that you would have somebody that has a personal conflict of information on the pension board, who's questioning we're having a trial. ed lee was informing about this conflict of interest before he reappointed here and he continued to reappoint her. that tell ls me this mayor is not concerned about the retirees and active workers in san francisco. he's more concerned about getting his friends or cronies in positions where he can give money from the pension funds. that has to stop. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> i think there needs to be an alternative and i think it's important that the board access it. we have a good retirement system. we're one of the best in the country and i want to keep it that way. i don't think investing in hedge funds in the direction or since we got this new chief investment officer is going and i think it's important to ask the candidate about these questions. thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> i'm also a retiree with the first program system and i just wanted to comment. a few people had said we should be giving her the benefit of the doubt.

we have to ask why has mayor ed lee appointed a speculator to the pension board in san francisco. city workers should ask that question. why is the mayor appointing a speculator of hedge funds who sells hedge funds to the pension board to the city and county of san francisco. especially when a state agency said they're no longer going to invest in hedge funds. so why are we going in the office of direction which is a largest [inaudible] as a matter of fact in after after, the directors refuse to get in touch with them and ask them why they made that decision so i think the board as a whole needs to take this decision and needs to reject -- first of all, accept having a full board meeting and reject her appointment. thank you. >> and again, i want to reminds everyone that the public comment we're taking right now on item 63 is board of supervisors should meet such as the ones provided previously must be reserved for items 46 and 47. at this time we're only taking public comment on whether the board should convene as a committee as a whole. >> i hope you do and i hope it's a thor re

i want to thank you for your unanimous vote to ask the pension board to invest in

i want to thank you for your unanimous vote to ask the pension board to invest in the fossil fuels. that was such a different time. during the nearly two years since that spring 2012 vote the retirement board has done

i want to thank you for your unanimous vote to ask the pension board to invest in the fossil fuels. that was such a different time. during the nearly two years since that spring 2012 vote the retirement board has done little but waffle and mumble about how risky it might be. i've been to those meetings, i speak from experience. the world has moved forward around them and the reason to divest in momentum to do them have grown spectacularly. the reasons that i think motivate it had board of supervisors to vote was the reality of climate change and the scientific news keeps getting more terrible in the 20 months since you vote. we're now in a race to save the world from the worst case scenario frs climate

investors she represents continue to be able to be leverage the amounts of money invested by the pension board for her own an her clients' benefit. i'm not able to do that, she is able to do that. now, whether or not this is technically a violation, to me does not matter. i believe that the board these to be held to a very high standard, including the standard of the appearance of a conflict. as a federal employee we were all admonished that we have a look at the appearance of the conflict as well as the conflict, that otherwise we would not be able to generate any kind of trust from the public and i believe city workers, whether in the charter or not, needs to be able to be held to that standard as well, especially with the amount of money on the table. my second point is with respect to wendy paskin-jordan is in terms of the excellent definition we were given of a fiduciary is to put the interest of the trustees board as above their own interests and that's why everyone here is talking about the risk of fossil fuel investment that you voted on and was ignored by miss paskin-jordan as the cha

i read an article which the retirement board failed for a recent loss of $61.3 million on the san francisco pension fund on one of it's transaction involving a hedge fund. in the last board meetings that i have attended and the one meeting with jay hillish acting in retirement funds and hedge funds, not once was the $61.3 million loss was discussed. i ask why. in response to aciu's concerns and suggestions which was 140 pages again there's no mention of the san francisco pension fund losing $1.3 million. thereby substantiating the concerns regarding hedge fund investments. these verify to me the grand jury report of 2012 report regarding the lack of transparency on the part of the sf retirement board staff and it's board in it's manner of doing business is correct and as to the board whether it's fully made aware of what's going on with the transparency information given on a regular basis. these types of information with investment lose of millions of dollars on the hedge funds also goes to the charter which stipulates that the board will discharge it's duty with skill, care and due diligence. you

pension benefits. that's what's going to on and this board is pushing that. so-called reform pushed by billionaires and i say we, the public employees are fed up. we are fed up with taking pay cuts to pay for the billionaires and pay for the hedge fund speculators. as has been said by the people here, the hedge fund people are interested in profits, they are interested in driving speculative profits, they are not concerned about the city employees and the poor workers of san francisco. we need our money and research to go to public housing for working people. instead we are getting privatization. instead we are getting an attack on public workers that can't afford to live here. service workers have to spend 2-3 hours driving to san francisco. why is that? >> do we only have space for millionaires in san francisco, only have space for developers in san francisco. this board, driscoll who is a union member, says to hedge funds . it's not okay. i say it's staff management who says it's okay to invest in hedge fund. [ applause ] >> good afternoon board members. i

pension. in fact i was going to go to the rent board and go to them to the retirees today because i don't think they completed it correctly and now you want to take it away. the hedge fund is a disaster. it's one of the worst things that can happen to retirees. we need our money. i got mine by working for it. nobody handed it to me. i was a school secretary and you get abused from parents, you get abused from teachers and abused from principals and once in a while it evens itself out. don't touch my pension. you have to right to take a way what i earned, what i worked for. and i think a lot of people sitting in here will understand this. don't take it away. it's not coming out of your pocket. it's coming out of mine. [ applause ] >> thank you. david, welcome. >> hi, everyone. my name is david page. i'm currently working with dph and due to retire next month. i would like to speak in favor of stainable socially responsible benefit. as you know the market has been hitting record high lately and it's a good deal to plan dropable equities, however i'm against using hedge funds to do this. i'm sure

themselves on the pension and reacted to the information in our reccfs newsletter in views and i included a page that had letters come back and only one individual indicated that the board should do what it thinks is prudent and that's more of a support for hedge funds and probably only 1 person in our membership. i wanted you to look at your mixes here. obviously the constituency i represent prefers the mix too. i see the 7.6 rate of return, but i don't think you are including your overhead, you are not including the fees that you are going to pay, you are not including all the staff salaries, you are not including all of those cost and they are part of the valuation and the money coming out of these funds to go forward with those investments. if you add all of that together with whatever you are proposing to invest with the higher asset allocation, that you would find those anticipated asset class returns will be lower. i only taught elementary math so what can i tell you, but based on those figures that's what i see. in the county we had to include overhead and figure those in to the aspect of the cost of running the department. that is not included in this. i would

the pension fight going on today s if you cut the pensions retirees in multi-employer plans precedent dangerous saying they should be cut across the boardwe have to protect the most i agree with you on that. this morning's "wall street journal" editorial washington's opinions nonbailout pbgc is in trouble ith a projected long-term deficit of $42.4 billion. pbgc puts its odds of going which could at 90% mean slashing pension payments $1,500. than more than 1 million americans could be hurt. let's put it this way. the pension benefit guaranty -- we are not not going to let that agency go broke. be a backstop o pensions and that is a valuable program. and it is at the heart of the in this country and we won't let it go bankrupt. but keep in mind the numbers of pbgc take into account two be bankrupt.t can the eastern states teachers fund and united my opinion workers plan. in is a separate solution to sure the united mine workers plan is in good shape. if you address those two that big deficit is not going to be there any more. will come down substantially there are ways of pbgc deficitoth the and issues of underfunding in multi-employer pl

board member. on the activism front, a deal this morning, toma bravo along with more canadians, ontario teachers pensionge private equity wing, if you will, buying river bed for 21 bucks a share in cash. river bed, you may remember, was elliott came after them, actually offered to buy the company for 18 bucks a share. the deal gets done, private transaction. had 21 for river bed, which as you might imagine is up, rather sharply. and elliott says, largest shareholder, we're happy with the outcome, i'm paraphrasing here, we think we've gotten immediate premium value, a quote from jesse cone, who runs a lot of the activist practice when it comes to technology. >> a good deal, wide area networking, competitive. used to be a good high flyer. it kind of crashed and burned but kept their clients. go to the website. another good deal for everyone. it's like, wow, it would have -- wouldn't shock me if people said no buyers. >> interesting morning, two deals, private equity transactions, obviously petsmart the largest. >> but river bed, up 9%, 20.45. do we want to talk about arcp, jim? we should mention it. >> yo