companies where we have a meaningful equity investment in those companies. those lists are specifically on pages 32 and 33 of our memo. if the board wishes to continue to pursue a phased divestment. we recommend adding six new companies to the restricted list for $3.9 million from four of those companies, two other companies we do not have investment in. we recommend taking three companies off the restricted list that no longer appear to have high unmitigated risk but adding them to the watch list for monitoring and engagement. the list of companies we recommend for restriction, that is on page 30 of the memo. the goal here would be to continue to engage with

companies in the sector over the next year, rerun the analysis next year and present more analysis and set of recommendations. i will pause and pass it over to luke now to discuss similar analysis we have done in the utilities sector and what we have done here is conducted a similar analysis to identify companies to engage within the utilities sector over the next year. this is a separate memo attached to the same item. >> the way the pages are numbered it is broken up. we tend to say board's recommendation. on which page is the item. i see several items. we can make up the motion but i want to make sure we are on the same starting point.

>> page 36 has the summary of recommended actions. this is three parts. it references tables on the other pages that contain the list of companies. >> this is the company name. okay. it is all the same starting point. we don't have to adopt 36. let's work off that point. board questions? >> just a comment that on the cover page there is three recommended motions. >> page 36 also has three. >> we can do it one by one. >> we could also reference the table, right? >> reference to table 10, table

13. >> it needs to be clear. >> we still need luke to present the analysis on the utility companies. >> we are not finished yet. it is very complicated. a lot of work went into this. board members want to start with questions before the motion is made? a motion is always in order. >> you want to go to the next piece of the puzzle, utilities? go ahead. >> there is no voting item, but it is an update on the planned activity for the sector. >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. i will present the findings of the report.

this represents the early stages of the investigation into the utilities sector. this work is relevant for understanding the portfolio vulnerabilities and use full for voting in any investment decision. on electricity generation. this is being a more immediately impacted part of the sector. for the reasons outlined in the report. we do not not have a physical risk in this report. two points. the transition is accelerating and the bulk of the electric grid is likely to happen within the next five years in developed countries. the electric grid is likely to be a priority of policy members.

it is easy for economic and technology. >> it is $235 million out of the total exposure of $378 million. the public portfolio is well placed in the index can lower carbon intensity. the holdings are placing challenges. considering the approximately 300 companies to cover globally, we developed the framework that is similar to the oil and gas framework last year. it is the current position of the companies as well as management plans for the position in the companies.

the contribution of coil, oil and gas to the generation. the carbon intensities are relative to revenue. the management quality in financial leverage. the results shows at least half of those are companies by portfolio do not meet all of thresholdses which are reasonably lenient and they have vulnerabilities to the climate transition. the vulnerabilities rather than risk within this sector is climate change and policy response. i very much is the consideration rather than specifically for the sector. we have monitoring and reporting

which we can repeat. we have strict engagement. we will be participating in four collaborative engagements. we have a better understanding that will inform our proxy voting and more for engaging managers with material holdings in the sector. i will take questions on this or on the report. thank you. >> thank you for that briefing on the plan you hope to follow in the utility area. it is a plan. thank you. let's go back to basically the main recommendation. there is no motion on the floor yet. >> may i suggest a motion. >> i suggest the process for voting on this. they have three and i would say

from the cover sheet, for example, motion one, if it is moved and seconded, it is identified by the table of memorandum a. i would like to put the pages to each one so that somebody looks this up later then they can reference the pages. i would include the pages on each one of these. >> if that is an editing thing, that can be done, right? any more questions? >> i have one technical company about renewables. exon's name comes up all of the time. they are big company in energy. do you distinguish between company in this area who may be investing to try to develop renewables as well as still

working in the fossil fuels, oil, gas? do you look for that or see that? >> there is not a direct metric in our framework that focuses on renewables investments or revenue from renewables activity, but in theory if companies effectively transition their business model in a material way away from hydrocarbons to renewable sources of anything, their risk in the metrics we do measure would improve. it would indirectly show up in our metrics. >> staff has found renewable dedicated funds. that is good. the major players there is a large amount of market to invest in. some people are using the distribution to capture the

renewables. that is part of this whole thing which we will discuss for the next many years. no motions on the floor. in terms of the way staff has written the recommendation it can be one motion for three or for each or combination or independent board motion a member would like to make. >> i will make a motion to adopt the three staff recommendations along with the edits i suggested earlier. >> second. >> okay. got it. any more questions? we will call for public comment. >> mr. coker, on one end you came to be an environmentalist. on the other hand you are the biggest pusher of hedge funds.

please tell your hedge funds managers not to invest in fossil fuels, firearms or tobacco. thank you. >> thank you, president driscoll and commissioners. we started coming here april 2013 following the board of supervisor resolution and stopped when you hired the esg director to let you guys do work for a while and we are checking back in. we are happy with the quality of the work in general. that doesn't change the take home message. we note the fossil fuel investments are down to $242 million. we think this is the result of either managers kind of getting out of the status quo thinking and looking at actual numbers and/or just the fact as mr. pace

stated the energy sector has gone down 30% over the last five years while s&p is up 50%. it might be attrition that your investments have halved since we started talking about that. september 17th u c announced it would divest the endowment by the end of the month. that is two weeks. that has now been completed. so far as those things are officially reported. really to everyone from the outside accident many of whom are not in the meeting, some of you have have seen their faces plenty of times, it illustrates a real farce how in 2014 the idea that a five year divestment

period was too far discussed. we are now in 2019. we had uc divest a larger amount of money by the end of the mom i think as much as we appreciate the systematic approach, i guess the climate emergency belies the pace that we are seeing here and as we have seen from tobacco, there was concern that about tracking error and loss of funds. i will close by saying your staff report shows that the investment restrictions you made in coal and fossil fuels had aa negligent impact and gained a tiny amount of money. thank you. >> if there are no further questions. i am sorry. >> thank you, commissioner driscoll. i think i understood. i read in the report that within the fixed income sector of this

first portfolio, we are be low average in th the amount of mony we he are invested in fossil fuels compared to other organizations in the united states. at the same time we are doing better than average with the public equities. the private markets and hedge funds are a mystery. my general comment is i want to help you all celebrate the progress that we have made with the public equities, but whether it is public equity or fixed income, there has been on behalf of you and me and behalf of all of us, i think we have all been doing too little too late to help change did amount of pollution in the atmosphere. in the report that andrew wrote, he said at current rates due to

the amount of emissions there is going to be catastrophic impacts. hhe didn't spell out what those are. friends of my wife a ago were living in the town of paradise. november 8th this year they were run out of their house while this thing was burning down. as they tried to get out of town they watched people burn to death. these are not just numbers and words on a piece of paper. it is real misery, real pain. i know there is a lot of money involved and it is a lot of deliberations to make and headaches you have to figure out about the details and i appreciate your work with that and getting the pension check every month. i also appreciate that this

catastrophe that is coming according to the report is going to be so much worse than what most people realize. if you can help with that, i really appreciate it. thank you. >> i wanted to hear your response. it would be interesting to get on the record. the u.s. system moved quickly is that true for your knowledge. what do you think the challenges are in terms of what we are faced with? >> we outlined on page 13 other peers' responses to thinking about climate risk and considering fossil fuel divestment. based on our understanding in

september last month, uc will divest $13 billion endowment portfolio from fossil fuels. this was a joint statement. it signaled an intention that the $70 billion pension plan quote will soon follow. it didn't outline a timeline or specific material. that is the most current information that i have. >> just on your report on page 14, it looks like the new york city pension fund, which is $200 billion in assets has a three year plan to divest completely, is that correct? >> it was a stated goal of the new york city mayor to divest the new york city pension. they are currently in an r.f.p.

process for three of the five funds to determine the feasibility study if and how they could divest. >> so like our own cal serve has a plan but no actual date they are moving in that direction. >> to be clear there are five pensions plans in new york. each has a board. >> i was calking about c -- talking about cal. they were talking about three out of the five. i was talking about our own system. >> the state funds certainly have taken many steps to analyze and mitigate climate risk and invested in low carbon and renewable opportunities. there is no stated plans to consider divestment or evaluate divestment that i am currently

aware of. >> we will call the question on item 12. all in favor of the motion to adopt all three items on page 1 and 30 with the appropriate edits police say aye. opposed. standby. >> so through the chair i would like to make a motion on item number nine to have it voted on again to reconsider. >> i second. >> he is allowed to make the motion but it still needs a second. >> i second it. no discussion. i just want to vote. >> vote to reconsider it. then we can call it. does everyone understand to

bring back number nine on the table? >> at a future board meeting? >> i think motions to reconsider are not debatable. >> commissioner stansbury can participate. it was a 5-1 vote with commissioner chu voting against and the rest of the commission voting in favor of it. >> it is parliamentary issue. he can vote on the new motion. if there is a new motion. motion to reconsider item number 9. all iall in favor say aye. >> aye. >> i thought this was a motion to reconsider.

>> that was already passed. >> we are re-opening item 9 for discussion and a new motion or the same motion with a new vote. >> i would make the same motion to adopt staff's report and then it is going to a new vote on i make the motion. >> second? >> can i ask what is going on? i just walked in the room. i am sorry. can you explain what is happening. >> is there a second? >> i will make a second. >> is a vote to adopt staff recommendation including two parts on sudan. one part to bring back to the board a consideration to reverse the policy every stricting investments should there be additional changes in the

government we heard or goodwill we heard about changing changing in sudan. second included keeping the dye vestments as is without adding to it. if we continue to follow our policy we so have added seven additional companies to the restricted list. the staff recommendation is two-parts. one bring back consideration for removal of policy if there is initial information from the ground about what is happening there. then the second part is to keep the current restricted list as is and not additional seven we otherwise would with our existing policy. i voted to oppose the recommendation not for the first part to bring back the information but really because our policy hasn't changed yet. for us to suspend it isn't something i was comfortable so i opposed it for that reason.

>> i have a question on the policy with the companies. those companies are on a list or is there a vetting of everyone company. in the past we vetted all companies. they didn't all wind up on the list. >> we contacted and had correspondence with both of those companies, confirmed they do conduct business in sudan, which fits within the criteria that we restrict investment for business operations in the country. >> next would be to confirm with investment managers they are sable to confirm that without any issues with portfolios.

we have no additional research with those companies. >> the company by company was researched. we didn't divest of all of them. it is how broadly that is written. >> once data are screened through msci indicates a company has restricted business activity, we take proactive steps to reach out to confirm whether or not the information we have is accurate before we recommend them to be added to the list. we have gone through those steps with these companies in question. >> you confused me. you have information to put them on the list or you don't? >> we have information for those companies that they meet the criteria to be placed on the list. we are recommending not

expanding the list this year by adding those companies. >> i can see the contradictory position that confused some of us. >> to the chair that is why i asked for reconsideration. if it is our policy to not do business with those companies that would likely meet our criteria for divestment i don't understand staff's recommendation to proceed with not adding those companies to the list until we have changed our policy. >> likely? >> that is what it says. companies that likely. they contacted the companies to better understand the business activities. like you said. i don't know if they have done an analysis to determine if all seven would meet the list or not. >> maybe there is a better way forward on the second part of the recommendation. >> part of the report was we somewhere confirmed the two companies we own are not

supporting the genocide but they are supporting life in sudan. they are electric company. >> that is the basis of not expanding the list if everything rolls out the way everyone anticipates that it could there would be reason to bring it back to say we should no longer have this restriction period. we are not there yet. it is an interim measure saying we don't want to expand the list, we will come back to you if we want to remove the restriction. >> correct. our investment restriction for a business activity in sudan is very narrow or restrictive in scope. other plans have loser criteria with which they allow companies to do business in sudan.

we have a set of criteria that is very restrictive. those companies do meet that criteria for divestment. as compared to other plans, many plans restrictions are spreads indicated on the fact the u.s. government has sanctions on the government of sudan. those sanctions have largely been lifted by the u.s. government. we are be beginning to see a few plans remove the investment restriction for sudan. it is evolving with our criteria with what others are doing as they monitor it. again, the state law that requires cal pers to divest according to the government code

has been repealed by its own provisions. the provisions state it is repealed once the factions are lifted. they have yet to take action to remove the restrictions. however, it is certainly an evolving situation with several parts in term of the actual on the ground situation with the government in sudan as well as the criteria with which we identify companies with restricted business activities. >> you have a question? >> yes. why did you only analyze two of the seven? did you analyze more? >> we directly had contact with those two companies. the other companies we asked for clarification of their business activities we did not get a response from.

it included the response from snider here. the rest of the companies did not respond to us. >> wouldn't it make more sense if you have the recommendation be restricted to those two and the other five to maybe potentially have them added to the list rather than proceeding with not adding anyone to the list? >> iif that is the board's pleasure, certainly be we would 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