ethics complaint pending because the retirement system publicly sent the complaint over to the ethics commission, but if you ask the commission or the staff, you have a complaint, what are you doing with it, they would tell you sorry, we can't comment because the charter makes most of that process entirely confidential. in some cases the ethicings commission receives a complaint, the staff investigates it, the commission decides to dismiss it and the entire process is confidential, not at public hearing. only if if the

>> what's the value of the assets managed by the board? >> approximately 20 billion.

>> and how many employees are impacted, if you will, in terms of the retirement? how many employees are we talking about? >> active and retirees we have over 56,000 members. >> okay. what i would say is i personally think we have a responsibility to these workers, to these retirees to make sure that when you have people that are part of this seven member body that oversee $20 billion in assets, that the individuals are complying with the highest ethical standards and i think in this case we're not sure one way or the other whether or not the law was violated. and i actually think it's a disservice to those individuals. , and quite frankly a

disservice to this individual to move forward without giving the individual the opportunity to say something. i don't think it makes sense for how much we value compliance with ethical standards for us to move forward the application on the idea that if this individual is found to have broken the law then there are some things that we can do at that time. . i think that the fact that there is this cloud hanging over this individual's head requires at a minimum we hear directly from her an i want to court her that opportunity and so i will make a motion to continue this item to january 7, where i hope we can have a special meeting where we can

hear directly from this applicant. >> members of the board would be determined by their vote to supervisor campos' motion. >> is there a so he could to this motion to continue. is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos.and why don't we take a roll call vote to continue to this item to january 7. >> now might be the appropriate to take public comment. >> there are folks in the chamber earlier who wish to comment on the reappointment to wendy paskin-jordan.

if you'd like to line up you have two minutes to comment. >> it's interesting that despite the statement of some board members they're concerned about proeventing conflicts of interest and any sign of possible ethical going forward with this appointment of wendy paskin-jordan. and there's a national crisis in this country of corruption, looting of pension funds, pension funds going bankrupt and city workers and public workers losing billions of dollars. what are the reasons that happens is because of these hedge fupdz, as a funds, as a matter of fact. some people thiz thaz're going to get the money. 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 and active workers in san francisco. he's more concerned about

getting his friends or cronies in positions where he can give money from the pension funds. that has to stop. >> thank you, next speaker please.

>> i think there needs to be an alternative and i think it's important that the board access it. we have a good retirement system. we're one of the best in the country and i want to keep it that way. i don't think investing in hedge funds in the direction or since we got this new chief investment officer is going and i think it's important to ask the candidate about these questions. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> i'm also a retiree with

the first program system and i just wanted to comment. a few people had said we should be giving her the benefit of the doubt. frankly, having worked as a career traffic engineer in the city we were always told our behavior had to be exemplary. we couldn't have the appearance of impropriety. we're in a fish bowl as public employees. in the retirement system you're really in a fish bowl so these questions of ethics are important. we have appealed to every who

spoke to the board and made some very wonderful presentations. she didn't show so i think she has a lot of explaining to do. i very much would support this motion to have her come to the board and answer these questions. >> before the next speaker comes up, i'm going to reminds everyone this is about wendy paskin-jordan so just please keep your comments related to her reappointment, but not about in general what the retirement board can or should not do. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i've been a san francisco

voter since 1908 and am the city of somebody who will have a city pension in a few years an i know he agrees with me in all this. i want to thank you for your unanimous vote to ask the pension board to invest in the fossil fuels. that was such a different time. during the nearly two years since that spring 2012 vote the retirement board has done little but waffle and mumble about how risky it might be. i've been to those meetings, i speak from experience. the world has moved forward around them and the reason to divest in momentum to do them have grown spectacularly. the reasons that i think motivate it had board of supervisors to vote was the reality of climate change and the scientific news keeps getting more terrible in the 20 months since you vote. we're now in a race to save the world from the worst case

scenario frs climate change divest ment as this retirement board was asked to do. another aspect that's change td since april of 2013 is the new energy landscape. even a few years ago -- it's here. renewable cheap energy is seriously impacking traditional power generation an power companies. in the u.s. coke brothers -- i could go on about that. the third is the carbon bubble. more and more authority, the bank of london, the british financial minister say wez're in the midst of a carbon bubble that could plummet and make the retirement board has to the tune of i think $3500 million that's worthless.

so let's catch up. >> thank you. thank you for your public comment. that ng you. and again, i'm dpoing to have to remind everyone that your public comments must be confined to this item which is about wendy paskin-jordan's reappointment. please continue your comments in relation to these items or else we will have to sprupt you. interrupt you. thank you very much. >> my name is brett, i'm senior analyst at 350.org. my job is to track public institutions reaction and due diligence to what is now called carbon risk. the point that has been made so far is that the board of supervisors as part of their

fiduciary duty, is not to grow the fund but protect it, what 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 her fiduciary duty on the board because of these huge concerns in market risk in these areas. i want to underline that fossil free san francisco and 350.org manage to bring

members of bloomberg, ronald reagan to the retirement board to speak about market risk an all members spoke up to that meeting except for one, the one we are here talking about. i comments are to urge that you reject this appointment, and if you are not prepared to do this today, to hear this again in january, get your questions answered and reject it at that time. i'd like to point out just from hearing what i heard at this hearing, the ethics commission usually charges about a $5,000 penalty per violation so if you can make more than $5,000 per violation there's no reason not to do it. the real meaningful penalty has to be in standing access

to public opinion. it's clear that the due diligence must be done on this item, $20 billion of pensioner's money is at stake. i'd add, that the appointment was submitted so that it expired one day before the next meeting. >> thank you, next speaker. >> san francisco resident and member of fossil free san francisco. i'm here to oppose the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan. first of all, in terms of the ethics violation, did she accept a business ovp. opportunity. clearly she accepted a business opportunity and continues to do so and she and the investors she represents continue to be able to be

leverage the amounts of money invested by the pension board for her own an her clients' benefit. i'm not able to do that, she is able to do that. now, whether or not this is technically a violation, to me does not matter. i believe that the board these to be held to a very high standard, including the standard of the appearance of a conflict. as a federal employee we were all admonished that we have a look at the appearance of the conflict as well as the conflict, that otherwise we would not be able to generate any kind of trust from the public and i believe city workers, whether in the charter or not, needs to be able to be held to that standard as well, especially with the amount of money on the table. my second point is with respect to wendy paskin-jordan is in terms of the excellent

definition we were given of a fiduciary is to put the interest of the trustees board as above their own interests and that's why everyone here is talking about the risk of fossil fuel investment that you voted on and was ignored by miss paskin-jordan as the chair of that committee. so together with the hedge fund issue, all of these are fiduciary duties that she's not performing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is cay walker and i'm a life decade long member of the great panthers and a member of seiu ten to one. i was very distressed by the conversation in general here

because i may not be an attorney, but the sections that were quoted is that ms. paskin-jordan allegedly violated, to me were very indicative of someone that had a conflict of interest. she was given this task to do a favor to do a different type of investment with gmo and didn't utilize it until she was on the board. her reasons for doing its are not clear, but she is definitely somebody that's accepting a business opportunity from any public or pry separate entity in san francisco employee's retierpt system. she is definitely accepting that. i don't think you have to be an attorney to understand

that. it's right in the language. if she didn't know she was in violation of this, then she has really not the competence to be on that board or maybe she perhaps doesn't bother with those minor things such as ethics. there's also -- it was distressing to hear from somebody there was only one ethic violation filed and i know from what i've been reading and the actual documents that were sent to me that there were two and one was filed in april and i guess that was igz norred. ignored. i think the comment that we're the plan members, we're the beneficiaries. we should have -- >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is martha hawthorne. i was a nurse for 30 years

with department of public health and i'm not one of the 56,000 city workers and retirees who depends on you, board of supervisors, who protect us. i've been to a number of the board meetings recently and i'm very disturbed by the behavior of wendy paskin-jordan. i would urge you to reject her appointment. she has missed many key meetings. she missed the meeting on fossil fuel divest m. she's never answered adequately the member's questions about hedge funds. we have to believe she's in favor of that. i have think we deserve better than went diz paskin-jordan. wendy paskin-jordan. i have think there is someone better that can fill our position. please, board of supervisors, if you're not ready to reject her reappointment, i think

there's plenty of reasons to do it right now, however, if you're not ready, at least vote in favor of the motion for a special meeting. she should be here. she should not be missing an action once again. thank you. >> good afternoon board of supervisorses, my name is patricia jackson and i'm a city retiree. i want to speak in favor of the suggestions is that were made here by supervisor avalos to have the mayor rescind this appointment and come back in january when it can be further investigated. there have

of those very corporations that are gentry gentrification our city. i want to speak in favor of the motion. i'd like to suggest too that for the future, let us

consider appointees, if they're going to be made by the mayor, that perhaps they should come from some other part of our economy, someone who understands or economy or alternative investment organizations. thank you. >> my name is kimberly and i i'm a resident of san francisco outer sunset district. i'm here to ask that you reject the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan. in terms of -- the issue that has been the main issue of concern here during your meeting, which is her investment, it's my understanding her investment that theish sure today was made in 2011 and the disclosure was not made until

2014 and i ask why this wasn't made earlier if this is not a concern. secondly, i think that her lack of attention an lack of information seeking regarding divestment from fossil fuels raises an issue of her fiduciary duty as a board member. everyone on the board has met with our group, fossil free sf, to discuss the divestment except for wendy paskin-jordan. that seems like the prudent move to do so why is she not doing that? does she have another conflict of interest in regard to the fossil fuel industry? i why did she not meet on our we' eve reached out to that many times, not just year-and-a-half ago and today it's more and more clear that

investment in fossil fuels is a bad investment. even the rockefeller lost their fortune because of the fossil fuel investment. why is she not giving attention to this? >> i think that any appointment of a city official, be it a commissioner, supervisor, their behavior needs to rise to a higher standard in terms of ethics. seiu ten to one is in opposition of investing in hedge funds, which they are considering. i think ms. paskin-jordan operates a management firm that has hedge fund investments that she may benefit by or influence those

decisions in a manner that may present a conflict of interest. we also have serious concerns about the ethics violation that we're hearing about so given those regions, we of course asking you not to approve the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan an if you need to look at it further, postpone it off to that january 7 day, but certainly, don't approve her appointment today. thank you.

>> hello, my name is an marie and i eve been a city resident and homeowner for 30 years and i'm here just to add the weight of my presence and comments to the eloquent speech of people before me. i'm a member of 350 san francisco and became concerned ed along the lines of wendy paskin-jordan dragging down the process of advancing the divestment that you all voted for and now i'm learning a lot more about other issues so i think this is a big red flag so please do not approve ms. paskin-jordan's reappointment. thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to say my father, phil paulson gets a retirement

check. he retired many years ago from central shops and --[singing]