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 must have a 3 years

experience i believe under the desirable qualifications on page 9 a request for a performance data so we can evaluate how they did through 2008 and 9. >> 8 years. >> and actually, i wrote it on page 9 but it goes over to page 8 new minimum qualifications minimum of 5 customer accounts for the hedge fund fund to fund manager as well as the consultant minimum of 5 custom a little and $2 billion invest in accounts and minimum of 3 plan clients

i believe on page it is right after 17 the appendix a-1 to be alexander a question on even though we're not required to follow arise are they willing to ply with arise. >> that was a-1. >> immediately following 17 your page 18. >> yes. >> i believe those were the changes. >> their might be one more as a-1 number 6. >> question no. of warrant it will be corrected.

>> that's all my notes and then the understanding of the composition of the evaluation selection. >> that's the motion that's been second now one to speak for the motion. >> just a thank you for clarifying a everything the one on the selection panel. >> yes. we will have two internal staff we'll have a consultant that will be other than the boards consultant and try to have one, if not 2 other public employees or entities that have experience or expertise in the selection and evaluation of hedge funds so it's a 5 person panel and we'll be eliminating our

consultant from the process. >> that's the recommended amendment. >> may i ask a question. >> have we in the past exclude our consultants from evaluating rhd. >> i don't believe so. >> have your clients ever included you from the rfp process in evaluating applicants. >> no it is part of our contract we would include the hedge fund to fund and candidate review process but not the hedge fund process that is a different amen we considered it i guess we graded i guess only the last contract 8 years ago it was included point scope of services.

>> but not direct. >> not direct. >> can you say that 8 years ago the hedge fund was in your contract. >> we had two extensions and i think our last contract. >> 2008 but again the listing of activities that we're expecting were basically at the discretion of the hedge funds. >> right. >> anything else yes, thank you. >> as i go down the list first of all, off what we're talking about here is minimum qualifications not necessarily desirable contributes they're coming after you receive the applications so what we're

talking about is the process so we're clear i didn't necessarily object to everyone's concerns but changing it up front to get a desirable outcome i think that is better to get more information now going down the list the only one i really have there's a couple that have concerns and if the maker of the motion will make a chance you have my support the main concern is the consultant not having another set of eyeing multiple sets of iceuses is important i

didn't like the 5 years of experience 5 custom accounts and 3 plans those numbers are artificial why those numbers i think for staff to evaluate those through the process and not to limit us up front but my biggest concern is having an additional set of uses so the maker of the motion will be willing to make that amendment you have my support nevertheless otherwise i'm a no vote. >> other comments commissioner driscoll. >> i'm going to ask commissioner stansbury if you're searching for a consultant i don't have an answer.

>> no other comments. >> i'll make a final comment in the spirit of this rfp i have no major problems with additions you've made the reason why i went with the commissioner stansbury approach i hope the waiting and scoring about reflect the issues we're talking about so if they add 3 years experience or staff was small or whatever if we don't get transparency i hope the process kicks them out for those reasons now we've taken that away you may have an odd manager or odd situation i want to include and bring it up to the board to decide i have no major problems

adding these at the beginning but again it is just going to limit our process so i think commissioner stansburys addition is fine but in the end again, i would have liked to leave that with staff to deal with the issues we've brought up. >> i'll concur in support of the motion. >> i have a different way on the consultant issue i don't believe we're clustering the consultant we're not letting the consultant score staff has full assess to the consultant to seek their advice and expertise that's exactly one of the reasons the other consultant will be chopped so i came to a different conclusion we're being

nor extinct it is very, very awkward for our consultant to rate someone the highest and our chief executive officer wanting to talk about a company so with that i think we enhance the process with that separation we have full participation by the consultant and i'll courage support of motion. >> i have a quick comment maybe increase a compromise here maybe the consultant open the panel but not the ability to vote or weigh in on who gets the contract so that provides a level of review that commissioner stansbury is looking to go have affordable care act a little bit expertise engaging in the process but no to vote or have over influence maybe not a voting status.

>> something to think about. >> maybe staff and consultant can address that that is my biggest concern to have multiple divides but i value the consultant to look at those things maybe a way to do this in parallel i mean can you speak to that is it possible. >> whoever the consultant is can do their own conclusion and evaluation. >> you mean do the evaluation and give it to the board. >> i suppose so. >> they can give it to us imi'll agree with that and clear

other opinions. >> i'm fine with that. >> well what do we do - i don't agree. >> i can second that. >> this is creating a problem maybe it's not we can disregard but we'll question their rfp and mr. corker. >> i'll priority the policy is the process of issuing and evaluating rfp has been delegated to staffer so the recommendation comes from staff to the retirement board and the retirement board can conduct my due diligence before they vote to approve the recommendation so that is the process and i'll suggest that if the board wanted to their consultant to do a full

review of the candidates the final lifts or whatever they report to the board they'll be doing a separate due diligence on your declarative this is fine that on o than potentially go come to a different recommendation and have dully recommendations i understand the board said when staff rents a recommendation then the board has the ability to do whatever due diligence you feel you need to before you vote open staffs recommendation i believe that is the appropriate place if, in fact the board wanted their general consultant to weigh in on staffs recommendation including reviewing the unsuccessful candidates. >> board members if i could

offer my prospective i'll value the consultants either way having the rfp search falls if the permit remains there's institutional knowledge the analyst has if it is a new firm it is going to be somebody with you can you mention who the rfp you saw earlier it is a firmer with deep resources with a lot of experience and presumably large sophisticated plans so either way i think if there's value contributing into us macro the best recommendation to the board. >> commissioners could a i offer one point for consideration it sounds like the current general investment containments called for review so it's a challenge to get a

full vetting awhile staff is comparing the consultant and the fund to fund manager there is potential contract complications that lends themselves to the consultants review. >> nice clarification thank you. >> we have a motion all in favor, say i. >> public comment. >> no, i've taken public comment on it. >> deliberations by the commission all in favor, say i. >> i. >> passes unanimously thank you, everyone the commission will take a 5 minute break at this rate we'll be out of here at 4 in the morning

(laughter) >> and no more said item no. 7 just 20 seconds worth of comments annual return for the calendar year a little bit over 7.1 and under our required rate of returns but slightly also underperformed benchmark but it did out perform the medium and over 5 and 10 and 15 performance either at or very, very close to the top i think we have other comments as well. >> i'm going to echo what bill said page 17 is a summer page the absolute reason we vest we look at the quarter of the year it is not the same investment we

have exceptional performance coming out of our real estate or private equity fund that is why we don't place our bets into one place and we've ruled out the fourth quarter of 2000 and the longer than performs period. >> do you have my comments. >> i'm sorry. >> i'll take questions. >> i'll open up to public comment. >> seeing will public comment is closed. can you please that is informational only call item 8. >> item 8 discussion and report on the review. >> the chair will accept it as simpleminded and open up for questions.

>> the manager is under reviewing any questions or comments if staff. >> commissioner melberger. >> thank you commissioner makras and i just been noticing i've had a long period of under performance you've meet with the team and decided to december part of the a team member has left. >> angela we provided an oust and had a change in august of 2014 with margaret she's a senior research went to a prior firmer and progress actually we're concerned it is the manager that is very high on our watch and we're not ready to recommend anything we're closely

monitoring the result of 2014 and really you know come down to us as a selection from the managers they've incorporated micro top managers that's not been adams and slight growth to the portfolio and i'll consultation we're in agreement. >> let me ask you what's our threshold of pain. >> we'll be looking to do another review in 6 months top to bottom and if performance is not coming through i'll note that is a relatively small portfolio i think $100 million is that right $150 million now. >> commissioner. commissioner melberger. >> we'll get back to you in

less than 6 months. >> i noticed there's a lot of negative numbers. >> my concern on that is really we've did we hire him in 2008. >> 2005 it was a key person we took that key person is now - do we really what's our tolerance it is a different tolerance 3 people we went both it based on one and they're not out professionalism what he will is out there other than hope because we qualified for them is gone question promised ourselves and our underwriters so really the tolerant level is if you're professionalism and the key person go out i can reside the horse but if you're not

performing this is asking for another issue. >> commissioner 3 key people when we hired this firm two people left and two people come on boarded who are stronger felt two one of the two left the original so it has been a moving target i can tell you i have my own opinions we're going got to come back in less than 6 months thaulz. >> minimal i'll open up for public comment on managers under review. >> i'm weighing this one i didn't prepare but i find is comical hearing our questions

just quote south of market and what's our pain level? is the plan beneficiary my pain threshold is pretty low and it seems to me if those are managers under review i'm assuming that they're on the watch list how long have they been on the watch list is it time to get them off the watch the list and get rid of them do you need 67 more months to make up your mind to give you a little bit more pain it is the pine what you're more months to make up your mind to give you a little bit more pain it is the pine what you're looking for >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you very much for the report call item 9. >> item 9 action item

recommendation for separately management accounts for real estate. >> thank you norm and we had a request from a member of the board to provide an update on the pressure soot of our building and art will update us on that. >> thank you peter. >> i was able to push my call by another hour so actually i'll let the memo stand for itself any questions. >> commissioner stansbury. >> first of all it makes sense to have a headquarters building this is moving in that direction it is co-investment so the headquarters building is one

example of a co-investment opportunity; is that correct. >> we're proposing a co-investment structure alongside a real estate manager that has expertise in san francisco to help us not only underwrite a potential headquarters building but other k investment is opportunities at presumably and ideally much better economics than through the fund. >> i want to focus on the headquarters building. >> is development part of the possibility for that. >> yes. it is stated in the memo one of the possibilities. >> again what i think is to seek out obviously if i need to build you need land.

>> maybe reaching out to the city for surplus land in san francisco to build a headquarters building is that part of this. >> you need approval imagine our relationship with the city will help. >> we think alike in terms of that is obviously the city will be a long term tenant so room for negotiations sclis would you seek out to the real estate department to see what the surplus land to forge a constructive relationship. >> i personally have not we'll need our investment manager to explore the potential upgrading. >> there maybe value in terms of the surplus land in terms of building our building we want to close to city hall.

>> convenient to the transportation. >> the civic center. >> thank you very much. >> any other questions or comments. >> i have some questions i don't want to put this in a timeframe in terms of getting this done but i'm concerned that we rush in now as opposed to evaluating and taking our time to find the right spot i don't mean you're going to rush into it i want to make it clear that i support this i don't want to rush into anything in order to try to stop the board from getting this done i want to be

cautious and strategy. >> we appreciate that set back time and concur obviously the sooner we can consider the investment is as well as headquarters so we would like to get it done sooner or later but we've not stated or promised a set time to get this done mainly because it takes time and people are interested in working with us how do we structure the partnership and appropriate contemplate the managers how do we strike the best deal with all considerations. >> i - >> superstition. >> the way we're looking at there needs to be a couple of solutions a long term not just a long term investment it is a

long term occupancy. >> i want you to know you're not feeling pressure from me to try to get things done i understand that any investment takes time you have my support. >> any other comments. >> is this an action item. >> okay. we'll entertain another motion. >> i recommend we pursue this real estate co-investment. >> is there a second. >> any discussion. >> i'll open up for public comment open item 9 a thank you, commissioner. >> i'm in support of in motion whatever it is principally limited to a headquarters building i along with other plan members

are concerned that separately it accounts for local co-investment opportunities may backfire by the mayor proposal to tap into the pension fund his prematuring announced down payment loan assistance program mayor ed lee announced on january 15th in the state of public safety address day before the speech director e-mailed the mayors deputy achieve the staff jason elliott board president he wrote quote my concern with the wording for the proposed speech applies

there is a quote done deal quote/unquote with the retirement board some of the board members they think there's a commitment to purchase the down payment loans without having brought it to the retirement board for approval sf dr s is preceding are due diligence but we certainly have not begun to discuss this recommendations with the retirement board any way you can so often the announcement will help me get the full retirement board to support it when it comes before them later this year unquote and some of that with my apologies i took out a few phrases i kept it to a 5