And if you were to deny the disability, the claimant would have the opportunity to request an appeal for a formal hearing and the matter would come back before you down the road.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:11–00:00:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
advocate to argue why the disability should be denied so it gets into a full-blown administrative hearing. That is option number two. Option number three is that you find that there is something missing in the records before you and you could task me with going out and getting some additional information with regard to the claim.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:37–00:00:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
his attorney to make a brief statement arguing why they feel at this point in time that they are entitled to a disability. So if you do not have any further questions for me, Mr. Chair,
I
would turn the floor over to Mr. Cleland to make any sort of presentation he would like to on behalf of his client. But first, if any questions, please, now's the time to ask me.
Any questions? No questions from the board. Great. Thank you.
Sounds
good. I would turn the floor over to Mr.
Clowen
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:10–00:01:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
then.
Sorry about that.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:13–00:01:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
summed up the presumption pretty well. This is what I do full-time.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:21–00:01:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and I'm immersed in this 112-18, otherwise known as the Florida Heart Bill, in my law practice representing first responders.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:35–00:01:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Sometimes we'll get medical records to suggest that there's some other known cause of whether it's heart disease or hypertension, and there's just not in this case. In fact, everything points toward the presumption, and with the clean pre-employment physical that's in the record, with your board's IME, independent medical examination, ‸ suggesting that the AFib and the hypertension is connected to the job, there's really nothing in the record to suggest, assuming the city would want to hire a defense lawyer to litigate this case in a formal hearing, that anything other than the job caused his heart disease and hypertension.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:22–00:02:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
usually we have one covered condition under the presumption. Here we have two.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:30–00:02:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Rarely do we see a TB case, but hypertension or ‸ heart disease are typically ‸ the covered conditions in any case. Here, Mr. Thompson has both. And so as a matter of law,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:51–00:02:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and the fact that he had a disabling event in 2023 for both conditions, means that now we look to the record to see, well, gee, is there anything in the medical records by way of doctors' opinions that something other than the job caused these conditions? And absent that, then it's service-connected. Council mentioned that we have three things to meet. That is permanency, totality, and job causation. Well, the job causation is the presumption. The permanency is all through the record that this condition is permanent. He hasn't worked in a long, long time. And in terms of totality, that just means insofar as his ability to continue as a law enforcement officer, and that prong is waived if he's terminated for medical reasons.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:45–00:03:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you based on these conditions. So in every respect, this is about as clean a case as I've ever come across. And so we just ask that the board look to the record. I'm certainly willing to ask or answer any questions that you might have. But we suggest that he's entitled to his line of duty disability pension. Okay.
And, you know, I could not point to anything contrary in the record. You know, with regard to the totality aspect of it, There's a longstanding case lie out there that says that if the city terminates someone based upon a medical condition, then the board cannot deny totality. You are basically stopped from finding otherwise. So it's pretty much automatically total. And, you know, it's clear that the presumption applies and, you know, permanency, all the doctors, including your IME, basically says that it is a permanent condition.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:45–00:04:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
myself, the board would then enter into the deliberative phase and put a motion on the floor as to whether or not the disability should be granted, denied, or if the hearing should be continued for some reason.
Okay. Any questions from the board?
No.
Well, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the disability claim.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:12–00:05:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Very good.
So... Oh,
I'm
sorry, Sheila. So I made the motion.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:22–00:05:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Okay.
And unanimous. Very
good. So, Officer Thompson, thank you for your service to the city and wish you nothing but good health moving forward. And, you
know,
it's about as clean as the case as I've seen in a while. And I will go ahead and draft an order granting the disability, and we'll get it signed off on, and we'll, you know, start the disability benefit after it's calculated by the actuary. So that would conclude the informal disability hearing for David Thompson.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:01–00:06:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just like to comment on Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Sheila, I'll be contacting you, you know, for any information I need for submitting the request for the benefit calculation from the actuary, and the benefit is payable as of the date the disability is approved, which, of course, the attorney will have. That is today's date in the order. So you and I will keep in touch, okay?
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, Thompson, for your service to the city, and good luck to you and your wife and kids. It's unfortunate to lose you this way, and ‸ we're sad to see you go.
Thank you.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:06:43–00:06:58 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Okay. With that, I guess we'll go back to the regular agenda.
Yes, ma'am.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: part of a long flagged stretch · 00:07:02–00:07:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:17–00:07:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Okay. Okay, thank you.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:32–00:07:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:35–00:07:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All
right, if you're ready for me.
Yes, sir.
Good to see everyone. I have a handout for you as well as our quarterly report. Our quarterly report is a snapshot of as of March 31st. ‸ Obviously, a lot has happened with markets, so we'll go through the handout first. It covers the first quarter as well as uh most recently uh last Friday. So some updates on the market there. But if you flip to page two of the handout, and uh would you gentlemen over there like a copy? We have some extra reports. Let me grab those for you.
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:13–00:08:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
since the beginning of 2022. uh Very similar circumstances. ‸ 2022,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:26–00:08:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
A
lot of companies trying to front run
[unclear audio — 0:26 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; words the first reading may have missed · 00:08:34–00:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:09:00–00:09:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:04–00:09:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
year. So good to see the consumer remaining resilient. But keep that in mind. There's a few charts in here that has us a little concerned whether consumers can continue at current consumption levels.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:22–00:09:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of the market was immune from heavy imports. So the chart on page three just shows different categories where we had a huge increase in April imports versus their previous 12-month average. And so you can see home furnishings, chemicals, autos, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, everything across the board was up significantly. Because we really didn't have any clarity on what would be impacted by tariffs and what level those tariffs would be. So if you go to page four, despite all the uncertainty around trade policy, the labor market has remained resilient. It is starting to wane. But for
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:02–00:10:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We got those jobs numbers in last week, added 139,000, which was above expectation of 130. However, we did see a revision down for the March and April numbers by 95,000. So the three-month average actually declined from 155,000 jobs added on average to 124. So still strong. But again,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:27–00:10:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And with that, I mentioned the consumer on page five. One of the areas that's concerned us, and I've ‸ probably mentioned it at previous meetings, is if you look at the bottom right-hand chart, these are balances, percentage of balances, delinquent past 30 days for different debt categories. So auto loans, credit cards, student loans, and mortgages. With the exception of student loans, the other three have been trending up since the start of the pandemic. Student loans had that moratorium during the pandemic
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:01–00:11:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:05–00:11:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Federal Student Aid Office to resume collections on their portfolio of defaulted federal student loans.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:16–00:11:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And you see in that chart that sharp orange line up, that's student loans.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:22–00:11:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
ago when those loans were still being deferred. Now that collections
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:33–00:11:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And if we look just at the federal student loan portfolio,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:41–00:11:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So 30 days past overdue. They're considered seriously delinquent. So over 90 days past due. So again, that's just one additional area. Auto loan, mortgage, credit cards, and now student loans. It's going to be adding further debt burden on the consumer and making it a lot tougher to keep up with those consumption rates we've had over the past several quarters. So certainly something to keep an eye on. And if we see the economy slowing down, that could be one of the factors contributing to that. Page six, just wanted to highlight from a consumer sentiment standpoint. And this is just essentially the view of consumers, how they see the economy. We saw it fall off a cliff in April. And here you can see the update for May. We're really at a bottom that we hadn't seen since June of 22
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:31–00:12:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The good news, however, and ‸ fortunately we can look back and already see the results of this.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:39–00:12:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the market subsequently rallies pretty significantly.
And
so we've already seen since the middle of April, the markets have rallied back and
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:52–00:12:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So it's not always a bad thing when consumers are pessimistic. It usually means we're getting close to a bottom and the market's ready to rally again, which we've fortunately already seen happen. On page seven, with the sell-off we saw in April, we typically like to look and try and figure out, is this an orderly sell-off or are markets and investors panic selling? One good indicator of that is spreads widening. And all that means is investors selling their junk bonds, so their poorly credit-rated bonds, their riskier bonds, selling those, and then buying treasuries and high investment-grade bonds, the safer investments.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:38–00:13:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
safer investments, and that causes the spread between those to widen. When you sell bonds, their yields go up. When you buy bonds, their yields go down. And so you can see on that chart, the left-hand side of page seven, we had huge spikes in 2008 and 2020. So both of those were indications of panic selling. And again, an opportunity to start rebalancing into equities. We saw spreads start to widen, you can see at the very end of this chart, but not to the level that would indicate ‸ investors are panicking and the market's oversold. So ‸ hindsight, the market's already rallied back. So if there was an opportunity to significantly rebalance, that's already kind of been wiped out by the market recovery. But again, based on that information, not necessarily any panic selling, pretty orderly sell-off based on the uncertainty in the markets. And you can see that on page eight. This is a chart, year-to-date chart.
and
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:14:33–00:14:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
really just shows the start of the decline in February. A lot of that initial decline was around, yes, tariff talks, but also the announcement out of China that one of their AI companies,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:47–00:14:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
at a fraction of the cost of what we're doing here. And so that caused a lot of the Magnificent Seven, NVIDIA, to sell off. And so we started to see growth underperforming and our
market
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:14:59–00:15:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
starting to turn from all-time highs. And then obviously
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:03–00:15:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
on April 2nd, that was when Trump came on the White House lawn. He had those posters with all the countries and
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:10–00:15:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That really spooked markets. We weren't expecting that many countries to be impacted by tariffs and certainly not at that level across the board. And so with that, over the following week, the market sold off by about 15% and got us right close to bear market territory, where we were down nearly 20% from all-time highs. Fortunately, a week later, April 9th, they came out and they said, listen, we're going to do a freeze, 90-day freeze on these tariffs.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:39–00:15:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
With the exception of China,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:43–00:15:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:45–00:15:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
each other. But with that news that we're getting a 90-day reprieve, the markets rallied and, again, has put us back in positive territory as of the end of last week. And on top of that, as we've gotten news, we got a trade deal with the UK. We got the framework for a trade deal with China.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:08–00:16:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so with that news, it's just compounded and pushed the markets higher. Lastly, page 9, in terms of market update, one interesting component of the markets year-to-date has been international's outperformance. So really, since the great financial crisis 2008-2009, U.S. markets have significantly outperformed international over that time period, nearly a 17-year stretch. This is the first year that international is not only outperforming but handily doing so.
And
so through last Friday, the MSCI EFI, which is developed markets, so it excludes China, is up over 18% year-to-date. Emerging markets, so including China, up 11%, a little over 11%. And then the S&P 500, our 500 largest companies in the U.S., up 2.6%.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:03–00:17:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
which, again, is why we have a diversified portfolio, where we not only invest in the U.S., but we do have exposure international to take advantage of markets where the U.S. does ‸ underperform. Interestingly enough, if you look at the right-hand side, the end
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:22–00:17:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And really, the big driver of that was NVIDIA. They were one of the best performers in the market in 23 and 24. You can see, if you took out just NVIDIA from the S&P 500 over that time period, we would have actually underperformed markets like Europe and Japan. So, again, that's the impact NVIDIA has had. And one of the reasons the U.S. has underperformed this year, the Magnificent 7, if we look at those companies, four of them are negative year-to-date. Tesla is kind of an obvious one, with Elon stepping away from a lot of his duties at Tesla.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:00–00:18:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
stock to sell off significantly.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:06–00:18:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
week.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:10–00:18:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:12–00:18:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
administration in regards to reshoring manufacturing. So, not only
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 00:18:21–00:18:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
their manufacturing facilities currently in China, but also their future plans to create manufacturing facilities in India to get away from the Chinese tariffs, but still have labor at a cheaper cost abroad. And so, the administration has really pushed on them to reshore those manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. And so, with that, that's caused their stock to sell off. Google, it's Alphabet, Google's parent company. They're down about 7% based on some antitrust litigation that's going on. And then, Amazon's down slightly, about 1%. Again, the expectation that consumer spending is going down and that we may be currently in a recession or going into a recession by the end of this year, that doesn't bode well for a company that's based on shipping and individuals purchasing from them. So, the other three, NVIDIA's up slightly. Microsoft's having a good year and Meta's having a good year. But again, the lion's share of the
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:22–00:19:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and that's impacted our markets ‸ overall. Any questions on that update before I jump into the report for the quarter? All right. Well, if you want to go ahead and flip to page 4 in the quarterly report. Again, this is a snapshot as of March 31st. Based on the markets run since the end of March, I would say that we're most likely back in positive territory, not just year-to-date, but fiscal year-to-date. So, this report is halfway through our fiscal year, the first two quarters of it. And you can see for the quarter, we
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:02–00:20:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We did trail our
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:07–00:20:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of our active managers underperforming, and I'll address those ‸ in the back half of the handout. But our best performers
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:19–00:20:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Keep in mind, those have at minimum 50% exposure to international, so that helped their portfolio.
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:28–00:20:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
However, they did underperform their benchmark. And so, one of the recommendations I have is to add a different international fund to complement what we currently have and get us a little more market exposure to international. Fiscal year-to-date, as I mentioned, we're halfway through as of March 31st. We're down 796,000 or 1.9%,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:57–00:21:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
underperforming. Private real estate, we've seen a turnaround there. The last three quarters, we've had positive returns, so that was up 3.4%. Global infrastructure up 2.2%. And then cash, because rates
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:14–00:21:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
great position to be in, especially in a market that's falling. On a one-year basis, still up ‸ 1.5 million or 4.2%. And then our best performers were global infrastructure up 12.6%. Large cap core, so
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:32–00:21:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:34–00:21:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:38–00:21:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
16.3 million in earnings over that time period. And despite all the volatility over the past five years, so the pandemic, the inflation spike in 22 and market sell-off, the start of this year,
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:54–00:22:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
five-year period. So fantastic returns, despite all the volatility. And again, I think it speaks to the program you've built here and the diversification to weather that volatility. We did do a little bit of rebalancing in March. So we raised money from the Fidelity 500, as well as from bonds, and ‸ from your intermediate and short-term bonds. And those were all to cover plan expenses and benefit payments over that period. If you jump over to page nine, this again is a snapshot as of March 31st, but the blue bars are your current allocation. The gold is our target. And so pretty much in line across the board, slight overweight to U.S. equities, slight underweight to convertibles, and then an overweight to fixed income. And then again, holding about 1% in cash to cover benefit payments and expenses for the plan.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:57–00:22:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
with the recent run in markets, I would like to take a little bit of some of the risk
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:05–00:23:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:07–00:23:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
large-cap value manager, Westwood, 750,000 of your large-cap growth index, the Fidelity large-cap growth index fund, and then sell an additional 300,000 from your actively managed convertible portfolio. That's SSI.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:31–00:23:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the Fidelity 500 index fund, and then buy 800,000 of a new convertible index fund, the iShares convertible ETF. That information on that fund is in the back of the handout, so we can skip there real quick. If you go to page 18, and this is just a quick update. So there's not a lot of convertible managers or products out there that we can invest in. The cheapest available index fund is that iShares convertible bond ETF.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:13–00:24:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so the chart on
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:16–00:24:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
portfolio. So these are the returns that you've experienced with SSI. Right below that are the returns, net of fees of the iShares convertible bond index fund. And then below that is the index we use for convertibles. And so what I'll say at the top, because there's not a lot of managers, SSI, their rankings have fluctuated significantly. So keep in mind, it's like a game of golf. You want to have the lowest score. You can see for the quarter, they were ranked in the bottom 95th percentile. But on a one-year basis, they were in the top 27th, two years, top ninth. If you look further, three years, 81st, five years, first percentile. However, comparing them to their benchmark, you can see pretty much over every market period, they've underperformed the benchmark. Whereas if you look at the index fund below, it's pretty much been in line or slightly better across the board than the benchmark for every period. To further illustrate that, if you go to page 19, this is a breakdown of the performance annually. So year to date,
so
the first quarter of 25, and then the annual returns for 2024,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:27–00:25:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:31–00:25:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
middle has outperformed the benchmark. SSI has only outperformed one year, and that was last year they outperformed the benchmark.
They
were up 13.3 versus the benchmark at 11.2.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:46–00:25:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
They do add some value, certainly in volatile markets, but I would like some more upside capture, some more exposure to the overall convertible market.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:00–00:26:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
exactly what the iShares convertible bond index fund does.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:04–00:26:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
is since the inception of the ETF, which was June of 2015. It's outperformed its benchmark annually by a little less than half a percent. But what you'll see here is it's one of only two investments that have actually outperformed the benchmark. So we looked at the entire universe here of available funds, and you can see ICVT is that yellow circle. So it's above the return bar for the benchmark, which is in the crosshairs. SSI is that blue triangle below.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:40–00:26:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:46–00:26:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
more volatility. However, it's been compensated with a higher return. So again, that recommendation is to move $300,000 from SSI, and then use some of the money that we raised from the index to add $800,000 to that new iShares convertible bond ETF. The last two pages, 21 and 22, is just the fact sheet for that fund. It costs roughly 20 basis points, so that's its fee. SSI charges 75, so 0.75%. So you'll be saving a little over half a percent in fees on that $800,000. And then I'll just quickly pause to let you guys discuss, ask me any questions, and then vote on that motion to rebalance and add the new iShares convertible bond ETF.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:46–00:27:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah.
I made the notes on the proposed or the recommended new investments and where the monies will come from, but my notes are pretty cryptic. So if the board proceeds, if you would state the motion, and then when you send me the handout, like you usually do, put the detail of ‸ each, you know, what's being taken from which accounts and going into the new, okay?
Absolutely, yeah. I'll write in the body of the email, I'll write the rebalance recommendations, and then I'll include ‸ the handout for you as well.
Okay.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:30–00:28:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No, this is all within the current target allocations you have.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:38–00:28:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and bring up our convertibles allocation to the target. So we've had a good run, so we're more overweight than we were coming into the end of this quarter for U.S. equities. So with that run, I think it's a good opportunity. I'm expecting further volatility. We have some significant volatility today based on Israel's strike in Iran. We don't know the full implications of that, but obviously the market is not a fan of it today. So we've seen that sell off. So I'd rather get ahead as well as the 90-day tariff pause. That is coming up, I believe it'll be July 9th, since April 9th was the announcement. And like I said, we've only officially gotten the trade deal with the U.K. delay. It's expected that they'll just extend the delay, maybe another 90 days. However, you know, we don't know. They could have a hard stop and impose the previous tariffs that are at a higher level, and that would certainly force some downward pressure on the market. So I think it's just a good time to ‸ rebalance back to targets and take the safest route.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:47–00:29:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
when you were handing out things you referred to gentlemen. Is there someone beside Carrie from the staff that's now in attendance?
Yes. Wagner? Wagner? ‸ Wagner
Olivier. He's a newer employee with the city, works in payroll. ‸ So ‸ he's been coming to some of the mentioned meetings.
Okay. Okay. Would you email me your name and position and contact information, please? And I'll include you on the agenda and stuff.
Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll make the motion
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:34–00:30:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Pat made the motion. Casey second.
Okay.
All in favor? Aye. Motion carries.
And then lastly, if you go to page 13, I'll highlight some of the managers I mentioned that had underperformed. Part of the rebalance, as I mentioned, was taking some money from your large cap value manager and your large cap growth and reallocating it to the S&P 500.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:11–00:31:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:15–00:31:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we don't know if value is going to continue to outperform this year. We've seen a strong rally since the end of March in growth.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:25–00:31:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:28–00:31:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
as far as additional tariffs seems to impact growth more than value. So we think it's just a better position to be in the core with that S&P 500, which again has done very well. If you look further down, our small cap managers, while the performance wasn't great, relative to the benchmark,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:48–00:31:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:52–00:31:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We would have expected small cap to outperform large cap just based on their lack of exposure to global markets. So small caps tend to be more domestically focused. Their supply chains are more domestic. However, because Canada and Mexico were also wrapped up in the tariff talk, those supply chains, while they are domestic, they really function through those two countries. And so that's why we saw that volatility in small cap as well. I would expect, because valuations for small cap are still considered undervalued compared to large cap, I'd expect at some point this year or next year, small cap to outperform.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:35–00:32:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
outperforming. But overall, I think in your portfolio, they should hopefully be a winner sometime by the end of this year, if not next year, as people see that value opportunity.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:50–00:32:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:54–00:32:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
performance. And great compliments to one another. You can kind of see fiscal year to date, Lazard has been the big winner over the last year.
Conan
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:33:05–00:33:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Steers was the big winner.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:07–00:33:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
If we go to page 14, I mentioned SSI. Again, very volatile in terms of how they perform. So I think adding that index fund will be a great compliment there. The only other recommendation I have is American Funds Euro Pacific. You can see in the chart right there, very happy with a positive return for the quarter, but they missed the benchmark by nearly 3%.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:33–00:33:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
but in the handout, I do have some information on American Funds. And so on page 11, it's just a quick highlight for the quarter, a summary of what worked and what didn't work for their portfolio. So on top of, obviously, it's the Euro Pacific Growth Fund. So being on the growth side of the market didn't help their portfolio. However, two of their largest holdings, Novo Nordisk and Taiwan Semiconductor, had significant sell-offs in the first quarter. And so I'll address each of those. Novo Nordisk, you might not recognize that name. They're one of the largest international pharmaceutical companies, but you probably recognize the drugs they offer or the commercial jingles that you've heard from them.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:24–00:34:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So Ozempic is one of the first to market weight loss drugs.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:33–00:34:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
However, they're used off-brand for weight loss. And so all three of those have been huge successes. They allowed Novo Nordisk ‸ to outperform in
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:48–00:34:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
However, competition has caught up and cut into that market share. On top of that, in the first quarter, the
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:56–00:35:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
pharmaceutical imports. Our drug costs are significantly higher than what's charged internationally.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:06–00:35:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
On top of that, they're in late-stage clinical trials for a new weight loss drug that combines some of the components of all three they currently have. And those drug trials, the results have been underwhelming. And so kind of the three-headed horsemen, all those impacting the projections for their top-line revenue growth as well as earnings growth. So they sold off by about 20% in the first quarter. The second one, Taiwan Semiconductor. They
produce
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:35:38–00:35:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
semiconductors, the chips that help facilitate AI in the data ‸ centers. The issue there is, from a national security standpoint, we don't want those chips going to our adversaries like China. We want to be at the forefront of the AI arms race. And so it's been speculated that not only were we going to put tariffs on these semiconductors, but we were also going to put export controls to where they could not send certain models and certain specs of their products to China. They could only send those to the U.S.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:13–00:36:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
their products, that's going to hinder their revenues and their earnings.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:21–00:36:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so on the next page is just the numbers behind that. You can see on the right-hand side the top 10 detractors. But as I mentioned, both of those, Taiwan Semiconductor down 16%,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:37–00:36:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:40–00:36:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so with that, if we go to page 13,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:50–00:36:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
very top. In the middle is an index fund I'm going to recommend we rebalance into to split our international allocation.
And
then below that is the index that we use
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:04–00:37:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so the chart here shows the longer-term history.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:11–00:37:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
been an outperformer. 10-year basis, 15-year basis, 20-year basis, you can see strong rankings and strong performance. However, if you go to the next page, really
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:26–00:37:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so ‸ the chart on page 14 shows three bars. The first one is from the end of 2020 through this most recent quarter. And you can see they ranked in the bottom 99th percentile, essentially one of the worst-performing international managers, compared to the index fund right below it, which ranked in the top 16th percentile.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:50–00:37:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
compared to the benchmark, which was up four, and then the index fund we're recommending, which is up 5.7. Now, I talked about their longer-term track record. If you actually look at the two decades prior, so that's the next two bars here.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:08–00:38:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from the end of 2010 to the end of 2020. They're actually ‸ ranked in the top first percentile, so one of the best-performing international managers, and
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:20–00:38:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that decade.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:26–00:38:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:32–00:38:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So, again, a great long-term track record.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:37–00:38:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
some of those longer-term numbers in the back, so you can kind of see how they performed, not just on a snapshot basis, but also historically.
in
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:38:48–00:38:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the very top left-hand on page 15 is actually rolling five-year period. So ‸ if we took the last 20 reports we had and plotted all the five-year numbers, that's what you see in those blue dots.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:01–00:39:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so outperformed half of their peers or better, 95% of the time on a rolling five-year average.
And
so, again, we think they can certainly get back to that longer-term track record and outperformance, but we certainly want to mitigate some risk in case performance continues to struggle and move some of that money into an index fund where we know we're at least going to participate with the market and capture 100% of the upside.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:30–00:39:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the American Fund's Euro-Pacific Growth Fund, which is roughly about $1.6 million. We'll do, because it's a mutual fund, we can do a clean 50% when we do the sell. And we'll use those proceeds to reinvest in the Fidelity International Index Fund. The fact sheet for that is on page 16 and 17. And from a cost standpoint, we'll be reducing the cost from 0.47% down to 0.035. So that's a savings of 0.435. And based on $1.6 million, that's roughly $7,000 in savings on an annual basis.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:10–00:40:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
saving roughly $11,000 in fees on an annual basis. And so not only is it going to give us a little bit better market exposure and market participation, but we're also going to be saving on the fee side, again, roughly $11,000,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:30–00:40:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
but that certainly adds up over time. And so anytime we can reduce costs and add some value, I think it's a good tradeoff. So with that, I will pause and let you soak in that recommendation and discuss and ask any questions on that.
Mitchell, again, if you would, if assuming that the board proceeds, please email me the specifics of this change.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:02–00:41:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the new funds as well. So you have all the information for them.
‸ Okay. And of course, we'll be preparing the document.
Yeah. And Mitchell, if you could just state the motions for the trustees' consideration, I think that would be helpful and they could just, you know, so move it.
Yeah, absolutely. I know we already approved the first one. So this motion would be to sell 50% of the American Fund's Euro-Pacific Growth Fund and use those proceeds to reinvest in the Fidelity International Index Fund.
Voterson will make a motion.
Okay. Who made the motion?
‸ I'm sorry.
Okay.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:41:50–00:41:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and then Nick.
Yep.
Okay. Thank you.
All in favor? ‸ Motion carries.
And then I know I've been pretty long-winded today, so I will conclude my report and just open it up to any other questions or anything else you'd like to discuss.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:10–00:42:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All right. Thank you, Mitch. Thank you. All
right, Stuart. Excuse me. Very good. So I'll try and keep it quick then. A couple of things. Just a reminder memo in your packet
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:28–00:42:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
by July 1st. Please make sure that you file electronically with the Commission on Ethics by
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:37–00:42:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And Sheila can follow up and just check to make sure that everybody has timely filed.
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:46–00:42:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
in. But once September 1st hits, there's a $25 per day fine that kicks in, and you have to pay that out of your own pocket. And given the amount of money that you make serving as a trustee, I know that we do not want to see you in that position. So please just make sure that you file. If you have any questions about the form itself, you can reach out to either myself or Sheila, and
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:15–00:43:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But we have gone ahead and started updating the operating rules and procedures, and we will have it
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:25–00:43:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:30–00:43:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so you could have the opportunity to review them before the meeting and make any comments thereon.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:39–00:43:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
do have an update on the potential forfeiture with regard to the criminal proceeding of a former member. After we ‸ received all the documents from the state attorney's office, our office also reached out and we actually spoke to the victim in the case. And after consideration, we are ‸ going to be making the recommendation that we proceed forward with forfeiture proceedings. So a little bit different than what we just did with the disability. There's a Florida statute out there.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:15–00:44:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And it says that we have to proceed in accordance with Florida statute chapter 120, which is the Administrative Procedures Act. So it does not get set for an informal hearing, but what we do is we draft a document that's called Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Which basically will set forth all of the relevant facts and the charges in that document that will come before you at the next board meeting. You'll have the opportunity to review it.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:50–00:44:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Agency Action. It would then be mailed to the former member who's currently in jail, but we could still serve him in jail. And he would have 30 days from the date that we serve it upon him to request a formal hearing.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:10–00:45:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's premature at this point in time to know whether or not he is going to request a formal hearing. The other option he would have is just to take a return of employee contributions. You cannot forfeit what you've actually paid into the pension yourself, but any interest on the contributions would be forfeited as well. So, you know,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:35–00:45:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
If he does not request a formal hearing, then yes, he would just receive a return of his contributions. But, as I said, premature to take any action today, we will have the actual notice for you for the August meeting and proceed forward. If he does request a hearing and he's still in jail, we have actually had forfeiture proceedings where
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:58–00:46:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
swear the
former
member, swear the former member in and he could participate telephonically from jail and that provides him with due process under the law. So, first step,
we'll
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:46:16–00:46:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
have it on the agenda for the next meeting and we'll get you the notice to act on that. Any questions on that at this point in time?
I had a question.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:26–00:46:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Did you
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:27–00:46:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
any interest, just the contribution?
That's correct.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:40–00:46:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
without any interest.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:45–00:46:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And in that we would go right to a formal hearing. I cannot argue as the board's legal advisor that the benefit should be forfeited. So, what we do is we retain independent outside counsel to come in and act basically as a prosecutor to argue why the pension benefit should be forfeited. But that's premature. Also, I will have a recommendation at the next meeting on who to retain with regard to proceeding forward with that. It would most probably be a former associate of mine that is currently the general counsel for
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:29–00:47:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Paul Darajati and probably has been to a couple of your meetings years ago. But we still have a very good relationship with him. And he would act as the prosecutor. And we would retain him to do so. ‸ So, we'll kick this until the August meeting and we'll take action at that point in time.
All right.
‸ Any other questions there?
Nope.
Okay. Not hearing any. Then just legislative update, which is there is no update. The Florida legislative session concluded. No pension-related bills, which is always a good thing. So, nothing further to report from
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:48:13–00:48:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
this afternoon, unless you have any further questions for me. Yep.
Pat, I just wanted to mention, the attorney said you will consider the operating rules and procedures at our August meeting.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:28–00:48:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We won't want to reprint them. So, I'll be sure that you have them electronically if you can't dig them out, you know, so that
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:43–00:48:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay.
All right. You ready for my report now?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:56–00:48:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
primarily informational. We do have, ‸ Member Blankenship is going to the conference at the end of this month. And, Nick, I would just remind you to take that tax exempt certificate. Sometimes they honor it, and sometimes they don't. And keep a record of your mileage and any tolls. And if you have to pay any parking so that I can get that paid to you after the conference.
Okay.
Unless you have any questions on the items here. Oh, I did want to mention, which I'd let you know, the newest trustee, along with Nick, he resigned the board in March. He did file his final financial disclosure form. This is a council appointment, and it does require that the person reside in the corporate city limit. So, if you know of anyone who has an interest in the pension plan, who's a city resident, you might want to recommend that they get in touch with the city clerk so we can get that slot filled.
Okay.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:50:12–00:50:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Okay.
Okay. Okay. Well, just, you know, if you do, you know, let me know and send them to the city clerk. ‸ And then, with that, unless you have any questions on that, we ‸ need the motion to ratify our payments and deposits.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:38–00:50:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
Okay. Thank you. And ‸ that's all I have. ‸ And unless we have any comments or staff input, we would just have the chairman adjourn the meeting.
All right. By seeing none, I'll make the motion to adjourn.
Okay. At 152.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Sounds good.
Take
care, everyone.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:51:15–00:51:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:20–00:52:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:37 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:14 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:33–00:52:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:37–00:52:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:52:47–00:52:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:52:51–00:52:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:52:56–00:52:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:59–00:53:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
years to get it. so it's most likely to confirm.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:10–00:53:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:53:19–00:53:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
is two years time served and then three years of home detention.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:29–00:53:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
is
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:53:40–00:54:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
dallas yeah from tsunami in Dallas. downtown
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:10–00:54:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
the dallas oh man
And that's a great
name for that place ‸ it looks like a prison.
yeah
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:54:19–00:54:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
They allow no
water bottles in,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:23–00:54:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
no nothing And they are searching every bag when you walk
in there. really yup
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:28–00:54:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:30–00:54:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:32–00:54:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:32–00:54:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:34–00:54:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:54:35–00:54:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording