holding fossil fuel the board of supervisors has directed you to divest not invest in fossil fuels thank you. >> thank you. >> welcome david. >> david williams i have here i'd like to submit and oh i another 2 hundred and 7 signatures asking you to vote no on hedge funds if you go with any of the allocations around the table fees they go to zero allocation the reasoning fees have been stated with the risk and cost and the lack of viability in knowing where a they've be invested allow we're still concerned this whole process of asset allocation has been a substantive process there's yet to be any what we consider objective active presentation that includes contrary points of view so hopeful that will be excluded sometime british columbia before this decision is made. >> any other speakers? good morning good afternoon claire >> good afternoon, commissioners and happy new year to all of you i'm representing r ac p.s. retirees of san francisco i want to first of all say that pretty much we're in the sacrificing same position as the 10 to one retirees i have a number of cards and petitions i'll bring at the next meeting our position of the membership has not changed with regard to hedge funds and we're very concerned about that zero proposal from the last december meeting and hopefully that's where you end up i'd like to hear what each of the commissioners will have to report at the last item you talk about reports from the commissioners with regards to the due diligence on the issue of hedge funds and the kinds of are materials you've reviewed on both sides of the issue we're interested to mare if there's a fair and balanced glutens been done and lastly we objective observe to closed sessions we see a number of items that come forward and reveal investments and decisions made in closed session but again, we're about transparency and want to see all those items handled in open session in the future thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm rebecca a san francisco voter since 1980 a sister of that someone's fund you manage it's two years since jonah loose pleaded the vote and moved on to you people i can't believe we're at lastly e level one engagement it's harsh asking the carbon companies to pilotly get out of the business is like asking dairy farmers to get out of the business it's not going to happen it is something that's been talked about widely a lot of industries that stakeholders investment is in not one a lot of people is tried and written about it in two years the rest of the landscape around the climate change the scientific facts about where we are and heading this is more tefk the situation attending we do something about it is everyone's job is more utter the technical solution of moving away from fossil fuel and now 40 percent of the electricity is from wind powering power we need to make the change devisiting is seen as sacrifice fail it's a promise but really clear from the bank of england to the experts talk about a cooker bubble that in fact it not devesting is the riskiest things we've seen oil prices crash their volatile and deinvesting a less received and even for the small question of share prices and please move forward on this urgent matter thank you thank you any other speakers i'd like to annunciation the appointment of 5 year term by mayor ed lee about wendy paskin-jordan in the unanimous vote the sprvrdz say congratulations public comment and call item 2. >> item 2 approve the minutes of the december 3rd, 2014, retirement board special meeting. >> chair b will entertain another motion of adoption i'd like to put one change in there on h-2 second to the late traffic paragraph it did you see two alternative mixes one of the alternatives with the recommendations brought are forward by the executive order and myself i'd like to have the minutes be reflect that's a joint recommendation that we put forward that after that. >> for clarification that's on page 5 of the minutes. >> yes. >> do i hear a motion. >> i'll second the motion. >> i have a not regarding the my comments on the fund of funds i don't know if that's inaccurately stated terms of the fund of fund for the approval i did not see the micro managed of the investing in the fund to fund management versus the direct i think that deserves that classification and page 5 the third paragraph. >> all right. we'll include the suggestion. >> i'll second it, yes. >> any other comments seeing none, i'll on up for public comment seeing none all in favor, say i. opposed? >> passes unanimously could you call item 3. >> approve the minutes of december 10th retirement board meeting. >> any changes? for a motion >> i'll move the minutes. >> second. >> any discussion seeing none i'll open it up for public comment seeing none, public comment is closed all in favor, say i. >> i. >> passes unanimously thank you item 4. >> the consent calendar. >> chair will entertain another motion of adoption. >> so moved. >> second. >> i'll on up for public comment on consent calendar seeing none, public comment is closed all in favor, say i. that passes unanimously could you please call item 5. >> item 5 approval of the investment consulting request for proposals. >> good afternoon, commissioners we received 6 rfps and our recommendation to proceed with first, we have a subcommittee to review the rfp of myself and bob shaw and others mark kohlman our recommendation to go forward with completing due diligence including on site evaluations of the four firms listed here in mia any questions myself or jay or a member of the staff will answer the questions. >> questions? >> i'd like to make a motion we don't you want staffs recommendation and include if i could move staffs recommendation and also include pc a pensions consulting alliances for the general consulting contract and is there a second. >> i have a question to clarify a question maybe you can expand on our motion. >> why you want to do this. >> sure i'd be glad the first as to this we shouldn't rule out my consultant invited to make a presentation pc a has several public funds to be managed including cal stirs and many other public fund and impeccable reference they do very large staff been involved for a 4r507k9d they also have very broad basis practice those practice where they do infrastructure natural resources and many of the other areas as well so they've been - they've spoken to various educational conferences that's a positive effect particularly there's the old standard if you will particularly inviting them to participate in the program is a prudent decision to make if you have questions i'll be glad to answer them. >> i have a question on profit. >> i thought that at this point i don't know - i feel that we're taking that process away from the staff they did their own due diligence and went through the information on all the consultant i just would through that back to the executive director to then have each one of us to throw in a consultant i haven't seen the material i'm willing to presume the staff has seen the material and worked with that to come to the final so - >> ms. paskin-jordan you're correct the fourth policy requires the staff to formulate a recommendation this is a preliminary stabilize of our evaluation what staff and has reviewed the written proposals and bans our review of the written proposals according to the wealthy we assign to each area of evaluation we're currently recommending that the four folks proceeded to the more critical part of the due diligence the on-site flushing out of questions i will say that if it is the boards you know deserve desire that obviously we'll include a fifth finalist, however we believe that we can have the four final lifts to move forward with dmruns based on our finding. >> i guess my question goes back to mr. melberger i want to introduce a company that added the process i mean because you disagree with the staffer. >> what i will sighing say i've done with the due diligence i've spent monday afternoon reading and the real problem there are things that are very large hundreds of pages they say for those who submitted an rfp they call it a royal change because it is so many documents from the a b licenses and everything else in terms of the references and the represents the fees i believe were among the lowest chosen i believe one the candidates be selected they maybe twice as high as the fees but that's an important issue in terms of the way they look at things the boarder candidates that have been selected plus - >> i think i'm uncomfortable there were a total of 6 candidates and you're asking us to evaluate one more why not bring the other one it seemed arbitrary i'm uncomfortable and i want to respect your worries about but i'm more comfortable with supporting the staffs recommendations i guess what i'm trying to hear a compelling reason why the pc a and not the other 6 keypads. >> i thought pc a were in the mixtures. >> i want to clarify the rfp for the city provides this evaluation we're not go be considering fees and not be discussing the fee proposal the city process terrifies that that we don't consider the fees and, in fact, the r f p says the fees are submit no to be considered so staff has not considered fees and will in the weigh that section until they come up with two recommends from the full board i'll caution the board not to discuss the fees because staff and we're not supposed to be considering fees at this point of our evaluation. >> if i could ask a directs clarifying question it says the fees is 5 percent. >> right we'll add in the 5 percent once we've completed the due diligence the city process we be fee blind as we evaluate the qualifications of the proposers we'll add that wealthy once we're down to one or two semifinal lift we're then review the fees we don't make the selections regardless of fees but don't choose the lowest bidder we're not considering the fees but the qualifications of the firms as we move through did process 24 is the very in the first step they've submitted and we've rated the proposals and we're basically saying we're supposed to go forward with the real due diligence visiting them and interviewing them and based on that we'll intend to bring back one or two recommends to the board and hecht to have a discussion with. >> for the process you shared that you would insert the fee later. >> right. >> that suggests that the scorecard is building a block basically. >> right auto don't you want to start over once they get into the short lists i understand it is a level playing fields and your evaluating those two and you make your democrats as you as part of the rfp process we ask the bidders to provide those answers we go to cite visits and interviews we focus in on information we need to follow up think or additional information we feel we need anything we identifiable you all of that starting over maybe is not exactly the right word we've scored their responses but the more critical part is going out and asking them questions and getting our satisfaction to the level of services they're able to provide it is very close to starting over and like you said at the end we have narrowed it down to you know one or two then we plug in the fees because we sort define the qualification evaluation of whether or not this person is proposing half the fees or whatever so i wanted to caution you, we really couldn't be having this discussion regarding the relative it fees that are promoted we should be focusing on the qualifications of the firm that's where we're at&t the city process requires. >> question then at this point you negotiate the feeds. >> sure absolutely. >> i have a little bit about those 6 firms i've heard the judge speak and we've done our work and with the rfp fee the pc a has been here before in fact, when we had the investment session you invite a consulate i've heard him speak, however, the staff speaks about how they eliminate managers it's timely and the packet is this thick i wanted to come next door i couldn't be here the parking garages c a actually share discussions with the firms that's a consequence not a plus or minus i recognize the reason wherever this motion depreciates a second we went through it this i couldn't include a fist i believe we have a custody safe haven you might have had smolg someone there from the staff an cheent memory part of the process there was something unfair about their due diligence by it isn't. >> this is not eliminating they're still part of the process we proposes to go forward with the due diligence on those 4 and if, in fact, we need to go back to the two other firms they're still considered part of the proposal group that we can select from. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> who is on the group that evaluated the proposals. >> myself, bob eunice and mark. >> there are 4 and can you talk about the process you went through. >> i read each of the rfps twice and graded them twice process that i used was i took each section one at that time, and read that rfp and read the same session on the next rfp again and did that and went on to the second section that's how i did the it i wanted to compare the quality and the depth and size to each question by section that's a c f a type of approach to analyzing qualify active questions each question is one evaluation it as greater depth in that bob and eunice can spank i'll and after that each the 4 of us got together in depth and evaluated each one of the sections a number find factors within each one and we met and through each one of that on two occasions to arrive at this recommendation bob can speak to that. >> i don't for the purpose the same process i read through them twice my approach i went through them not necessarily alpha beta but each one no detail looking for the answers i thought were highly responsive for example we have questions when as part of the rfp properties we provided a significant amount of information and asked them for details what they thought of the managers the only way to evaluate the depth of their research do necessary know our managers or not to me if i know about san francisco typically uses the consultant that's primarily one of their 0 responsibility that comprises 75 percent of our public assets and having them there and being able to talk in this case briefly to talk to touring our margins that was my approach to go to the rfp and is whether or not i thought the answers were responsive and evaluate them that way i definitely went through the grading process there are very strong managers in here and on that have weakens in certain areas trying to identify that's why we had several meetings to discuss the candidates we each came away with different opinions some of us will thought atheists what we came up with the best list. >> i think we shared and i think we're getting to the substance. >> does that answer your question. >> each of you evaluated the respondents individually and met on multiple occasions and through that process brought up those 4 names. >> i'm directing staff to add pc a or any consultant to the mix having been permanent i think our role those little board to make sure it's a sound process and staff is a is looking at everyone in a sound manner and when they accompany with a list that our job is to continue to allow them to proceed down this path and if some point staff decides some of the consultant be added back to the mix that's fine i prefer to staff that people read the proposals multiple time and have been through 24 process other consultants multiple times to be the ones to make the recommendations i'll go with staffs recommendations. >> one final question this is directed to staff it goes through not the methodology but the question on there one or questions i'm interested in if we require or ask the question if there firm has women or minority owned members on executive fee what's the make up 6 their firm that's mire own personal value i'm projecting but it reflects part of san francisco's value see it part of the mixtures in the question you're describing to respond to the rfp and i believe we require they disclosure on an e o d c form e e o-1 all levels of both gender as well as ninth. >> is there some kind of a point subscribed to present to the minority or women in positions how does that work. >> as the city attorney. >> commissioners i don't believe there is a or could points awarded for that under state law that's prohibited but the board policy does direct that staff consider that factor but in the service provider selection policy but no specific weighing. >> i don't know which state law your referencing but certainly the rfps we as the city issued from the transportation authority there is a some relevance around the qualifications of those further stipulated and i believe the law is focused on local business status it's been changed not focused on minority or women owned and the processed here is slightly different base from a city process this is a fiduciary board with an obligation to the board and funds so a point rigid point system may truant officer with the experience of discretion by the board as a fiduciary by picking the best firms for the system. >> i see okay. the other two classes is the lgbt seniors or a veterans i understand that's the system that sets up to exclude people as well maybe we can move this on. >> it has been moved. >> i want to address some of the progress there's been several board members that think this is the case in terms of not xhoud the pc a i think there is an inherent bias they recommended this position the other issue i think there's going to be in inherit questioning of why we include someplace not hunt this has not references from public be pension fund no references from the pension fund and excludes someplace that a superb i think that that might be preserved the references are important if i were in mondays be shoes especially labor i'd like look at the references the endorsement and references and re789sdz are very, very important part so i believe that there might be the perception it might be bias because of hedge fund any candidates would say where why are you including someone and someone he will that as a inessential is reputation. >> it is also i want to say for the record i asked for the score from the executive director and it was denied i wanted to mention that 3ub8 i want to ask pc a void the perception so that's it. >> is there a second to the motion. >> motion device if no second chair. >> i'll

Related Keywords

South Korea , United Kingdom , San Francisco , California , United States , Chosen , British , Bob Shaw , Bob Eunice , David Williams ,