we've actually tailored the change that we are proposing what is being proposed to mimic the calpers language. meeting that, we will not consider the services of a judge. however, we will consider any compensation when we get to catholic benefits. the cost report presented basically says you identified for prior city employees were currently sitting judges will not retired it would be impacted by this and as you see the actuary that the impact, the cost impact of this change would be minor. they've also look back for the last 10 years to try to figure out how often are city employees are selected to be judges and they've identified 13 judges who over the last 10 years, have left city implement and become judges. they have retired from their event retirement system. they would not be impacted. but, i would say the impact is twofold. minor on the retirement side as far as cost is concerned. the significant on the jr si judges retirement system side, because we discover we can tell them that we do recognize the payee which we believe will open them up to the classic members and remain a

like go ahead. >> so in the insurance industry and the 10 county with the 10 county average within calpers the data is in your packet a retiree only is one a retiree plus 2 is two and retiree plus 2 or more is 3 so the ratio 2 to 203 for example, the only premium was one thousand dollars plus one independent is 3 thousand and the retiree plus or more is $3,000 each person costs one thousand dollars so a matter of long term practice h ss applies those ratios of relative it's and at some point the standards were changed to apply them only to active all of the city plan members and 64 plus members so they were specifically changed for the early retirees and kaiser and blue shield and they were changed rather than 1, 2, 3 therapy changed for blue shield is one to 1.4.4 to one .81 and kaiser is one to 1.4 to one point and there is others close to 2 and this is close to 3 that is highlighted on the chart on the next chart on the next page. >> if you look at the bottom and look at it city plan it is 1 to one .96 or round up to 3 and one to one .9 to 2.84 and rounded up and 65 plus is there it is

we've actually tailored the change that we are proposing what is being proposed to mimic the calpers language. meeting that, we will not consider the services of a judge. however, we will consider any compensation when we get to catholic benefits. the cost report presented basically says you identified for prior city employees were currently sitting judges will not retired it would be impacted by this and as you see the actuary that the impact, the cost impact of this change would be minor. they've also look back for the last 10 years to try to figure out how often are city employees are selected to be judges and they've identified 13 judges who over the last 10 years, have left city implement and become judges. they have retired from their event retirement system. they would not be impacted. but, i would say the impact is twofold. minor on the retirement side as far as cost is concerned. the significant on the jr si judges retirement system side, because we discover we can tell them that we do recognize the payee which we believe will open them up to the classic members and remain a

don't people from staff and with an from san francisco and two peep the businesslike samoan from calpersnd spurs that is honestly the the president intent of that board if people want to read every word to find wiggle room let them do that it is promise to that what this bystander decided on i managed all you have been our guys input i never revealed any position it was 3 days before we voted i gave everyone the opportunity to be forth right and that's the spirit and now i'll defend it the fact i lost confidence in it should be what we should be talking about. >> explain how to panel of 5 people has cause you to lose confidence. >> very simple the may that of panel is not inconsistent with the direction of this staff not even 5 people started with 4 and mathematicly a different evaluation. >> who's the fifth person. >> under fran he will will be here on monday his full-time job to be reviewing the rfps the rest of the panel is donating their time to review the rfp. >> so to the issue of having this slow down your volunteering your time. >> a what is unprecedented the retirement board int

don't people from staff and with an from san francisco and two peep the businesslike samoan from calpersnd spurs that is honestly the the president intent of that board if people want to read every word to find wiggle room let them do that it is promise to that what this bystander decided on i managed all you have been our guys input i never revealed any position it was 3 days before we voted i gave everyone the opportunity to be forth right and that's the spirit and now i'll defend it the fact i lost confidence in it should be what we should be talking about. >> explain how to panel of 5 people has cause you to lose confidence. >> very simple the may that of panel is not inconsistent with the direction of this staff not even 5 people started with 4 and mathematicly a different evaluation. >> who's the fifth person. >> under fran he will will be here on monday his full-time job to be reviewing the rfps the rest of the panel is donating their time to review the rfp. >> so to the issue of having this slow down your volunteering your time. >> a what is unprecedented the retirement board int

don't people from staff and with an from san francisco and two peep the businesslike samoan from calpersnd spurs that is honestly the the president intent of that board if people want to read every word to find wiggle room let them do that it is promise to that what this bystander decided on i managed all you have been our guys input i never revealed any position it was 3 days before we voted i gave everyone the opportunity to be forth right and that's the spirit and now i'll defend it the fact i lost confidence in it should be what we should be talking about. >> explain how to panel of 5 people has cause you to lose confidence. >> very simple the may that of panel is not inconsistent with the direction of this staff not even 5 people started with 4 and mathematicly a different evaluation. >> who's the fifth person. >> under fran he will will be here on monday his full-time job to be reviewing the rfps the rest of the panel is donating their time to review the rfp. >> so to the issue of having this slow down your volunteering your time. >> a what is unprecedented the retirement board int