VERY GOOD EXPERIENCES IN MY OWN CASE, AS I'VE LET YOU KNOW WITH THESE FOLKS.SO SHE'S NOT A CFP? NO, BUT SHE DOES HAVE A DESIGNATION.
SHE'S NOT. SHE HAS MORE OF A DESIGNATION THAN ANY OF THE EMPOWER REPS HAVE AND THE EMPOWER REP TOLD ME, DON'T WORRY, YOUR RFP, YOUR RMDS ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUED.
NO PROBLEM, JUST THE WAY, DON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT IT, AND I SAID, WELL, I HATE TO BE ANNOYING, BUT COULD YOU JUST CHECK MY INDIVIDUAL THING AND IT TURNED OUT THEY TERMINATED THEM WITHOUT, AND THEY STILL, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT A LATER THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE ADVICE THAT YOU'RE GETTING AND THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE THAT YOU'RE GETTING, WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE BEEN TOTALLY LEFT OUT OF THE EQUATION, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM A FINANCE PERSON'S POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S SORT OF A DETAIL, BUT FROM A PLAN USER'S POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S CLOSE TO NUMBER ONE, CERTAINLY NUMBER TWO, LET ME JUST FINISH UP THE FEES.
ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. SO THE LAST THE LAST COLUMN IS A RETIREE.
SO WITH A $500,000 BALANCE, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION.
SO THERE WAS NO FEE FOR TAKING THAT DISTRIBUTION WITH MISSION SQUARE, BUT THERE IS FOR EMPOWER, AND HOW DID YOU MULTIPLY THAT OUT. SO YOU'VE GOT THE ONE POINT.
SO YOU'VE GOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE.
I MEAN DID YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF RETIREES RECEIVING RMDS.
YEAH THERE'S I DID NOT, BUT THERE ARE 31 RMDS.
YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S ONLY 31 RETIREES RECEIVING RMDS.
THERE'S ONLY 31 PEOPLE OVER 72? NO, THAT ARE THAT ARE TAKING THEIR RMDS.
PEOPLE MAY HAVE ALREADY PULLED IT OUT BECAUSE THE RMDS IS FORCING YOU TO TAKE IT.
EVERYBODY OVER 72 HAS TO BE TAKING RMDS OR THEY'RE IN BIG TROUBLE.
UNLESS THEY PULLED IT OUT. UNLESS THEY'VE HAD A WITHDRAWAL.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY'RE NO LONGER IN THE PLAN, BUT ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THERE'S ONLY 32 PEOPLE, 32 RETIREES RECEIVING RMDS AT THE MOMENT WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PLAN? THAT IS THE INFORMATION WE GOT FROM MISSION SQUARE.
YES. WELL, HOW MANY RETIREES ARE IN THE PLAN? I'VE ASKED THAT SEVERAL TIMES, AND I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN ANSWER, AND IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU KNOW HOW MANY RETIREES ARE TAKING RMDS, YOU KNOW HOW MANY RETIREES ARE IN THE PLAN.
SO WE CANNOT, AND MISSION SQUARE WAS NEVER ABLE TO DO THIS EITHER, IDENTIFY OF THOSE THAT ARE NOT ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS, WHICH ARE RETIREES AND WHICH ARE JUST SEPARATED.
IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME WHICH, BUT THEY KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE RETIREES OR WHETHER THEY'RE TERMINATED PEOPLE, BUT I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE THERE ARE.
I'VE ASKED THAT SEVERAL TIMES, AND I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN ANSWER, AND IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE 32 PEOPLE WHO ARE RECEIVING RMDS, WHICH TAXES MY CREDULITY, I MUST SAY, THAT THERE'S ONLY 32 RETIREES LEFT IN THE PLAN WHO ARE OVER 72, WHICH IS THE DIRECT IMPLICATION OF YOUR REMARKS HERE. WHY CAN'T YOU TELL ME HOW MANY RETIREES AND TERMINATED PARTICIPANTS ARE IN THE PLAN AT THE MOMENT, OR AT A RECENT MOMENT? WE CAN WE CAN PROVIDE A REPORT THROUGH EMPOWER THAT WILL SHOW HOW MANY ARE NON-PARTICIPANTS.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT--LET ME FINISH MY SENTENCE, INCLUDING IN A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, AND YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THEY JUST YOU ASKED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT MISSION SQUARE AND WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT ANYMORE.
THEY COULD I WANT THE EMPOWER NUMBERS.
OKAY. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS.
IF WE HAVE 706 PERMANENT STAFF AND WE HAVE 1000 PEOPLE ON THE PLAN, RIGHT? ISN'T THAT OR, NO, SORRY.
THAT'S PERMANENT STAFF. PLAN PARTICIPATION IS 479.
SO IF WE HAVE 479 THAT ARE PARTICIPATING OF CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
WAIT, NO, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING.
OR IS IT? OH SORRY. WELL, I'M ON 27.
SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. 568 FOR 2024.
YEAH. SO THERE'S SOME OF THEM ARE RETIREES.
SOME OF THEM ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEPARATED BUT HAVEN'T TAKEN THEIR ACCOUNTS OUT.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
I'M ASKING YOU FOR THE TOTAL OF THE TWO.
I HAVE NOT EVEN RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM YOU THAT I ASKED FOR IT.
[00:55:08]
I DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO ME RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT HOW ABOUT GIVING IT TO ME BY THE END OF THE WEEK, OR THE END OF NEXT WEEK? OKAY, LET'S STICK WITH THE FEES.
CAN WE DO THAT? NO, I KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO ANSWER THAT.
SO IF I CAN JUST PULL THIS BACK.
SO I DO THINK MAYBE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OFF TRACK ON THAT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE A NOTE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT INFORMATION.
I CAN, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOK AT 564 AS OF 2024, AND IF THERE'S 1035 IN THE PLAN, THEN THERE'S ABOUT FIVE, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5, 500? ABOUT 500.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE.
RIGHT, IS THAT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC REQUEST? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE YEAH. YES. OKAY.
SO CAN WE ASK THEM? THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WE CAN ASK EMPOWER. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. WE'LL PUT THAT ON EMPOWER.
SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE A FINANCIAL ADVISOR WILL TAKE THEIR 457 AND WHEN THEY SEPARATE FROM THE PARK DISTRICT, THEY ROLL THAT OVER INTO AN IRA SO IT WON'T SHOW UP AS THEY'RE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROGRAM ANYMORE.
ALL RIGHT, AND ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT OF THOSE 500, ONLY 30 OF THEM ARE OVER 72? I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID.
WELL, ANYONE OVER 72 HAS TO DO RMDS.
WELL, WHY WOULD THEY BE IN? WHY WOULD THEY BE COUNTED THEN? IF THEY'RE NOT IN THE PLAN ANYMORE, THEY'RE NOT PLAN MEMBERS.
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THEM? SO I THINK I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS EITHER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER, AND I DO KNOW THAT PETE HAS BEEN ASKING FOR A LONG TIME.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM EMPOWER, AND AND I THINK WHEN WE'RE HERE, THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO ASK THEM TO BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THERE IS A LOT TO LOOK AT, RIGHT? WHO'S ACTIVE, WHO'S NOT ACTIVE, WHO'S, YOU KNOW, RMDS.
THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS, AND I THINK EMPOWER CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT TO US.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ANYWAY.
SO SO MAYBE WE CAN TALK TO WILLIAM WHEN HE COMES.
IS HE GOING TO BE HERE LATER IN THE MEETING? YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE HE'LL BE HERE FOR THE INVESTMENT REVIEW, AND THEN WE HAVE PARTICIPATION DATA AFTER THAT, SO MAYBE WE CAN ASK HIM TO STAY FOR THAT PARTICIPATION DATA. FIVE MINUTE DISCUSSION, BUT OKAY, SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SUSAN HAS HER HAND RAISED UP.
[INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS. YEAH WE CAN.
YEAH, AND I MEAN WE SHOULD IT JUST YOU KNOW CERTAINLY SHE CAN SPEAK ON THAT.
WELL ALMOST DONE ALMOST DONE WITH THE ANALYSIS HERE.
SO THE LAST COLUMN IS THE PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE AN RMD AND JUST SHOWING THE COMPARISON.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE $50 FEE OR THE $25 ANNUAL FEE COMPARED TO THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT.
THE FUND LINEUP I UNDERSTAND HOW FRUSTRATING IT IS, BUT WHEN YOU DO THE ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS, THE MAJORITY OF THE COST COMES FROM WHAT YOU'RE INVESTED IN.
THAT'S WHERE ALL THE FEES ARE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SHOW WITH THIS ANALYSIS, AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT, WHICH IS HARD TO READ BECAUSE IT GOT KIND OF SQUISHED HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, BUT THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN MISSION SQUARE HAD INCENTIVES.
[01:00:03]
SQUARE DID LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT WE WORKED WITH HAD INCENTIVES TO PUT PEOPLE INTO THE MISSION SQUARE INVESTMENTS BECAUSE THEY EARN MORE FROM THAT AND SO THAT WAS THE INCENTIVE PLAN.ARE YOU SPEAKING OF THE SALARY STRUCTURES OF THE MISSION SQUARE EMPLOYEES? YEAH, SO THAT'S WHAT'S PASTED DOWN HERE, AND IT'S KIND OF HARD TO READ.
ISN'T THAT ALSO ON EMPOWER THOUGH? THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT STRUCTURE.
SO YOU SEE HOW IT SAYS NO, NO, NO? IN ADDITION TO ANNUAL SALARY, THEY MAY RECEIVE PERFORMANCE BONUSES BASED ON OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED TO INCENTIVIZE QUALITY OF SERVICE AND CORRESPOND WITH OVERALL GROWTH OF THE PLAN. ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING? IT'S DIFFERENT.
SO THIS IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT IT SAYS THAT THEY IF THEY HAVE PEOPLE AND PUTTING PEOPLE INTO MANAGED ACCOUNT ENROLLMENT, AND I THINK THIS SAYS INTO THE MISSION SQUARE ACCOUNTS.
RIGHT? YEAH MISSION SQUARE ADMINISTERED PLAN.
SO THE MISSION SQUARE INCENTIVIZED THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO SELL MISSION SQUARE FUNDS WHERE AS EMPOWER THERE IS NO THEY RECEIVE NO INCENTIVE FOR THEIR FINANCIAL ADVICE OR INVESTMENT ADVICE, BUT OTHER THAN WHAT MEADOW JUST MENTIONED, YES, BUT THEY'RE NOT ACTIVELY SELLING FUNDS THAT ARE THEIR BRAND.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? I MEAN, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT.
YES, THEY RECEIVE ESSENTIALLY KICKBACKS FOR SELLING THEIR MANAGED FUNDS.
[INAUDIBLE] FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THOUGH, THEIR OWN PRODUCTS HAD THE LEAST BASIS POINTS.
NO? NO, THEY'RE THE MOST EXPENSIVE.
OKAY, BUT THEY WERE REBATED BACK SO BUT THEY WERE INFLATED SO THEY COULD RECOUP THEIR OWN COSTS.
SO THEY INFLATED THEIR FUND'S COST TO I THINK THEIR EXPENSE RATIO IS 0.52 AND A SIMILAR FUND FROM EMPOWER WAS 0.33.
SO THEY INFLATED THEIR FUND PRICE OVER WHAT THE AVERAGE IS IN THE MARKET.
RIGHT, BUT I MEAN, IF YOU'RE REBATING IT I'M NOT SAYING IT'S OPTIMAL.
THERE WAS LIKE THERE WERE OTHER LAYERS.
SO THIS PROPOSAL HAD NO REBATE IN IT.
SO YOU CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY WHAT THE COSTS WERE, BUT BEFORE IT WAS VERY HARD TO SEE THE COSTS, AND THEY HAD INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO SELL THE PRODUCTS THAT MADE MORE MONEY FOR THEM, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT HERE, IS THAT I GET IT.
THERE WERE NOT AS MANY EXPLICIT FEES, BUT THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT MISSION SQUARE HAD IN PLACE THAT WERE NOT IDEAL FOR PARTICIPANTS BECAUSE IT WASN'T VERY TRANSPARENT, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AS BEING SOMETHING WE WERE WORKING ON.
WE WERE LIKE, WHAT ARE THE COSTS? IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE, AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET THERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHEN WE DID THE DIVIDENDS BASED ON THE INVESTMENTS SPECIFICALLY, SO THAT PEOPLE COULD SEE IT MORE CLEARLY THAT, OKAY, IT DEFINITELY IMPROVED IT, BUT YOU CAN LIKE AND THEN WHEN YOU VIEW THE RFP, WE COULD SEE MORE CLEARLY LIKE, HEY, THESE FUNDS ARE STILL VERY EXPENSIVE.
LIKE THEIR LINEUP IS VERY EXPENSIVE COMPARED TO WHAT EMPOWER WAS OFFERING.
SO THEY'RE COLLECTING MORE THROUGH THEIR FUND LINEUP THAN THEY ARE THROUGH THE LITTLE FEES, LIKE $50 FOR THIS AND 25 FOR THAT, AND $2 FOR GETTING THEM IN WRITING ON PAPER, AS OPPOSED TO $2 A MONTH FOR GETTING THEM IN WRITING. YEAH, I THINK THE INCENTIVE THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE ARE TO LIKE, I GET THAT IT'S FRUSTRATING, AND SO I'M NOT TRYING TO FIX WHATEVER.
I'M JUST TRYING TO, LIKE WALK THROUGH THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS TO KEEP IT A PLAN THAT HAS LOWER COSTS TO MANAGE AND TO ADMINISTER, AND SO BY LIKE DIS-INCENTIVIZING THINGS THAT CAUSE EXTRA WORK, BY PUTTING A FEE ON IT, THEN IT KEEPS IT TO BE MORE RETIREES POINT OF VIEW.
I PERCENTAGE OF THOSE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN HAVE COMPUTERS OR COMPUTER ACCESS.
RIGHT. SO AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, RETIREES TEND TO HAVE YOU TEND TO AS YOU GET OLDER, YOU GET MORE CONSERVATIVE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
RIGHT? I DON'T NEED TO PROVE THAT, DO I? THAT'S A KNOWN FACT.
SO THIS REALLY DOESN'T FROM AS A RETIREES REP, THIS REALLY ISN'T REFLECTING RETIREES COSTS BECAUSE I SUSPECT A MUCH SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE IN THOSE PLANS.
SO YOU THINK THEY'RE IN INVESTMENTS THAT HAD LOWER FEES? I WOULD STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT.
I MEAN, FOR THAT REASON, FACT, BUT I'M SAYING IT'S AN AWFULLY GOOD LIKELIHOOD THEY'RE NOT TAKING A LOT OF RISKS.
[01:05:06]
YEAH. GENERALLY YOU TAKE A LOT MORE RISK WHEN YOU'RE YOUNGER BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT MORE YEARS TO RECOVER.THE PLUS FUND IS NOT AN INEXPENSIVE PLAN TO BE IN.
SO WHAT MEADOW IS SAYING IS LIKE IT'S LESS RISKY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S LOWER COSTS.
SO I THINK MAYBE IT'S IN THE NEW INFORMATION.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THE OLD INFORMATION.
I GUESS. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN MOVE OFF THIS ITEM.
I JUST I WANTED TO, THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT LIKE US NOT HAVING DONE THE ANALYSIS AND WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROPOSALS, AND SO I WANTED TO SHOW THAT LIKE THERE WAS A THOUGHT PROCESS, AND, AND I HEAR THAT THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT THESE EXPLICIT FEES NOW SO THAT I WANTED TO TALK THROUGH LIKE THE FEES THAT PEOPLE ARE PAYING ARE VERY HARD TO SEE BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING OFF THE TOP, AND SO BUT IF YOU BREAK IT DOWN THIS WAY AND YOU SEE, OKAY, THE FUND LINEUP IS WHERE MOST OF THESE FEES ARE HAPPENING, THEN THAT'S, I HOPE, HELPFUL TO SEE HOW THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE.
WELL, HOW ABOUT THE 100? I BELIEVE IT WAS 100,000 $2.86 REBATES FOR 2023.
THAT'S NOT FACTORED INTO THE $200,000 SAVINGS.
CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT? SO THIS FUND, THIS BIG PIECE OF PAPER HERE IS THE FUND LINEUP WE HAD FOR MISSION SQUARE WITH THE TOTAL PLAN ASSETS AND THEN THE COST THAT IS BASED ON THOSE, AND SO THIS IS WHAT MISSION SQUARE PROPOSED, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME FUND LINEUP AS THEY CURRENTLY DO, BUT DO WE HAVE THAT FOR EMPOWER.
YEAH, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE EMPOWER FUNDS, AND THEN URING THE RFP PROCESS, THEY BEING MISSION SQUARE.
DID THEY? DID THEY MAKE ONLY ONE PROPOSAL, OR DID THEY SAY, WE CAN OFFER YOU THE SAME FUNDS THAT EMPOWER IS OFFERING YOU.
THEY SAID BASIS POINT FEES IF OPEN ARCHITECTURE, WHICH IS LIKE WHERE WE WOULD GET THAT SAID, THE PARTICIPANT EXPENSE WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FUNDS SELECTED, BUT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A SIX BASIS POINT REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS VERSUS EMPOWER THAT GAVE US THE 1.85 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE WITH A FUND LINEUP WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT.
SO MISSION SQUARE HAS A FIXED FUND LINEUP WHERE THEY REALLY WANT US TO STAY WITH THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S BUT THEY DID OFFER THE OPEN ARCHITECTURE, DIDN'T THEY? AT A HIGHER FEES.
YEAH. SO AND I GUESS, I KNOW WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT FEES, BUT T HERE ARE OTHER THINGS ABOUT MISSION SQUARE THAT I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WERE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THEM, BUT THAT WERE NOT IDEAL FROM THE.
I THINK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LIKE TRYING TO ADMINISTER THE PLANS, LIKE THERE WERE ISSUES THAT WERE HAPPENING THAT WERE MAKING IT CLEAR TO SOME OF US THAT MISSION SQUARE WAS NOT AS STRONG AS THEY USED TO BE.
I THINK THAT THE POINT THAT SHE'S TRYING TO MAKE IS COMPARING MISSION SQUARE TO EMPOWER EVERY INVESTMENT TYPE LOW LOW BALANCE OR HIGH BALANCE, EVERYONE'S SAVING MONEY.
EMPOWER DOES HAVE FIDUCIARIES.
THEY DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN CONSULT AND PROVIDE INFORMATION.
I THINK THE MAIN POINT IS EVERY EVERY PLAN PARTICIPANT SAVES MONEY.
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU WOULD.
WELL, HOW MUCH IS THE COST TO SEE EMPOWER, DOESN'T IT COST $300? NO NO NO, YOU CAN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PLAN MEMBER TO SEE.
MAYBE YOU COULD LOOK INTO THAT TO BE 100% SURE.
YOU CAN HAVE MEETINGS WITH THE RETIREMENT PLAN ADVISORS JUST THE SAME.
LIKE THE KIM HAMMOND EXPERIENCE IS FREE.
AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO A CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER COST THAT COST YOU 300, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT THAT'S AND ALSO ONE JUST ONE LAST THING.
THE $50 FEE THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY WHEN FOR THAT APPLIES SEPARATELY TO EVERY WITHDRAWAL THAT YOU
[01:10:08]
MAKE. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU DECIDED TO RESUME THE RFP, IS THAT YOUR LEGAL REQUIRED THAT'S GOING TO COST YOU 50 PLUS 25 A YEAR.IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE YOUR FUNDS OUT OF THE PLAN OR MAKE ANY OTHER KIND OF WITHDRAWAL EVERY TIME YOU DO A WITHDRAWAL, THAT'S ANOTHER $50 FEE, ACTUALLY, YEAH, IF I CAN CORRECT THAT, IF YOU WERE SET UP FOR AN RMD WHEN YOU WERE WITH MISSION SQUARE, YOU WEREN'T CHARGED AN ADDITIONAL FEE.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. I WAS CHARGED.
I HAD THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS WORTH AND THEY CHARGED ME AND WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY MADE ME FILL OUT AN RMD FORM IN ORDER TO CONTINUE PAYMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, AND IN FACT, THEY MADE TWO MONTHLY PAYMENTS ALREADY IN 2024 THE RMD FORM IS EIGHT PAGES LONG, NOT INCLUDING NINE PAGES OF INSTRUCTION.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT FORM FOR STATE WITHHOLDING.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT FORM FOR FEDERAL WITHHOLDING.
I HAVE ASKED THIS COMMITTEE TWICE TO SAY YOU NEED TO NOTIFY PEOPLE, AND WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IS TO GET A POSTAGE STAMP AND MAIL EVERY RETIREE OVER 72, THE RMD FORM BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAD ME DO WAS TO, FIRST OF ALL, THEY PROMISED TO SEND ME THE FORM THREE TIMES AND THEY NEVER DID, BUT I FINALLY FOUND IT, SO I HAD TO WHAT THEY REQUIRED WAS THAT I HAD TO DOWNLOAD IT ONTO MY COMPUTER, PRINT IT OUT, FILL IT OUT BY HAND, SCAN IT BACK INTO MY COMPUTER AND UPLOAD IT ONTO THEIR WEBSITE, WHICH I DID, BUT WHICH A LOT OF RETIREES, SOME OF THEM ARE IN ASSISTED LIVING, SOME OF THEM DON'T YOU? WE'RE FROM A PRE-COMPUTER GENERATION.
SO WHY, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY IN THE PLAN OVER 70 DO IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR IS WHY WOULDN'T WE GET A POSTAGE STAMP AND MAIL THE RMD FORM AND THE STATE WITHHOLDING AND THE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TO EVERY RETIREE OVER 72, AND SAY ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS IS TO FILL OUT THIS FORM BY HAND, PUT YOUR OWN POSTAGE STAMP ON IT, MAIL IT BACK.
THAT WOULD SAVE SO MUCH GRIEF FOR RETIREES AND SO MUCH TIME FOR THE EMPOWER ASSISTANCE, TOO.
WHY IN THE WORLD WOULDN'T YOU DO THAT? AND WHY WOULDN'T YOU DO IT RIGHT AWAY? PETE, THIS COMMITTEE DOESN'T WORK FOR EMPOWER.
WE CAN'T EMAIL OR SEND EMPOWER DOCUMENTS.
THE PARK DISTRICT CAN'T DO THAT.
IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT ADMINISTERS YEAH, BUT THE PARK DISTRICT IS FORCING ITS MEMBERS TO FILL OUT THIS FORM.
WHY CAN'T EMPOWER, WHY CAN'T YOU REQUEST THAT EMPOWER MAIL OUT THESE FORMS? BECAUSE THESE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GIGANTIC PROBLEM TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN IRS PENALTY SITUATIONS.
ISN'T THIS JUST COMMON SENSE? WE ARE WORKING WITH EMPOWER TO DO THAT, AND WE'VE YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED TO YOU SEPARATELY ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION AND HAVE DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO HELP YOU OUT, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO, BUT EMPOWER IS LOOKING AT ALL EMPLOYEES OR RETIREES OR PAST PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DO RMDS, AND THEY WILL BE NOTIFYING THEM OF WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY NEED TO DO.
I MEAN, WHY WE REQUEST THAT EMPOWER MAIL OUT THESE FORMS TO PEOPLE OVER 72 SO THAT THEY CAN FILL THEM OUT AND MAIL THEM BACK. I'LL PAY FOR IT PERSONALLY.
LET'S MAYBE WRAP UP THE FEE DISCUSSION AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO KEEP THOSE MOVING ON THE AGENDA.
SO I DO THINK THIS I'M GOING TO STOP IT THERE BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD DO THAT, AND WE DO HAVE THE NEXT TOPIC WHICH WE CAN CONTINUE OR WHATEVER ON THIS.
SO OKAY, SO WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.
OKAY. SUSAN, DID YOU WANT TO, YOU HAD YOUR HAND RAISED.
SO RECENTLY TUESDAY, I ATTENDED THE BOARD MEETING, AND THE BOARD DID INDICATE AN INTEREST IN HAVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PACKET.
[01:15:07]
NOT IN DEPTH.IT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF INFORMATION, AND SO PART OF MY COMMENT IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF NUMBERS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S REAL HELPFUL TO HAVE I DON'T THINK THE INFORMATION.
WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER PRESENTATION FOR ME, I GUESS, SAID DIFFERENTLY IS A DISCUSSION, MORE FEES AND SERVICES? AS FAR AS EMPOWER VERSUS MISSION SQUARE? WHILE I CERTAINLY HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT THAT.
I THINK A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, AND WHERE I'M KIND OF AT WITH THIS IS JUST THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA HOW THE TWO PLANS COMPARE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IN DISCUSSING WITH PEOPLE WHAT THEY'RE IN STORE FOR.
SO FOR EXAMPLE YOU HAVE ON HERE IN YOUR FORM DISTRIBUTION LUMP SUM AND WHAT I, YOU KNOW, WHEN PRINTING IT, WHAT I RECEIVE ARE BLANK INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY TRUE, AND INSTALLMENT ANNUAL FEE, AND I DID JUST HAVE SOME MONEY MOVED FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER BECAUSE OF SOME CDS AND DID HAVE TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL YET ADDITIONAL SETUP FEE, SO, AND WAS JUST NOTIFIED ABOUT THE $2 FOR THE PAPER COPY, AND YES, DEBORAH, I AM IN THAT GROUP, AND WANT TO CONTINUE.
THE POINT IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF FEES AND SERVICES.
I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION PREPARED DIFFERENTLY IN THE FORM OF A CHART THAT WOULD REALLY COMPARE THE SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED AND THE FEES, SO THAT WE CAN JUST MOVE FORWARD AND EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE, YES, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY $25 FOR THE ELECTRONIC FEE AS OPPOSED TO THE 650 THAT YOU WILL IF YOU HAVE THE PAPER FEE.
I MEAN, BECAUSE PEOPLE COULD MAKE SOME DECISIONS ON HOW THEY WANT TO RECEIVE THEIR LUMP SUMS TOO, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE IT PREPARED MORE IN TERMS OF FEES AND SERVICES, AND SINCE THE BOARD DID REQUEST THE INFORMATION, I GUESS THE OTHER PART OF MY COMMENT IS I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE ADVISED WHEN THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE PREPARED SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT, BECAUSE AND WHEN IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE BOARD AND YOU KNOW, THERE SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF SNAFU ABOUT BOARD FINANCE OR FULL BOARD OR WHATEVER AND I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD.
I APPRECIATE SUSAN'S COMMENTS.
I DO THINK THAT WE YOU KNOW, LIKE SUSAN SAID, THE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE AND HERE WE ARE.
I DO THINK THAT WE COULD PROBABLY DO MORE TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGE.
SO I THINK IT IS REALLY HARD TO SEE THAT, AND I THINK I JUST AGREE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT FEES SERVICES AND MAYBE I WOULD ADD EVEN INVESTMENTS.
SO THAT WE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN REALLY SEE THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE EVEN IN THIS COMPARISON, YOU KNOW, LIKE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT BEING $90 A YEAR SAVINGS, LIKE, AND THAT'S INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THE MANAGED ACCOUNTS.
I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S JUST WHAT I CAN GLEAN FROM THE NUMBERS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED, AND SO IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN I THINK WE, I THINK WE NEED TO PRESENT IT BETTER, AND A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER, AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO PART OF OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IN PUTTING THE PLAN PARTICIPANTS FIRST IS NOT ALWAYS GOING WITH THE LOWER FEES, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT THE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE WANT.
SO PERHAPS MISSION SQUARE COST SLIGHTLY MORE.
[01:20:02]
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS I SHOP AT SAFEWAY BECAUSE THEY BAG MY GROCERIES FOR THEM.I CAN GO TO OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY DON'T BAG THEIR GROCERIES, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE BAGGING MY GROCERIES, AND I'M OKAY PAYING A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR MY GROCERIES, AND SO, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ENOUGH TIME.
OR EVEN OUTREACH TO ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS TO SAY, HERE'S THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE.
THESE ARE THE TYPES OF SERVICES THEY PROVIDE.
THIS SCENARIO IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AT NAGDA OF LIKE THAT THIS PROCESS, IT'S VERY EMOTIONAL FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND TO DO IT YOURSELF AS AN AGENCY, IT JUST SORT OF INVITES THAT CRITICISM TO THE AGENCY, BUT WHEN YOU REMOVE YOURSELF AND HAVE A CONSULTANT TO IT, NOT ONLY CAN THEY ANTICIPATE ALL OF THESE THINGS, THEY CAN PRESENT EVERYTHING IN A WAY THAT THEY'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, AND MAKING IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO DIGEST.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT BOGS OUR DAILY JOBS DOWN OF HAVING TO DO THIS.
I REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING THAT OUT FOR A CONSULTANT TO DO.
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO, AND THEY HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT AT NAGDA THEY SAID, DON'T EVER TRY TO DO IT YOURSELF BECAUSE IT WILL BE A NIGHTMARE, AND THERE'S SO MANY DETAILS, AND AS WE CAN SEE, THERE'S SO MANY DETAILS THAT ARE JUST HARD TO EXPLAIN, AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT.
I WANT TO SAY ONE MORE ONE MORE THING.
JUST TO YOUR POINT OF LIKE, OH, $90 A YEAR FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS A $50,000, LIKE FOR THE WHOLE PLAN, IT IS 200,000 A YEAR IN SAVINGS. SO IT REALLY IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT, AND I GET IT, LIKE FOR SOMEONE, FOR THE WHOLE.
SO IT'S 200,000 EACH YEAR FOR THE WHOLE PLAN.
SO FOR EACH YEAR THAT'S OVER FIVE YEARS.
IT'S $1 MILLION MORE THAT OUR PLAN PARTICIPANTS ARE PAYING.
I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN'T SEE THAT.
I THINK THAT I KNOW AND IT'S HARD TO LIKE I KEEP TRYING TO WALK IT THROUGH IN DIFFERENT WAYS BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T TRUST ME WHEN I'M SAYING, NO, NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRUST YOU. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE THAT WHEN YOU CAN'T SEE IT, AND SOMEONE'S LIKE, TRUST ME, BELIEVE ME, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, BUT WHEN IT'S YOUR MONEY, YOU WANT TO KNOW FOR SURE, AND SO I'M TRYING TO LAY IT OUT HERE WITH NO BACKUP, AND, AND I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO YOU THAT, THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS A MONSTER JOB TO HAVE TO DO, AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNFAIR THAT IT FALLS ON THE TWO OF YOU TO HAVE TO DO THAT, AND SO I REALLY DO THINK THAT IN THE FUTURE WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD START LOOKING AT THAT NOW, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE HAVE THAT NOW, AND PART OF THAT CONSULTANT IN, YOU KNOW, IN SEARCHING FOR THAT CONSULTANT IS HOW DO THEY HANDHOLD OUR PARTICIPANTS IN MOVING FROM ONE PLAN TO ANOTHER? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE ARE TOO BUSY HERE AT THE DISTRICT TO DO THAT AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, AND SO LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE.
SO KNOWING THAT WE'RE THERE NOW, I DO THINK MAYBE A LITTLE ROAD SHOW WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEARING, PETE, I'M HEARING PETE AS A RETIREE SAYING THAT THIS HAPPENED TO ME, AND I'M HEARING SUSAN, THIS HAPPENED TO ME.
CAN I INTERRUPT REAL QUICK? BECAUSE WE DID OFFER THAT TO THE RETIREE ASSOCIATION ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
I HAVE EMAILS TO SHOW THAT, AND TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM EMPOWER GO TO ONE OF THE RETIREE MEETINGS, BUT LET ME JUST BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO MOVE ON.
OBVIOUSLY COMMUNICATION IS KEY.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT WE'VE BEEN WITH MISSION SQUARE FOR 40 YEARS, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXTREME CHANGE FOR US TO TRANSITION FROM ONE PROVIDER TO ANOTHER.
TO SUSAN'S POINT, WE ARE HERE.
SO WHAT IT IS, WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT IS PROVIDE MORE COMMUNICATION.
AGAIN, IF WE NEED TO HOST MORE MEETINGS, PROVIDE MORE DOCUMENTATION, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WILLING TO DO, BUT THE AND TO YOUR POINT NEXT, YOU KNOW THIS CONTRACT IS FOR FIVE YEARS.
WE'LL PREPARE FOR THE NEXT ONE, BUT WE ARE HERE AND I THINK WE HAVEN'T GIVEN EMPOWER A CHANCE TO REALLY DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFIT.
WE ARE LITERALLY MONTH TWO, AND IT'S UNFAIR TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IT WAS A WRONG DECISION, BECAUSE WE CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE ACTUAL NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S ONLY MAY, BUT I THINK THAT AND THAT'S MY POINT, IS THAT ALL THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THAT.
YEAH I MEAN, IF WE DO THAT BEFORE THEN WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THE SITUATION, AND AGAIN, WE'RE HERE, BUT I THINK INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING LIKE WE'RE HERE AND WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT LIKE, I REALLY DO THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE HEARD, AND SO EMPOWER CAN COME AND SAY, HERE'S HOW YOU SIGN UP FOR YOUR ACCOUNT, HERE'S OUR MANAGED FUNDS OR WHATEVER.
[01:25:08]
THAT'S NICE, BUT I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS, DID WE GET A GOOD DEAL? LIKE, AM I REALLY SAVING MONEY BECAUSE I'M PAYING A BUNCH OF FEES AND I DON'T, THEY'RE NOT SEEING IT, AND SO IF THEY'RE NOT SEEING IT, THEN I THINK THAT'S THE PRESENTATION WE NEED TO GIVE TO SAY, COME BRING YOUR HARDEST QUESTIONS AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER THEM LIKE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BOARD MEETINGS FULL OF PUBLIC COMMENT.THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP EMAILING THE BOARD.
WE HAVE TO WE HAD OFFERED TO GO TO A RETIRED LIKE JUST ME AND MONICA, GO TO A RETIREE LUNCHEON AND I THINK AT THE TIME, LIKE THE NEWS WAS STILL VERY RAW, AND SO THAT NO ONE TOOK US UP ON THAT OFFER.
MAYBE NOW PEOPLE ARE READY TO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS THAT THE RETIREES ASSOCIATION WAS REFUSING TO HEAR YOU WERE REFUSING TO HEAR AN EMPOWER REPRESENTATIVE.
OR I DISAGREE WITH YOU, PETE, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE TABLE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE FOR US TO DO IT.
SO LET'S MOVE FORWARD, I WOULD BE SUPER HAPPY TO COME TO THE NEXT RETIREE LUNCHEON, AND LIKE, WE COULD TRY TO WALK PEOPLE THROUGH THE FEES THAT THEY'RE PAYING, WHAT WHATEVER QUESTIONS THEY HAVE, TRY TO ADDRESS THEM. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE VERY WELL.
YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT AS A FORMAL SEND IT TO STEVE QUICK.
YEAH, AND I JUST THINK WE NEED MORE OF THOSE, AND I THINK PEOPLE WERE PROBABLY STUNNED WITH THE TRANSITION INITIALLY AND JUST KIND OF LIKE, WELL, I GUESS WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, AND THEN AS THE FEES STARTED ROLLING IN, THEY WERE LIKE, WHAT JUST HAPPENED? WE DID OFFER. I DID WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE THAT WE DID OFFER TO GO TO A RETIREE LUNCHEON.
NO, NO, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S FINE.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I WANT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE BOARD.
WHO HAS TO BE SO FAR REMOVED IN ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS.
THERE'S UNIVERSALLY NEGATIVE RESPONSE, AND MANY, MANY RETIREES HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY'RE TAKING THEIR MONEY OUT OF THE PLAN, AND WE JUST TOLD WE JUST REMINDED THEM TWO WEEKS AGO THAT THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO TAKE THEIR MONEY OUT OF THE PLAN BY SIMPLY CHANGING IT INTO A TRADITIONAL IRA, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE MONEY COMING OUT OF THAT PLAN, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO LET ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE MONEY, WHICH I'VE ASKED YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND YOU'VE FLATLY REFUSED TO TELL ME, BUT YOU'VE DAMAGED THIS PLAN AND YOU KNOW THAT.
OKAY, PETE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT.
NOT YOU PERSONALLY, I VERY MUCH ANALOGIZE, BUT THE DISTRICT BLEW IT.
WHEN PEOPLE DROP OUT OF THE PLAN, THAT MEANS EMPOWER'S FEES GOES UP.
YOU CAN'T DENY THAT, RIGHT? IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR ME TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE THEIR MONEY OUT OF THE PLAN.
WE JUST REMINDED THEM IN THE FACE OF ALL THESE THINGS, WE REMINDED THEM THAT ONE OF THEIR OPTIONS NOBODY EVER SAID, INCLUDING ME OR ANYONE ELSE, YOU SHOULD TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE PLAN, BUT WHEN WE HAVE UNIVERSAL DISSATISFACTION, WE COULDN'T NOT WE COULDN'T KEEP THAT A SECRET.
SO I DO WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE, WE STILL NEED 35 MINUTES FOR EMPOWER TO PRESENT, AND WE'RE AT, IS IT 20? 35. OH, SORRY.
THEN WE WANT THE PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK AND PARTICIPANT DATA.
YEAH, AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT I REALIZE THIS IS A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF HARD WORK GOING ON.
SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK ON THE DISTRICT SIDE TO DO THEIR BEST, AND I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALL DO BETTER IN A LOT OF WAYS, I THINK, BUT AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PETE IS A VOICE OF THE RETIREES AND THIS IS WHO THEY HAVE WANTED TO REPRESENT HIM, AND SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO HEAR IT TOO, AND IT JUST SHOWS THAT LIKE, THIS POT IS STEAMING AND LIKE SOME ENERGY NEEDS TO COME OUT, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ENDS UP BEING LIKE THE ONLY FORUM OR THREE MINUTES ON A BOARD MEETING.
[01:30:03]
IT WAS NOT YOU PERSONALLY.YOU'RE FINE PERSON, I LIKE YOU.
I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD HAVE FELT THE SAME WAY, AND THAT'S MY BAD.
I MEANT THE PERCEPTION OUT THERE IS THAT THE DISTRICT AND ONE OF THE REASONS I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT MEADOW JUST SUGGESTED IS ONE OF THE REASONS YOU YOU HAVE YOU HIRE A CONSULTANT TO DO THIS IS TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF FAVORITISM OR MALFEASANCE AND THE APPEARANCE.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT WAS DONE.
I'M VERY CONFIDENT THERE WAS NONE OF THAT HAPPENING, BUT THAT'S A PERCEPTION OUT THERE.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK, SINCE WE HAD PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK ON TRANSITION TO EMPOWER AS THE NEXT TOPIC, I THINK WE RAN QUITE A BIT INTO THAT, BUT I WANT TO HONOR THAT. IT'S ON THE AGENDA.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON HERE THAT WE DID NOT COVER OR PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK? I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, I GUESS, THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED.
ONE OF MY COMMENTS IS I DO FEEL LIKE PEOPLE ARE MAKING.
REQUESTS THAT ARE NOT FULLY BEING GIVEN FULL, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION ON.
I KNOW I, IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS MEETING, ASKED TO SEE THE FULL RFPS AND I WAS TOLD TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST, WHICH IS LIKE ODD TO ME.
I ALREADY DID THAT. WELL, I KNOW, BUT, LIKE, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, AND LIKE, I'M SUPPOSED TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS AND, LIKE, I HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC RECORD. LIKE, TO ME, THIS COMMITTEE IS HERE TO ADVISE THE BOARD AND WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO THROUGH THE BYLAWS AGAIN, LIKE THE OBJECTIVES ARE VERY CLEAR IN THERE AND I JUST FOUND THAT VERY SURPRISING, AND IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS AS THE CHAIR.
I HAVE TO TAKE THESE COMMENTS IN.
I HAVE TO READ THESE COMMENTS.
I'M GETTING EMAILS AS THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND THEN I'M ASKING FOR INFORMATION, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT A BOARD MEMBER WHO GETS A BUNCH OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND SAYS, HEY, CAN YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT THIS PROJECT THAT'S HAPPENING OUT ON THE SHORELINE AND SORRY, BOARD MEMBER, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WOULD HAPPEN, AND AND SO EVEN MYSELF, AS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, WHO I FEEL SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCESS TO THESE, TO THESE DOCUMENTS, HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT I CAN'T GET THEM UNLESS I GO THROUGH THE SAME CHANNEL AS THE PUBLIC.
SO I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
I'M HERE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND IT'S APPOINTED BY THE BOARD.
THAT INFORMATION IS BEING WITHHELD BECAUSE MY INTENTION OF GETTING THAT INFORMATION WAS TO QUELL ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND EMAILS THAT I AM GETTING IN MY PERSONAL EMAIL THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT GOES TO AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM BUT THAT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME, AND I HAVE SEEN THAT PAUL RANKIN HAS ASKED QUESTIONS AND HE'S NOT GETTING FULL ANSWERS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN CHARGE OF ANSWERING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
DISTRICT COUNSEL, YEAH, AND I DON'T I THINK WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE AS THE CHAIR, I'M IGNORING IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS BECAUSE I CAN'T GET THE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE I'VE ASKED FOR THEM AND I'M NOT ABLE TO GET THEM.
SO I FEEL LIKE THAT REALLY JUST NEEDS TO BE PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS COMMITTEE CANNOT DO THEIR JOB IF WE ARE BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD.
THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE TO ME.
I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT. I WASN'T ON THE RFP COMMITTEE.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN CONSTANTLY REPRIMANDED TO FOLLOW THE BROWN ACT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A MEETING THAT WASN'T NOTICED. I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THE FULL RFPS SO THAT I CAN ALSO REVIEW THEM, AND ALSO THE CONTRACT WITH EMPOWER WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SO THAT I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE ASKING ME QUESTIONS.
SO THAT'S MY SOAPBOX FOR THOSE ITEMS. I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THAT AND JUST ADD A COMPLETE FEE STRUCTURE FOR BOTH FIRMS. YEAH I KNOW IT'S HARD.
[01:35:01]
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, THAT THOSE WERE HIDDEN.OKAY, I ADMIT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THIS SINCE LAST NIGHT.
[INAUDIBLE]. DID THAT INCLUDE THE $2 FEE SHE MENTIONED AND THE $8 FEE EVERY TIME YOU MAKE ANY KIND OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE $25 FEE FOR ONGOING RMDS THAT THE RETIREES HAVE TO PAY.
I DON'T THINK IT HAD A FEE STRUCTURE.
[INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE, TOO, AND UNTIL THIS INFORMATION, THE THREE THINGS WE ASKED FOR THE RFP IS THE FEE STRUCTURE AND THE CONTRACT.
THIS SIMMERING IS GOING TO DO NOTHING BUT BOIL.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE END OF IT.
THE DISTRICT, NOT YOU, I'M SORRY.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE DISTRICT.
I ABSOLUTELY DON'T MEAN EITHER OF YOU TWO PERSONALLY BUT THE DISTRICT ISN'T GOING TO HEAR THE END OF IT UNTIL THEY'RE OUT FRONT ABOUT IT, AND THERE'S NO, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON IN THE UNIVERSE WHY THAT SHOULDN'T BE OUT THERE.
THERE'S SOME LITTLE THING YOU HAVE TO REDACT.
SO BE IT, BUT THE BASIC INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, NOBODY YOU'RE NOT GIVING AN OUTSIDE PERSON OR AN INSIDE PERSON WITHOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS DOESN'T HAVE THEY CAN'T MAKE AN EVALUATION OF WHETHER THE $200,000 COST WAS ACCURATE, AND THAT'S THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE, BOTH FOR US AND THE BOARD, WHICH I THINK THEY WERE PRETTY DARN CLEAR ABOUT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT.
THEY TRIED TO SAY, WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMPIRE QUARTERLY REPORT.
THEY WEREN'T HAVING ANY OF IT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING AWAY EITHER.
SO THE ONE THING THAT WOULD HELP IT GO AWAY IS TO GIVE US THAT INFORMATION, FOR GOD'S SAKES.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS CAN FOLLOW UP ON TO? I DON'T. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN CHARGE OF THAT.
SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR PERSONAL POWER TO DO.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU'LL CONVEY THIS TO WHOEVER IT IS MAKES THAT DECISION.
OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT ITEM? OKAY. THANK YOU.
THE INVESTMENT REVIEW IS WILLIAM WITH US.
I THINK HE LOOKED LIKE HE TOOK HIS BIKE, SO HE MIGHT HAVE HAD A CALL.
WELCOME. HOW ARE YOU ALL? SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I WAS GETTING THROUGH ALL THE ZOOM PROMPTS.
I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND.
I THINK I CAN CONDENSE IT A LITTLE BIT, IF THAT'S OKAY.
DO YOU GUYS WANT ME TO SHARE ANYTHING ON THE SCREEN? IF YOU COULD PLEASE DO THAT, THAT WOULD HELP OUR PUBLIC MEMBERS FOLLOW ALONG, AND I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE THE BOARD PACKET THAT WAS SENT IF THAT'S OKAY. SURE.
SO GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN.
I'M APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT THERE IN PERSON.
WITH THE MEETING CHANGE, OUR TRAVEL PLANS GOT ALTERED A LITTLE BIT.
PLANNING TO BE THERE IN PERSON AS MUCH AS I CAN FROM NOW ON, CERTAINLY FOR THE NEXT ONE.
SO THIS IS THE, I'LL SAY, OUR REGULAR REPORT.
ALL OF THEM ARE A LITTLE BIT CUSTOMIZED, BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE GENERAL FORMAT.
SINCE THIS IS OUR FIRST ONE, IF THERE'S SOME THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE, OTHER THINGS YOU WANT TO SEE HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS, PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW, BUT THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF OUR I'LL SAY OUR STANDARD, BUT KIND OF OUR STANDARD PRESENTATION.
I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE MACRO SIDE.
SINCE WE ARE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND, SUFFICE TO SAY, THE FIRST QUARTER FROM A MARKET STANDPOINT WAS WAS PRETTY SOLID AND I'M ON PAGE 11, WHAT'S LABELED AS PAGE 11.
[01:40:01]
BEEN DRIVING FED DECISIONS.IT'S BEEN AFFECTING EQUITY MARKETS AND FIXED INCOME MARKETS, AND FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, WE CAME OUT PRETTY WELL RIGHT ON THE EQUITY SIDE DOUBLE DIGITS ON THE S&P 500, BUT WHEN YOU COME DOWN THE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST COUPLE OF COLUMNS THERE, THE FIRST QUARTER WAS WAS PRETTY SOLID ACROSS THE BOARD.
THE FIXED INCOME SIDE, I WILL SAY NOT QUITE AS MUCH.
SO WE DID SEE RATES TICK UP A LITTLE BIT DURING THE FIRST QUARTER.
UNEMPLOYMENT OR JOB GROWTH WAS STARTING TO MAYBE SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
WHICH IN A STRANGE SENSE IS A POSITIVE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH INFLATION.
WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR DATA THAT'S SAYING THE ECONOMY IS SLOWING DOWN.
THE FIRST PART OF THE FIRST QUARTER, WE GOT KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.
SO WE'VE GOTTEN BACK TO MAYBE SOME GOOD NEWS IN THE MARKETS AND WE'VE SEEN ALMOST SOME, SOME HIGHS ON THE EQUITY SIDE, BUT FROM A FIXED INCOME STANDPOINT, FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, WE WERE DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
THE MARKET MARKETS WERE DOWN AS A A WHOLE.
GIVEN THIS WEEK WE'RE PROBABLY POSITIVE FOR THE YEAR NOW, JUST BASED ON THE FED COMMENTS AND BASED ON THE JOBS DATA FROM APRIL, THAT'S KIND OF THE QUICK VERSION OF THE MACRO SIDE.
PAGE 21, JUST KIND OF A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORIES OF ALL OF THE FUNDS IN THE LINEUP, RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE PARTICIPANTS EXPOSURE TO ALL POINTS ON THE RISK RETURN SPECTRUM AND ALLOW THEM TO REALLY BE ABLE TO CREATE PORTFOLIOS WHEREVER IS THE BEST FIT FOR THEM INDIVIDUALLY, WHETHER IT'S A, YOU KNOW, SOME A YOUNGER PARTICIPANT WHO MIGHT WANT TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE OR A RETIREE OR A NEAR RETIREE WHO WANTS TO BE A LITTLE MORE CONSERVATIVE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THAT PORTFOLIO WHEREVER BEST SUITS THEIR NEEDS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THAT THE NEXT 4 OR 5 PAGES.
JUST A LOOK AT THE ASSET VALUES IN EACH FUND.
SO THIS IS AS OF THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER SINCE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PLANS THE WAY THAT THIS REPORT IS SET UP, THE FIRST COUPLE OF PAGES IS A COMBINATION OF THE TWO PLANS.
SO BETWEEN THE 01 AND THE 02 PLANS, THERE WAS A TOUCH OVER 157,400,000 AT QUARTER END.
SO THE IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR ON THE SCREEN, THE 01 PLAN STARTS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 23, THE 02 IS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 24 AND CONTINUES TO 25. SO JUST KIND OF KIND OF BREAKS THEM, BREAKS ASSET VALUES OUT THERE.
THAT NEXT SECTION WE GET INTO MORE OF THE INVESTMENT SIDE.
SO SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STYLE ANALYSIS, AND WHAT THIS DOES IS IT LOOKS AT THE RETURNS OF EACH FUND AND HOW WELL IT CORRELATES TO DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS.
SO THE FIRST FOUR FUNDS HERE ARE THE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS.
WE LOOK AT THE BENCHMARKS HERE.
SO THIS IS LOOKING AT OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS A SNAPSHOT OF OF HOW WELL IT'S THE FUNDS HAVE CORRELATED TO THESE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS. THE GRAPH BELOW, IT JUST SHOWS ON A ROLLING 36 MONTH SCALE, WHAT KIND OF STYLE DRIFT WE SEE. THIS LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF STYLE DRIFT FOR INTERNATIONAL FUNDS.
THIS ACTUALLY IS FAIRLY COMMON, I WOULD SAY.
SO NO SURPRISES HERE, BUT IT JUST KIND OF BREAKS OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF EACH FUND'S RETURN IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS IN THE PORTFOLIO? SO THIS IS THIS IS THE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS.
ABSOLUTELY. WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE THIS IS THE DOMESTIC STOCK FUNDS.
[01:45:08]
CLASSES. YOU KNOW, THE ONE FUND THAT IS MAYBE LOOKS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF PLACE THIS INVESCO DISCOVERY FUND, IT'S ONE OF THE FUNDS WE KEPT FROM FROM THE, I'LL SAY, THE OLD LINEUP, THE MISSION SQUARE LINEUP.MORNINGSTAR DEFINITELY HAS IT IN THE SMALL GROWTH CATEGORY.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A SMALL GROWTH FUND.
FROM A RETURNS STANDPOINT, IT LEANS A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE MID CAP SIDE.
FROM A HOLDING STANDPOINT, IT IS MORE SMALL CAP.
SO NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR THAT FOR THAT FUND.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF AGAIN, PROVIDING THAT EXPOSURE TO PARTICIPANTS FOR WHEREVER THEY WANT TO BE ON THE RISK RETURN SPECTRUM AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STYLE DRIFT, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MINIMAL STYLE DRIFT FOR FOR, YOU KNOW, TEN DOMESTIC STOCK FUNDS.
SO NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING THERE.
WE COULDN'T FIT ALL TEN OF THEM OR ALL 11 ON THE PAGE.
SO THE VANGUARD TOTAL STOCK MARKET GOT STUCK BY ITSELF HERE.
ABSOLUTELY. WHERE WE WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE IN THE KIND OF THE LARGE BLEND CATEGORY.
SAME THING ON THE RETIREMENT DATE FUNDS WITH THE AMERICAN FUNDS.
WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE THERE.
AGAIN, ONE EXTRA FUND, AND THEN ON THE BOND SIDE WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT.
RIGHT. THE [INAUDIBLE] HIGH YIELD IS RIGHT DOWN HERE IN CORPORATE HIGH YIELD.
SO FROM A STYLE STANDPOINT ABSOLUTELY NO SURPRISES.
WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT, WHAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE FUNDS TO DO, BUT THIS REPORT IS JUST KIND OF OUR WAY OF LOOKING AT THE FUNDS, IF WE INCLUDED A FUND IN THE LINEUP AS A LARGE VALUE FUND, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S OPERATING IN THAT SPACE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE DO THAT. QUESTIONS ON STYLE? ANYTHING? OKAY, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SECTION.
SO THIS IS LOOKING AT PERFORMANCE VARIANCE.
SO NOT ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THE FUND, BUT RATHER ANY VARIANCE BETWEEN THE FUND AND THE MARKET BENCHMARK AND ITS PEER GROUPS, WHICH IS THE MORNINGSTAR CATEGORY.
SO IN THE CASE OF THE T ROWE PRICE OVERSEAS STOCK FOR THE PAST OR SO FAR THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, IT WAS 1.68% BEHIND THE MORGAN STANLEY EFA MARKET BENCHMARK.
SO THAT'S HOW THIS REPORT IS SET UP.
YOU CAN SEE ALL THE FUNDS VERSUS THE MARKET BENCHMARK, AND UNDER THE PEER RETURN RANK, THIS IS A PERCENTILE RANK OF HOW WELL THE FUND HAS DONE VERSUS THE OTHER FUNDS IN THIS CATEGORY.
SO IN THE CASE OF SAY THE T ROWE PRICE OVERSEAS STOCK, IT HAS IT'S IN THE TOP 47TH PERCENTILE.
IT HAS OUTPERFORMED ABOUT 53% OF THE OTHER FUNDS IN THE CATEGORY.
IT'S BEATEN ABOUT 53% OF ITS OF ITS PEER GROUP OVER THE PAST YEAR.
I ALWAYS CAUTION THOUGH, THE ONE YEAR TIME FRAME IS, IN INVESTMENT TERMS, SHORT.
WE SHOW THE ONE YEAR, BUT CERTAINLY WE PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON THREE, FIVE, TEN YEAR FIVE AND TEN, TEN YEAR ESPECIALLY AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT T ROWE PRICE FUND HAS DONE REALLY WELL, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LONGER TERM.
SO I'M NOT CONCERNED BY IT AT ALL.
YOU KNOW THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT BEHIND ITS MARKET BENCHMARK.
THE PEER GROUP COMPARISON CONTINUES TO BE CONTINUES TO BE PRETTY STRONG AS WE COME DOWN THE PAGE.
YOU KNOW, IDEALLY WE'RE LOOKING FOR LOWER NUMBERS HERE IN THE PEER GROUPS.
SO I'M NOT CERTAINLY SURPRISED BY ANYTHING.
WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE FUNDS, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT JUMPED OUT, REALLY, OF ANY KIND OF CONCERN.
THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, A MIX OF ACTIVELY MANAGED FUNDS AND INDEX FUNDS.
SO SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE THEM REALLY OUTPERFORM AND SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE THEM UNDERPERFORM, BUT REALLY THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB AND JUST TRACKING THE INDEX THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT.
SO AGAIN PAGE 33, NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYTHING.
[01:50:02]
PAGE 34 NOT CONCERNED BY ANYTHING.YOU SEE YOU KNOW, A LOT OF SINGLE DIGIT NUMBERS ON THE TARGET DATE FUNDS.
THE AMERICAN FUNDS HAVE DONE A REALLY NICE JOB FROM A PERFORMANCE AND A RISK STANDPOINT.
THEY'RE A TOP LEVEL, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY TOP 2 OR 3 TARGET DATE FUND FAMILIES IN THE IN THE COUNTRY HISTORICALLY, AND NOTHING SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED THERE, AND THEN FINALLY THE BOND FUNDS ON PAGE 36 AGAIN.
SO NOT OVER NOT CONCERNED BY ANYTHING.
CERTAINLY, THE BLACKROCK FUND, YOU KNOW, IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT THE 1 IN 3 YEAR MIGHT LOOK THE MOST OUT OF STEP A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S A MATTER OF THEY TEND TO HAVE JUST A SLIGHTLY LONGER DURATION ON THEIR PORTFOLIO THAN THE REST OF THE CATEGORY, AND THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF THE UNDERPERFORMANCE, BUT JUST BY COMPARISON, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AS A TIPS FUND, AN INFLATION PROTECTED BOND FUND.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, THE 50TH PERCENTILE AND THE 10TH PERCENTILE MIGHT BE 4 OR 5 TENTHS OF A PERCENT, LIKE ALL OF THE FUNDS ARE BUNCHED PRETTY CLOSELY TOGETHER.
SO ALWAYS KIND OF TAKE THAT WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAIN OF SALT.
SO FROM A PERFORMANCE STANDPOINT VERSUS BENCHMARKS VERSUS PEERS.
THAT NEXT SECTION IN THE IPS THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPTED.
ONE OF THE COMPONENTS IS BENCHMARKING THE FUNDS VERSUS A COMPOSITE INDEX OF MARKET BENCHMARKS.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE HERE.
SO THIS IS LOOKING AT EACH OF THE TARGET DATE FUNDS VERSUS A COMPOSITE OF BENCHMARKS BASED ON THE ALLOCATION OF THE FUND, THE TARGET ALLOCATION OF THE FUND, AND THEN THIS SHOWS THE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS THAT WE USE FOR FOR DOMESTIC STOCKS.
SO ENCOMPASSES THE TOP THE BIGGEST 3000 STOCKS IN THE US FOREIGN STOCKS WAS EFA AND KIND OF ON DOWN THE LINE.
SO BY THIS MEASURE ALSO NOT JUST VERSUS THE PEER GROUP THE AMERICAN FUNDS HAVE HAVE DONE WELL.
SO AGAIN, NOT NOT ANY, NOT ANY CONCERN FROM US ON THE AMERICAN FUNDS AT ALL.
THIS NEXT SECTION I INCLUDED IT'S CALLED THE SCORECARD SECTION.
IT IS JUST A KIND OF A GRAPHICAL LOOK AT HOW WELL THE FUNDS ARE BEATING OR NOT BEATING THE DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS.
THE IPS DOESN'T SPECIFY A LOT OF MONITORING CRITERIA.
THERE'S CRITERIA IN CHOOSING THE FUNDS AND ONGOING IT SAYS TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR, MONITOR VERSUS THOSE SAME CRITERIA, BUT IT'S THERE'S NOT A LOT OF REALLY SPECIFIC CRITERIA, WHICH IS FINE FROM AN IPS STANDPOINT, BUT IN TERMS OF A REPORT LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE TO CHOOSE SPECIFIC BENCHMARKS, I JUST KIND OF CHOSE SOME GENERAL BENCHMARKS THAT, OKAY, ARE THE FUNDS EXCEEDING THEIR MARKET BENCHMARKS, ARE THEY DOING WELL VERSUS THEIR PEERS? A SHARPE RATIO IS IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT'S WHAT I CALL, KIND OF A MEASURE OF EFFICIENCY.
IT'S HOW MUCH PERFORMANCE YOU'RE GETTING FOR EACH UNIT OF RISK.
ESSENTIALLY IT'S PERFORMANCE DIVIDED BY STANDARD DEVIATION.
SO WE DO LOOK AT, AT THOSE KIND OF MEASURES, BUT THIS JUST GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAPHIC LOOK AT HOW WELL THE FUNDS ARE ARE PERFORMING VERSUS THESE CRITERIA, AND FOR THE STOCK FUNDS LIKE I MENTIONED, SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE WHERE THEY DON'T DO VERY WELL.
THEY'RE TRACKING THEIR BENCHMARK LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, BUT MAYBE THAT JUST THE BENCHMARK ITSELF IS NOT PERFORMING AS WELL VERSUS ACTIVE FUNDS, BUT ALL OF THE ACTIVE FUNDS LOOK VERY GOOD.
LOTS OF GREEN, VERY LITTLE, VERY LITTLE ORANGE.
SO AGAIN, NOT CONCERNED BY ANY MEANS FOR ANYTHING IN THE LINEUP.
SO THAT'S THE SCORECARD REPORT, AND I THINK PROBABLY ONE OF THE LAST THINGS IS THE EXPENSE RATIOS.
SO WE JUST LOOK AT THE EXPENSE RATIOS OF ALL OF THE FUNDS.
AGAIN ONE OF THE EMPHASIS IS IS LOW COST.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THE BEST PERFORMING FUNDS OR VERY GOOD PERFORMING FUNDS TO PARTICIPANTS AND DO SO AT A VERY COST EFFICIENT AND A COST EFFICIENT MANNER.
SO KIND OF THE SAME THING WITH THE PEER RANKS HERE.
[01:55:02]
WE'RE LOOKING FOR LOW NUMBERS, RIGHT.THE AVERAGE FOREIGN LARGE BLEND FUND HAS A NET EXPENSE RATIO OF 1.05%.
YOU SEE THE EXPENSE RATIOS OF THE THREE FUNDS IN THAT CATEGORY IN THE LINEUP.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE.
FINALLY THIS LAST SECTION, THE FUND ANALYSIS ONE PAGE FACT SHEETS ON ALL THE FUNDS.
I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT GO THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THESE PAGES.
THEY'RE HERE AS MUCH FOR REFERENCE AS ANYTHING ELSE, BUT IT'S A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION.
IT BREAKS OUT SECTOR ALLOCATIONS THAT PERFORMANCE CORRELATIONS.
THAT BREAKS IT OUT A LITTLE BIT HERE.
SO IT'S A LOT OF DATA PERUSE IT AT YOUR LEISURE, BUT WE'VE GOT ONE OF THESE FOR EVERY FUND IN THE LINEUP, AND THAT WAS EVERYTHING THAT I HAD ON THE INVESTMENT REPORT.
THAT IS THE VERY QUICK AND DIRTY VERSION.
I CAN ABSOLUTELY TALK LONGER AT A FUTURE MEETING IF YOU'VE GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS OR WANT ME TO GO MORE INTO DETAIL ON THINGS OR I CAN KEEP IT AT THIS LEVEL.
I WANT TO PROVIDE YOU GUYS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF INVESTMENT BACKGROUND.
QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ON THE REPORT OR ANY OF THE FUNDS.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE RIGHT PERSON TO BE ASKING THIS, TOO, BUT IN OUR PREVIOUS EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, A COUPLE OF ISSUES CAME UP THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MORE WITH PARTICIPANT ISSUES, BUT ONE OF THEM WAS WE WERE TRYING TO GET THE CURRENT NUMBER OF EITHER RETIRED OR TERMINATED PARTICIPANTS THAT ARE IN THE PLAN AS OF THE LATEST AVAILABLE DATE AND HOW WHAT THEIR TOTAL INVESTMENTS WERE.
IS IT POSSIBLE WE COULD GET THAT INFORMATION FROM EMPOWER? I WILL SAY YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY IN MY BALLPARK THERE, BUT I THINK SO.
SO BOB GLEASON IS THE RELATIONSHIP MANAGER, AND HE COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY WITH THE WITH THE RESCHEDULE, BUT I THINK WE CAN I THINK WE CAN RUN A REPORT, AND I THINK, LIKE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN DESIGNATE RETIREE VERSUS SEPARATED FOR SOME OTHER REASON.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT; I MEAN, THE TOTAL OF THOSE TWO.
YEAH, BUT I THINK WE CAN SEGREGATE ACTIVE VERSUS INACTIVE, I THINK IS THE OFFICIAL TERM.
THE OTHER QUESTION IS THERE'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ME PERSONALLY ABOUT I HAD OUR RMDS GOING MONTHLY RMD PAYMENTS AND THEY WERE TERMINATED, AND IN ORDER TO GET THEM STARTED AGAIN, I HAD TO FILL OUT AN RFD FORM WHICH WAS EIGHT COMPUTER PAGES DOWNLOADED ONTO MY COMPUTER, PRINT IT OUT, FILL IT OUT, SCAN IT BACK INTO MY COMPUTER, AND UPLOAD IT ONTO YOUR WEBSITE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF RETIREES WHO ARE IN ASSISTED LIVING.
YOU KNOW, MOST OF US WERE A PRE-COMPUTER AGE.
WHAT I WAS WONDERING AND I REALIZED THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
YOU'LL YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK OTHER FOLKS, BUT WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAIL EVERYONE WHO'S OF RMD AGE, WHICH WOULD BE 72 OR OLDER, TO ACTUALLY MAIL THEM THE FD FORM THAT ONE NEEDS TO DO TO START YOUR MD I'M SORRY FORM THAT NEEDS THAT YOU NEED TO DO TO START YOUR RMD PAYMENTS AND THE AND THE QUESTION AND SORRY, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO MAIL THEM THE RMD FORMS AND THE FEDERAL AND STATE WITHHOLDING FORMS SO THEY COULD FILL IT OUT BY HAND AND MAIL IT BACK TO YOU AS ANOTHER OPTION, BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR FOLKS JUST DON'T HAVE EITHER THE COMPUTER ACCESS.
A LOT OF THEM DON'T HAVE COMPUTERS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS BY COMPUTER.
[02:00:01]
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN AVOID HASSLES AT THE END OF THE YEAR BY MAILING THEM THOSE FORMS AND I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN'T ANSWER ME RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT WAS A CONCERN. YEAH, AND I HAVE BEEN LISTENING INTO THE WHOLE MEETING, SO, I HEARD THE CONCERNS.YEAH, AND I WISH I COULD BE MORE HELP RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M 100% GOING TO HAVE TO PUNT THAT ONE TO BOB OR TO EVEN PROBABLY BOB'S BOSS, TO BE HONEST, BUT, YEAH WE'VE HEARD I'VE HEARD CONCERNS.
I'LL WORK WITH DEBORAH, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.
THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS MAKING THINGS BETTER.
[INAUDIBLE] BOB'S NOT HERE. I SHOULD JUST PROMISE A BUNCH OF STUFF.
[CHUCKLING] THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE NUMBERS YOU WENT OVER.
THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE HAVE THIS DATA ON A REGULAR BASIS AND WE CAN SEE TRENDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SURE. IS THAT IN THERE? WHERE'S THAT? OH, WELL, AND THAT'S JUST IS THIS, BUT THIS IS OURS, RIGHT? NOT EMPOWER'S? OR IS THIS EMPOWER'S DOCUMENT? OKAY. SO, WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD TO THE TO THE NEXT ITEM, I THINK.
ARE WE JUMPING INTO THE NEXT ITEM? YEAH? NO, PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU BILL. SO WE'RE I THINK DONE WITH THE INVESTMENT REVIEW.
WE'RE JUMPING TO THIS QUESTION OF PARTICIPATION DATA, AND SO CONNIE'S PUT TOGETHER THIS DOCUMENT.
SO EVERYBODY HAS THIS IN THEIR PACKET, AND IF YOU FLIP TO THE LAST PAGE, WHATEVER SECOND PAGE, YOU'VE GOT THE MAY 1ST DATA.
SO WE HAVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE LISTING OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY IS IT THIS PACKET? OH THANKS.
COULD YOU SAY THAT? OKAY, SO IF YOU FLIP TO THE SECOND BECAUSE CONNIE'S GOT SHE'S GOT THE DATA GOING BACK BECAUSE THERE WERE QUESTIONS LIKE, WELL, HOW IS IT LOOKING OVER TIME? SO SHE'S GOT THE DATA GOING BACK, BUT THEN THE MOST RECENT ONE.
SO IF YOU FLIP TO THE SECOND PAGE YOU'LL SEE THE MOST RECENT DATA.
DO YOU HAVE THAT? ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE WITH THE MAY 1ST YOU HAVE THAT.
IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS ONE.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO THERE'S THE MAY 1ST DATA DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE BREAKDOWN OF PARTICIPANTS.
SO WE'VE GOT THE BY BARGAINING GROUP.
THAT HAVE A BALANCE. IT SAYS BALANCE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS.
NO NO OKAY THE CURRENT EMPLOYEE COUNT IS 791.
THE PLAN PARTICIPATION IS 557.
THE BALANCE IS OH GOT IT IT'S JUST OFF OF IT'S JUST OFF OF ROWE.
THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE RETIREES, DOES IT? OR AM I ON THE WRONG? IT DOESN'T, AND I GUESS WE HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDING THE RETIREE DATA IN THE PAST.
NO, I THINK WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS THAT MISSION SQUARE SAID THEY COULD PROVIDE YOU THE NUMBER, BUT THEY WOULDN'T KNOW WHO WAS RETIRED OR SEPARATED, AND THEN WE COULD WE COULD TAKE THAT LIST AND WE COULD SAY, OH, THESE ARE ALL RETIREES AND THESE ARE NOT RETIREES, AND THEN WE WOULD KNOW, OKAY, AND SO THEN THE OTHER PIECE.
SO THEN WHAT CONNIE HAD ASKED ME TO OR I HAD SORT OF VOLUNTEERED TO FILL THIS OUT BECAUSE I HAD ACCESS TO THE NUMBER OF PLAN, BUT I DID SO THIS HAS ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS. SO I WAS LOOKING AT HOW MANY ARE ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING.
I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS WE USED TO BE GIVING ALL WITH A BALANCE.
[INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] STANDARD STANDARDIZING IT ALL BACK IN OCTOBER BECAUSE WE WERE JUST DOING ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS DECIDED
[02:05:05]
IT'S NOT I THINK WHAT IT IS, IS LIKE THIS.YEAH, AND THIS IS THE BALANCE.
SO IF YOU JUST MOVE IT AT THE LEFT SIDE.
YEAH I KNOW IT TOOK ME A MINUTE TO THANK YOU OKAY.
YEAH. NO PROBLEM. THAT'S FINE, BUT YEAH I THINK WHAT IT WAS, WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION OF WHO WAS STILL PARTICIPATING IN MISSION SQUA RE AFTER THEY RETIRED OR SEPARATED.
SO EMPOWER WILL GET THAT BI WEEKLY FOR ACTIVE EMPLOYEES.
WHAT THEY WON'T GET, NO MATTER WHAT INFORMATION WE SEND THEM, IS THE BREAKDOWN BY UNION.
RIGHT BUT TO THE POINT OF THE BREAKDOWN FROM THE HR SYSTEM, TO ME IT'S WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IF WE HAVE 709 PARTICIPANTS, HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE AFSCME? BUT DON'T WE HAVE IT HERE? NO, WHAT WE'RE LISTING IS TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN AFSCME.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THOSE PARTICIPANTS.
SO NO, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO IDENTIFY THAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE CODE BY THE 1000 AND THE IN THE HR SYSTEM OF COURSE WE KNOW, BUT IN THE IN EMPOWER THEY DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY TO TRACK. MISSION SQUARE WASN'T ABLE TO DO IT EITHER.
SO I THINK WE IN OTHER WORDS IF WE HAD A SPREADSHEET THAT SAID MEADOWS 1000 AND DEB IS, YOU KNOW, 2000, RIGHT? BECAUSE LIKE MANAGER AND AFSCME AND THEN YOU TAKE THE LIST FROM EMPOWER AND YOU SAY, HERE'S MEADOW, SHE'S YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE, YEAH, LIKE DO A VLOOKUP.
YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE, LIKE WE REALLY GOT IT.
LIKE, THIS IS A REALLY SIMPLE JUST TO HAVE DATA.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S SIMPLE TO PUT TOGETHER.
RIGHT, AND SO LIKE AT FIRST GLANCE, I'M LIKE, WHOA, WE'RE LIKE GOING DOWN.
WHICH IS STRANGE BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE GOING UP WITH AUTO ENROLLMENT.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
I SAY IT DIDN'T GO IT DID GO DOWN, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S SIGNIFICANT.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THE PLAN IS FALLING APART.
NO, NO, WE'RE GIVING THE MESSAGE.
SO IT WENT DOWN BY SEVEN PARTICIPANTS.
RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT I'M JUST SAYING.
SO IT COULD BE THAT THEY WERE LIKE PULLED THEIR MONEY OUT.
OR IT COULD BE THAT THEY JUST AREN'T CONTRIBUTING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE SAVING FOR SOME OTHER REASON, BUT THEN EVERY NEW EMPLOYEE IS A PARTICIPANT, YOU KNOW WITH EXCEPTIONS. YEAH, I KNOW THEY CAN OPT OUT, BUT I'M SAYING LIKE LIKE, YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE THAN BEFORE, RIGHT? SO LIKE SO EVERY TIME WE LOSE SOMEONE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PARTICIPANT, WE'RE GAINING SOMEONE THAT IS A VERY HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF BEING A PARTICIPANT, MUCH MORE SO THAN BEFORE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS GOING DOWN BEFORE THE SWITCH.
SO YEAH. NO, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SWITCH.
I'M JUST SAYING LIKE THAT'S THE KIND OF NUMBERS THAT WE NEED.
SO IF WE HAD THE RETIREES, MAYBE THERE'S MAYBE THERE'S A PIECE IN THERE.
MAYBE, MAYBE THE RETIREE NUMBERS WENT UP, I DON'T KNOW.
DO YOU MEAN LIKE MAYBE THAT'S WHY IT'S DOWN HERE? BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE RETIRED, BUT THEY'RE STILL PARTICIPANTS, BUT THEY'RE RETIRED NOW.
THEY'RE NOT AFSCME ANYMORE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
SO WE JUST NEED THAT COMPLETE PICTURE.
SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE INACTIVE.
THEY MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOW MOVED ON TO ANOTHER AGENCY.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO HELP US IN THAT BREAKDOWN, BUT YEAH, THAT DOESN'T WORRY ME PERSONALLY TOO MUCH IF WE LUMP THOSE TWO CATEGORIES TOGETHER, BUT IT WOULD REALLY BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE FOR RETIREES PLUS INACTIVE, IF THAT'S EASIEST WAY TO FIND THEM BECAUSE THAT'S MORE WELL OVER A HALF.
WHAT IS THAT ROUGHLY TWO THIRDS OF THE MONEY IS THAT I DON'T THINK IT IS.
I KNOW YOU'VE SAID THAT, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S TWO THIRDS.
[02:10:03]
YOU KNOW, I AM JUST WONDERING HOW WE GOT THAT DATA.LIKE I REMEMBER MISSION SQUARE PRESENTING IT YEARS AGO.
I REMEMBER PRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SAID IT, BUT I THINK I DON'T KNOW I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS.
I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE REPRESENTATIVES, BUT IT MATTERS ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT DATA WE'RE ONLY GETTING WE'RE TRYING TO HELP EVERYBODY, AND WE HAVE LESS THAN HALF OF THE MONEY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THESE NUMBERS.
SO WE CLEARLY NEED THAT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
YEAH. ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO ADD IS WE CAN'T AUTO ENROLL AND REPRESENTED BECAUSE LEGALLY WE DID NOT NEGOTIATE THAT WITH THEM . SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO SIDE LETTER.
SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERING AUTO ENROLLMENT TO UNREPRESENTED, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO NEGOTIATE, BUT YOU COULD OR I DON'T.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU? I KNOW, JUST WHY WOULDN'T YOU? WE WERE TOLD THAT WE COULD NOT AUTO ENROLL MANAGERS AND UNREPRESENTED STAFF, NEW MANAGERS AND UNREPRESENTED. WELL, OKAY.
THAT IS ONE OF OUR TO DO ITEMS WE NEED A SIDE LETTER.
IT KEEPS FALLING ON THE LOW PRIORITY, BUT.
CAN YOU GET THIS RIGHT? YOU REITERATE WHAT YOU WANT ON THIS REPORT? SURE. SO THIS INFORMATION IS GOOD.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE MISSING IS THE SEPARATED EMPLOYEES.
IS THAT. YES, THEY WOULD HAVE IT.
THEY WOULD CERTAINLY KNOW WHO'S AN ACTIVE EMPLOYEE AND WHO'S A SEPARATED EMPLOYEE BECAUSE THAT MAKES IT AND SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
LIKE, CAN WE JUST HAVE THEM GIVE US THEIR REPORT OF NUMBERS? WE HAVE OUR REPORT OF NUMBERS, AND I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S JUST THIS AND THIS SIDE BY SIDE, WE CAN WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE PUT TOGETHER, BUT AT LEAST IF WE HAVE THAT OTHER HALF OF THE NUMBERS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBERS THAT DON'T REPRESENT A PORTION OF OUR COMMITTEE, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
WELL, I MEAN, IT'S JUST ASKING EMPOWER TO GIVE IT TO US.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING. WE'RE DOING THIS MONTHLY.
YEAH. SO IT'S JUST ASKING EMPOWER TO BRING THOSE NUMBERS AND PUT THEM IN THE PACKET, AND YOU STILL WANT THE BREAKDOWN BY BARGAINING GROUP? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL REPRESENTING A GROUP, OR AT LEAST NOT ALL OF US, BUT WE'RE REPRESENTING A GROUP.
SO YEAH, I WOULDN'T THINK WE'D NEED THAT FOR RETIREES.
NO, NO, NOT FOR RETIREES, BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR OWN GROUP.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM OR COMMENTS? OKAY, AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
GREAT. THANK YOU ON THAT ITEM.
OKAY. SO WE HAVE THIS DRAFT SURVEY.
DO WE WANT CONSIDERING IT'S A LITTLE TENDER RIGHT NOW, DO WE WANT TO PUT THE SURVEY OFF A LITTLE BIT LONGER UNTIL MAYBE WE CAN GET A FEW ROADSHOWS OUT? AND WE JUST MADE THE TRANSITION.
I'M JUST THINKING I CAN SEE A BUNCH OF THEM COMING BACK WITH, LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? COMMENTS THAT MAYBE WE COULD ADDRESS BETTER INSTEAD OF.
YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T NEED ANY MORE TASKS, BUT I GUESS I MEAN, LIKE, IF WE DO A SURVEY WITH FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES EVERY YEAR TO SEE LIKE HOW CAN WE IMPROVE AND I KNOW THERE'S AREAS WHERE LIKE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY REALLY NEGATIVE THINGS, BUT IT'S STILL HELPFUL TO SEE.
SURE WE COULD, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO IT MYSELF, SO RIGHT WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I'M THINKING I MEAN, MAYBE I MISS OUR SUBCOMMITTEES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY HOPEFULLY WE'RE GETTING MORE MEMBERS AND MAYBE WE'LL EVEN HAVE THEM.
MAYBE WE ASSIGN IT TO THE TWO NEW MEMBERS.
SO HARDER TO ASSIGN PEOPLE IF THEY'RE NOT HERE.
YEAH, I CAN TALK TO MY ALTERNATE IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO SUSAN, AND, WELL, SHE PRESUMABLY SHE'S HEARING AND SHE CAN'T TALK, SO, YOU KNOW BUT, YEAH, I MEAN, MAYBE WE COULD TALK TO THEM AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING. IT'S HARD TO ASK THEM TO BE ON SUBCOMMITTEES AND SAYING YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK ON PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WELL, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
SO LIKE I THINK IT AVOIDS ALL OF THAT.
[02:15:01]
SO THEY WOULD MEET OUTSIDE OF THESE MEETINGS, AND JUST LIKE WE HAD A BUDGET COMMITTEE AND I THINK MEMBER AND YOU HAD THE PARTICIPATION OUTREACH COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, SO LIKE THEY WOULD JUST MEET OUTSIDE OF IT AND WORK ON IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TO DO IT, LIKE IN THE MEETING, GOING THROUGH THE SURVEY, BUT WE CAN BE LIKE THE COMMITTEE ALREADY REVIEWED THIS AND RECOMMENDS THAT WE APPROVE THIS SURVEY AND WE SAY, LOOKS GOOD, MAYBE CHANGE A THING HERE AND THERE, AND THAT WAY WE'RE NOT HAVING TO DO ALL THE WORK.WELL, WE SHOULD CERTAINLY GET THE REVIEW.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF NEW STUFF HERE THAT DIDN'T APPLY A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
YEAH, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING IT OFF IF YOU GUYS WANT TO AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I KNOW SUSAN CAN'T TALK SO SHE CAN'T OBJECT, BUT I'M THINKING THAT IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR HER TO REVIEW THE SURVEY BECAUSE OF THE FEEDBACK OF THE RETIREES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS THAT SHE WANTS TO PUT ON THERE.
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU BEEN AFFECTED BY THE FEES, YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER, JUST JUST KIND OF GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT SPECIFIC WHAT WAS THAT ON WHAT WHAT YOU SENT OUT LAST NIGHT OR.
YEAH, AT THE VERY END IS THE DRAFT SURVEY.
IT WAS WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR A WHILE AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MAKE PARTNER OPERATION YESTERDAY, AND I THINK THIS IS THE SURVEY FOR ACTIVES, THOUGH I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDES THE SEPARATE SURVEY WE DID FOR RETIREES REVIEW THE ONE FROM BOTH OF THEM ACTUALLY, BUT CERTAINLY THE RETIREE ONE. WOULD YOU? DO WE NOT DO A SURVEY FOR THE RETIREES, TOO? I THOUGHT WE DID BOTH AT THE SAME TIME LAST TIME.
I MEAN, WE ONLY, HAVE WE DONE MORE THAN ONE? I WOULD JUST HATE TO SEND A SURVEY OUT.
NOT TO THE RETIREES AND TO EVERYBODY ELSE.
YEAH, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THAT.
YOU TALK TO SUSAN, AND MAYBE THEY COULD GET TOGETHER, HAVE THEIR FIRST LITTLE TASK.
GREAT. MAYBE BEN TOO, SINCE HE WASN'T HERE EITHER.
OKAY. SORRY. ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S SEE. WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS, I GUESS.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I GUESS WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MAKE A MOTION? WE JUST ADJOURN.
JUST ADJOURN. 'TOO BAD; THAT'S THE ONE MOTION THAT WOULD ALWAYS BE VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY.
OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR JOINING.
I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
I KNOW THIS IS A LOT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, CONNIE. THANK YOU, STAFF.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.