>> so moved. >> president stansbury: there's a motion. a second? >> second. >> president stansbury: there's a second by commissioner bridges. can we take that without objection. thank you. item passes. why don't we go on to item number 4. are there -- i do have one speaker card for mr. anderson. i thought this would be a chance for anyone to address the commission, now is the time to do so. mr. anderson, would you like to come up first? >> hello, hi, how is everybody doing today? my name is devon anderson and i'm an employee for sfmca. i sent -- originally sent an email to mr. stansbury on july 13th as well as some of the board members as well. it's in reference to the contributions for employees that are military service members. i'm currently one year in the military and i have been employed with the city working for sfmta since august 17, 2015. since that time period i have taken 132 days of leave. and with the military rank and structure i'm an e8 or first sergeant and i am the top man in my unit, which requires me to be gone for an extended pe

. >> president stansbury: roll call, please. >> clerk: president? wouldn't that be an excuse rather than an absence because she's on the -- >> we knew that she would be gone and we'd normally mark it as fine but we knew that she would be gone. >> clerk: (indiscernible). >> present. >> clerk: (indiscernible). >> present. >> president stansbury: thank you so much. and we'll start off, we have to call our first item, item number 3 and start off with public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission with regards to going into closed session. we'll close public comment okay, great. should we call the meeting back to order? we are coming out of closed session. is there a motion not to disclose? >> so moved. >> president stansbury: there's a motion. a second? >> second. >> president stansbury: there's a second by commissioner bridges. can we take that without objection. thank you. item passes. why don't we go on to item number 4. are there -- i do have one speaker card for mr. anderson. i thought this would be a

. >> president stansbury: great. we're going to be going into closed session, but before we do that, we'll be going into public comment before closed session. but seeing no >> president stansbury: why don't we call the meeting back to order. we are just coming out of closed session, and my apologies to the public for making you guys wait so long. it was a very long day. is there a motion not to disclose? [inaudible] >> president stansbury: there's a motion. is there a second? i will second it. >> for which issue? >> president stansbury: a motion not to disclose what was coming out of closed session. there's a motion and a second. seeing no -- what's that, robert? [inaudible] >> president stansbury: i'm sorry. oh, just take the vote. okay. can we take this item without objection, then? >> yes. >> president stansbury: great. item passes. now we're going back into -- why don't we start with the pledge of allegiance. everyone here, if you'd please rise and join us for the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> p

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 th

. >> president stansbury: very good, commissioners. as the team makes it up here, a manager that we've had for more than a decade and we're recommending termination and ask kirk and alice to make a couple brief comments and dan is available as well. what was the reason for being handed another copy? >> there was a typo, my typo. in there we node that mod rirch on is under review list, incorrectly since the third quarter of 2006. the manager under review list is the quarter of 2016. that's reflected in your corrected copy. good afternoon, commissioners, and in support of the termination of our investment management agreement. and they currently manage $220 million in their focused emerging markets equity strate strategy. and meeting a brief momento that has the -- memo that has rationale, i will turn it back to any comments that you may have. >> thank you for putting so many numbers on the page to include cardigan. we know that it's sometimes difficult for us to put a ma manager when we're terminating them. sometimes people like to see

>> second. >> president stansbury: motion, and a second. why don't we open it up for public comment? any members that would like to address the commission regarding this item? seeing none we will close public comment. can we take this item without objection? yes? okay. item passes. thank you very much. commissioner casciato, there is the -- what is your timing looking like? >> i'd like to go before the garage closes. the gate closes. >> president stansbury: i think that we have really just a couple items, we have a chief investment report. >> at 10 to i'm walking out of the door. >> president stansbury: okay. >> clerk: discussion item, chief investment officer report. >> okay, here we go. front page, you will see that we returned 1.02% for the month and equities up a couple percent, in particular our global equity manager aerostreet does really well. and the private market strategies were all slightly in the green. i did want to turn to page 2 and highlight one thing. and that is that we have added a column off on the far right side and tha

i don't know if they're members of calster. >> president stansbury: i'm trying to figure how many of our members? >> very, very few because they had to make the choice and most of them i believe elected to go to cals telephonters at the tim. we had a few -- most of them long careers, at the time they had to make the election they wanted to stay with the stfers. >> the other piece they would add to that to to show what san francisco has done significantly is back here on page 2. in the contribution graph, we have that light blue line that shows normal interest on the u.a.l. and you have to contribute that much to pay for the benefits that are being earned and the interest on the unfunded so it's not expected to grow. there were a lot of plans that got into trouble because they were persistently contributing less than that, year after year after year. you can go below it on a temporary basis to try and get time to adjust your contributions but if you're persistently below that, it's likely that unfunded is going to grow and become a larger and larger burden. and to a certain extent tha

report. >> president stansbury: are w we (indiscernible) the funding?> yes, they are calling capital as they see opportunity. >> president stansbury: and questions from the board? >> not really questions but, one, the cash flow that we talked about is a big issue and it will be a subject for the investment committee to talk about because it's a large task that he and his team has to manage. and in the immediate term though is the fact that it's not simply that private debt which would take several years to get to that allocation target but now we're overwreat and that's a tactical decision. and we're underway real assets and we're at 4%. and so we look at a public equity as a private equivalent and i look at those three groups together. >> it's a long bull market. tactically the decision is that you park the money at your decision which we are supporting. (please stand by). >> clerk: item 11 -- >> let's call items 11 and 12 together. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will make this quick in the interest of time. item 12 before you is a monthly activit

. >> president stansbury: so our calpers members, workforce, what do we see for them in terms of anxiety levels? >> the only calpers members that are city employees at this point in time are deputy sheriffs and institutional police officers hired before 2012, or 2010 -- 2012. because the city and the pension reform basically brought all new hires from the -- in the sheriff's department as well as in the institutional police officers and to miscellaneous safety plan that we administer. i -- we don't deal with those folks because when it comes time to retire they have to go to calpers. i will say that calpers has discovered that we're not -- the city is not adding any new deputy sheriffs into that plan so the city is dealing with the concept of now that is a closed pool plan. and the calpers is requiring a much higher contribution rate related to those folks because the active payroll, sort as bill was indicating, there's no growth in the active payroll, other than the pay increases. and there's no new employees who have a 20-year career ahead of them to be making contributions to help fun

. >> president stansbury: any other members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none we close public comment. anything else before the next item? thank you both. sorry, you got pushed to this month. >> it's quite all right. >> president stansbury: thank you for the time. next item. >> clerk: july analysis of the protection strategies which was continued from the july 10, 2018, retirement board meeting. >> we'll walk through the nepc analysis and then i'll have some comments on staff analysis. >> mr. president, commissioners, this analysis is an update and extension to the protection material reviewed several months ago. we analyzed historically what put the protection at a 20% level would have meant for this plan and we looked prospectively at what the costs of protecting against a 20% or more decline or a 10% or more decline in the equity portfolio would have resulted in. the top line conclusion is that protection is expensive. and protecting against extreme events is cheaper than protecting against every downside event but it's still quite expensive. if

. >> president stansbury: roll call, please. >> clerk: president?n't that be an excuse rather than an absence because she's on the -- >> we knew that she would be gone and we'd normally mark it as fine but we knew that she would be go