Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Investment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts updated investment policy statement language and schedules follow-ups
Summary
After a line‑by‑line review and member suggestions, the committee approved edits to the Investment Policy Statement to modernize terminology, adopt consistent 'option' language, and schedule annual reviews; members flagged but deferred a separate change about the committee's nominal 'advisory' role.
The Defined Contribution Plans Committee reviewed a redlined update to the Investment Policy Statement (IPS) on June 17 and voted to adopt the IPS with the meeting’s edits. Staff and the consultant said changes mostly future‑proofed the document (removing dated target years, replacing the word “fund” with “option,” and clarifying tier definitions) and recommended the committee revisit the IPS annually.
Members proposed targeted edits for consistency (use “cap” instead of mixed “size” terminology, hyphenation of “industry‑standard,” and insertion of the word “provider” in one table). The committee agreed to those editorial changes and to a set of substantive clarifications: replace generic references to “the city” with “plan administrator or designee” in the investment consultant section, and change several references from “investment managers” to “investment options” to reflect broader vehicle types such as collective investment trusts.
A separate exchange focused on the recurring question of whether the IPS wording that refers to the committee as “advisory” correctly reflects the committee’s practical role. Member Murray replayed audio from a March 2023 meeting in an attempt to show inconsistent past language about committee authority; the city attorney reiterated that the city attorney’s office has long held the position that this is an advisory body and advised the committee any change to bylaws or authority language should be agendized separately for legal clarity. Chair Zelasky and staff agreed to put a standalone item on a future agenda for members to debate and, if desired, redline IPS language on that point.
The committee approved the IPS edits discussed at the meeting by voice vote and recorded that staff will return with finalized clean and redline versions reflecting the agreed edits. The committee also voted to extend the meeting by one hour earlier in the discussion to allow sufficient time for the IPS conversation.
Next steps: staff and the consultant will consolidate the editorial and substantive edits discussed, circulate a final redline and clean copy for the record and execution, and include a future agendized discussion on committee authority wording if members wish to pursue removal or rewording of the term “advisory.”
