Public raises transparency and audit concerns over proposed Golden Gate Transit-Amalgamated retirement plan merger with CalPERS

5834492 · September 17, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A caller said his public‑records request about Golden Gate Transit Amalgamated Retirement Plan (GGTARP) was denied and urged CalPERS to conduct a forensic audit before any merger; the Risk & Audit Committee chair asked staff to respond to the requestor directly.

John Holden, a participant who said he is a member of the Golden Gate Transit Amalgamated Retirement Plan, addressed the board during public comment and said a Freedom of Information Act request for materials about a possible CalPERS merger was denied by a CalPERS staff member. He expressed concerns about the plan’s audit and funding and called for a forensic review before CalPERS considers any merger.

Holden said he requested records related to a review of the GGTARP plan and that his public‑records request, which he said was made July 2 and assigned tracking number 9072, was denied by Brad Pacheco, an ex‑deputy executive officer in communications. "I find that the comments of transparency and risk management, when I cannot even get one paper from CalPERS seeing what they are putting forward," Holden said, urging CalPERS to perform a deep forensic audit if the plan’s numbers are questionable.

Board oversight response: Malia Cohen, chair of the Risk & Audit Committee, noted public comment on agenda item 4C and asked that the director or CEO respond to John Holden directly with regard to his public‑records request. The committee’s public record of the meeting shows staff acknowledged the request and the committee recorded Holden’s PRA number for follow‑up.

Why it matters: a plan merger would transfer liabilities and obligations to CalPERS; transparency around actuarial assumptions, funding status and legal responsibilities is central to the board’s due‑diligence obligations. Holden warned of potential conflicts of interest and legal liabilities tied to plan governance and asked CalPERS to withhold any decision until a thorough review is completed.