i believe it should be 2 people from our organization one person from san francisco that knows the rfp process selection process, and two people if outside that have hedge fund experience say we pull someone out of calpers and cal conspiracies i don't need to know their names that will draw an additional level of expertise we don't have now. >> i'll say the outside san francisco agency i'm fine to look for someone they need to have the selection but the selection and the evaluation of hedge fund products so i mean we could reach out no guarantee there's another city employee that has that experience or

expertise. >> when i say city employee i'll broadened it and say maybe another county person like an example not san francisco but go to san mateo or la or controllers or treasurers i'm looking for someone that has basically know how the ratings go rather than someone of a less caliber person. >> you're saying another public employee if you can't find a san francisco pre. >> so i'm not. >> i think - i have someone that someone was in mind as possible and please don't share their name i'm not going to my thoughts when i compiled so we can have a conversation about this was and

this presumes we hire you know a very experienced person and the person i'm thinking of the appraisal of this kind person is the they run a billion dollars plus hedge fund program you know for a number of years and that they've got you know pretty deep 10 or 15 years investment inheritance very experienced and the evolves of this landscape for quite a while. >> what's that. >> that's an internal person it assumes we successfully. >> that's - >> again, because without us soliciting people are not going to come to us to impress an interest myself that's two and

envision whoever our general consultant we have an rfp i can give the board an update open that essential 3 of the 4 onsite velocities have been and that's a third. >> yonl i don't believe it should be referenced that's not i ask you to reconsider that. >> sorry to say that. >> our consultant works for us i'd like - >> that's is an rfp. >> i want the commission to draw from that consultant and everything within that not have their own signature on a store card. >> they'll not been able to apply open the selection. >> confidential process.

>> i don't believe that should be one of the 5 people on the panel sorry current or consultant should be totally independent to advise the commission and not rfp. >> that's up to the board. >> right now it's up to you and me we're going one by one. >> one more person we would be asking a major commitment from someone from the outside that is not employed to make a major commitment to partner with us but i envision small business along the lines who's either a chief executive officer of a hedge fund or a chovd of a hedge fund managers or consulting firm

not going to bid on our business something with that kind of profile from an prospective and operational prospective that's harder to get because it is a major commitment of time and . >> not a lot of people will do that. >> but i'm going to try because i like the idea. >> so. >> do we have i am not just to speed things along a big commitment to take someone from someone's staff to spend all that time is there another option if you can't get - >> yes. there is here's in my o my back up we would - this initial pool of

people grade you know the first round the first round is a screening process who are the 4 or 5 or 7 firms we're going to focus on so we are going to do complete due diligence now we're going get to the noeflt can we recruit someone from the outside rather than a heavy lifting on each and everyone one that those. >> that completes mine we're on the on the same page on everything commissioner melberger and others so is it the consultant or not. >> well we don't know who our

consultant is going to be so the we h have an open rfp if it is somebody that is experienced in evaluating hedge fund fund to fund managers and i've been through this before i'll value their opinion. >> i'll suggest the fact we're in the middle of an rfp that will tend to say we'll exclude them from the front end of the process based on our timeline based on our timeline because the proposals are not submitted until late april they'll be elevated in june or july or august and not knowing the outcome of revenue that there will be an interpretation to their evaluation. >> that's part of my concern.

>> i think he mentioned there are potentially consultant who had not decided to bid or submit a proposal that is invited. >> i'm perfectly fine i want the consultant to be able to answer the questions independently of this commission. >> as you wish. >> commissioner driscoll do we have a motion coming. >> this is a question that they'll have to have 3 public pension fund clients is that - i'm not sure how many that includes or excludes. >> i'm not either.

>> there are many pension funds hundreds their endowments and the key reconciles we are looking at we want them to understand our talents of risks and contribution of risks it helps if they understand public funds but the key he skills are the portfolio and management selection they don't matter who the clients with we talked about the guidelines to be written there's significant differences to invest in this i'm not saying zero. >> i don't think monotony anyone. >> 3 all of a sudden your will limiting the best funds 3 not one but that is i don't know

maybe the big fund have 10 or 20. >> we'll be able to come back and say we've not going no one would qualifications but again i don't think it's canyon known how many folks are screened. >> i'm glad we got to down to 3 i totally understand and appreciate the sentiment behind including it i think that public plans are you know unique dynamics as to endowments and corpses have different dynamics i appreciate the sentiment we want someone that walked down the path of investing in a hedge fund for a public plan i appreciate that. >> great, thank you.

>> mr. corker. >> the chair will entertain a motion. >> i'll move that we do you want the rfp as written without any of the changes proposed the reason being that what we're talking about our ideal candidates all the ideas are great ideas we should be used as port of the screening process in determining the final candidates but the rfp is the minimum qualifications and i agree with some of the commissioner melberger's points i think there are things that are absolutely critical to how those firms are scored but the whole purpose to get as many offices and possible and evaluate them based on the

types of criteria but basically, we're saying let's limit our options and look at it fewer firms that's why we should accept the motion. >> written. >> i second that. >> discussions on the motion. >> commissioner melberger. >> yes. i'll disagree the purpose is to hire a manager not set a wider net that is disingenuous if there are deal breakers or we'll be finding inferior managers as well as tying up the committees time in the evaluation progress i'll make the analogy like harding going down to 3 point and lower it will be a wider net but

create a lot of extra work for a lot of people and disingenuous i think all the comments railroad constructive and all i think add to the value of the rfp and i'll vote in favor of it as it has been discussed among all of us to incorporate the changes in the work product so again, i think we're disingenuous in casting a large net we'll not hire people because the standards are less than we think are important i'll vote against the motion. >> any other comments commissioner driscoll. >> as is as opposed to what i was talking about the second scoring you don't want that changed either.

>> correct. >> the city attorney said we haven't we don't release the final scoring this is something that is not up for discussion at this point this is an initial screening; is that correct. >> that's correct waiting that commissioner driscoll talked about is not reflected in the rfp. >> that will have you ever had your deposition taken come up for consideration. >> staff can consider that recommendation when they reach the quorum. >> the spirit of this motion not to deny everyone's concerns or deny the consideration process staff heard our concerns and i think you should look at them as you go through the process if this motion spaces or passes but the srit of motion to give you the opportunity to evaluate the candidates and in terms of your time you're the

best judge how much time to take so you'll defer to you but commissioner driscoll to our point for a final evaluation we're not contemplating today. >> when the recommendation comes to us. >> i'll be voting against that the dialog between the staffing were very clear and concise what wee they will thought and what we can live with and just to discharged the boards input on elevating the depth and qualify of the rfp i think we'll audio to what we've had in concern of the program collectively so tell our members we are going forward and looking for professionals to guide us but none of them must have experience with the public

funding is hard i'll not put my signature on that for us to go forward with an rfp with a minimum of one public fund funded just think about that how do we instill confidence if we have the minimum requirements down minimum requirement raise the level of excellence rise to the best in the perform i'm looking for the best and the more criteria we put in here as a minimum standard the sure chances of misconduct but that limits risk lower you go down the wider our net the greatest chance of risk and the great chance of someone playing the system so i will be a no vote on this

any other comments. >> you can make an amendment can't you to our motion. >> well, i think if the motion fails. >> so all in favor, say i. >> i. >> oh, public comment excuse me. >> i will open up for public comment. >> okay. >> commissioner makras i must commend you, your logic is nailed the coffin closed on mr. corkers easier silencing our number they're not interested in minimum qualifications let the universe implode it went over

commissioner stansbury head if you're going to get a member support for that you have to make a minimum qualification at least 3 public plans as part of minimum i'm going to not read you my prepared one hundred and 50 word testimony on the rfp i'm assuming i'll make after you relocate this ridiculous motion i urge you to reject it commissioner bridges raised some key points so did commissioner melberger and rarely about

commissioner driscoll but he too in the referring and not accept it as currently simpleminded to reject this motion. >> commissioners claire i'm going to address you as colleagues, i spent 26 years on the health service board as a fiduciary and commissioner, i listened to our process i've been through more rfps than i care to count i don't think i know two things one one of the reasons that is brought before you and so that you can review it carefully and make those

changes recommendations and amendments so that what goes forward regrets what you want the staff a minimum revenue they put thought both it is comprehensive but the changes you've mentioned and suggested are significant especially the 3 public fund plans and i think that those are the kinds of things you should insist open in the progress otherwise no point in having an rfp before this board so that's number one and number 2 i would like you to consider the fact that over the years i saw the progress change one of the things we missed the opportunity to interview those vendor that came before us with

their proposals i'll suggest you request that in your investment committee you hold a hearing of our financial lift for the process you may not want to have them before the full board but have them in the investment committee and have discussions about their proposals and were you want to go with that that's a vital process and speaks to transparency it is one of the most valuable process as you as fiduciaries and board members especially in this system will find valuable and say to us you've thoroughly vested those who submitted the proposals and clear about your decisions in the end who you select 0 again that rfp please vote down this proposal and reconsider the fact that the reason that you're

hearing this rfp is so you can make the chances that is a very, very important and enlightening decision that's why you have it thank you very much. >> hello commissioners that's correct arrest i guess a couple of process comments the first one you'll notice a staifrment lack of city workers and retirees before our recess and even compared to when you started this item even for people that take time out of their work schedule are retire this is i'm going to use the word unacceptable investment that would be necessary for a member of their retirement system to be able to make a

comment on the rfp i understand this process is important and needs to occur this is a public agency and hearing from the people i can't speak for now gone is your number 2 biggest responsibility number one being skgd their retirement i'd like to also as a second point build up the lady this is not a rubber stamped a department without a board the reason this body exists specifically to do the kinds of things we watched you do for half an hour and committee in realtime is not an efficient way to do things i think everyone here agrees that doing this in this particular means is not the

ultimate way but just accepting what staff prepared is not your job and i don't think that is necessarily by default doing the best by the beshdz to the actual item i support the board be able to make changes to their own document i hope this fails to the larger point i sat here for months listening to retirees exercising their concerns the main things are the fees and transparent in the last meeting you approved the allocation we heard a great discussion and several board members saying that transparent was the most important thing i see in 89 and 90 a question

about transparency but that is open-ended and nonspecific question we heard from board members good hedge funds and bad hedge funds now the rfp i think i've heard the word transparency one time i want to make clear for free san francisco and for the people that have spoken for 8 straight most not sitting here no more holding transparent is a what all the people are asking for besides the hedge fund the main things those people are asking for is transparency of holding to make sure those are the good hedge fund and not the bad hedge fund they're not going down with fossil fuels and tobacco the board as divested from if we make an additional holdings out

transparency i agree every restriction lowers the universe that's where we're trying to find a specific candidate thank you. >> thank you for your time i'd like to support the last 3 speakers i agree with everything they've said although there are a few of us left we report to our members and represent a lot of people so they'll know how you voted we take triple notes that is a public board your ultimately responsible to us retirees and the public so, please vote against the motion i'm concerned about the rfp for the reasons mend above environmental social government didn't appear anywhere on the questions to be

asked of the candidates i'm sorry that's not included that was in the letter that was written and left with jay the letter from margaret young our capital expert we want that included that is not it's important we were again told there are good hedge funds and bad hedge funds you need minimum requirements and good questions and lots of transparency so, please vote against the motion and come up with a better one. >> thank you. >> is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment we have a motion before us all in favor, say i. >> no. >> nay. >> i don't believe everybody voted. >> commissioner bridges no

commissioner cohen arrest no commissioner driscoll no. >> commissioner makras. >> no commissioner melberger no commissioner paskin-jordan. >> yes. >> commissioner stansbury. >> yes. and the motion fails chair will entertain any other motion we'd like a report. >> i'd like to make a motion that we do you want the rfp as it is all the time and sduls among the board members here at the table. >> can we go down every single item to discuss what those are. >> is there a second we'll have staff walk us through. >> whoever would like to take a crack at it. >> i'll try my notes. >> okay. >> on page 3 it was discussions

and agreed we'll ask for them to provide best market evaluation with the leverage i think we agreed that in the next section e that we would ask them to analyze transactions and holdings on page 6. >> can you go back. >> i'm sorry transactions and holdings for section d. >> right. >> what exactly is that amendment. >> i'm going to ask staff to walk through the whole thing and then ask the commissioners. >> i just want to know what the amendment is. >> it's not clear to me i don't understand why we're arguing over this. >> shall i clarify. >> no, no let's see if jay can clarify he is the one that is

interpreting. >> actually we'll go back to the tape to get the words beacon hill to have the level of detail thought transactions of holdings information from the manager. >> on page 6 deleting everyone except for mr. cork eras receipt of the hedge fund proposals as well as the hedge fund consultant proposals and he'll make sure there are distributed accordingly on page 8 i believe we agreed on number 5 at the bottom of the page 3 key professional members of the team mus