He's all open. No, I'm good right now, but I appreciate that I know state that you're
present. That you're present. Trustee pig here, Trustee battle,
he has to be excused.
Trustee Moran, present. Trustee genetic morning, having present trustee James.
She was president,
Trustee Malik, Trustee McGinnis, Trustee Nagler, Trustee worthy, Trustee Patel, Trustee beats. Trustees busy. Present trustee Thomas, Trustee trojack. Present trustee young executive director, David solinski, present Assistant Executive Director, Kelly tamper, present, Investment Officer Lorenzo, present, General Counsel, Ron King,
I'm here for Ron King. Ed Hammond,
morning, Bruce Babi ours present. Oscar King, if not miss, down 902.
All right. Thank you very much. Good morning. I get a motion to approve the agenda for today. Motion. Leo, second, Matt, any questions on the agenda? Seeing none. Anyone abstained or opposed, carried unanimously. Retirement applications, I need a motion to approve motion. Greg, second, second, man, the only question I have is, What the heck is the Timothy McCue McCabe,
yep, already checked on it. It's correct. He just, he just had months of you those days and everything
on before, and you guys asked that when we, when you asked us to investigate them and stuff like that, to double check them or back on again,
okay, and then horse Geary, yeah, again. Why? Why?
Why again? Service, but I don't know why the systems.
I got an email out. It's computed as a service. I already checked that it's a descriptor. That descriptor, it says vested or service. I got a question out to tell plan white picked up festive for that one instead of
I thought he was a drop. I thought he must not have been,
because he was this, he's got
10 and then
he dropped 10 years
Jack, I don't but
I thought he was dropped that 26 years in legacy. He's got 26 years in legacy and 10 years in the new plan. So he could have dropped, he could have dropped his 25th year. I don't ever see it. Well, that's faster they're checking out. That's
just a descriptor drug. I checked it was done. I got email out already with until the plan, but that that's just a descriptor. It's calculated as a service. I don't know why it had the descriptor up there is vested. I'm gonna find out. Yeah, but,
but again, the one year from 120 22 and maybe I need to sit down and look at this, because he went from 86 865, to 86 694, he went down. He went down. And I know this guy, he's a he's a 40 hour employee.
But again, it could be just the difference between not every year is paid at 26 pays some years are paid at 25 pays. Some years are paid at 27 pays. So if it's just that minor difference, it could be the pays that were for the year. It could be if he had any unpaid time, any leave time that was unpaid. That was like the instance for the other gentleman we were talking about, McCabe, when we looked at it, he didn't have the time for a month and so, but even in the
middle of the month or the year, we got a raise, we got a 3% raise that I'll have to see his time, because I don't know. I mean, every year we got a raise for the last, what, three years. So I can't see why it would go down.
Which year you talking about time? It's the Year of
looking at what 2022
Okay, all right, I'll take a look, because it's actual pays. So it should pick up his actual pays. But when we take the break in between the two meetings today, all right, back and take a look at 22 And
it just seems like it's every one, every one for it seems like the middle year it shows up that way.
Well, then would have nor if it then, if it's usually that, then it's probably 2022 so it must. It might be something like Kelly was saying with the pays in there. You know, if it's 25 or 26 let me, I'll go back and take a look at 22
All right, any other questions on retirements? Seeing none anyone abstained or opposed, carried unanimously. I need to acknowledge the receipts.
Okay, Mr. Chair, yeah, I just want the board to recognize that the city did make the full quarterly contribution for the legacy plan that 21,000,008 50. So it's something I know that we had talked a lot about that it would make sense to do. It would help the plan by getting money in before the last day of the year. And treasurer, Patel, sitting to my right, had a lot to do with so I just I wanted the board to see that that first quarterly payment that come in. Okay, thank you so
much for what, yeah, what is the transfer from Lincoln reserve to what is that one fib direct?
That's our payroll. Okay,
perfect.
All right, any other questions on receipts? All right, thank you. I need a motion to approve the disbursements. Motion, motion. Ron second Leo acknowledging the IC expenses, any questions on the disbursements? All right, seeing none. Anyone abstained or opposed. Very unanimously. I need a motion to approve the annuity distribution motion. Mike, second, Matt, any questions on
the annuities?
Seeing none. Anyone abstained or opposed. Carried unanimously. I I want to buy an employee loan motion. Ron, second, second. Matt, any questions? All right, seeing none. Any abstained or opposed. Carried unanimously. Minutes for distribution are September 19.
Ron hasn't had a chance to look at those yet, so he does still need to review them.
Okay? And then we have Hold on. Let me scroll up a little bit more here the minutes for approval of September 5.
Make sure you asked us to amend them across. Okay? I
get a motion to approve the minutes of September, 5, George second, Ron and I'm scrolling up refunds. The Okay,
10 thing or page 53, of
Okay, good. Thank you, yeah. Kelly had called you put in the minutes there last five year returns, which is 9.4 8.7 2.0 25, point one and 1.6
Excellent. And that was as you requested a meeting. That was not in addition, you requested the meeting, right, correct? In our first draft, correct?
Great. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions on the minutes, any seen on, anyone abstained or opposed, I'm going to abstain. Copy that. One abstention, yes, okay, two abstentions. All right. Motion carries. All right. We are now on to We are now on our assistant executive director's report. Good
morning, everyone. I only have two for you today. Cortez Williams, I'm sorry, disability exams and re exams. Cortez Williams, police officer was a first exam doctor saw and recommended re exam in one year. Another one I just put on the radar is a Steve Ellison is a return to work request, and we are waiting on a functional exam to come back, so probably pop up in the November 1
meeting Steve Ellison is that a police officer?
Police officer. I
don't know I I know that someone called me about returning to work, and I wasn't sure who it was. They were calling for a friend of a friend's officer. Lisa, okay,
yeah, first original injury.
All right, great, we're gonna go. Thanks. Any questions for our Assistant Executive Director? Her All right, I know that she will be out of town next week.
I still available by phone, though and text
message. So expect a phone
call, text messaging, awesome,
great executive directors report, yeah, just,
just let you know the audit is still on track. Ramsey said everything is still going good and everything is going to be accomplished on same time it's been actual reports are moving along, so they should be done on normal time frame, perfect. Other than that, there's really nothing else I have.
Thank you increase for Dave. All right, seeing none. Thank you. Public comment. I would ask the public to limit their comments to a three minute time limit. Are there any public people? Public comment? All right. Thank you very much. We're going to go to public relations. Good
morning. Mr. Chair, good morning trustees. Not a whole lot report. We do have a couple of media folks from outlier media. They do the routine monitoring of various public so they're monitoring today's meeting. Welcome. I distributed yesterday, or I think I'm sorry, Monday, an article profiling Mr. Newsom Financial Times was interview in his new post. I thought went rather well, and it's a brief media refresher for Mr. Newsom. He's already a pro and did a great job. That was a great opportunity for offering some additional transparency to the media on who's running your finances. I thought it went very well, and had another inquiry later this month, and I expect that to be very similar, very well done by Mr. Anderson. Would like to amplify, based on legal report, some of the issues from the last meeting, but I got pulled off on that, and that's all I have at this point in time. Thanks, Bruce. Any
questions for Bruce? Yeah,
Jeff, yeah, not a question. But I really appreciate Bruce showing us that piece on Lorenzo. I thought it was really well done. I think it was also good that, you know, Lorenzo, very professionally, kind of let the investment committee know that just because I'm a new guy doesn't mean that I'm going to like say yes to anything you pitch me. You know any of us that are on this board, you know what happens once people realize you're a pension trustee, they start writing to you about, hey, I've got a fund, I've got a fund, I've got a fund. And I think it's important for Lorenzo to say that's really not how we do business. We'll talk to anybody. But we, we run this professionally. The Investment Committee sets an asset allocation. We then look at managers that fit our asset allocation. We review those managers with our consultant. But you know, in so many words, what I loved about that article was letting them know, because, you know, I'm sure his email box gets filled in now that you're a decision maker. Have I got a fund for you. And we all know that might have been how investments were made here at the city in the old days, but that's not the one way to you know, we'd run a pension fund. So I couldn't be happier with how that article
turned out. That was all Mr. Newsome, those key messages I wrote great integrity and display,
the investment committee did a good job of hiring him, that's for sure. All right, any other questions for PR, All right, great. We're gonna move on to lobbyist report. Dr King is not here, but I will, I will let you know is that we were in. Our lobbyists were in, of course, Lansing last two weeks ago, the Senate is in session. The House Bill said we have our lobbyist tracking right now. What it says about 4506
I believe
for sorry, okay, 4605 4606 they thought it had a good chance of coming out on the floor for a vote. They're still hopeful that that will be on the floor for a vote this month, October. What are these two bills? These are the two bills that the legislators, maybe another trustee might be able to explain a little better, the vote on the public safety what those two bills do again? They set
up, they have a they set up a portion of the public safety fund that will then get distributed to different entities, whether you know county level or townships. You know to the counties that the townships don't have their own police department or municipal police departments, and they get a share of that for programs like community violence intervention or operational needs for public safety.
It does not pass. Is that what you're saying the voted on,
it's voted on, and I don't know the status of there's some kind of legislative mechanism that requires them to encumber that money. It's some kind of mechanical process that they typically vote on first and then do the legislative piece. For some reason they reverse, is my understanding.
It's the union meeting yesterday, my union meeting, they were speaking about $26 million being allocated for something similar to this, and I think it came from the feds. Though this is state level. I'm assuming this is state so I don't know if it's the same thing, and maybe I misunderstood what they were saying. But they have $26 million earmarked for Detroit, specifically for that kind of stuff. So I didn't know if it's maybe it's the same thing, and maybe I'm maybe they reiterated it wrong to me, but or I understand this is
something that's given that the state is set up that would come as access or not access, but dollars directly to the police department, specifically
for for the police department, but it's not earmarked specifically for, like retention or hiring. No, this one was a little bit more. And
then our key dynamic to this is there's a three year period where, depending on the crime rates, and of course, they'll categorize in different ways. If they see a certain level of drop in crime, 5% or 10% over a certain period, that will impact how much funding that community gets. So it's Hey, if you show improvement, we'll keep funding it. If not, then there's less that gets distributed and more goes to other places.
Kelly Cawthorn is actively getting this push through. We actually met with the deputy mayor not too long ago, and he said that we're the Senate Majority Leader. Is the one that really has to put on the floor for a vote. I know that we're trying to get an audience with their firefighters are on our log is to make sure that this gets done. So
bipartisan support or No, yeah, okay, yeah,
but thank you, maybe trustee trozack Can, hi, give us more on this one, because I know Angela had said something to me a couple weeks ago, and the IFF has also put something out that the windfall has a very strong potential getting done. Well, it's
gonna, they're gonna have to have a vote on it. It's gonna, it's coming out of committee, and they're gonna have to have a vote. It's HR 82 is what the bill is, and it eliminate the windfall. But
this the first time it's come up for a vote. Came up. It's actually it came
up two years ago. But they whatever it is they do, they took no action, and it was reverted back so, but this one, so I guess you do is have your call your congressperson and tell them to vote for HR 82 if it should come out. So there's a chance it could come out once they get back in session, whenever that
I know 82 I know napole has a on air site boilerplate type of thing where they can just send them and send out the IFF, F, the International associate of firefighters also has the same situation. All you have to do is type in your name and your zip code and it'll populate a letter to send to your representative, 360
co sponsors, I guess is what they call it now. So it's got a it's probably more than it ever has been. The same thing it's been for last 3040, years. Never happens. We'll see.
Because, you know, we don't get Social Security. You know, we all know this, but I mean, maybe some people that are here today. Don't know that we don't get Social Security. So yeah, but that's all we have. Obviously,
nowadays, when everybody leaves, they get another job. So right, even you're even penalized correct, you do have enough quarters and
correct, you have to have 35 years of taxable earning. They meet the IRS. I think it's
otherwise you get 40% of what you got coming. 33% I get $265
Wow, which pays for your algebra, basically a portion of portion of it, because mentioned George's eighth. Okay, so, because we're
in public, get it on the
record. So, Mr. Chair, since we're talking about money, everybody at the table knows that one of the key revenues that comes into the city that's then used to fund public safety and other things, is state revenue sharing. Yeah, so I think everybody knows we all pay 6% sales tax that all goes to the state, then they give it back to the cities, all the local units of government in Michigan using a formula. So the city's general fund budget something like approximately a billion dollars. About a quarter of it comes from this state revenue sharing, and again, just to you know, put numbers on it. So the state just released how much the city of. Detroit will get in this current fiscal year, and it's up $4 million from last year. Last year we got 236 million. This year they're projecting we're going to get 240 million. The state continues to fiddle with how the formula works. If you, you know, look under the hood and say, how do they decide how much Detroit gets there's a piece that's constitutional that the current legislature can't change. It's in the state constitution, and it's, it's that part of the payment comes based on your population, in relation to the population of the whole state. So of our 240 8,000,060 8 million comes from constitutional so that would be, quote, unquote, the safest piece because the current legislature can't mess with it, then we get another 172 land to come up to this 240 based on what what they call legislative Now it's interesting, guys, statutory, you'll remember things. You'll remember when Governor Snyder was the governor, he made his idea was local units had to do something to earn that money. So even though, even though it's the state getting the 6% they only pass it back if you and you said to write one of the words, you had to have a dashboard to show the public you know how you were done on things. So now the current legislature changed all that. There is no more requirement to post up on dashboard, to jump through any hoops, but they're splitting this money that's called cvtrs into a three factor formula. So there's a formula for your taxable value compared to the tax, taxable value of all the property in the city compared to all the property in the state, a weighted population payment, and then something they call the yield equalization payment. So they keep making it complicated. I guess the net, net for us to know is, you know, because you guys all have worked here longer than me. You remember there were years where the state was cutting revenue sharing Detroit, and then for local leaders that have to balance a budget, they got to balance a budget with less money coming from the state. So the good news here is 4 million more than the prior year. So there's nothing in this budget that threatens the city. And I guess the other thing I just wanted you to know is they continue to mess with that statutory formula to determine how you get but it's, it's all, you know, it's minor good news because we're up a little bit.
So John, when you say the state's fiscal year or the city's fiscal year, it's given
in our fiscal year. So fiscal year 25
fiscal year 25 haven't gotten those dollars yet. We have they
start to flow. In the field, probably knows it better than me. You get money along the way. There's a distribution cycle of when it's the local units bank, yep.
So it's on one of them. It's a certain cadence that happens six times a year. So every two months, there's a certain payment that gets made. Okay,
that's interesting. Yeah, thanks, yes.
So anyway, just since we're talking money, I just wanted to report them
all. Right, that's great. Any other questions,
as we're talking money, can John kind of run over this 13th checkpoint? That's a possibility.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So we still fully intend to put a resolution before city council to pay all retirees in the that are in the component to plan only, so the people that were hurt in the bankruptcy, you know that were July 120, 14, remember, was the key date, so any retiree or beneficiary would Get a portion of this money that was set aside put in a 13th check, or, really, we're calling it a supplemental check, the one thing that we still have to determine, and the board previously said that it's the city's decision and didn't want to weigh in. But right now, our thinking is that the way we would do it is there's would be two ways you can take the 5 million divide by all the retirees and have every retiree get the same check that a lot of people view as not fair, because a retiree that only worked here 10 years and is getting a smaller check is going to get the same check as someone who spent their whole career here. So that that's one way that's not favored. This is equal check. Yeah, the other way for three ways. The second way would be, do it as a percentage of everyone's check. Well, then the issue with that one that people would have is the rich are going to get richer. Those retirees who have the biggest benefit are going to get the most of a lot larger supplemental chocolates. Have a smaller fire chiefs? Yeah. The third way is to do it based on years of service, using a point system so
that
trustee, trozack, I'll use you as an example. How many years did you work for the city before
you retired on in 2727
So you would take all the retirees, and you would give
them a point. Did you say work?
You would add. You would take all the retirees, and you would add up their years of service. So you take trustee trojax, 27 and then everybody's your service, and you'd get a total years of service. And then you divide your 27 by the total, and you get that percent. And the reason that's viewed as more of a pretty, more fair way is then people that work here longer are going to get a slightly larger 13 check than somebody that only worked here 10 years vested, and maybe have to work someone somewhere else. So so the plan is to submit it to city council. You know, as a resolution, it's in the city's budget, so they've already appropriated the dollars. So then we just need their approval to pay it, and we plan to do that by submitting a resolution to them. It would go to council, go to them, the flight finance, audit Council, and then once they approve it, it would give the treasurer, Trustee Patel, the ability to send that 5 million to the retirement system. And because the retirement system keeps track of the retirees, because they get checks from us, the retirement systems is in the best position to distribute it to the retirees. Human Resources, once you retire, doesn't keep up all your change of address doesn't track your bank account, but Retirement System does so mechanically. We would visualize transferring this 5 million to police and fire, and then Dave and Kelly, with their staff, would add that. Or, I guess they'd have to decide, is it going to be a separate retiree payroll, or would, would it? Would it be added into the into the next payday? But that's that's where we're at. Okay?
Ron, then Matt,
did anybody bother to have a meeting with the Retirees Association see how
they would like to divide
it up, not directly, although you know that council member durhall and waters have this retiree task force, so they've been taking input. I know trustee tag has gone to their meetings. So once we submit the resolution, council will debate what's the right way to do it. And you know, watch a lot of council meetings. They like to hear from people. So if there is a point of view on it, I think it's important for, you know, you all the Retirees Association to make your council members aware of it. And again, the two most likely are dirt Hall and water, since they're really engaged with this retiree Task Force. Matt, it's
not based on dollar amount, right? Just based on years of service.
Well, it doesn't matter what I'm giving you a personal opinion at this point. That's what I favor, sure. But there are others that I don't know. The city's not decided yet. There are others that say, Hey, you should just do it as a percent of everybody's pay. And then, you know, again, I know what's been brought up to me is a lot of people do that, as you know, as trustee Trossachs up, okay, the leadership then is gonna, because they get a bigger pension amount, is going to get more of that check? Is that as fair as doing it based on your service? And the one that no one favors is just give everybody the same check? Because then again, someone that worked for 10 years went to work for another department. Sure is going to get the same check as someone who spent their whole career During that doesn't strike people as
All right? Any other
questions, right? John,
is that 5 million? General, 5 million, and you did say beneficiaries would be included, and that may would be based on what the pensioner or employee work in
progress, but yeah, great.
Any other questions on that? All right, thank you. We're going to go to our Pio report
Lorenzo number
one morning.
Just wanted to kind of bring everyone up to speed, just providing the summary asset allocation report. And with that, you know, we've had a strong, you know, month, and Monday, when we have the IC committee, you know, kind of get more details, but I just wanted to provide a quick snapshot report and show that it's been a strong increase in regards to market value. A lot of our positionings have done very well if you follow through the strategic allocation themes that we've worked together with Usher on, for example, for the month of September. Growth is done very well about, you know, two, two and a half percent defensive growth of about 9.3 diversified credit overall has been up about, you know, one and a half percent real assets that. You know, those overall increase, it doesn't show on our report, because we update those a little less frequent org really. What I want to say, we picked up probably about $20 million in regards to market value over the month, because everything kind of worked in our favor, and everything was kind of hitting on all cybers. I know we have that balance between liquidity and yield and the way we're positioned now from an asset allocation standpoint, September was a great month. In regards to that. We know we started off the month with the Federal Reserve reduced an overnight rate by 50 basis points in September. That was the first rate cuts since rates began to rise two and a half years ago. So, you know, we know the market expected to cut, but you know, the debate the weather's gonna be 25 or 50? I think it kind of puts the market in a decent spot. Now we're still positioned where, as we kind of move into this slower growth, trying to figure out exactly the direction of the economy. The way we're allocated is working out fairly well. And in regards to changes in the portfolio, we recently signed subducts for ten million allocation in real estate with Luber Adler, and that the board is aware of that that should be committed, probably by the end of this month. And in addition, the annual fund series for private credit with welshire, we're moving through regards to that last board meeting, I showed the cash flow, and it shows how we had a slight Positive distribution, as opposed to commitments. And that distribution will increase at a faster pace over the next few years. The annual fund series with Wilshire is starting to kind of plant the seeds for us to kind of get things in the pipeline in the private credit area. As those mature private credit strategies roll off, we have kind of things in the pipeline that kind of work their way through. I don't want a barren period where we don't have any exposure, and if we don't, kind of plant the seeds now to harvest. Two or three years later, we'll have the barren season. And so that kind of works.
I like the analogy. It works
for me. And then that's in that's, you know, way that works. So it looks like we know we're slightly overweighted and private credit currently, but that's going to run off at us at a faster pace going forward. So we're planning these seeds. It's called the annual fund series, and the board is aware of it, but it'll be maybe 18 months. It's not every 12 months that we will invest in that. And so working with brochure, you know, we'll like, no, we'll pass on this one. Or yes, we'll go into it, but I want to have a smooth, kind of stable of investments in that asset class, and so that's kind of roughly it. You know, US equity has done well. We got
to read what you're going to say, but I know what you're going to say, George, but
go ahead, we have a nice pickup in international equities that have done well for us. So the equity portion of the portfolio has done its job. This is a good space in regards to credit, how yield has continued to tighten, along with investment grade credit and the way the markets are in that space, even though credit spreads are tight, it's still a good avenue to pick up yield in this lower interest rate environment. As we start to come down, you start to see probably more outsized returns in regards to the credit portion, because people will be extending duration to ride down to lower interest rates going forward. Thank you, George,
wouldn't it be good? To have a bearing period to lower the allocation, because they're no they're way over allocated right now, yeah,
but that's going to run off at a faster pace. And private credit is, is doesn't have a longer kind of lockout period. It's not like private equity. It's a shorter pace. And some of the strategies within private credit, their one and two year durations, as opposed to if it was private equity, you know, seven, you know, 778, year type of thing. So it's a shorter maturity, so they will run off faster. And so to kind of get things in place,
credit is the highest one that's over allocated, yeah, but it's
going to run off at a faster pace based off, you know, the cash flow projection,
that'd be good, yeah,
right off faster, what we're going to put back up and generate, right? But that's the private credit space. Is a is a sector that we really want to have exposure. I know we're over allocated now, but that's that's a sector where, given this the way the economic environment is, and if you kind of look back over the dashboard that I had in the last board meeting, it shows this type of environment provides very well for the private credit market. This is almost a perfect case scenario for this space, and I want us to make sure we have the proper exposure. It's going to run off faster. George and I, you know, kind of have that in mind, but we're just planting the seeds now. And so, I mean, we don't want to have a bear period in that asset allocation space. And, you know, you know, and double digit returns come, and we kind of missed that exposure by being not positioned properly. So that's kind of my thoughts in regards to to that space. And by the time that, you know, the annual fund series kind of gets on board. You know, it's probably first quarter next year, and by that time, we'll have some more runoff in regards to private credit allocations. And you know, the markets will has have been stable. As long as the equity markets continue to be stable, you may pick up another 20 million in regards to market value valuation, which will actually reduce that percentage. But
are we working? Should we be more concerned about the yield and the income generated from this and whether we have enough in that space? I mean, is it worth the risk?
It's a lower risk word. If this was private equity, I would agree with you. But since it's private credit, and there are so many different vehicles within private credit that I can work with Wilshire with we could focus on short duration, structured, asset backed, type of private credit structures that are only one or two three year duration, which are extremely short, and they will run off very, very quickly. So it's a shorter time horizon, even though the waiting is is slightly over. Now, what we had previously in the private credit were were longer duration instruments. We're working with Wilshire now we are focusing on digging down into what's actually in there. And so we, you know, something to have a waiting but it has a 10 year maturity, overweighting and a 10 year maturity. Something to have a waiting over waiting. It has a two year mature. So that's kind of the way I'm looking at it. Don't just look at it just the percentage overweighting. Just look at just the runoff. And I'm following with the cash flow statement, with the runoff as well.
Okay, all right. Lorenzo, thank you very much. Black and Blue, though, as we used to call it, right? You probably have you heard that before? Yeah, okay, obviously, because of the black and the blue
colors on it, yeah,
what I enjoy, what I enjoy from it, and I know it used to be a lot more detailed, but at least you show our total plan assets, if you can, if it's if it works for you, if you could include, maybe the prior months, if you're going to do this quarterly or monthly, however, you can include, like prior months assets for prior quarterly assets that. Used to be on there, because, like you said, I know we, I haven't seen $2.8 billion in this fund in a while. I mean, it was at one time. I want to say it was down, what, like 2.6 even. So to have $2.8 billion with making, you know, $23 million in benefit payments a month is pretty impressive. So it's gone up. So I just like to see that if possible. And I know
the previous period, however period you have, or do you want to see the current, and I could just do a variance chart, so just not bogging you down with I just
know that it used to have whatever you had, the prior whatever like. So this reports dated September 27 right? Whenever you do the next report, I know that the total plan assets on this date is this. I just, I just want that to be in there. Okay, do you know what I mean? It's like
I could do that
simple as I gotcha. Okay. And then, do you know if will Shire will be prepared? And I know it's only second week in October, but will they have our first quarter fiscal year flash third quarter results? They'll have a flash report. They have a flash report, right? All right. Have you sent that materially out yet to the Investment Committee?
It should go in the portal. It goes in the portal, just going out, okay, yeah,
all right, yeah, you should be able to check the portal tomorrow and see stuff and everything. We're trying to remind her, we're trying to get everything to be in the portal and not via email. So, yeah, it's consistent, and it's always there, and we're not
quite right. I'm sorry. All right. All right, sounds good. Anything else? Send
an email to that letting them know it's in the portal, like you do for general. Can you start? Just start sending an email out to do it for general that says, you know, hey, trustees and I see members, this stuff's loaded in the portal. She can start doing that when she loads him. All right, great. All
right, anything else for our pension Investment Officer? Pio,
okay. Loves that.
I do. I too. All right, great. Thank you. General comments report, nothing, good progress.
So, Mr. Chair, so while we're on legal reports, so where, where, where do you see this? The pension appeal standing. I know the Investment Committee is going to meet on Monday. Sounds like today. We're not going to have a legal recommendation to dismiss the appeal, right?
Yeah, far as I know, the update that I have is that they're still looking at language that clarifies some formulas that need to be done and make sure that it's kind of a little more clear to them. And my understanding is that General Counsel is going to bring up an update to the Investment Committee on Monday and and hopefully, by the next meeting that we have, we can have something that we can vote on. So that's, that's what I know. Anything else for legal, all right? Reports, we have a drop committee right after this, immediately after this, correct,
we have dropped committee meeting directly after this, and there is an IC meeting on Monday morning at 10 o'clock in this order. So
I would encourage other trustees, if you want to come to please participate. All right. Is there anything else that we have, right?
We get that Napal pension and benefits seminar. January,
February, I think. All right. All right. Perfect reading. February, a motion to approve the Naval Conference on public pensions motion. Ron, second, Greg, any questions on that? It's something that we do every year. It's a good conference. It's on police officers and firefighters, with the emphasis on firefighters, even though it's put on by the Napo, which is a national association of police officers, firefighters have also attended. Getting down one other thing too, yes, sir, we got a vote on it. Oh, I'm sorry, anybody abstained or both under discussion? No, not on not for that, right? No, even not just firefighters, Okay, anything else? All right, seeing anyone stage everything on the record, I don't
think that's what he decided. Okay, I
just want to make sure. Okay, Greg,
that HR 82 that windfall thing, that's not just for police and fire, that's any public pension that didn't pay into Social Security. So. It's more than just police and fire aids, teachers. Yeah, right. Probably
manifest that, all right. Is there anything else that needs to come before the board? Anybody have anything? Trustee McInnis,
so I know Bill 5203 so at mappers, which was incredibly useful for
you, trust me, for sure, yeah, for sure.
I got a free talk. I got a lot of free stuff. Yes, lots of pens, yes.
Does that mean
he's that new anymore?
I don't have dumb jokes. Bill 5203 was talking to a sheriff Association, some sort of my take on it was like a drop for sheriffs. I don't know. Georgie can help me explain what that was, Doc, here might be something we might might be just have, Doc take a look at, essentially, they're trying to, like, create a drop program for for sheriffs, and then it sounded like it was expanded to county workers, and I don't know if that would impact our drop it was
guys had already retired, or you're ready to retire, or you're going to retire, you want to figure out how to rehire, rehire them and Place them in active payroll, deferred drafts to allow
sort of like the police assistant position that
you got to remember, if you come back, like your pension gets frozen, right? Like, if I were
to come back 82 you're still frozen. Well,
then how are you deferring your then you're not well. Then why would you come back? Well, what's the what's the
municipalities or the unions that do these guys are working under that argument. You're just keeping the same old guys. They're not not allowing new people coming in. Sure, that's one argument. The other argument is that they don't have people coming in. Some of these old if
you want to bring back people that left, though, you would have to defer the retirement. Because why would you freeze your retirement? It makes no financial sense at all. Think about it. I
understand that you're right, a
firefighter, but I freeze your pension. Put
it allowed. It doesn't make
sense. I can tell you my notes, it says it would not suspend their pension payments. Yeah, that's still get their their their pension probably deferred
into an account they wouldn't contribute, but I don't know that it still
would trump the plan of adjustment. And our plan of adjustment says if you return to work, your pension is frozen, and you're not getting a payment, and it's not banking anywhere. So I don't even if the state law comes in, I don't know that it would trump bankruptcy, which is Federal, and I can let the lawyers answer all of that, but we have specific language about what happens if you return to work here. Now, it may help in another municipality. It doesn't have drops or something else. But for us, document, well, I think at the county like I think they have 1000 hour thing, and then they freeze at 1000 hours, so they don't have a drop that might help them. But I don't know with us, where we have very specific language about if you return to work here and anything other than a police assistant role, right, we have to stop your pensions.
Detroit already has a Kelly said there's a title called police assistant. It's hiring back retired police officers into a position, and we don't have to stop the pension because they're not part of the pension system. It's almost, for lack of a better phrase, like, almost like a contractual police person. I
know that's a bad analogy, because I don't get
benefits, right? They don't get benefits. I
don't think we don't like there's a lot of issues,
right? But we already have that. Now we the city already has a position in the police department. If a retired police officer wants to come back, they can be they have to do all the duties and pass the test and physical and all that to be a police officer. But from my understanding, called a PA, yeah, police in it, but we don't have to stop their pensions, because that's the title, I
will tell you. In the last six years phrases, we've had guys coming back and have their pensions frozen. We've worked with the city to make sure that they're told that before they're hired on, so that it's not a shock to them when they get a letter that we're stopping your pension check, and we probably have maybe 10 guys come back now and and take the freeze on their pension. Yeah,
it's not choice. It is not yet. I don't know what anybody's got from. Just looking at it like That's odd. I
get that that was, those are rules that were put in place during the bankruptcy. They can, can that not be changed? Probably, can that not be changed to collect the market.
I don't know the answer.
100% I would just like anything else, you know, ordain and
anything can be changed in the market, the city, in the union, are you doing change? If it's legal, it would be quicker. I'm sure
to look at the federal part of it, though, because there's rules about returning to work. And did you rules of separation of when you retire? Did you really need to retire? And that kind of thing. There's some federal stuff that would be involved that I would recommend. Would recommend.
So I guess what I'm hearing is that we have some trustees that attended the makers conference and have information that they would like to share with the board, actually, and that that's what you're getting at Mike, I think I would like for
doc to just kind of get some information on this bill, 5203 and and share that with us, okay? Because I didn't. It was a lot, right? There was a lot going on the conference, and I only hit the highlights, and I don't know if that has any impact on us or not, okay,
all right. Good report from the conference that you enjoyed. It was just
very important.
Love it.
George, go back. Everybody talked
about talked about you being there.
Trustee was there. George was there, though I heard
respectful services lobbyists,
okay, the one that happened for
me first, yeah, pretty good. But he brought up, after the little session, I went up to it about this lawsuit, not the appeals lawsuit to retire either
talking to the wrong person. There was an attorney there that you could have talked to about the lawsuit. That's who you should be talking to. No, right? Okay, at
least, yeah, they haven't educated the whole legislature yet, and it's my couple Senator friends that talking to his hands off them. I know they don't. Both the House and the Senate don't want to talk to us about the Viva well anymore. I know
it now. I know the firefighters. When the governor was here to present her budget for approval at it, which the firehouse on the east side when she acknowledges the firefighters for all the hard work that they do, because that's why she was there, and we had her ear for 15 seconds, and we are trying to set up a meeting with her the firefighters are for about 10 minutes, just to explain to her that when we did try that, they mentioned that also, and our president explained to the person that told him that we're not talking to you guys because of what you said. After talking to our president, they kind of said, Okay, we'll give you a few minutes. So we're trying to get a meeting with the governor to explain to her. I think once we've done that, then we can have some more clarity, because we're still hammering them on the firefighters to get more money from the state for our Viva and but, but that is in the way right now, so we're working on it. But, yeah, I know. But anything else from the mike
was happy he was getting in and being with stuff about being a new trustee. Is
there anything else? All right, well, then I need a motion to adjourn. Motion. Motion Leo, second rod, anyone stay under opposed? Carried
