and there is great concern. i know as the members i represent discover that is a issue on the ballot it will impact how that vote and greater concerns we'll brin bring before you. when this item is calendars i appreciate if you can address how it program and funds and our money will relate to this measure and this proposition on the ballot that really takes the issue out of our hands and puts it into had public domain. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to express their ideas? seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. please call the next item. >> item 4 action item approval of minutes of july 8, 2015 retirement board meeting >> any discussion on this item?

seeing no discussion is there a motion to move the motion to approve this item 4? >> i move. >> thank you motion made and seconded. is there objection? let's take public comment. >> sorry to get in your way, commissioner. >> not in my way >> if nothing else i ask that you read the poll quotes in the transscript i handed out on page 5 and the foot notes. these draft minutes are deplorable. you should also table adopting them. [inaudible] executive secretary wasted no effort to accurately summarize and report the oral testimony presented by 5 members of the public. mrs. [inaudible] david william, cay walker [inaudible] most of whom

were reduced to a mere 7 word quote spoken in opposition to the proposed investment. the secretary appear tooz have done so deliberately. the minute omit commissioner makras final questions about the irr. the minutes omit commissioner stansbury's question regarding a appropriate benchmark. there is nothing in the minute addressing stansbury's question about irr on the [inaudible] portfolio being [inaudible] 5.2 percent. the minute fail to [inaudible] it would be unprecedented in ers history to engage in relationship with the city under the guise of being the financial investment to further the cities social goals. and policy goals.

commissioner stansbury asked multiple e questions on july 8 about whether investment staff has experience with asset backed liabilities, securitization, collateralized loan obligations and assigning credit ratings to individual securities. the minutes fail tomination that stansbury mentioned these 3 issues go hand in hand with investment. the minutes report only that mr. coker stated ers contract out to external managers for this expertise and the minutes do not include that mr. cocker had expressly noted none of ers investment staff has experience in these areas that

commissioner stansbury thoughtfully raised. the minute also do not report whether ers intends to have a external manager review the [inaudible] loan package before you buy them. to me that seems as if you would be violating your fiduciary responsibilities if you fail to have them analyzed from the perspective of asset backed liabilities, collateralized loan obligations and the issue of defining credit ratings to individual securities. who is going to review this package of loans that apparently ers staff are not qualified to analyze? >> any other members of the

public who would like to speak on the aruvl of the minutes? any other discussion? >> i think patrick [inaudible] good point regarding commissioner stansbury points. i think patrick [inaudible] point are valid regarding the minute. they should reflect accurately the conversation. what i would like to sedge is the minute be amended to include mr. stansburys comments and questions. i think that would be fair. if staff needs more time maybe continuing this to the next meeting is appropriate, but i think they should be amended to reflect commissioner stansbury's comments >> commissioner stansbury do you have any comments on your advocates? >> um, i appreciate the

positive feedback on the conversation we had regarding this loan program. i do see there are several paragraphs on page 9 and 10 about questions that i asked. i'm agreeable to modifying-you think there is additional detail that should be included but don't feel strongly either way. if there are some things that maybe should be included that were not due to just constraints and space maybe it is worth a second look. >> there is a motion on the table to accept, so i think we need to resend that-- >> i second. i'm aminable to amend the second to incorporate commissioner stansbury's comments. i wanted to say that this is a important issue to

patrick mu nay shah. he has gone through all this analysis and this isn't easy to take the minute and list toon the tape and listen again so appreciate his diligence on this and think it is very important to him so want to be reexpectful to him and think the sentimenterize also echoed by other participants in the audience. i think it is constructive also. i think the more this board and the minute reflect the discussion takenen to consideration during public session, i think that is constructive for the job that we do. >> to the maker of the motion, mrs. bridges. >> i'm willing to amend my motion to incorporate the comments stated by commissioner meiberger and stansbury. >> you are also open to- >> to incorporate the minutes

in the last meeting made by mr. stansbury regarding investment structure. >> bring back a new draft next month? >> yes >> let's do this work. this was a discussion item, men a points were made, short of putting a transscript, minutes are design today be a summary. i think staff was picking up all the questions that were raised by the board and developed [inaudible] these are a summary and representative about the discussion. i don't think point left out were meant to be a slight. >> let's give clear direction to reduce into a couple pages takes work. you see what mr. shah did, if that is the standard we want then we should tell them that. i think it is

more than is required. >> let's take a moment and pivot back to staff and look for a legal opinion. i'm of the mindset we are looking to summarize the just of a meeting and this is not a transscript. none of us including the clerk is certified to take down transscripts verbatim and this a lofty clause mr. [inaudible] took on it is [inaudible] what does the law say around this particular issue? >> commissioner cohen, the minutes are supposed to boo a summary and there is a wide range within the city in terms of the amount of detail boards and commissions put in. in my experience these are actually relatively detailed minutes compared to other boards and commissions i have worked with, but the board can decide on the level of detail it wants to include but it doesn't have to

be a verbatim transcript. >> commissioner stansbury since you made all these comment and this is issue if you are comfortable moving forward and think we should pass the mants and continue to move this item forward. you alsominationed you saw a list of questions on page 9 in the minute so i'm of the mind set some was captured but i'll defer to you >> generally fecs with minutes i have a liberal take on it. it can be a lot of detail or a little detail. to me it isn't as importance as the video we have which captures everything. if sthra member of the public that feels comment were made that should have been included why don't i talk with that person off line and see if my

comment were incorporated and circle with the executive secretary and take this up next month. >> we are going to take up the new motion made by commissioner bridges and we'll make a motion-the motion was to continue the item until next month and seconded by herb meiberger. roll call vote? roll call vote mr. clerk. >> commissioner bridges, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner driscoll, aye. commissioner meibergerer, aye. commissioner paskin jordan, aye. commissioner stansbury, aye. >> the motion passes. >> item 5, consent calendar. >> consent calendar. is there discussion on this item? seeing none let's take public

comment. public comment on item 5 on the consent calendar? seeing none public comment is closed at this time. we have a motion to accept? >> i move the accept the consent calendar as presented >> motion made by commissioner stansbury and seconded by commissioner meiberger. >> did i second that? >> motion made by commissioner stansbury, second by commissioner meiberger. >> can i make a comment regarding paskin jordans attendance at [inaudible] i notice air fair wasn't on there. >> we are on item 5, consent calendar. >> i want to make sure that you-okay, i'm fine then. >> thank you. all in favor please say aye. all opposed?

this motion passes unanimously. call the next item >> item 6, discondition item the esg committee report >> the environmental social government committee met on july 15. we had a good discussion with presentations by several individuals. i think the key issues that were presented were obviously the fossil fuel folks had issues of invesment of fossil fuel, that was a important issue discussed. there was give and take by board members whether investment is the best action to take to implement the goaloffs the fossil fuel folks in terms of global warming.

staff had positions that selling oil stocks doesn't have a direct bary on the global warming issue so thing that is fair to mention. the other issues i discussed are the alternatives in terms of coming up with a substitute for fossil fuel such as solar winds, power, wave, those type of things to replace the burning of fossil fuel and increase of co 2 in the atmosphere. i think those were the key issues. there were also the guverance issues to san francisco's membership to various oceans organizations. the organizations we are members of and will join, if you can clarify that that would be useful

>> we are participating in the investor network for climate risk which is the shareholder arm of the series organization. they are the group that sponsored over 160 board resolutions during the last season and will continue to use them as a resource so we have advanced noticed of the proxy's that are sponsored. it is a very active group and where think the committee agreed to look at potentially other coalitions and will say there was a meeting held and discussed at this meeting among some northern california and i think washington investment staff to try and form a