Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12042001 - D.3 l - THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: December 4, 2001 Matter of Record On this date,the Board of Supervisors held an educational workshop with guest speaker Ira M. Summers, FSA, President of Public Pension Professionals Inc., reporting on benefits and costs associated with the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association(CCCERA) and other County retirement systems operating under the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 ('37 Act). The Board discussed the matter regarding the benefits and costs associated with the CCCERA and other County retirement systems operating under the County's Retirement Law of 1937. The Board noted that today's workshop was for educational and information purposes, no decisions or Board actions would be taken today. The following people presented testimony: Carl Carey, 595 Timberleaf Court, Walnut Creek Robert Loughton, (no address on speaker card) Richard Cabral, Board Member, Retirement Board Helen Shea, President, Retirees Board Steve Ojena, 2429 Saybrook Place, Martinez Jim Hicks, Business Agent, AFSCME Pat Everetts, Superior Court, Martinez Gloria Price,P.O. Box 23864, Pleasant Hill Peter Cornejo. 1010 Valeron Place, Walnut Creek Therese Humbert, (no address on speaker card) Dione Mustard, 65 Collins, Pleasant Hill Rose Machado, 596 Little Lane, Pleasant Hill The following people did not wish to speak, choosing to leave written comments or letters: Paul A. Freese, 136 Topaz Court, Hercules Tracey Zeel-Bennett, (no address on speaker card) Susan L. Pricco, 136 Topaz Court, Hercules Mary H. Kiefer, 2244 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito Edith Kiefer, 2244 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito Luis M. Gorva, 2239 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito Josephine Stacey, 6123 Panama, Richmond Laura Pricco, 2036 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito Margaret M. Franke, 2032 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito Loretta Devoto, 7017 Carol Court, El Cerrito Judith O' Connell, 58 Standish Court, Crockett Dolores M. Smith, 3119 Avis Way, Pinole Maureen L. Spulma, 2180 Blue Jaycircle, Pinole Albuno Andrade, 4049 Hillcrest Road, El Sobrante Mariko Gonzalez, 6143 Plymouth Avenue, Richmond F. L. Busko, 829 Gloucester Street, Antioch Barbara B. Evans, 5566 Southbrook Drive, Clayton F.E. Evans, 5566 Faithbrook Drive, Clayton Bernice A. M.. Bushnell, 1940 Johnson Drive, Concord Viola Allara, 1184 Rockbridge Lane#1, Walnut Creek Wendy Eberhardt, 11720 San Pablo Avenue, Suite C, El Cerrito Joan M. Bump, RN, 869 Professional Drive, Napa Roberta BayCan, 3644 May Road, Richmond Susan S. Duncan, R.N. 1202 King Drive, El Cerrito Jan Diamond, M.D. 11720 San Pablo Avenue, Suite C, El Cerrito David Ernst, M.D. 11720 San Pablo Avenue, Suite C, El Cerrito To facilitate order, the Board Chair collected questions from attendees, which were read aloud to Ira Summers. Chair Uilkema invited interested persons with further questions to submit them to the County Administrator's office, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN AGENDA DATE IA)ol ITEM NO. D- 3 BACKGROUND NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AGENDA PACKET WAS COMPILED INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED ORAL PRESENTATION TO BE GIVEN AT BOARD MEETING ERROR IN NUMBERING AGENDA ITEM DELETED DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK CONSIDER ANY CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED SEE ITEM J REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)' . Complete this form and place it. in the box. near " the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 6c f L,2.L " *n `� Phone.: 7q Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: ; I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against I wish.. to speak .on-,the, subject • of • I do not wish to speak ,but leave these comments for- the Board to consider:., REQUEST TO SPEAR. FORM (THREE, (A). MINUTE` LIMIT). � Complete this form and .,pl'ace it in the box near the speakers 3 v rostrum before ddressing the.Zoar&-.- Na me �G/?. Oc X4.2 Phone Address: I am speaking for myself or. organization: . w� 11 o � vofe � (JCI .(name of.organization) • CHECR ONE:;: 1 . Date• I./wish to speak .on A g e,.nda Item #..:. My comment's will be:: general for against- I wish• to speak on t2ie. subject' of " I.. do not "wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 1,�, Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: /o4? 1ea�teaJPhone: Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I P�//1e 01 C I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR 'FORM. (THREE.A 3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this -form . and place it in . the box near - the speakers' rostrum before addressing: the,: Board. Name: 1/?il. �Y�-t/l'1S� Phone:. Address': City: 'I am, spe king for: myself or organization:: - O (S 1p.e ©/(f / Eil�i� CSD re 6Qfg2 of organization) CHECK ONE: . -�--fie:. z� :. ".4 I wish .to speak on.- Agenda Item V Date:. My comments will be:' .general for _ against I wish to speak, on .the subject .Of" . o I do not wish to speak but leave these, comments for the "Board to consider: REQUEST TO' SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) .MINUTE LIMIT) .Complete .- th.is., forte. and place it 'in the box .near the :speakers' rostrum before 'addressin'glthe Board. .. Name: f� !��5. Phone: / Address: 6,0 City: Aeve[ s I am speaking for myself or organization': i. (name--of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to. speak on ,Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against -I wish to. speak on. the subject of I, do .nbt wish ':to speak but leave these comments .21or the Board to consider: L Am . 00'l REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE' (3-) MINUTE LIMIT). Complete this form and place it in the. . box near the speakers' [,G rostrum before addres. ing the Bo d. c Name: Aw Phone: Address: City: I am speaking. for, myself or organization: 442 ���L• ��� �'; `' ��✓ (name of organization) CHEANE / I .wish to speak ,on Agenda Item # Date:. My .comments will be: general for against I. wish to`:speak. on the.•subject of-.' I do not. .Wish to speak but. leave these comments for the Board to ,consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) / Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. - Name: � � � ��� Phone: 6!25/ 9��7 S3 Sv9 Address: 3-2. Al A AUC-1 X01 DG- City: P-111"S IIV/.-' /7 l/—Z— I am speaking for myself or organization: �TE C C ' 1 F S'C/d'l — �,�= (name of organization) --- CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against � �UN I wish to speak on the subject of S,E 7 9 5- %1 F C.14 I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: REQUEST ,TO SPEAR FORM (THREE. (3) MINIITE LIMIT)•.,.. Complete ''.this form .-,and place it in the .box.: near. the- speakers' rostrum 'before addressing ..'the Board. Phone: T Address: / i X � City: �( . -4 I am speaking for myself, organization: _ 7 , .e : -• - ����.-mom (name. cganizaO on) CHECK Opp 1 - wish to-'=speak ori-,--Agenda Item My comments will be:• genera1. or against -I wish, to speak. .on `.the' subject of: :. I :do .not wish to. speak but leave these, comments for the Board to. consider:: ,Le, - c-Z se) ,� y� REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM . • (THREE (1) MINUTE LIMIT) --/' Complete this form and place it in the. box > near the. speakers' rostrum before addressing. the" Board:•. Name: Phone Address. City: I am speaking for-.myself or organization: (name of organization) ' CHECK ONE: I wish to. speak' on Agenda Item # Date: my comments will be: general for against I wish •to speak on' the "subject' oft . I do- not wish to speak but leave these cDmments for the Board toconsider: ' ��.a�s �►.�,. Tu 1"�- Q��sr�ar� - '��',..►to ��'�, iar a• `d►y�e:�>'a�t' "T�+fi E�1�+T�c-g/,��.''r�I�CT�?• REQIIEST ,TO SPEAK FORM (THREE. (3). MINUTE LIMIT). Complete this form and. place it in the box near the speakers' ,Q rostrum before(4y addressing. the Board. 'A))l Name: �- RE Phone: Address: City: f I am speaking for myself or organization:. (name of organization) ] 97 CHECK. ONE I wish to speak on, Agenda Item # , Date:.. My comments will be: general for against I wish to. speak ,on`.:the sub]ec.t of. I- do .not wish to speak but leave these comments for the . Board '.to consider:: i JL�a. .Yv+C*sT' —80A-amp i$ �l��A.t�ti �-4�•��. '���rv.�Ncs "��e.'P' "1�4A ��'i r.�l��T � Z FL�uo/ :CruKps� � -AMC wsNlvr LW.*XW,.►� c�t�w. -�.E-,r» � ,-•A REQUEST TO SPEAR .FORM .,(THREE;, (3) MINUTE LIMIT) `f Complete this f;orm.. and place'-it -in the .box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Baard, Name: ' L • , Phone: �Z°5"Z.I C�-:1. l Z Address:_ 5`�Z h �,�y { —��, �, :p: -r~• City i I am speaking for myself or organization: � . (name of organizatio�) CHECK ONE•- • , . C'�CC.��YL..S � s L .wish: to 'sp'eak on ;Agenda Item ...# ` pate: My comments, wiI I be:-.general for against I,wish to speak"'viii':the subj ect-of I do not. wish 'to speak but leave these comments for the Board. to consider: W t'c'�a'L .i :--Vic- ?��c.i���► i� •:.'"�� t.,�"x.<.a-�i:"� LGAwl�� •n ,.�) y "QIIEST. .'T4 SPEAK FORM (TH.REE; (3) MINUTE LIMIT) . Gamete his farm and- place it. in •'the box near : the speakers' rostrum before addressing the-,Board.-' Name: Phone:. Z. Address:- C:>O. �R: ►�" (. City.: I`-am speakipc! for. .myself. r or organization (name of organization) CHECK' CINE I wish to. speak' on !Age.nda: hexa # Date': ; 'My comments will be: general' " -for. against I wish to°..speak 'on the subject, 'of '.I da not :wish t" . -but but leave'-these comments. for the Board. to. consider.: 14-1 T REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form 'and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. d Name: P• pne: ®�� 2 6 v /�" Address: City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: _ My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments or-the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM'; (THREE, (3) MINUTE. LIMIT) Complete, this form. .and place it :in the b.ox.•..-near . the speakers-'. rostrum. befbtd 'address.in'g .the. Board' Name'.!, .LG'�-.� i?�-cam_ -�� Phone: Address: . Sa City: I am speaking for .myself ` or organization: (came.of 'organizai6on) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak' on. Agenda 'Item '# - Date: My comments• wili be: general for against I, wish.;to. sPeak on ?the �subj ect of Un 'I do knot .wish. .to speak but leave these comments for .the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE; (1) "MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and., place. it in • the box . near_ the speakers' rostrum -before addrrjessinAg _the Board. ,l/�ilc.c,{2�k. aPhone: o �/ Name:.. 7(��v Phone:. �•. S - � �. - �-��, � . Vin. . . ��. • Address: City: 77 I .am speaking for :myself;_x -or organization: . (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to- speak on.-,Agenda Item # bate: Z2-. 21:CS My comments will be: general . 'for. against I wish, to speak .on: the subject 'of - I do not- .wish'.to- 'speak. but leave these,' comments 'for the Board' to consider: .....yt..a+va iv or�HA 1'VKi'1 (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) • Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: PE TF,k C8 M sz7f O Phone: Address: 1,01 o VA(,Wip-6sa P(, City: ln,�,Lw� GI� I am speaking for myself _ or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: X I wish to speak on Agenda Item # � � Date: C My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of Vigi2 5 I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR. FORM �r (THREE. '(3) 'MINUTE LIMIT) . complete this form :and place it in'. the . box near the, speakers". rostrum-. bef orb- addressing. the- Board., Name. Phone: Address: S^�1L /dam. : _c.l�t y.. I am..speaking -for. myselfor organization: (name-of-organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to: speak "on Agenda Item # Date: .. My 'comments will be: general for against I . wish -to" speak. on ;the ' 's'ubs ect off I do not .wish to. 'speak, but leave these comments ' for the Board to -consider: REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM J� (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. - Name: ���--P.- i7 �_.. Phone Address: zy.Zol s0- 1-ce } City: I am speaking for myself '--"--or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comment$$ for the Board to consider: t vn te�eceived- 19 q7 —zoo o s Tki s a m ov n-T— e W �u� Qh er CovnT�. e_n, (o yQ2/S �a� ro 6r P zcro 1'� ���IIl �� c �� B ° � _ _��� ��%� = �� �� ,��- �� -� '� ��"� - _". - _ RECEIVED DEC 0 4 20x1 CLERK nOA, OF U.ERVIS ORS CONTRA COSTA CO. OUR FUND, THE 200-DOLLAR ISSUE & THE GRAND JURY Presentation to Board of Supervisors Work Shop December 4th, 2001 Presented by: .Peter Camejo, CCCERA Trustee OUR FUND, THE 200-DOLLAR ISSUE & THE GRAND JURY Presentation to Board of Supervisors Work Shop December 4th, 2001 From: Peter Camejo CCCERA Trustee Thank you for this opportunity to address you. As a trustee of our pension fund I am concerned over certain recent developments and misunderstandings that may have developed. First let me tell you what an excellent retirement fund our County has. Trailing.Five Years Contra Costa County 22.4% Above Average For the last five years ending December 31, 2000 our fund had a return of 14.2%per year! The average public pension fund was up 11.6% for the same period. That is a 22.4%return above the average each year for the last five years. In the investment world that is considered remarkable. Concretely those years produced excess earnings of about 100 to 150 million dollars per year. The above figures include the year 2000 where the NASDAQ dropped 39% and the S&P 500 dropped 9%. Our fund was up 2.2%in 2000 outperforming CalPERS for instance. Again this year 2001 during a continued sharp drop in the stock market our fund while dropping in value is suffering a much smaller drop then the markets due to its asset allocation. When looking at performance figures for pension funds five years is about the shortest period one can consider. The key is long-term stable performance. There has never been a three-year in a row drop in the stock market. Probability would indicate we are near the end of this corrective cycle. In the most recent report(R.V. Kuhns &Associates) comparing all of the twenty 1937 Act California County pension funds our County is right at the top in the last five-year figures. The.report dated June 30`x', 2001 shows our County as the third best performing fund and the fourth lowest risk asset allocation. Since the two funds slightly ahead of us in performance have a higher risk analysis it appears Contra Costa County may very well be the best risk adjusted performing 1937 Act Fund,possibly the best risk adjusted performing fund in California. If we are not number one we're close. Why Is This? A good part of the credit has to go to our financial consultant DH&C let by Robert Helliesen for prudent advice on our asset allocation and careful manager selection process. But it is the Board of Trustees that makes all investment decisions. Important - 1 credit has to go to the Board. As an expert in investing I am quite impressed with the effort all the Board members have made to become educated on investment issues in order to serve the pension fund. Also some credit should go to our excellent administrator,Pat Weigert and her dedicated staff. Lowering Risk And Improving Performance Even with these excellent figures we need to continue to seek ways to improve our fund by lowering risks and raising return. The world is changing and it is crucial to try and stay on top of mega trends with a very long term out look to protect our fund. Recently we have agreed to add a new asset allocation category that has no correlation to the stock market(that means its good). It has lower risk than the S&P 500 and a higher return. These combined factors should lower our portfolio risk while adding to our financial performance;Because this asset class called, "Managed Futures" involves futures some funds have incorrectly feared taking advantage of its characteristics. Our board of trustees is willing to look outside the box to'prudently find the right asset mix to continue to improve our excellent performance. For example of all our debt investments (33% of our fund) the best performing has been an AFL-CIO fund. This AFL-CIO fund includes helping build affordable housing. It is the most socially responsible of our.debt managers. This fund just also happens to have the highest rating(AAA) for its securities, in other words the lowest risk of all our debt managers! Thus the AFL-CIO fund has had the highest return with the lowest risk. Yet we had the least invested in this fund compared to our other debt managers. Your Board of Trustees has been willing to note the increased performance and lowered risk to socially responsible investments and is considering increasing the AFL-CIO fund allocation as well as using environmental screens that have proven in Europe to lower risk and increase performance. Just last week we moved our S&P 500 index funds to enhanced strategies to improve performance. Among these enhancements we will be using an environmental screen on one of our managers through a firm called Innovest. You should be proud that our County is the first to use an environmental screen to enhance performance just as we are the first and only County that votes its shares as a default in support of the environment and social justice. This last issue has been shown in studies to improve performance. Our board has approved these decisions unanimously. j We are about to consider beginning a year study with Innovest of what impact environmental screens would have in increasing performance and lowering risk for each equity manager. The matter will be voted on in December. I know some of you are thinking what does all of this have to do with the 200-dollars for retiree's proposal? I think a great deal. 2 High Returns Means Surplus Our performance has led to returns well above our estimates. Our.fund.had an estimate of 8.25%for its performance in recent years. We have raised it very modestly to 8.5% although for some 20 years we have been well above the estimate. By doing so we feel we will be closer to an accurate figure over time. The previously too low figure created a burden to our County. If we can earn more each year the County can pay less to the fund. If we set our estimate lower the County has to make up the difference. Obviously the key is to be accurate. For years we have set our figure too low. The pension board has worked hard to lower the obligation of the County and other employers. Fir instance, our board in its majority discovered some rather odd anomalies in our actuary estimates. Our board has decided to consider changing the firm we are using. By refusing to accept some of these estimates our board has saved the County ratheilarge sums. (This message would become too long to explain these but I will mention two so you have a feel for the kind of difficult decisions this required. The Board chose to be conservative and stay with longer-term estimates on the death rate in our County as opposed to figures from a three-year study of our 5,000 retirees. In another issue there were differences as to what our obligation would be regarding inflation. If a fund as a 4% COLA and inflation runs at 4% it is next to mathematically impossible that we would have to pay 4%because if even one in 20 years came in below 4%`the average would be less then 4%. For the employer's sake we should have a mathematically accurate estiiiiate on what the cost would be, we still do not. Otherwise the County could end up over paying.) If the County and other employers have saved on their budgets by these steps the credit should go to trustee Richard Cabral. He has served over 20 years on this board and led the effort on these issues to protect the employers. In fact just these two steps, adjusting our performance estimate and correcting certain actuarial assumptions will save the County more funds over time than the entire amount being discussed today for the 200-dollars for the retirees. Keep in mind the 200-dollar issue is a one-time event that disappears over time. I consider all of these decisions well founded. We expect to review these annually and readjust if reality indicates any of our judgments to be inaccurate. Distribution.Of Surplus Over the period from 1997 to 2000 the pension Board has distributed our surplus in a ratio that is approximately the following: 325 million to help the employers, 35 million to assist the participants and 39 million to for the retirees. But these figures do not tell the whole story. The retirees received.only funds for our"Dollar Power" and the employees 3 only the normal transfer policy. The employers received 266 million dollars above the normal transfer figures. A long and full discussion involving everyone who wished to participate discussed and considered a proposal to provide some of the surplus to the retirees. There were two large meetings where retirees,participants and employer representatives spoke. The proposal to provide 200-dollars-per-month for existing retirees received overwhelming support and no alternative to its specific form(200-dollars-per-month for all retirees) -was presented. I favored such a proposal primarily because I saw how poorly the retirement system had worked for people who retired prior to 1985 due to inflation. Some of our retirees originally promised the equivalent of 2,000 dollars per month in buying power now receive 500 dollars plus a small additional amount bringing them to about 800 dollars a month. Repeatedly it was said to our Board that we could not under the 1937 Act correct this situation. During those discussions our board was informed if we made a proposal to increase what we pay retirees we had to provide the exact same amount to each retiree..Everyone had an opportunity to make his or her case or present a counter proposal. The board voted and implemented successfully the proposal supported by an overwhelming majority of those who participated in those discussions. Arguments are once again being raised against this proposal. There are too many for me to deal with all.of them. One, for example, charges some retirees receiving more than a 100,000 dollars a year will receive 200 dollars more a month. This is true for I% of the money. So to stop that I%we are going to deny the other 99% of retirees with an average pension of 1,654 dollars a month to receive their 200 dollars? Most of the arguments are similar to this one. They catch an aspect of the truth that misses the whole point. It would be useful to limit the 200 dollars month category for a small number of the retirees such as the I%receiving over 100,000 dollars a year. But what will most likely happen if you turn this down is little or nothing. Just as over the last two decades not enough was done for those retirees. Fiduciary Responsibility One of the key issues here is the independence of the retirement board. As a trustee I have a fiduciary obligation to the retirees, the participants and the employers or another way to say it the taxpayers that guarantee the system. The four trustees appointed by you are there as fiduciaries not as votes at the direction of anyone. The 1937 Act lays out that responsibility in Section 31595. The act does not refer to those trustees appointed by you as being instructed to act under any different fiduciary standard than the elected trustees. All nine trustees have an obligation to protect the fund and the interests of all parties involved as specified in the 1937 Act. 4 Anyone disagreeing with the 1937 Act can request it be amended. For instance some one could request that the County Administrator be givenA votes on the board. I feel it is inappropriate for anyone to object to James Lee and myself, two appointees of yours, voting for the 200-dollars a retiree proposal because the County Administrator disagrees with the proposal. I am and will continue to be a fiduciary on this board and I may vote again in the future in a manner not in keeping with the opinions of the County Administrator. I will certainly consider his views and listen carefully to all arguments, seek to compromise, to achieve a consensus, in order for us to advance the over all interests of our County. The first contact our board had with our new administrator was to receive a letter presenting the pro-retirees proposal as against a proposal for the participants, (3 at 50 and 2 at 55). I understand the terribly difficult task a county administrator faces in trying to create a balanced budget and the various pressures he has to deal with. Being_-a county administrator is a thankless job requiring coming to difficult and often unpopular decisions. We need to see ourselves.as trying to work as a team. To look out for the well being of our County as best we can. But also look out for the well being of our employees and retirees. We do not choose between them,we seek to act in a prudent and balanced manner for all. We recently voted to set aside a 100 million dollars of our surplus as a reserve to assist the participants achieving the proposed 3 at 50, 2 at 55 new benefits. I have proposed and lost on our Board of Trustees to change the day we meet so it does not conflict with the board of supervisors. Many counties have a member of the board of Supervisors on the pension board. I personally believe that could be quite useful for us in the future. Hopefully this would help keep better coordination between us. It is normal for good people to have differences. Truth can only be ascertained through the conflict of ideas. The question is how to resolve differences, how to compromise and in the end how to be supportive to each other. Trustees Under Attack For Being Fiduciaries But peculiar things have started happening. Issues that concern me and I know should. and do concern you as Supervisors. First there was the peculiar incident where Ed Lane, the County Counsel working for our fund asked the District Attorney to investigate me because our almost 3 billion dollar fund that has about 30 million in short term cash type investments placed 100,000 dollars, (that's right 100,000 dollars) in a market rate Certificate of Deposit 100%guaranteed by the Federal Government,both interest and principal, in the Community Bank of the Bay, a bank run by African-Americans trying to help create jobs and affordable housing in northern California including our county. Ed Lane's action was a clear violation of a client-attorney relationship and possibly violated the law and his duty as an attorney for the fund to help guide and protect the trustees. In violation of a normal client-attorney relationship Ed Lane refused to answer 5 any questions from trustees regarding his actions or the reasons for his actions. It is obvious his actions had a chilling effect on our Board. County Counsel has never offered a formal apology to our Board for Ed Lane's in appropriate actions. To place some of our short-term funds where they will.do the most good for our County in a 100%risk-less investment is in keeping with our fiduciary responsibility. As it turns out due to a special Federal exemption we can place almost any amount (up to 50 million) in the Community Bank and it will be 100%FDIC insured for both principal and interest. Our fund should definitely consider increasing the amount we have at our community bank and other agencies in our County should place a small part of their short-term investments in this bank. Our Board hired one of Northern California's most talented pension fund attorneys, Bill Sokol, from a firm handling 200 pension funds to be our new General Counsel. Grand Jury Investigation Now a second shoe has dropped. Another rather peculiar event is in progress. A Grand Jury has appeared"secretly"investigating the actions of our Board of Trustees. If one summarizes the presentation made to our Board by the County Administrator and some of the positions held by a small minority of trustees on our Board critical of some majority decisions (such as increasing our estimate to 8.5%from 8.25%or the FDIC insured investment in the Community Bank) you have the list of questions being asked by the Grand Jury. Those questions indicate clearly that some one with at least some knowledge of our fund is pushing the investigation but our board is in the dark as to who our accuser is. These actions would intimidate any pension board by creating a chilling effect on its deliberations. Could this investigation be politically orchestrated? Often such "investigations"end up in some scare article in the press. It is so odd for a Grand Jury to get involved over calculations whether our fund should be at 8.25%, 8%, 8.75%or 8.5%. Who is behind this?.Our board has the right to protect itself from such attempts at intimidation. And personally I am concerned this attack can easily become disservice to this County to.our retirees,participants and taxpayers and in the end to the Grand Jury. One of the issues involved is our funding ratio. Contra Costa County is at present the lowest of all 20 1937 Act counties in its funding ratio at 89%. That figure appears in the same report with our performance referred to above. However the comparison is inaccurate. It is not apples-to-apples: Our fund has already funded the Ventura decision while many other counties are still not funded and the figure does not include a very large sum of money still not allocated by us that would raise our funding ratio substantially higher. Our ratio needs to be raised but is perfectly reasonable given all the factors mentioned. It is very difficult for the Board of Trustees to work effectively fearing there are people in this County looking to undermine its work, to embarrass its trustees. I cannot express in 6 words how wrong it would be for a report to come out of this Grand Jury misrepresenting the facts and implying our fund is not acting,not only completely within the law;but in a fully fiduciary manner. It would be so unfair to in any manner misrepresent the care and excellent work our staff and director have carried out, or the openness and care of our trustees in their actions. The fact the Grand Jury is checking into who went to lunch with whom, or where some one played golf,just shows the level to which this issue has now fallen. Some trustees even use their vacation time to attend meetings to educate themselves on investment and other issues. At these events special dinners or luncheons occur where important educational presentations are made. This action by the Grand Jury can only have a chilling effect on trustees. I know it does on me. I did not agree to serve on this Board to see my name vilified for trying to help my County. Apparently the Grand Jury in our County investigates our fund every time the economy slows down, 1990-91, 1994-95 and now 2000-01. This time it is a bit different in that it enters into this divisive issue around our effort to help the retirees. I urge you to consider the pension board's actions placing about 80%of our surplus to help the employers directly or indirectly and only 20%to the retirees by voting for our proposal. Work with us to iron out any misunderstanding or differences around these issues. I also urge you to do whatever you can to stop these harassment efforts against our Board of Trustees. Thank you. 7 4 1 OUR FUND, THE 200-DOLLAR ISSUE & THE' GRAND JURY Presentation to Board of Supervisors Work Shop December 4th, 2001 Presented by: Peter Camejo, CCCERA Trustee OUR FUND, THE 200-DOLLAR ISSUE & THE GRAND JURY Presentation to Board of Supervisors Work Shop December 4th, 2001 From: Peter Camejo CCCERA Trustee Thank you for this opportunity to address you. As a trustee of our pension fund I am concerned over certain recent developments and misunderstandings that may have developed. First let me tell you what an excellent retirement fund our County has. Trailing Five Years Contra Costa County 22.4% Above Average For the last five years ending December 31,2000 our fund had a return of 14.2%per year! The average public pension fund was up 11.6% for the same period. That is a 22.4% return above the average each year for the last five years. In the investment world that is considered remarkable. Concretely those years produced excess earnings of about 100 to 150 million dollars per year. The above figures include the year 2000 where the NASDAQ dropped 39% and the S&P 500 dropped 9%. Our fund was up 2.2% in 2000 outperforming Ca1PERS for instance. Again this year 2001 during a continued sharp drop in the stock market our fund while dropping in value is suffering a much smaller drop then the markets due to its asset allocation. When looking at performance figures for pension funds five years is about the shortest period one can consider. The key is long-term stable performance. There has never been a three-year in a row drop in the stock market. Probability would indicate we are near the end of this corrective cycle. In the most recent report (R-V. Kuhns&Associates) comparing all of the twenty 1937 Act California County pension funds our County is right at the top in the last five-year figures. The report dated June 30th, 2001 shows our County as the third best performing .! fund and the fourth lowest risk-asset allocation. Since the two funds slightly ahead of us in performance have a higher risk analysis it appears Contra Costa County may very well be the best risk adjusted performing 1937.Act Fund,possibly the best risk adjusted performing fund in California. If we are not number one we're close. Why Is This? A good part of the credit has to go to our financial consultant DH&C let by Robert Helliesen for prudent advice on our asset allocation and careful manager selection process. But it is the Board of Trustees that makes all investment decisions. Important . 1 credit has to go to the Board. As an expert in investing I am quite impressed with the effort all the Board members have made to become educated on investment issues in order to serve the.pension fund. Also some credit should go to our excellent administrator, Pat Weigert and her dedicated staff. Lowering Risk And Improving Performance Even with these excellent figures we need to continue to seek ways to improve our fund by lowering risks and raising return. The world is changing and it is crucial to try and stay on top of mega trends with a very long term out look to protect our fund. Recently we have agreed to add a new asset allocation category,that has no correlation to the stock market(that means its good). It has lower risk than the S&P 500 and a higher return. These combined factors should lower our portfolio risk while adding to our financial performance;Because this asset class called, "Managed Futures"involves futures some funds have incorrectly feared taking advantage of its characteristics. Our board of trustees is willing to look outside the box to prudently find the right asset mix to continue to improve our excellent performance. For example of all our debt investments (33% of our fund) the best performing has been an AFL-CIO fund. This AFL-CIO fund includes helping build affordable housing. It is the most socially responsible of our debt managers. This fund just also happens to have the highest rating (AAA) for its securities, in other words the lowest risk of all our debt managers! Thus the AFL-CIO fund has had the highest return with the lowest risk. Yet we had the least invested in this.fund compared to'our other debt managers. Your Board of Trustees has been willing to note the increased performance and lowered risk to socially responsible investments and is considering increasing the AFL-CIO fund allocation as well as using environmental screens that have proven in Europe to lower risk and increase performance. Just last week we moved our S&P 500 index funds to enhanced strategies to improve performance. Among these enhancements we will be using an environmental screen on one of our managers through a firm called Innovest. You should be proud that our County is the first to use an environmental screen to enhance performance just as we are the first and only County that votes its shares as a default in support of the environment and social justice. This last issue has been shown in studies to improve performance. Our board has approved these decisions unanimously. We are about to consider beginning a year study with Innovest of what impact environmental screens would have in increasing performance and lowering risk for each equity manager. The matter will be voted on in December. I know some of you are thinking what does all of this have to do with the 200-dollars for retiree's proposal? I think a great deal. 2 High Returns Means Surplus Our performance has led to returns well above our estimates. Our fund had an estimate of 8.25% for its performance in recent years. We have raised it very modestly to 8.5% although for some 20 years we have been well above the estimate. By doing so we feel we will be closer to an accurate figure over time. The previously too low figure created a burden to our County. If we can earn more each year the County can pay less to the fund. If we set our estimate lower the County has to make up the difference. Obviously the key is to be accurate. For years we have set our figure too low. The pension board has worked hard.to lower the obligation of the County and other employers. For instance, our board in its majority discovered some rather odd anomalies in our actuary estimates. Our board has decided to consider changing the firm we are using. By refusing to accept some of these estimates our board has saved the County rather large sums. (This message would become too long to explain these but I will mention two so you have a feel for the kind of difficult decisions this required. The Board chose to be conservative and stay with longer-term estimates on the death rate in our County as opposed to figures from a three-year study of our 5,000 retirees. In another issue there were differences as to what our obligation would be regarding inflation. If a fund as a 4% COLA and inflation runs at 4% it is next to mathematically impossible that we would have to pay 4%because if even one in 20 years came in below 4%the average would be less then 4%. For the employer's sake we should have a mathematically accurate estimate on what the cost would be, we still do not. Otherwise the County could end up over paying.) If the County and other employers have saved on their budgets by these steps the credit should go to trustee Richard Cabral. He has served over 20 years on this board and led the effort on these issues to protect the employers. In fact just these two steps, adjusting our performance estimate.and correcting certain actuarial assumptions will save the County more funds over time than the entire amount being discussed today for the 200-dollars for the retirees. Keep in mind the 200-dollar issue is a one-time event that disappears over time. I consider all of these decisions well founded. We expect to review these.aa nually and readjust if reality indicates any of our judgments to be inaccurate. Distribution.Of Surplus Over the period from 1997 to 2000 the pension Board has distributed our surplus in a ratio that is approximately the following: 325 million to help the employers, 35 million to assist the participants and 39 million to for the retirees. But these figures do not tell the whole story. The retirees received only funds for our"Dollar Power" and the employees 3 only the normal transfer policy. The employers received 266 million dollars above the normal transfer figures. A long and full discussion involving everyone who wished to participate discussed and considered a proposal to provide some of the surplus to the retirees. There were two large meetings where retirees,participants and employer representatives spoke. The proposal to provide 200-dollars-per-month for existing retirees received overwhelming support and no alternative to its specific form(200-dollars-per-month for all retirees) was presented. I favored such a proposal primarily because I saw how poorly the retirement system had worked for people who retired prior to 1985 due to inflation. Some of our retirees originally promised the equivalent of 2,000 dollars per month in buying power now receive 500 dollars-plus a small additional amount bringing them to about 800 dollars a month. Repeatedly it was said to our Board that we could not under the 1937 Act correct this situation. During those discussions our board was informed if we made a proposal to increase what we pay retirees we had to provide-the exact same amount to each retiree. Everyone had an opportunity to make his or her case or present a counter proposal. The board voted and implemented successfully the proposal supported by an overwhelming majority of those who participated in those discussions. Arguments are once again being raised against this proposal. There are too many for me to deal with all of them. One, for example, charges some retirees receiving more than a 100,000 dollars a year will receive 200 dollars more a month. This is true for I% of the money. So to stop that I%we are going to deny the other 99% of retirees with an average pension of 1,654 dollars a month to receive their 200 dollars? Most of the arguments are similar to this one. They catch an aspect of the truth that misses the whole point. It would be useful to limit.the 200 dollars month category for a small number of the retirees such as the 1%receiving over 100,000 dollars a year. But what will most likely happen if you turn this down is little or nothing. Just as over the last two decades not enough was done for those retirees. Fiduciary.Responsibility One of the key issues here is the independence of the retirement board. As a trustee I have a fiduciary obligation to the retirees,the participants and the employers or another way to say it the taxpayers that guarantee the system. The four trustees appointed by you are there as fiduciaries not as votes at the direction of anyone. The 1937 Act lays out that responsibility in Section 31595. The act does not refer to those trustees appointed by you as being instructed to act under any different fiduciary standard than the elected trustees. All nine trustees have an obligation to protect the fund and the interests of all parties involved as specified in the 1937 Act. 4 Anyone disagreeing with the 1937 Act can request it be amended. For instance-some one could request that the County Administrator be given 4 votes on the board. I feel it is inappropriate for anyone to object to James Lee and myself, two appointees of yours, voting for the 200-dollars a retiree proposal because the County Administrator disagrees with the proposal. I am and will continue to be a fiduciary on this board and I may vote again in the future in a manner not in keeping with the opinions of the County Administrator. I will certainly consider his views and listen carefully to all arguments, seek to compromise,to achieve a consensus, in order for us to advance the over all interests of our County. The first contact our board had with our new administrator was to receive a letter presenting the pro-retirees proposal as against a proposal for the participants, (3 at 50 and 2 at 55). I understand the terribly difficult task a county administrator faces in trying to create a balanced budget and the various pressures he has to deal with. Being-a county administrator is a thankless job requiring coming to difficult and often unpopular decisions. We need to see ourselves as trying to work as a team. To look out for the well being of our County as best we can. But also look out for the well being of our employees and retirees. We do not choose between them,we seek to act in a prudent and balanced manner for all. We recently voted to set aside a 100 million dollars of our surplus as a reserve to assist the participants achieving the proposed 3 at 50, 2 at 55 new benefits. I have proposed and lost on our Board of Trustees to change the day we meet so it does not conflict with the board of supervisors. Many counties have a member of the board of Supervisors on the pension board. I personally believe that could be quite useful for us in the future. Hopefully this would help keep better coordination between us. It is normal for good people to have differences. Truth can only be ascertained through the conflict of ideas. The question is how to resolve differences, how to compromise and in the end how to be supportive to each other. Trustees Under Attack For Being Fiduciaries But peculiar things have started happening. Issues that concern me and I know should and do concern you as Supervisors. First there was the peculiar incident where Ed Lane, the County Counsel working for our fund asked the District Attorney to investigate me because our almost 3 billion dollar fund that has about 30 million in short term cash type investments placed 100,000 dollars, (that's right 100,000 dollars) in a market rate Certificate of Deposit 1001/6 guaranteed by the Federal Government,both interest and principal, in the Community Bank of the Bay, a bank run by African-Americans trying to help create jobs and affordable housing in northern California including our county. Ed Lane's action was a clear violation of a client-attorney relationship and possibly violated the law and his duty as an attorney for the fund to help guide and protect the trustees. In violation of a normal client-attorney relationship Ed Lane refused to answer 5 any questions from trustees regarding his actions or the reasons for his actions. It is obvious his actions had a chilling effect on our Board. County Counsel has never offered a formal apology to our Board'for Ed Lane's in appropriate actions. To place some of our short-term funds where they will do the most good for our County in a 100%risk-less investment is in keeping with our fiduciary responsibility. As it turns out due to a special Federal exemption we can place almost any . amount(up to 50 million)in the Community Bank and it will be 100%FDIC insured for both principal and interest. Our fund should definitely consider increasing the amount we have at our community bank and other agencies in our County should place a small part of their short-term investments in this bank. Our Board hired one of Northern California's most talented pension fund attorneys,Bill Sokol, from a firm handling 200 pension funds to be our new General Counsel. Grand Jury Investigation Now a second shoe has dropped. Another rather peculiar event is in progress. A Grand Jury has appeared "secretly"investigating the actions of our Board of Trustees. If one summarizes the presentation made to our Board by the County Administrator and some of the positions held by a small minority of trustees on our Board critical of some majority decisions (such as increasing our estimate to 8.5% from 8.25%or the FDIC insured investment in the Community Bank) you have the list of questions being asked by the Grand Jury. Those questions indicate clearly that some one with at least some knowledge of our fund is pushing the investigation but our board is in the dark as to who our accuser is. These actions would intimidate any pension board by creating a chilling effect on its deliberations. Could this investigation be politically orchestrated? Often such "investigations"end up in some scare article in the press. It is so odd for a Grand Jury to get involved over calculations whether our fund should be at 8.25%, 8%, 8.75%or 8.5%. Who is behind this?.Our board has the right to protect itself from such attempts at intimidation. And personally lam concerned this attack can easily become disservice to this County to our retirees,participants and taxpayers and in the end to the Grand Jury. One of the issues involved is our funding ratio. Contra Costa County is at present the lowest of all 20 1937 Act counties in its funding ratio at 89%. That figure appears in the same report with our performance referred to above. However the comparison is inaccurate. It is not apples-to-apples. Our fund has already funded the Ventura decision while many other counties are still not funded and the figure does not include a very large sum of money still not allocated by us that would raise our funding ratio substantially higher. Our ratio needs to be raised but is perfectly reasonable given all the factors mentioned. It is very difficult for the Board of Trustees to work effectively fearing there are people in this County looking to undermine its work, to embarrass its trustees. I cannot express in 6 words how wrong it would be for a report to come out of this Grand Jury misrepresenting the facts and implying our fund is not acting,not only completely within the law, but in a fully fiduciary manner. It would be so unfair to in any manner misrepresent the care and excellent work our staff and director have carried out, or the openness and care of our trustees in their actions. The fact the Grand Jury is checking into who went to lunch with whom, or where some one played golf,just shows the level to which this issue has now fallen. Some trustees even use their vacation time to attend meetings to educate themselves on investment and other issues. At these events special dinners or luncheons occur where important educational presentations are made..This action by the Grand Jury can only have a chilling effect on trustees. I know it does on me. I did not agree to serve on this Board to see my name vilified for trying to help my County. s _ Apparently the Grand Jury in our County investigates our fund every time the economy slows down, 1990-91, 1994-95 and now 2000-01. This time it is a bit different in that it enters into this divisive issue around our effort to help the retirees. I urge you to consider the pension board's actions placing about 80% of our surplus to help the employers directly or indirectly and only 20%to the retirees by voting for our proposal. Work with us to iron out any misunderstanding or differences around these issues. I also urge you to do whatever you can to stop these harassment efforts against our Board of Trustees. Thank you. 7 December 1, 2001 Dear Supervisor Uilkema, I strongly object to the December 4, 2001 workshop concerning the $200 retirement incentive for county employees. I demand that the Board of Supervisors adopt the recommendation of the Retirement Board at the next board meeting in December without further delay, even if a special meeting must be called. Sincer ly, Paul A. Freese 136 Topaz Ct. Hercules, CA 94547 Cc: Chair, Board of Supervisors, Gayle Uilkema November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR , I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, -r� 1 , A CC: Chair, Board of-supervisors, Gayle Uilkema November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR kUXO- , I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SC 1 CC: Chair, Board of Supervisors, Gayle Uilkema November 28 52001 DEAR SUPERVISOR UILKEMA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SIN ERELY, Susan L. Pricco 136 Topaz Court Hercules, CA 94547 ' I November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 45 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, t IVCL Vts 1 �4f� E L CQ'd v'` �a Gf'�F j 3 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA1 I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4,2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. .I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMIE-TiT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING .M[UST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkemal Chair, Board of Supervisors r r rj•• .is •i9: .i November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCEN'T'IVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I REMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors Cvout,- ; C A 9 1� 5-30 November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE 5200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Boar of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE v RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD,MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 12 001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4,.2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, ] cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair,toard of Supervisors t v 1 November 28 22001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4,2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY M� • C/�\5 4 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. .I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DOTATHE NEXT RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMfENIT BHE BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, I of Supervisors .% { ovlo(ra November 28 72001 soZro-,ILP VA703 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA1 I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 200 1 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD ATE HE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, cc: Gayle Uilkenia, Chair, Board of Supervisors ........... November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITH.OUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, Ale 05 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors 'lry *. DEAR SUPERVI'S"�� I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. SINCERELY, �"�� cc: Supv. Gayle Uilkema ��" l DEAR SUPERVISOR I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. SINCERELY, cc: Sup�VG la lygl' UiIkema - 1 c7o r DEAR SUPERVISOR . I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. SINCERELY, cc: Supv. ayle tJil ma17 DEAR SUPERVISOR 7�7l& ,p, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. SINCERELY, J 'G cc: Supv. Gayle Uilkema DEAR SUPERVISOR I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT. BOARD MEETING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. SINCERELY, cc: Supv. Gayle Uilkema November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, Wendy Eberhardt, M.D. J 11720 San Pablo Ave.,Suite C El Cerrito, CA 94530 51 ( 0)374-3629 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, .cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. E LY, � cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, 9 SSS.3d- cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY; SAM 00AMON, M.D. 11 p20 (�r�p i:./ � r,. /r'� qE , 4"'T TE�p0 U YOCsM NJWI�J !r lr��L���L,'.J liJ"U�a N�iL�1�U151�9 ` p � � •�_ EL CERN TO,CA 94530 (516) 374-3622 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors November 28 ,2001 DEAR SUPERVISOR GIOIA, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE DECEMBER 4, 2001 WORKSHOP CONCERNING THE $200 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I DEMAND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, EVEN IF A SPECIAL MEETING MUST BE CALLED. SINCERELY, DAVID ERNST,M.D,rc), . 11120 SAN PABLO AVE., SUITE C EL CERRITO,CA 4530 '510) 314-3629 cc: Gayle Uilkema, Chair, Board of Supervisors