Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pension Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council interviews three nominees for Board of Investment Trustees on fiduciary duty, ESG and employer outreach

Montgomery County Council · June 24, 2025
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

The council questioned nominees Adam Downs, Beryl Feinberg and Paul Madden about fiduciary duties for pension and retiree health trusts, incorporating ESG/DEI factors, conflicts of interest and engagement with employee groups; all three denied conflicts and said they could meet quarterly board commitments.

Montgomery County councilmembers interviewed three nominees for the Board of Investment Trustees and the Consolidated Retiree Health Benefits Trust on June 24.

Adam Downs, Beryl Feinberg and Paul Madden each described long careers in benefits management, public finance, or pension-law counsel and answered questions about asset allocation, oversight of defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans, and the role of fiduciary duty. Downs emphasized his decades advising labor-union plans; Feinberg stressed public-budget experience including service on Rockville’s retirement board; Madden described long experience as legal counsel to public pension plans.

Council members pressed candidates on their approach to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, asking how to balance societal goals with fiduciary obligations to plan participants. Feinberg described reviewing the county’s Standards of Professional Conduct, noting the value of long-term ESG investments alongside portfolio performance. Madden said ESG integration requires care to ensure actions are consistent with exclusive-benefit duties, while Downs argued ESG considerations are essential if pursued prudently.

All three said they had no conflicts of interest with current employment or clients that would impair service on the county boards. Each confirmed they could meet the board’s quarterly meeting schedule and do the necessary work outside meetings.

Council did not take a confirmation vote during the interviews; members thanked nominees and said they would follow up later this week.