Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Talbot County schools move to consolidate multiple retirement vendors; RFP review underway
Summary
Talbot County Public Schools staff told the board they are working with Bolton Partners to consolidate seven retirement vendors into a smaller set to reduce fees, simplify enrollment and improve customer service; finalists will be interviewed in August and the board will be asked to approve a selection in late summer or early fall.
Sarah Jones, Talbot County Public Schools staff, told the board the district engaged Bolton Partners this spring to review and streamline the retirement plans offered to employees.
Jones said the district currently offers multiple voluntary deferred-compensation options (similar to private-sector 401(k)-style plans) in addition to the Maryland State Retirement System but that the district’s staff face seven different providers offering a wide array of fund choices. Jones said the multiplicity of vendors and proprietary funds makes the selection process overwhelming for employees and can conceal fees.
The district released a request for proposals in mid-June. Jones said responses were received and Bolton Partners has produced an initial review. A selection team — including two human-resources representatives, Jones, payroll specialist Sharon Giljam, union representative Andy Burke and board member Deborah Bridges — will review Bolton’s analysis by the end of July. Finalists are scheduled for interviews in August, with the district planning to bring a recommended provider to the board for approval in August or September.
Jones said the district hopes to “go live” with the consolidated plan in October. Employees would have time to decide whether to roll balances into the new plan or to leave existing accounts with old providers; Jones said the new provider would be required by the RFP to reimburse any participant rollover fees charged by current vendors so employees would not bear that cost.
Jones outlined expected benefits: simplified choices for employees, improved transparency of fees, potentially lower investment and administrative fees because a single provider would manage a larger consolidated block of assets, and better customer service than some smaller or inconsistent current vendors.
Jones said some employees currently receive good customer service from certain vendors, while other providers are “spotty.” The selection process will include vendor demonstrations and interviews before the recommendation is presented to the board.
The board did not take formal action at the meeting; Jones said staff will return with a recommendation for board approval once finalists are selected and checked.
