Public commenters urge San Francisco retirement board to reassess private‑equity ties to RealPage and surveillance vendor Flock
Loading...
Summary
Two public commenters told the San Francisco Retirement Board that pension investments connected to algorithmic rental‑pricing firm RealPage and to surveillance company Flock pose legal, ethical and financial risks; a retiree also described an insecure Voya check delivery and asked staff to investigate.
Ryan Lightner, a senior researcher with Bridal Equity Stakeholder Project, told the San Francisco Retirement Board that the system’s private‑equity exposure to a firm tied to RealPage could harm pension returns and residents. "We are urging SFERS to not make investments that have detrimental impacts on pensioners and the state of California at large," Lightner said while citing litigation and local bans he said affect RealPage’s business prospects.
Reem Soleiman, senior campaign director at Fight for the Future, urged board members to investigate financial ties that could support Flock, a surveillance‑technology company that she said has been criticized for aiding immigration enforcement and lacking cybersecurity safeguards. "I would urge you to look into this matter and drop all investments and ties to this dangerously unethical surveillance company moving forward," she said.
Rowan Lane, a recent City and County of San Francisco retiree, told the board he received a large retirement check from Voya on his doorstep and said he had been told by Voya transfers could not be made electronically. He described finding an unsecured envelope containing a check and asked the board to examine Voya’s transfer and mailing practices so other participants are not put at risk.
Board members did not take formal action in response to the public comments during the meeting. Staff noted existing litigation and legislative developments when commenters raised them but did not announce any immediate policy changes. Commissioners thanked commenters and directed staff follow‑up where appropriate; in at least one instance staff encouraged individuals to pursue case‑specific support through participant services.
The comments came during the meeting’s public‑comment period. The board did not debate or vote on item‑specific investment policy changes during this session; votes on separate agenda items proceeded as scheduled.
