Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses civil grand jury recommendations on retirement board composition and seeks alternatives
Summary
The GAO Committee reviewed the civil grand jury’s recommendations about the San Francisco Retirement System; supervisors debated a recommendation to add non‑member public board members and advanced alternate proposals while labor speakers requested audits of deferred compensation plans.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee considered the civil grand jury’s report on the San Francisco Retirement System on Jan. 17.
Ormond Lowry and other grand jury representatives described concerns about public understanding and oversight of the retirement system, including discussion of headline metrics for funded status. Lowry noted differing funded‑ratio estimates in the record ("85% or 77% depending on which report you read") and emphasized public concern about the long‑term unfunded pension liability.
Recommendation R2.2 in the grand jury report suggested placing three additional public members who are not retirement system participants on the retirement board. Supervisor Aaron Peskin told the committee he had introduced a separate charter amendment (to be considered later in committee) that would alter retirement board composition in an alternative manner; he proposed the committee report that the grand jury recommendation not be implemented as written while the Board explores other options.
Public comment included a request from Ellen Li Zhao, representing SEIU and stating she had material on retirement and deferred compensation issues, asking for Board intervention and an audit of a 457(b) deferred compensation plan she said was never audited and is misleading to members. The committee voted to forward its response and related motion to the full Board with a positive recommendation.
What’s next: the Rules Committee was noted as receiving a charter amendment that would address board composition in a different form; the GAO committee forwarded its response to the full Board for consideration.
