proceed with you want these companies. we made the best recommendation based on what we have determined to be the current status of the change in government. you know, we believe that our recommendation made sense. we understand there is a disconnect and potentially us going against our policy by not adding these companies. it really is a recommendation that we not add anything to the list until we find out whether the new government is going to resolve the issue of needing the restriction. >> i would like allen to give us guidance. do you have any thoughts? >> they have abandoned the restrictions on the grounds andrew suggests. the situation has improved. the u.s. government dropped

sanctions. arizona was statute and it is being changed. the situation in the sudan has moved aware from the circumstances that caused the restrictions to be adopted in the first place. i would urge you to not additional to the list. you probably should eliminate did list. andrew is wise to say you should be assured the situation is better and not accept the lack of sanctions as an indication. others have taken that that the situation that warranted the restriction in the first place no longer existed. >> why do you feel this cautious approach is better and what gives you comfort in the manner you are suggesting it? >> it benefits from a conservative approach to see if stability lasts in the country.

there are situations throughout the history of sudan and this is pointed out elsewhere where things seem to move in a positive direction in terms of a stable democratic government and they revert. the recommendation here would be to monitor the situation to see if the transition to a civilian government takes place, and, last, rather than remember removing restriction now have the situation deteriorate, sanctions be re-introduced and us in a position where we re-implement the full set of restrictions. that was the thought. >> what would you recommend to the board to clarify the second part of the motion or the second

issue, the staff recommendation of the two companies? >> my clarification would be you suspend your current criteria for adding companies to the listing pending the outcome of the government change. that means we are not adding any new qualified or companies that qualify under the criteria to the list pending the outcome, which we assume will be a positive outcome of the government change. if the board wants to engage them on other issues like slavery, that is certainly something you can ask us to come back on present to the board anything relative to anything else going on with the government of sudan or whatever is going on, but i think what mr. martin pointed out is at the time that restrictions are the

criteria to get on the list, and commissioner driscoll is correct. companies we identify to get off the list by certifying the nature of their business with the government of sudan. the issue was we didn't want to be investing in a company aiding and abetting what was happening in sudan. with that criteria, you are correct. seven should be added. our recommend is because of the trend where we believe this is going to end up, and by the fact that a lot of u.s. has dropped sanctions, other plans are eliminating altogether. we are taking await and see but not expand the list. period. >> it is very unlikely that our

managers actually invest in those companies. we have one or two market managers who might. that is why we have policy to guide our managers. in terms of being coul conservae should an opportunity arise i understand why you are conservative. i understand why people would want the seven companies because they think it is what our policy mandates. i don't agree with that. that is okay. that is not my interpretation how the policy works. thanks for clarifying. >> what is your interpretation how the policy works? >> that we go company by company to see if they are positive. the government of sudan has changed, you see who is part of the new government. they are part of the problem.

there are multiple countries to and including in africa that has occurred. have they changed or just changed the leader. >> anything doing business in sudan we say no. some are doing good business. >> that is what you believe our policy? >> we room by exception based on how we studied the company. >> that is what i was alluding to if five of the seven haven't responded. >> what does that mean? >> what does that mean about those companies? >> we don't own them. >> it illustrates we need to be at the table. weep need to be a shareholder. they might respond if they know we are invested with them. if we are someone they have never heard of and we have no investment with them, they are less likely to respond to a

letter requesting what type of business are they doing with the government of sudan. >> let me add to that. historically if a company does not respond we assume the information we have is accurate and we would typically add them to the restricted list. >> it is to give them an opportunity to clarify if we have accurate information about their business or not. >> let me ask this question. in the past when we had companies fall within these restricted lists for sudan, have we given exceptions to them where they worked with the government but demonstrated they are not aiding or abetting genocide. have we provided exceptions? has that come to us and we grant an exception? >> it is based on staff

analysis. on page one and two of the memo you can see the criteria when we would say the company does restricted activities in sudan. if they engage in substantial action, if they engage in those activities with substantial actions which including boycotting the government, curtailing business, undertaking humanitarian efforts. wvery rarely did the company do one of those activities. >> have we followed the same process for the companies they have holdings in. >> those companies are not taking substantial action as defined by our criteria. the recommends is based on

lifting of sanctions, improved situation, and this interim period and belief that providing the services they provide, which are power, infrastructure is beneficial to the citizens of the country, but needs monitored how the government transition evolves. >> i guess i will reiterate. from my opposition it is that we have a policy. it doesn't seem like we have followed our particular past practice to exempt out the two existing companies we do have holdings in. that is my own concern with us following our policies or not. i am fine to amend the policies at some point. we haven't done so yet. with this issue as a board we can do a roll call and i will continue to vote in dissension

or accept the recommends to come back to reevaluate the proposal in 2021 and not take up the second portion. that would still accomplish the same purpose that the recommendation is getting at but allows us to not be in conflict with our policy and with the expectation you would come back in a few months to demonstrate whether or not they meet the criteria. >> i will take my motion off the table. i will adopt your motion. 2021? >> that is what it says. >> i will make that motion. >> the second has to come off. let me mention one thing. when this all started, i do not

remember the individual's name. he was working in sudan. i think he has gone back to medical school. that was his goal. the list we provided staff to start vetting. there were companies that could not belief they were not on the list. siemens is one of the biggest companies in the world. they do business in sudan. anyone doing business in sudan was put up for divest meant. they weren't all destroying the company or had an opportunity to get the resources they want. they were helping a very oppressive government. that is how it is done. we did not put all of the companies on the list we then allowed those exceptions. that is part of what andrew was trying to get us to.

maybe i am misinterpreting the work on these companies. >> you make the motion. >> my ipad is not downloading the documents. >> i will make a motion that we -- the motion to re-evaluate the transition of power in sudan through 2021 and signal without consideration of investment with companies the transition continues as plans and stability improves. it would include a request to the staff to come back in three months. does that sound reasonable? with additional information about the seven companies added and whether or not based on the type of activities they are

engaged within sudan it is making sense to provide that exception. >> i will second that. >> further board questions before public comment? okay. public comment? no public comment. call the question. all in favor say aye. opposed. thank you. that takes us to item 13. the cio's report. >> in the month of september we had a gain of 46 basis points primarily due to 1% plus returns in public equity and 2% in private credit. in the first quarter we gained just 85 basis points. that is actually better than public equity market which was

down 1.18%. some closings to announce of items approved by the board in closed session. the hl performed and nights bridge a investments we requested $100 million and $10 million respectively. the board approved those and we did get such allocations. in september, the board approved a recommendation to invest in the life capital fund. this is an investment in greater china across medical devices, diagnostics and biotherapeutics. we requested from the manager $25 million. the board approved that. we gained an allocation of $20 million. next longitude partners. this is also a healthcare investment with a manager stationed in boston.

emphasizing drug development and medical technology. they are on stage agnostive from early to late. we requested $40 million and did receive $40 million. the board in april approved a change in investment guidelines with the safari 2. san francisco absolute return investment number two, and that was closed in recent weeks. in november of last year, the board approved an investment of up to $250 million with the black stone strategic opportunity fund. subject to single item direct or co-investments of $25 million up to a total of $250 million and that we would come back to the board with reviews when we

reached thresholdses of 50, 100, 25 and $200 million. that also eventually closed. we do have a couple personnel updates. we are currently searching for a security analyst and venture capital. we will begin recruitment for manager of investment operations soon. since the board materials our senior portfolio manager for private equity is moving to atlanta. he served for a year and a half. he made terrific contributions in a short period of time, brought in a number of new managers to the spurs trust. very sad to let him go. this is a situation where his wife is from georgia, was born in georgia.

she has family, close family in atlanta, so he is moving to atlanta to keep in good graces with his wife. he will be departing around the end of the month. we will begin recruitment for replacement shortly after that. we are making modifications to how we conduct manager research and selection. it is really driven by our resources relative to the complexity and volume of work that we do, particularly related to specialists and unique strategies. we are breaking down historical silos. we operated in silos. we are going to chip away at this. a lot of our people have skills and backgrounds in other areas and so rather than take this

silo approach to conducting manager research, we are taking a team-based approach looking at the staff calendar, who is available to do what work and where they know a particular manager or they are familiar with the particular asset class, etc. this is driven out of a spurs need in managing our investment trust. there are some collateral advantages that are significant. we think this is also very good for professional growth of our staff to learn new skills. it enhances professional fulfillment and lastly we think it is very good for the spurs trust. in addition to that we will break down some historical silo approach that we have had among

our consultant and where the consultant is versed in a stick strategy, a manager has experience we will utilize that skill set rather than with the silo approach we have. as trustee health fund noted we have an investment committee meeting one week from today which includes presentation from the two finalists for our general investment consultant, they are nap c and nikita. we have a presentation by andrew and luke on modernizing the energy sector. it is a terrific presentation. i hope the board members are able to be present. if we have time, these are two big ticket items.

if we have time on the third one. if we don't get to it we will do it another time. we think as staff the human experience is fast evolving from the industrial age to science technology and innovation. you have heard us talk about it piecemeal in terms of manager recommendations. we want to step back and present this to you more holei holisticn how the landscape of investing is changing. we will turn it over to the board for questions. >> one more disclosure. >> i have that. thank you for the reminder. i believe i have it.

this morning, i believe it was, we got notice the board's approval in august of investing in the bridge water pure alpha two and major markets two strategy of up to $200 million in the aggregate that did close. we will get $150 million in the bridge water pure alpha major markets two strategy. with that we can turn it over to the board for questions. thank you, jay. >> board questions on the record? >> one question about the investment manager research and selection. are we talking about research managers and so when that particular topic comes up you

might pull someone from private equity to work on a real estate deal or across the board where everyone will be a general list and you will not have a silo? >> it is not a general list approach. it is all hands on deck approach rather than the siloed approach and maybe we have got capacity in another area of our team, and in another asset class we are over worked. we have a calendar of research items we need to complete. it is an all hands on deck. chipping away at the siloed approach we have always used. >> is it just for manager research or everything related to the investment areas. >> it is manager research and

recommendations. everything we approach in terms of manager recommendations also go through the asset class, goes through the portfolio, pmg and myself. there is always multiple sets of ears. what is being introduced here is that in addition to the multiple sets of eyes is someone who historically we see from the outside has operated exclusively in one asset class. they could utilize research and selection due t to the underwriting or part of the underwriting in another asset class. >> thank you for the explanati explanation. >> how many rf i's are you currently operating?

he is telling me four. >> i am not sure if that includes the general consultant. >> thank you. how many have you committed money to yet? >> well, because they are still pending and undergoing research, we have committed none. >> part two. in terms of this holistic approach to utilizing the resources in your investment team, that is good. let me tell you i plan on asking the board to look holistically at our asset allocation mix. we operate the silos there. since once large piece of the portfolio is a collection of strategies to be applied.

that is a super your way of as set allocating. if you want to utilize the people better that is great. that is the way to do it. we should apply the same thinking to the asset allocation mix. i plan to ask that question next week. >> any more board questions? this is not an action item. public comment. >> in the past two years i have given you board members what your investment consultant would call spectacular recommendations. i don't charge you for my advice. if i would charge you $5 million you would probably take it. my investment gurus were founders of vanguard funds. i don't think they would invest

$1 in your portfolio. let me give you a portfolio they would -- portfolio of stocks, bonds and real estate. swpps. s&p 500s. 15.16%. year-to-date returns 20.52%. this consists of 60-40 stocks and bonds balanced index. 10 year performance 9.35%. year-to-date returns 15.48%. the last one. dnq, vanguard real estate investment. 10 year returns 12.88%.

year-to-date returns 28.08%. now, if you took my advice with the same amount of money you are putting in hedge funds you would be hundreds of millions of dollars better off right now. one more minute. let me give you the average cost for this investment. no performance fee and you pay less than one quarter of a percent management fees. you average 10 year returns would be 11.8%. year-to-date average returns 21.3%. all of my advice i give you i don't get a dime for it. i would charge $5 million income. >> item 16.

survey results. >> can you make room for ashley. >> commissioners the goff very man's committee -- goff very man's committee has a board policy that they engage a third-party to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the board or the board would undertake a similar action. this year the governance committee directed the consultant, ashley doning, to do a four question survey.

basically asking the board's input in four distinct areas. she is here today to present the results of the survey to the full board. with that i will introduce ashley dunning. >> this is a survey explained in the memorandum the executive director provided to you. i had this done unanimously and you were to respond through a portal. i received those responses and sought to summarize them in a way that is able to be digested in this for massachusetts. in some -- this format. in some cases we had similar comments from trustees, which is why you will see six responders

so we would have otherwise had 18 responses. i included some of them together if they were similar. the top 5-bing -- are ones where we saw top governance schools. you will see a lot of focus on evaluating the role of the general investment consultant, the way in which you analyze investments, the role of staff versus consultants. that is one theme. another is continuing discussion of the structure the board operates under with respect to committees and if that is working as well as you would like. then comments 7 through 10 were ones that were provided so i included them here. what i suggest is that i could do that same exercise to go true all four and where you go from

here and welcome comments. the second question had to do with additional information that you would like to provided to the board at or prior to your meetings. the responses there the eight responses are pretty self-explanatory and particularly good information for your executive director and senior staff to have, on the investment side or benefit side. so they can think about how that may or may not work in terms of ongoing presentation of information to the board. the third question relates to business objectives for your executive director. the board will recall that you engaged in your annual personnel evaluation rent leap. the board has not -- recently. the board has not yet done business objectives for the upcoming year.

this is a way to think what these might look like, perhaps in thinking about your next personnel committee meeting where your executive director could present those. that is often presented in closed session. it is part of the evaluation process. that is another topic for discussion. i would note that as to the strategic plan referenced there i saw on the forward board calendar under the executive director's report for this meeting today there is an anticipation that that will be presented to the board at its november, february and april meetings. that is another context where you discuss that one in particular. the fourth question has to do with your committee structure specifically. again, how effective you find those committees to be or not and suggestions you may have for

improvement as to those. i would say the comments you received there type quite closely into some of the goff very lance schools articulated in response to the first question. this is stated as an action item where you could simply provide direction to staff or take other action, actions that i have seen or would remember be considered range from the you want to have a strategic workshop or some meeting dedicated to discussing some of these issues, you might do that as the board has done in past years. or you could articulate where within the existing board meeting structure you would like these addressed at a board meeting or personnel meeting or

governance committee or otherwise. i welcome comments, questions, instructions. >> i will say something. when we started this may, june, i was chair and we were trying to set up the focus of the next off site. that is what this is for to get it down to a couple topics for us to discuss at the next off site which is two years since the last. a lot of change on the board. i would leave this to the governance chair to figure out where we are going with the next off site. >> that is a task. thissure viis broader than that.

-- this survey has been broader than that. i have not thought about direction to staff. how did they coordinate this. some are simple. what are the most significant here at the stratrigtegic, at least you got the answers. >> it is away to have a public discussion of material that is based on input from the board and from the board members individually about what you would like to be considered for purposes of, for example, an off site, that is one thing you could provide to have your board president set the agenda in consultation with the executive

director or if you wish the head of your governance committee and board president. there could be a combination of input that doesn't violate the brown act or sunshine ordinance. >> they explained item 8. he underscored the importance why he was working on the reutilization of the investment staff because of what he felt the system needs. the word need being very, very important. a lot of great ideas on on here. i suggest we focus on the most important things we need and then try to make sure we do the other things, too. if we are not doing what we need, we are going to miss. it goes to one data point in here. somebody put in $40 billion.

that is a typo. people think we have $40 billion. we don't. mr. cokeker and mr. hewitt is getting us ready when we have that and 50 to $60 billion in liabilities. we need to think about the year 2030. maybe we all think of the same thing when we answer the questions. we want this to turn into direction for us and staff. >> that is a very important observation, when you are thinking about how to obtain information to address these questions you should here from your exec stiff director and -- executive director and they will help you understand what you need as well as what you should aspire to going forward. >> i would chime in that the preparing the city and the board of supervisors for what resources we need cannot wait

for another meeting. we have decided we are going to get the consolidated message going this month, budget innstructions are released in december. we can't push it to off site. we need to agree who is going to go representing the plan along with the cio and with me or whoever else needs to be done. as far as that is concerned, we are already working on it unless we are told otherwise. the timeline is so short we couldn't wait to discuss it at the november meeting. we hope to have it on the way. we lose focus during holidays. we need to get in and get this information in front of them before the budget innstructions are cemented down. >> are you asking for directions from the board? >> no, i believe i have gotten direction from the response to the presentation, the original

presentation. we >> we don't want it to be a 17 slide presentation. we want to consolidate the main information on two or three slides. so we can take it to each member of the board. to be sure we paved the way to

request and approof the resources we need in the coming year's budgets. >> is that a question or statement? >> that is a statement. we are working on it unless the board says we are not supposed to. >> before my term expired and the board voted, you and i talked about the need to set this up for the next president to work with you and individual board members to meet with our key stakeholders so that you and the president can pursue that plan, and i think as you go and have meetings with the board of supervisors, it makes sense to talk to commissione.

>> commissioner: ners. i read it to be the plan to present to the city our road map to how we are going to deal with $40 billion in liabilities in less than 10 years. >> that was my problem. if i put million. i am sorry. >> are you thinking you we figure it on ut. >> it is going to be based on the presentation the board ado adopted. >> i made comments. >> are two ways to do this. one is officially by board direction. the other is as department heads doing what i believe i need to do in order to procure the resources we need. i can do this on my own or invite folks.

the mayoral appointees would be key players to get the mayors here. i don't believe this needs to be directed to me. this is part of my job, and i was the one that asked the investment staff to put together a road map. they are the ones who presented to the board. i think it was accepted by the board, rather approved is not necessarily the issue. it certainly tells a compelling story. the reason i asked him to present it or prepare it was to use it for budget purposes. i don't need your approval to do that unless you teleomitosis andy assist, that would be part of my job. >> this development helps understand some priorities of the board which has been articulated and it would not be

unusual or unexpected for the executive director and president to talk about what the presentation looks like before it is presented. that is one way to address that. >> i can't wait until the board adopts it. it will be too late in the cycle. as far as we are concerned, we are starting to build the budget this month. >> the budget process is one important document. we don't get the resources for what we want to do, we are stuck. that is one simple way of usuryo referit. did you discuss the vision or is that part of the plan? >> it talks about the presentation -- if i need to

present the presentation that i intended to take to the mayor's office and to the board of supervisors. if i need to have the board or president approve it, let me know and i will make sure that i do that, but, again, the assignment was we need to do some long-range planning. we just got through the budget process where we were told we could not request any new positions. i knew that most likely and most of the years that i have been associated with the city there have been very tight restrictions on the new positions you can request in the budget. we wanted to tell the story to pave the way for the mayor's office and board of supervisors to make sure they were on board and understood that we are coming forward with a pretty aggressive request for resources over the next five years and that the investment was you give

us the additional resources and we will cut and save you money long-term in what you are going to be required to contribute to the plan. >> those do not come out of the city budget? >> exactly. they don't touch the budget. they come out of the employees' pocket. >> what are we hung up on here today? >> so if i can add to your point, bryan. there is the items before us that they have put together that lists our perspective what we should address. it sounds like the purpose of this is to set us up to have a conversation at the retreat. it sounds like the board president and probably the governance committee chair might have work to do to figure out how to set aside the agenda and

move that forward. it sounds like we are accepting this information as a point of reference. i don't know that we need to take action or make priorities at this moment but that is a work of our chair to move forward with. the second issue is that you raise a good point to say if our executive director and cio and other operations folks have a very specific vision of things we are going to need to do for the long-term for the system and health of it, as board members we should herb that in advance of the meeting. it might shape what we think our business objectives priorities should be in order to have a clear understanding. i am not sure how that comes back. bill has presented to us 134 of the needs for the system on the investment side of the house when i was gone. i will catch up on the

information that he shared with the board members in my absence. i wonder if there is another perspective our other operations has that would help us have a fuller picture as we head to the retreat. jay brought up the issue of the budget what to do with that. i don't think we need to provide direction to you, jay, to go forward. the budget is maleable. we just went through the budget process we gave you direction. i think you have enough to craft your budget for december when the information is required, and i think we have the opportunity to provide input and adjust as we see fit throughout the whole budget process. it goes all the way through june. we have opportunities to continue to work with the mayor's office throughout that time beyond december. i don't think there is action to

be taken. a board member is here to figure out away through the board president to hear about some of the vision and some of the things we need as a system from the different aspects, operations, investments, whatever it may be we need to work on and then to have that done before we go the strateamic retreat. if that makes sense. >> it does. i i am trying to tie this together. the budget is getting the resources to execute. strategic plan is not in here. we are just talking about stuff. what are we threing to come -- what are we trying to accomplish 10, 20, 30 years from now? that is missing. >> you approved the strategic plan three months ago. >> i am trying to tie it together and we have this to deal with. >> so we are clear. this is phone for the committee

chair to put together. that is all this is for. i with say t to the board, pleae take this and formulate the next off site for us with this, however you see fit. >> that was my intent when i started this process. >> i think that's correct. i appreciate all of these comments. i agree with them. i think the only additional point is with respect to your executive director's business objectives correllarry to the c -- your executive director should provide proposed business objectives to draw from the input he has received from you through the survey and his own view of the needs of the system. that could be presented through

the personnel committee first then to the board, if you wish. that would be one way to do it. or directly to the board as you wish. >> i think they are not separate. the investment cio objectives and needs need to mirror. we need resources to hire recruits to make that work. >> right. >> in terms of the other issue to go forward with a vision, i feel like from my perspective to close that loop which was the second part of our conversation. you have some direction from the board to formulate the budget and you can work through finance as needed on that. in terms of if the board wants more specifics we can agenda that to come back to the full

board. you have enough to start this process. >> it is more than started already. i can come back at a personnel committee meeting to formulate recommended goals for this coming year based on the input that you provided through the survey. then we can have both documents in front of the personnel committee and you can accept them so that a year from now, when you evaluate me we will measure against the business objectives we all agreed to. >> if this document is to help plan for the next retreat. i understand that. i would love to talk about it to

bring it to an effective restreet meeting. two, the budget process. fine, if you are able to link it to the strategic plan, most departments have the plan, not all. the mission statement is not the plan. the mission statement is not a vision statement. that is a huge missing piece of the puzzle which is addressed in the survey. it may be unrealistic for you to expect you to come up with it. we all have to it. this is to help plan the next restreet. in terms of the strategic plan. i have to figure out how does it link? i don't see it and i don't see the vision statement. >> i would offer what bill

prepared was not a vision statement, it was less face reality. this is where we are going to be, our liabilities will be $40 billion, what do we need to get there. vision statements usually are broader, less specific. i think the whole idea and we are going to do that in all areas of what we are going to do. we can certainly prepare. you want the vision statement to come directly to the board or committee to work on it? we with bring it straight to the board. >> where would it be? if you were to bring it to committee, which committee has authority per our policies and procedures. >> we had a vision statement at one point. we can bring that back to look

at it to decide whether we wanted to keep it. it was taken away or they stopped adopting it at some point in my career before i became executive director. >> it sounds like commissioner driscoll is trying to link this so there is something to show how it comes together as compared to individual presentations. where is appropriate place to look at these different documents and presentations to make sure it is tied together? is there a committee with that authority? >> operations oversight committee is now specific to operations. it certainly deals with the budget. commissioner safai, do you have an idea? >> i was waiting for my opportunity. we are talking about surveys and

vision statements. those are all important. i want to add my -- i am sure you are thinking about these things. one thing i will tell you the board members are going to want to know about. they want to know about the health of the fund, how funded it is, how well we are doing, and how much we have improved, and what direction we are going. that is the most important questions. i think whe when you were there previously with the previous commissioner you started those conversations. i just want to interject that now in case i am not there in case i have a conflict. i was not here when you had the conversation about the $40 billion and the need to aggressively move toward that. the fact we have performed so well and we are performing well and we have improved, people want to know that and they want to know how funded we are and

what the road map is to continue to be funded. those are the questions that will be asked at the board of supervisors and mayor's office and that will get to the liabilities why you need additional staffing. i am sure you are doing that. i want that on the record. in terms of the vision and other stuff, i don't have any comments on that. >> we have talked about this, and we have had conversations with the mayor's office, and i have said -- bill the started when you presented the plan, and it was a plan, as far as i was concerned it was away forward. the supervisor's comments are right on. i get looks from people when they ask how is the retirement

board? i start throwing out numbers from the performance, it is like members. to bring this board inside here, we are on tv, to bring it to the open and capitalize on what we are doing, that is the way forward. i agree with commissioner safai. >> i the full board is the place to do it. is it another place that is appropriate? operations is finance. >> i wasn't here, but i believe the mission statement was an exercise at a retreat. wasn't it the focus of a retreat to come up with the mission

statement? >> we had a mission statement long ago it was developed. i am just going to say this. we need to have a strategic meeting because as a board we have let things lapse, as a board -- well, we let things lapse of the we need to reorganize our self-s to clearly give you and the staff direction. >> in answer to your question. governance is responsible for remming policies and the vision -- fo for recommending policies going through that committee compared to the investment committee. it will be department wide. if it needs to go through a

committee it is most appropriate to be governance. >> i agree with that. the president and you and ms. doning follow up offline on this. i feel like commissioner chu said. you have enough to start having your budget discussions. i don't feel like you need board approval to have budget discussions. that is part of your job. >> thank you. >> in terms of the budget process, there is a lot of loottitude in it. let me create an analogy. after a lot of success. we have been very successful, not because the market is up but we have done well because of different silos that are doing well. the question like any successful company or team, the analogy works when there is a successful

attack or battle, the first thing they have to do is regroup to get ready for the next one. that is one of pieces of the puzzle if we want to talk about 2030, 2040. are we ready to grow or not? this mission statement has been around for a very long time. it is not the document that should drive us. it is the vision statement then we use the mission statement and budget and hiring policies to get where we want be to go. that is where the board needs to understand what are we trying to do? we have to give direction to the executive director and convince the stakeholders to include the mayor and board of supervisors. we need them to win to continue to be successful. thathat is what the governing