>> and we should -- maybe this is a place for us to talk about that process. this was an r.f.p. that we've issued may of 2017, when we were seeking managers in emerging markets, global, and developed international. dan has some of the statistics, but my recollection is it's something like 130, 125 responses? >> yeah. we started by evaluating on the order of i think it was 136 different strategies, but we drastically determined that only 36 of them qualified for what we were looking for. and again, we were specifically looking for managers that were very different than the current managers that were concentrated, high tracking error managers. and so we focused on those 36. we came to you with a list of 30 semi finalists that we then

had phone conversations with and trips and in-place meetings, both san francisco staff as well as nepc. >> and those five are still the lists. >> of the 30 semi finalists, these are the ones we're bringing forward. >> it looks like b.f.a. >> b.f.a. didn't qualify for the very concentrated, very high tracking error. >> we're trying to complement -- >> yeah. there's several others of those 30 semi finalists that staff are continuing to talk to, but these are the one that we bring forward. >> none of our existing managers qualified. one qualified but not with the product that we use. that r.f.p. eliminated our international, global and he merging managers -- emerging managers because we were looking for something different. >> you know, for me, the gist of it is, try to say it simply

in an account, and i went around it. i understand the volatility to the comparison, the index. i understand everything that you're saying, but if the argument is they're great with how they fit with us, then why don't we just show that? >> i think we have. >> i think we have. >> where's our performance in emerging markets in this time frame? >> some of these have it. >> show me where. >> well, some of these pages have it, some of these rolling charts have it. >> where do you want to start at? page 12. >> if you look at 21, that shows the active share, but it shows a higher performance. >> they show the performance relative to others in our active portfolio. >> are we looking at 12 or 21? >> 12. >> 12. >> and here, i acknowledge that there's a lot of data here. so what i drew your attention

to was simply risk adjusted returns on the right. then we talk about their correlation relative to the others and relative to the index. that's on the subsequent pages. we talked about their tracking error. so all of this is against or compared to our existing e.m. managers. >> president stansbury: i don't think you're going to have a good risk return analysis if you did it over five years. you have to go back to 2011, 2012 to show that it's doing better. >> not over five years, but if you did it over three years or six years, you would. >> that's the endpoint bias that we tried to -- they're doing rolling returns. >> any time you select a date, there's a bias. you know, the point is, i like your idea of rolling periods. i think that's very smart. i'm just struggling to see -- i see these two time periods from 2011 and 2009. i think the last five years, it may be a little bit different

story. >> technically, this is what it boils down to is how much of this decision is going to be influenced by recent performance? and we talk about it -- we even included a slide in here. if we all stated past performance is not indicative of future returns, and we all know that cambridge has produced data that the top performing managers often end up being the worst, and the worst, the best. here's a manager that is a a compelling processes -- that's a compelling process, meets the attributes that we're seeking, and that hassled them to struggle a -- that has led them to struggle a little bit. >> what's happened in the last four months and how have they recovered since -- or the first four months of 2018?

>> they're down 5, 5.2. >> so while you're looking at the numbers, i'd just point out because this is a concentrated manager, two thirds of their portfolio is ten stocks. >> mm-hmm. you expect them -- >> so the answer's going to be what happened to those stocks. and i've been -- when you first asked that question, i've been -- the answer isn't in the first three. i've been working my way down through them, trying to figure out where that is. it's because they're concentrated manager. you're going to have periods of high tracking error. >> do you have them as of 6-31, 6-30. >> i have that data. so for the first quarter, they were down 6.3%. their e.m. benchmark was up 1.5. >> but what about 6-30. >> at 6-30, they were down 8%, and their benchmark was down 8%

as well. so for the year, they're down 14, but their benchmark is down 8. >> i know -- to me, i don't have a problem with the short-term performance, that it's that you've got to look at over the long-terms, their recovery, and what do you expect out of the stock selection that they have, and does that deliver long-term? so if they're going to be in chief sectors that you think long-term that'll recover, then that's a good place to be. they can't time that. >> emphasize enough their attributes from the way that they're structures, the way they invest, the nature of the portfolio, it's a great fit for us. >> so let me -- how much are they down as of 6-30? >> 14. >> and the bench is down how much? >> 7. >> and that's due to the

location and the stock selection? >> that's correct. specifically because of some of the stock names in the philippines and india. >> we believe in this team's ability in security selection and country selection. we think their experience is pretty amazing. we do distinguish between owning productive assets, speculative, and unproductive assets. speculative would be things like venture capital, and you can say some biotech investments. unproductive assets would be to me things like commodities, i would probably add

cryptocurrency and things like that. what i'm saying is you can't see the present value of future cash flows, okay? a third type of asset is productive assets. we look for managers in this portfolio that earn productive assets, that is that they're generating cash flows, okay? and that they pay a good price, a low price for those cash flows, okay? now, differentiating between owning productive assets and what the market price is, when the market price did he have yats from the price -- deviates from the price of productive assets, we're not too concerned about that. as a matter of fact if productive assets are continuing to produce, and prices are going down, we look at that as a buying opportunity, okay? we believe that this manager has a good -- a very good skill set at selecting productive

assets of underfollowed country -- companies in less-followed countries. most of what we have in our portfolio is very benchmark-like exposures, okay? >> and essentially what they're doing, what they often are doing is they're finding small companies, dominated, run by families, that own a large share of the company that have a dominance in a small niche area. so it's something that's profitable and has reason to continue to be profitable in the future, then, they provide advice either to how to potentially improve their business or how to better communicate the virtues of this company to better investors. >> dan brings up a great point. >> did you check that

thoroughly of how much value they add in that? >> well, that's what they do. that's what they do. and dan brings up a great point about this strategy, because oligopolies and monarchies in these types of country are allowed to thrive. they can be great business managers, but they're lousy in terms of investor relations, you know, things like that. [inaudible] >> yeah. >> what investors need. and that's why a manager -- that's why we at u.c. were early investors in this strategy. we saw this as a potential to add value to a really well run business that is very market unfriendly to make it more market friendly to adopt more modern western approaches to investor relations, and when

that happens, the wall street recognizes there's good value in this company, and the stock is repriced higher. the business didn't improve all that much, you know, but the stock gets repriced higher. >> it reminds me a little bit of g.m.o.'s emerging debt team that they can go out safer for a longer period of time. they're taking an activist role, and it may take them a long time to make that happen. but over a long period of time they've actually greatly outperformed all of our other manager. >> at g.m.o., teresa is the one that created the index against what she's compared, and she knows exactly what its flaws are over the short-term. >> i like this strategy. i understand that nothing -- i mean it's just such a tough area to find a really great team and really unusual. they're adding this component to it, i don't even know another team emerging that does

this this way. so i understand there are risks to it, but it's a great time to be an emerging, and i kind of take an opposite view. when they're down like this, a great time to buy in. if you believe in the process and how it adds value to the portfolio. >> i think the risk of this strategy is meaningfully less than our emerging market status as a whole in the idea because the index -- in the index because the index doesn't own a lot of junk companies. >> d.f.a. is on the index tilt. now, it's value, but it's index tilt. so with our managers, i don't know how it fits with mondrian. you'd have to fill me in better on that, but i'm -- i'm willing to make the motion. i don't know if everybody's comfortable with it. >> has he finished his

presentation? he stopped to let us ask questions. >> i think we can just let the board ask their questions. >> i finished, so please ask. >> you're finished? >> i am. >> let's go to page 21, the lower graph my search was it winds up with one recommendation. that's the way it goes. i believe our search was to replace the existing managers. that was the purpose of doing all of this. my first question is, cartica, have they ever managed money --

correction, bill, did you or hahn know cartica before they bid? >> yes. >> ah, because looking at this lower chart, i'm looking for whether or not any managers who are in those blue bubbles on the line where cartica would be, drawing a horizontal line from their dot back over to the excess rate of return, did any of those managers bid? we do not know who those bubbles are. my question is in the universe, the announcement, and where is the 30 semi finalists out of the 120 bids, i'm just curious, in the universe of managers in this area, were there any that could have bid, didn't want to bid, didn't bid, close, i'm just trying to find out in the universe, whatever, or are we just lucky that cartica was one

of the ones that decided to bid? >> just some background and all credit to aloe for putting some of these things together. after the april board meeting, we sat around and talked about how we could display some of cartica's better virtues. here what we've done is shown cartica and the list of emerging managers from a database. we've plotted them just to show cartica's role or place within the emerging markets universe and showed that just how distinctive they are in terms of their concentration as well as their active share, and then, we highlighted those with whom we already have exposure. but i don't know which of these managers who kind of circle around cartica, which of them, if any, responded to our r.f.p. my guess is none of them. >> understandable. other charts we look at sometimes is the floating bar chart of the universe managers, and we can tell where they are,

first, second, third, fourth, quartile, with the idea. did we get -- remember, these people, there's an indication that they were better performers than cartica. >> and that's always the case. there's always a manager -- we can always reach for the best performing manager, historically, for sure. there's always going to be one of those. >> that's what i'm trying to find out, if the bidding process, is getting some of these managers to bid on your work. some of these people don't like this work. some of them only want to do the r.f.i. process. since this has been underway for over a year, and the results -- and you guys would be able to calculate several hundred people hours? >> certainly. >> and resulting with one $300 million recommendation. this is more -- my comments or question is more about the

process than opposed to cartica, which is the item on the agenda, but i'm driving at something, how to improve the process. >> so in other words, joe, do you mean do they have reached out to some of these managers and brought them in? skbl i believe we could. some people think we can't do that. >> can we? >> absolutely. >> but we didn't, did we? >> well, there was an r.f.p. structure, there was a wide net. we asked for three respondents, for three strategies. once we initiated the r.f.p., we had to maintain the rules, which were there were time frames, there were questions and answers, there were deadlines, and then, those were the only people that we could consider in the r.f.p. short of cancelling the r.f.p. >> right.

>> the question is whether or not we change the process to get them to bid. they will get a fair shot. does this show that the managers recommended were very thoroughly and fairly analyzed or not? >> my recollection, bob shaw, i believe, was here at the time, we determined we wanted -- we wanted to do because it had been so long since we issued an r.f.p. in this area, we wanted to do a very broad, wide sweep. so we weren't focused on a region or a niche, which is normally when we employ the r.f.i. we determined at that point in time since it was going to be broad, and we had not done an r.f.p., we just did the r.f.p. to see what was out there. and i agree, we were premising that we wanted to select some

of our managers. you can close down an r.f.p. there's a process, but -- >> our goal was to replace 'cause we thought we could and should replacing, adding more value -- it wasn't just we want today do a search for the heck of doing a search. >> no, i think we were concerned that we did not know necessarily, you know, whether the strategies were out there. i mean, not that we didn't know them, but we wanted to see how many people would be interested to bid. i don't know that it is necessarily to replace our existing managers. we wanted to look at them relative to our existing managers. i need to look at the premise in the first three pages of the r.f.p., which is, you know, the purpose of issuing that, but i don't have that in front of me. >> but i think we have to be careful of turning this into a full-fledged discussion about processing, as opposed to- >> can i chime in? >> there was a reason for doing

this, to improve the rate of return. not only could the process have been better to get people to bid on the work, let alone -- all the issues -- [inaudible] >> -- on a $5 billion piece of the total fund and winding up with a 300 million recommendation. >> we don't have any way of controlling the process related to an r.f.p. 'cause those rults are set. so if we -- rules are set. so if we determined we were not satisfied with the responses we got from an r.f.p., we could have cancelled that r.f.p. and gone an r.f.i. but once we undertake an r.f.p., we don't have a lot ofof leeway because we need to ensure that it's transparent all the way through. >> can we improve the r.f.p. process? >> no. >> well, we have a difference of opinion. i believe we can. we'll come back and talk about this because the need to

improve every piece of the portfolio to include the international, the global and the emerging, that need does not go away. the opportunity is not going to go away. can we do better? >> well, under perfect circumstances if we would have been fully staffed, we could have brought the information earlier, if that's what you mean by improving the process, but once you issue an r.f.p., you know, you have to follow the very specific rules so set out by the city. [inaudible] >> -- joe, and you, jay, are correct. i think there's always room for improving the outcomes in the r.f.p., and that has to do with the predevelopment of what that r.f.p. looks like, different metrics and so forth of different people that are going to be bidding. but like jay is saying, once

you get into that, then you have certain restrictions around bidding and certain things that you cannot do based on our city's laws. so yes, there are ways to improve the potential outcome, but it's also true once you start there's limitations. >> you heard me say the phrase earlier about being the first call. we looked for people who will be the first call. that's what we want our reputation to be. we want people to bid for our work because they've got to believe we will treat them fairly, thoroughly, intelligently. that's done before the r.f.p. goes out. >> we're getting a little late in the day. i don't want to -- i think this is a very important conversation. i've been asking for a while for a review of how we find managers. i'm going with commissioner driscoll's point, in this process, if we only found one

manager -- >> and i'd point out we have issued another r.f.p. since we issued this one. >> it's not an indictment on anyone. i think it's a really interesting process. we went down this process and got only one. i'm not as convinced they're as good of a process as some other people think they are. i would prefer to see us start over and go and try and find the other managers represented here who might look better and add other attributes. that being said, you guys have done a ton of work on this. you've done a lot of good work. i think it's really interesting stuff. really helpful. thank you for bringing it back. i'm happy to call the vote. i'm personally probably not going to vote for this today, but i know there are commissioners who probably will, so i'm asking the board, where do you want to go from here -- or staff. >> i move to adopt staff's

recommendation. >> i assume that they've taken note of all my comments the last hour. >> there's a motion on the floor. does anyone want to second? >> there's a motion, there's a second from commissioner chu. any discussion on this? >> i have -- i have discussion. is there a way after this, if we close vote for this, that they can reach out to both individuals -- >> certainly. >> yeah. >> is that something you'd want to do? >> we have -- and to joe's point, we have work to do. >> okay. >> this is one piece, but we have work to do. >> and another question related to our capacity. we have certain allocations that we are targeting for emerging markets and so on. we still have room in capacity should we find excellent, wonderful great managers to be able to do so. >> yeah. >> i mean, this is public session, but i will say -- i believe we can say, we're very sensitive when we have an r.f.p. with folks who have followed the rules andity

submitted responses -- rules and submitted responses. we're concerned about the general -- we wanted to make it clear this they're a completely separate process. we don't want folks to think well, we went through and bid but they reached out in a separate process and hired someone else while the r.f.p. is in process. we're not frozen out, but we don't want our peace to last a year because it -- piece to last a year because it restricts the public disclosure part from soliciting folks who maybe did not submit an r.f.p. because maybe they didn't meet the minimum qualifications at the deadline, those types of things. so certainly, we appreciate if this passes, and we will continue to reach out. outreach. >> call for the vote. >> i do want to say something

that, again, just want to emphasize, looking to you guys to bring forward to us a different way to go out and find the very best managers. i think this process clearly highlights that maybe not everyone that the r.f.p. process is soliciting responded. so maybe the rules are handicapping us in a way, so let's think about is there a more intelligent and thoughtful and better way to go about sourcing managers is exactly i think what commissioner driscoll said. i'll call for public comment. if there's any members of the public that would like to address the commission. seeing none, i'll close public comment. roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> clerk: motion passes. >> president stansbury: motion passes. >> can i ask for the privilege -- i have to leave. my phone is going off the hook. a new arrival is coming, and i have to go to sacramento to meet him. but i'd like to ask one question from the executive director's report because the city attorney is here. >> president stansbury: why don't we just call that item, then. >> yeah. >> president stansbury: can we call item 15 and 16 together. >> and the question i have is regarding the anticorruption and accountability ordinance, and i just want to know -- it's silent as to the elected commissioners. can you give me any flavor as

to how it applies to the elected commissioners? >> i think from the e-mail that's attached, that's what you're referring to? >> yes. >> they are not -- they don't -- they are not an appointing officer, so the things that apply to commissioners or an appointing officer would not apply to the elected commissioners, but everything else would apply to you in the same way. >> okay. so that's -- i just wanted to make sure that we got that on the record, and it was clear. >> okay. >> okay. thank you very much. then i'll excuse myself. >> president stansbury: okay. jay, the floor is yours. >> little alexander estimated weight of around eight pounds is due to arrive in the next

four hours. [inaudible] >> i will combine the june and the july report. we basically -- in both of those months -- have presented the proxy voting results related to this board's policy that we will always support and vote in favor of the incr. i believe the proxy season has significantly ended at the end of june but we'll issue one more report in july by hopefully will be the final. initially, there were over 200 that were drk-resolutions that were submitted by incr members. a lot of them have been withdrawn. i believe that i was reading this morning that they believe it's been a very successful season based on fossil fuels

and climate risk issues by the fact that some of these resolutions were withdrawn, which they wanted to point out means that shareholders are talking to owners mtded fagsd thfagsd -- the fact that they can get a resolution withdrawn is the fact that they're talking to shareholders. there have been a lot ofthe fa to shareholders. there have been a lot resoluti fact that they're talking to shareholders. there have been a lot withdraw they're talking to shareholders. there have been a lot of withdrawals which does indicate that there is discussion going on. i submitted last month a 2018 investors statement to global climate change. that was a g7 letter just as an example of the 10,000 things to come across andrew's e-mail probably every day and opportunities that we have, and he's ferreting out what makes

sense in terms of what the board has taken action on. certainly, we have some issues that under the broader e.s.g. we've not actually addressed related to executive pay per se, diversity on boards, so as we develop a more holist holistic e.s.g. policy, we will be able to join for groups that are working, public institutional investors in trying to influence behavior related to these other issues, and we look forward to that because commissioner driscoll is correct. the blueprint and the steps and the deliverables that were presented to the investment committee all are very important and they're going to take a lot of work. bill will indicate that we're getting ready to recruit for a security analyst to support andrew in his work which we

think is very critical to make sure that a lot of the reporting requirements that we have get completed, and that he has that support. the other thing is obviously, we have a new retirement board member. i was talking to claire on the way in. she asked if he was here, and i said no, he had to go to the br board of supervisors. i will do my best to ensure we don't call a special meeting on a tuesday afternoon. we'll be reaching out to him and his staff to try and provide orientation. we have been working with commissioner chu. we've had at least two sessions, and she's willing to sit with us for, like, three hours, so that's very dedicated and has a lot of questions, and so we look forward to going through that same process with

commissioner safai. and with that, i will open it up for any questions. >> president stansbury: questions from the board? seeing none, we'll open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. thank you, mr. huish. why don't we go back to -- let's postpone 9. thank you for bringing it forth. any objection to that from staff? >> no. >> president stansbury: 9? the analysis of protection strategies, we will postpone that. that's going to require a little bit of time. >> president stansbury: i've reserved the option to do it later. can we call 10 and 11 together?

>> sure. for item number 10, real quick, we had a very good month back in may. seems like a long time ago. our investments were up over 1.3% for the month. we have a number of disclosures that i still think we need to go through, right? >> yes. >> so marshal ridge is a distressed strategy that the board approved in the absence of a portfolio. we made a $25 million investment. we expect to get more here in the coming months. that will be called -- called down periodically over time. that was actually the only item closed during the month. there is some valuation data earlier in the memo, just some charts showing the valuations are above average, but they're not ridiculously high like they have been at other points in time, and that there are some markets that are really quite reasonably priced.

and also, on page 3, i'll note that this is just a follow up to any p.c.'s quarterly report back at the end of the first quarter, and that is that our performance has been very, very good across all time periods. and it's without taking more risk. you'll see at the bottom of page 3 is that our volatility is slightly lower than the peers, and in public equity, the reason for the table on the upper page 4 is to show that over the last few years we've seen a pretty comfortable improvement in our excess returns in public equity. with that, i can close that and move onto item number 11, since they were called together, i believe. so fiscal year end, we ended up at about 11.34%. i do expect that number to move around as private market investments, their valuations are closed in the next couple

of months. in particular -- and it wasn't just one things, we had a number of good returns. u.s. stocks and private equity were up more in 17. real assets were up nearly 15. special congratulations to art and also to ed and chris and to cambridge for getting an increase in our exposure to real asset to the time when that wasn't really popular a year or two ago. oil prices had fallen down to about $30 a barrel or a little bit less, and they've rallied to more than double that, so we've seen a reversion to the mean that, and we did that by increasing our allocation at the same time. global equity and private debt were also up in the low teens. and every asset class were in the positives. fix income just barely above

break even, which is something that we've been expecting. in the month of june, we were done 27 basis points. this was particularly in international stocks, and in particular in china because of the -- the trade tensions going on. we did have a number of meetings. i was recently in beijing and pouring through the difference of the business performance of the underlying companies that our managers are invested in versus what's taking place in terms of stock returns, and we're really, really pleased with the business performance of our under lying companies, and the impact, the trade tensions in terms of our companies, our managers are estimating at about 2%. it's really quite deminimus. in addition, one manager is just chomping at the bit because they're seeing p.e.'s

of five and 6 where they're expecting earnings and growth of 15 to 20%, so they're really quite encouraged. the year to date, we're up 3.2% on a calendared year to date. economic conditions -- i do want to point out one or two things here. overall, economic conditions continue to be really good. the one highlight i would want to point out is that earnings growth has been really strong lately, up about 26% in calendar year 17, up about 20% here in the first half of this year. it's going to be really hard for the markets to duplicate that. you usually don't get say even three years of 20% earning growth, and that's going to make next year's comparisons harder, okay? so just to keep an eye on in the future is that i would expect that the -- i'm not expecting any really serious trouble, but it's just going to

make the -- the comparisons going forward more difficult. but -- but the good news is if you see the chart at the bottom of page 2, is that stock prices and -- and earnings growth have mirrored each other. as a matter of fact, earnings growth has been a little bit higher. that is a really good sign that the stock market appreciation is based on fundamentals, and it's based on the present value -- on cash flow, and it's not based on speculation, it's not based on a repricing of the market going higher. a couple of closures to note. the biotech value fund, we -- the board approved $200 million. we have intestvested 60,000,04 million in various vehicles. we do expects the remaining 100 to be called in the next few

months. also, the board approved a real estate opportunity strategy for fortress of 75 million. we've invested 100 million so far. we believe further will be called in the next number of months. long hill, which have a venture investment strategy in china, we asked the board for 30 million. the board approved, and we did get all 30 million on that. there's a lot of ways to make money in health care in china from biotech to medical equipment to health insurance. tower brook is a strategy that we asked the board -- it's a large cap buyout strategy. the board approved 75 million. we did get 50 million, and beacon light, which is an

equity long-short strategy, we asked the board to approve 220 million. the board -- 225 million. the board did so. we expect the remainor of that will be call -- remainder of that will be called, as well. you see the portfolio is up 6.5% on an annualized basis and that's at a period of time when the bond market is actually slightly down. i am very pleased to welcome ron manning, and ron, if you could please stand and perhaps come to the podium and introduce yourself. ron has -- ron played football at rice university, so he's going to make me a really good running back. he played offensive line, but he also previously served at the dallas-fort worth retirement system, and he's got a distinguished education, as well. >> i'll just tell you a little

bit about myself. i'm raised in houston, texas. i went to rice university in houston, so -- and got my graduate degree at texas tech. my wife brought me out here. she's from the south bay area. she grew up down there. came out here, visiting her family a couple times, and really fell in love with the area. she found a good job. i followed her out here and found a great job myself, so i'm really happy here. city of san francisco's been really exciting. looking forward to -- obviously, the summer's been great. the nice winter weather you have here in the summer. it's good. you all think it's hot. i have to stop saying y'all. you think it's really hot, but it's not. let's see...working here, i'll be working with eunice and the private credit strategy, but i'll also be working with

victoria owens on the public strategy as we make the transition back and forth there. so with my previous job with fort worth, i was a generalist. i worked with the portfolio half, and then i would have hedge funds, private equity, funding only strategies. here, i'll just be concentrating in one area, which is private for me. >> and did you close on a house in the last couple days? >> i did. >> wow. east bay. >> yeah. planning on jogging out here. >> welcome. >> thank you, ron. >> welcome. >> and we do have our manager director of asset allocation, risk management and innovative solutions. an offer's been extended and accepted, and that person will start on august 27, and i look forward to introducing you to her at that time. that closes the c.i. reports. >> great. thank you. any questions? commissioner driscoll? >> i'll skip my questions, but

on this monthly report, on your page 5, the sf sfers monthly net aet ises, some month -- assets, some months, we started putting the liability bar on there. i highly recommend we keep that there, but only looking at the assets and not looking on the right hand balance sheet, people are going to focus on that. it's much more useful information in terms of what we are trying to do here, so if you could put that back in here -- i see this one's been amended by staff. i would highly recommend, even if it's a once a year number, you can do that. >> happy to do that. i'm glad you mentioned that, commissioner. it is a highly relevant number. we are at june 30, and since that number's going to be hard coded in november , we can include it. >> yeah, and you can footnote it to say it's only measured once a year. >> okay.

we'll move to public comment. any member of the public wish to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. thank you, mr. coaker. regarding items 12 and 13, i don't see miss chuy. i think we can take the items as submitted unless there's any highlights you want to bring up to the board. >> i just want to bring up two matters. in the third quarter, interest rate was set at 2.26, so we're moving in the right direction, and on july 25, there will be a deferred compensation meeting, and that, as submitted. >> thank you for the reminder. we'll cope it up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on this issue? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any comments from the board? >> the eligible participates now is north of 36,000. that's a big number. it shows how much the workforce

has grown. it affects liabilities. it's at least 8,000 more than eight years ago. many growth in jobs. again, that means more work for staff, rolling people, but again, it affects the participation efforts that deferred comp is trying to work on. >> thank you so much for the report. item 14, we are going to postpone to a future meeting. 16, so i believe there's only -- do i have this correct? there is -- [inaudible] >> what's that? [inaudible] >> yeah, why don't we call items 18 and 19 together as submitted. any public comment on items 18 and 19? seeing none, we'll close public comment. any comments from the board?

okay. that leaves one item, item 20, retirement of a board member, good of the order. >> order to request information either from staff or from our city attorney because i think one of the things -- or one of the issues that have come up in different meetings over time is a confusion for me around our use of our fee r 5 so i would be interested in hearing from a city attorney if there's any restrictions or requirements from us to be engaging in r.f.p.'s or r.f.i.'s in our search for a manager. >> i might add onto that, a repeat of something i've said before, if we could please look at how we are going about finding managers, and whether

or not there's any areas for improvement, and i think that goes hand in hand with commissioner chu's request. okay. public comment? are there members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none, we'll close public comment. anything else from the board? great. thank you, everyone. it's been a very long day. meeting adjourned. >> very long day.

adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in

the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying

local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant

>> i'm rebecca and i'm a violinist and violin teacher. i was born here in san francisco to a family of cellists, professional cellists, so i grew up surrounded by a bunch of musical rehearsals an lessons. all types of activities happened in my house. i began playing piano when i was 4. i really enjoyed musical activities in general. so when i was 10, i began studying violin in san francisco. and from there, i pretty much never stopped and went on to study in college as well. that's the only thing i've ever known is to have music playing all the time, whether it is someone actually playing next to you or someone listening to a recording. i think that i actually originally wanted to play flute and we didn't have a flute. it's always been a way of life.

i didn't know that it could be any other way. >> could you give me an e over here. great. when you teach and you're seeing a student who has a problem, you have to think on your feet to solve that problem. and that same kind of of thinking that you do to fix it applies to your own practice as well. so if i'm teaching a student and they are having a hard time getting a certain note, they can't find the right note. and i have to think of a digestible way to explain it to them. ee, d, d, e. >> yes. then, when i go on to do my own practice for a performance, those words are echoing back in my head. okay. why am i missing this? i just told somebody that they needed to do this. maybe i should try the same thing. i feel a lot of pressure when

i'm teaching young kids. you might think that there is less pressure if they are going on to study music or in college that it is more relaxing. i actually find that the opposite is true. if i know i'm sending a high school student to some great music program, they're going to get so much more instruction. what i have told them is only the beginning. if i am teaching a student who i know is going to completely change gears when they go to college and they never will pick up a violin again there is so much that i need to tell them. in plain violin, it is so difficult. there is so much more information to give. every day i think, oh, my gosh. i haven't gotten to this technique or we haven't studies they meese and they have so much more to do. we only have 45 minutes a week. i have taught a few students in some capacity who has gone on to study music. that feels anaysing.

>> it is incredible to watch how they grow. somebody can make amazing project from you know, age 15 to 17 if they put their mind to it. >> i think i have 18 students now. these more than i've had in the past. i'm hoping to build up more of a studio. there will be a pee ono, lots of bookshelves and lots of great music. the students will come to my house and take their lessons there. my schedule changes a lot on a day-to-day basis and that kind of keeps it exciting. think that music is just my favorite thing that there is, whether it's listening to it or playing it or teaching it. all that really matters to me is that i'm surrounded by the sounds, so i'm going top keep

doing what i'm doing to keep my life in that direction. do, particularly -- it's tough to endorse against someone that you are sitting with. they were there from the very beginning and i'm so proud to have supported sandy fewer and hillary ronin in their campaigns, they have been such