november 25th has two new ones and they were provided at my request. and we have a december 3rd, alternative special mix that was combined with a combination of the director. so those are the origins of the document. right. and the mixes. for the purpose of the motion and the second, i believe that the maker is speaking about the december 3rd memo in the alternative special mix giving direction for three scenarios under the hedge funds. one being a fund to fund, one being in-house and one being a mix to see how the numbers fall. is that accurate? that is accurate. i m reading into your comments that you didn t expect the due diligence on staff s part to be between 30 and 60 days but you had something less in mind although i m not sure if there was a specific date, so for the sake of the motion. for the sake of the motion, i will yield to our director, he knows how long it will take to get the data in terms of time span. i would yield to him for the data. we are co
request. and we have a december 3rd, alternative special mix that was combined with a combination of the director. so those are the origins of the document. right. and the mixes. for the purpose of the motion and the second, i believe that the maker is speaking about the december 3rd memo in the alternative special mix giving direction for three scenarios under the hedge funds. one being a fund to fund, one being in-house and one being a mix to see how the numbers fall. is that accurate? that is accurate. i m reading into your comments that you didn t expect the due diligence on staff s part to be between 30 and 60 days but you had something less in mind although i m not sure if there was a specific date, so for the sake of the motion. for the sake of the motion, i will yield to our director, he knows how long it will take to get the data in terms of time span. i would yield to him for the data. we are confident we can have the data for the february board meeting.
approximately 10 years ago, our investment and policy and beliefs is in our books. that s what answers many of your questions about who we are and what we believe in and what we are trying the do here. that s also a public document. i appreciate margaret young who asked a lot of questions. i definitely want to answer those questions to prove to you why we are trying to prove our active allocation process for better returns to keep active employers contributions down and to get the city s contributions down so they will have more money whether it s for employees and all the programs that this city is trying to do for the citizens of san francisco. that s what this allocation process is really all about. you want more time, let s take it. vice-president? thank you very much. my question is through the chair to commissioners bridges, you specifically say that your proposal or the proposal is absent data points. i m just curious if you can expand a little bit about what the t
the supervisor said i want to get a lot of money. so do i. thousands of city workers signed petitions saying they don t want their what the city workers think and i think that s a statement really of the problem that we have here. the city workers retirees an active city workers have a right to have a pension fund that is going to be secure and they re very concerned that proposals to turn it into hedge funds will put their pensions in jeopardy and the fact that you have somebody who sells pension funds, who invests in pension funds and is on the board and you re going to be reappointing this person to a five year term, what does that tell me an otherwise city workers? that you would have somebody that has a personal conflict of information on the pension board, who s questioning we re having a trial. ed lee was informing about this conflict of interest before he reappointed here and he continued to reappoint her. that tell ls me this mayor is not concerned about the retirees
the connection they re trying to make here is that wendy paskin-jordan has been a barrier to the due diligence of the board finding out whether or not they are sitting on significant carbon risk. i would say that it s up to this board here to up hold the integrity of its board through this. and there s a difference between intent and action. they re very separate things and although intentd is significant the action is without a doubt where the rule was broken. so when funds were traded after ms. paskin-jordan was on the board that seems like a very strong indicator for an ethics violation and this is the opportunity to keep the first board at the highest caliber business examining this further. thank you. hello, i m a san francisco resident and member of fossil free san francisco as well . i think the previous comments, i have heard an explicit call that she not be reappointed and they were basically giving their reasons why they don t think she is adequately representing