August 27, 2002 – Board Agenda

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations of the Board of Retirement related to (1) Accounts of Terminated Non-vested Members without Reciprocity, (2) Notification to Disability Applicants of Informal Hearing & (3) Acceptance of Tax-Deferred Rollovers for the Purchase of Service Credit

5.4

Adoption of Policy to Include GC§31592 Reserve Balances in the Actuarial Valuation Assets

5.5

Approval of Contract between SamCERA and the State Office of Administrative Hearings

5.6

Review of SamCERA’s Disability Policies and Procedures

6.0

Investment Committee Report – The Committee will meet in Public Session at 10:00 a.m.

6.1

Acceptance of Monthly Portfolio Performance Report

6.2

Acceptance of Quarterly Investment Performance Analysis for periods ending June 30, 2002

6.3

Strategic Investment Solutions Workshop on Manager Due Diligence

6.4

Annual Review of INVESCO Realty Advisors' Separate Property Value Optimization Plans

6.5

INVESCO Realty Advisors Workshop on Real Estate

6.6

Annual Investment Manager Review – INVESCO Realty Advisors

6.7

Approval of Topics for Investment Manager Review – Deutsche Asset Management

7.0

Board and Management Support Services

7.1

Approval of Lease

7.2

Approval of Contract for Editorial Services for Member Education Materials with MaryAnn Gutoff

7.3

Adoption of Policy providing for Long-term Retention of Board Meeting Recordings

7.4

Review and Reaffirmation of Committee Charters

8.0

Approval or Acceptance of Reports

8.1

Chief Executive Officer's Report

8.2

County Counsel's Report

8.3

Investment & Finance Manager’s Report

8.4

Information Technology Manager’s Report

9.0

Adjournment

August 27, 2002 – Board Minutes as amended

0208.1

Call to Order: Mr. Bryan, Chair, called the Public Session of the Board of Retirement to order at 1:00 p.m., August 27, 2002 in SamCERA’s Board Room, Suite 280, 702 Marshall, Redwood City.

0208.2

Roll Call: Mr. Bryan, Ms. Colson, Mr. Lewis (1:02), Mr. McMahon, Ms. Salas & Ms. Stuart. Ms. Arnott for Mr. Buffington. Excused: Mr. Cottle & Ms. Tonsfeldt. Staff: Mr. McCausland, Mr. Clifton, Mr. Hood & Ms. Lamica. Counsel: Mr. Murphy. Consultants: Dr. Fracchia, Ms. Jadallah, & Mr. Thomas. Retirees 3, Actives 3, County 2.

0208.3

Approval of the Minutes: Ms. Arnott noted that the Minutes substituted “Mr.” in place of “Ms.” in 0207.2.3 (Ms. Colson), 0207.3 5 (Ms. Arnott), 0207.6.7 4 (Ms. Jacobs), and 0207.7.4 1 (Ms. Gutoff). Mr. McCausland apologized for his gender nomenclature problems and promised to improve.

Ms. Arnott noted the following additional corrections: 0207.5.2 4 “Ms. Salas noted that Mark Frisbie wants to the Board…”; and 0207.7.7 2 “…after the Board has completed its in Legal Counsel Review.”

Motion by Salas, second by Stuart, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes as corrected.

0208.4.1

Oral Communications from the Board: Ms. Stuart reported that SCORPA volunteers provided SamCERA with 110.5 hours of assistance with newsletter mailings during the past fiscal year. Mr. McCausland expressed staff’s appreciation to Marie Walsh and her volunteers for the assistance provided. Mr. Bryan expressed the Board’s gratitude to SCORPA for the volunteer assistance. •Mr. McMahon reported that he had attended a Pacific Pension Institute meeting, which focused on Pacific Rim private equity opportunities, corporate governance, banking crises in emerging markets and shortcomings in Japanese reform efforts.

0208.4.2

Oral Communications From the Public: In response to a comment from Ms. Stuart that all trustees, herself included, should speak up, Steve Perry noted that it is difficult for the audience to hear the Board’s discussions, but complimented Ms. Stuart on her representation of SamCERA’s members, even if he could not always hear everything that was said. •Marie Walsh, President of SCORPA, invited the trustees to attend SCORPA’s annual picnic on September 25^th, 1400 Roosevelt Avenue. Mr. Bryan encouraged all trustees to attend noting that the event is well attended and will provide trustees and staff an opportunity to get to know more SamCERA retirees.

0208.5

Benefit & Actuarial Services

0208.5.1

Adoption of Consent Calendar: Without objection, Mr. Bryan removed the application of Sandra Salgado from the Consent Calendar (Ms. Salas).

Motion by Salas, second by Lewis, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended.

Disability Retirements:

The Board (a) finds that Michael League is disabled from performing his usual and customary duties as a Senior Utility Specialist (b) finds that his disability is Service-connected, and (c) grants his application for Service-connected Disability Retirement.

The Board (a) finds that Holly Stangrover is disabled from performing her usual and customary duties as a Licensed Vocational Nurse (b) finds that her disability is Nonservice-connected, and (c) grants her application for Nonservice-connected Disability Retirement.

The Board ratifies the routine actions taken by staff pursuant to the Board's Delegation of Authority and the Regulations of the Board of Retirement as follows:

Service Retirements:

Simpson, Ramona

June 17, 2002 (from deferred)

General Hospital

Nachin, Patricia

June 29, 2002 (from deferred)

Public Health

Londos-Rothrock, Lisa

July 31, 2002 (from deferred)

Health Services

Turner, Mary

August 8, 2002

Coroner’s Office

Bresee, Patricia

August 8, 2002

Superior Court

Beneficiary Continuance of Benefits:

Bennett, Cora

Beneficiary of Henry

Hurdal, Chris

Beneficiary of Irene

Juergens, Dona

Beneficiary of John

Pardini, Benvenuta

Beneficiary of Roland

Souza, Steven

Beneficiary of Dorothy

Redeposit per Section 31831.1

Deferred

Floyd, Evelyn

G1 vested

Reciprocity

Deferred Retirements:

Brown, Kevin

G2 vested

Reciprocity

Lomeda, Darwin

G4 non-vested

Reciprocity

Adona, Benjamin

G2 vested

Barrett, Donna

G2 vested

Carlsen, Claire

3/G2 vested

Fedderson, Duane

G2 vested

Jameson, Kelly

G2 vested

Jones, Christine

3/G2 vested

Jurado, Paula

3/G2 vested

O’Brien, Theresa

G2 vested

Rainey, Maryann

G2 vested

Thomas, Kelly

G2 vested

Torres, Angelica

G2 vested

Withdrawal Refunds:

June, 2002

Broome, Marva

G4 non-vested

$1,310.85

Callari, Duby

G4 non-vested

21,669.78

Duran, Maria

G4 non-vested

36.68

Engelhard, Pamela

G4 non-vested

3,046.08

Faciane, Yvonne

G4 non-vested

6,396.03

Mingoa, Glenn

G4 non-vested

1,394.25

Mumford, Nancy

G4 non-vested

709.87

Serna, Michael

G4 non-vested

4,664.21

Shannon-Bevilaq, Mairead

G4 non-vested

144.78

Sorahan, Danielle

G4 non-vested

1,337.43

Spillane, Michelle

G4 non-vested

925.73

Varma, Ashni

G4 non-vested

1,513.55

Willis, Bryan

G4 non-vested

6,228.28

Zarur, Robert

G4 non-vested

293.88

Total Refunds for August, 2002

$49,671.40

Withdrawal Rollovers:

June, 2002

Avila, Darren

G4 non-vested

$969.53

Bilenko, Arkady

G4 non-vested

10,455.29

Cunningham, Beverly

G4 non-vested

7,284.02

Duong, Thuan

G4 non-vested

3,140.62

Frick, Noelle

G4 non-vested

2,126.67

Gould, Maria

G2 vested

10,463.56

Guerrero, Veronica

G4 non-vested

5,470.61

Leonard, Felicia

G4 non-vested

7,107.39

Lindahl, Karen

G4 non-vested

10,895.47

Mortell, Susan

G4 non-vested

1,030.90

Orozco, Mauricio

G4 non-vested

8,004.65

Parfet, Cynthia

G4 non-vested

1,508.91

Patricio-Lee, Josephine

G4 non-vested

6,810.82

Polizzotto, Jennifer

G4 non-vested

968.02

Price, Pat

P4 non-vested

19,609.20

Pult, Juliet

G4 non-vested

148.46

Russo, Irma

G4 non-vested

2,266.45

Sterling, John

G4 non-vested

8,378.04

Walker, Katherine

G4 non-vested

7,889.83

Total Rollovers for August, 2002

$95,845.66

0208.5.2

Consideration of items removed from Consent Calendar: Mr. McCausland introduced Susie Lamica, Retirement Analyst – Member Services. He noted that Ms. Lamica is in the process of assuming Ms. Manning’s responsibilities for processing disability applications.

The Board reviewed the disability application of Sandra Salgado. Dr. Fracchia reviewed the medical reports. Dr. Fracchia noted that in his opinion Ms. Salgado’s MRI was consistent with that of individuals her age and that he understands that she is in training to perform duties similar to those she is no longer able to perform for the County. Consequently, Dr. Fracchia felt that he needed to recommend denial. However, Dr. Fracchia also reported that SamCERA had ordered an independent medical examination and the independent examiner had concluded that Ms. Salgado is unable to perform the duties of her position.

Mr. Bryan reviewed the history of Ms. Salgado’s application with Dr. Fracchia, noting that when the application had come before the Board previously there was one medical opinion on each side of the issue. Mr. Bryan noted that the Board had instructed staff to order an independent medical evaluation and that that evaluation found Ms. Salgado disabled. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland noted that, if the Board finds that she is disabled, then the Board has the authority to determine if the disability is service-connected or nonservice-connected.

Ms. Salgado reviewed her medical condition, the medical reports and the requirements of her job. She stated that her studies at San Francisco State are under the auspices of the University’s program for disabled students. In response to a question from Ms. Arnott, Ms. Salgado indicated that she is studying for a Bachelors degree in Psychology and that she hopes the University will permit her to manage a light counseling caseload. Ms. Stuart asked her to clarify how different her new job would be. Ms. Salgado noted that she needed a light duty assignment, which the County cannot accommodate, but that she will continue to look for a job that can use her skills and accommodate her pain management needs.

Steve Perry noted that his duties are similar to Ms. Salgado’s. He reported that the job is physically demanding. He reported that his department is understaffed and cannot provide a light duty accommodation. He offered his opinion that the medical reports support Ms. Salgado’s application.

Mr. McCausland noted that Risk Management’s report referred to an original back injury at work for which she has been under treatment since 1983. Mr. McCausland indicated that the Board has a basis to find the disability to be service-connected based on the original injury and the conclusion of the Board’s independent medical examiner.

Motion by Salas, second by Bryan, carried six ayes (Arnott, Bryan, Colson, McMahon, Salas & Stuart) to one no (Lewis), to (a) find that Sandra Salgado is disabled from performing her usual and customary duties as an Income Employment Services Specialist, (b) find that her disability is Service-connected, and (c) grant her application for Service-connected Disability Retirement.

0208.5.3

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations of the Board of Retirement related to (1) Accounts of Terminated Non-vested Members without Reciprocity, (2) Notification to Disability Applicants of Informal Hearing & (3) Acceptance of Tax-Deferred Rollovers for the Purchase of Service Credit:

Mr. McCausland reported that the amendments to the Regulations had been introduced on May 28^th and heard on July 23^rd. He noted that staff had considered the comments of Mr. Perry and Mr. Buffington during the Public Hearing [see Minutes 0207.5.3]. Mr. Buffington’s suggestion to suspend the crediting of interest after 90 days rather than 180 days would establish an inconsistency between the 180-day deadline for establishing reciprocity and would not result in significant savings. Consequently, staff recommends that the 180-day period be retained. Mr. Perry had commented that the mail is too slow for a seven day certified notice of scheduled Board action on a disability application to be useful. Mr. McCausland noted that staff tries a variety of means to keep members informed of the status of their application, that the use of a notice by certified mail was being added as a fail safe requested by the Board and that extending the notice period would result in an additional delay for those applicants whose Board materials were not available earlier. Currently Dr. Fracchia and staff prepare reports for the Board up to seven days prior to the meeting. Consequently, staff recommends that the seven-day notice period be retained.

Motion by Colson, second by Salas, carried unanimously, to adopt the following amendments to the Regulations of the Board of Retirement and to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to forward them to the Board of Supervisors for ratification:

(1) Accounts of Terminated Non-vested Members without Reciprocity

Regulation 6.6.8 is added to the Regulations of the Board of Retirement, as follows:

6.6.8 Accounts of Terminated Non-vested Members without Reciprocity:

(a)This regulation shall apply to a member who (1) terminates County employment with less than five years of SamCERA service credit, (2) fails to file a timely application for a refund or rollover pursuant to 6.4.2 and 6.6.5 and (3) fails to establish reciprocity per 6.6.7. This regulation is promulgated in accordance with the provisions of GC§§31628 & 31629.

(b) The Administrator shall send to such member, not more than 90-days after termination of service, at his or her last known address, a registered or certified letter, return receipt requested. Such letter shall state that (1) the funds in the member’s account must be refunded or rolled over, (2) interest will no longer be credited to the account and (3) the member’s funds will be escheated in accordance with the provisions of GC§31629.

(c) The Administrator shall not credit additional interest to the account of such member after 180 days have elapsed following the date of termination.

(d) As authorized pursuant to GC§31629, the Administrator shall issue an involuntary refund check for the amount of the contributions and interest in such member’s account, less mandatory federal and state withholding, only if (1) the letter provided for above was receipted by such member and the signed receipt is in the possession of the Administrator and (2) such member has failed to file an application for a refund or rollover pursuant to 6.4.2 and 6.6.5 or reciprocity pursuant to 6.6.7 within 180 days after the date of termination. Such refund check shall be mailed to such member’s last known address by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

(e) If such involuntary refund check is not cashed, then the Administrator shall deposit such member’s account in the County Advance Reserve on the fifth anniversary of such member’s date of termination and thereafter the fund shall not be liable to such member for any portion of the accumulated contributions per GC§31629.

(2) Notification to Disability Applicants of Informal Hearing

Regulation 8.3.3 is amended as follows:

8.3.3 Informal Hearing: With the consent of the applicant, the initial hearing before the Board on an application for disability retirement may be informal in nature. While the applicant is encouraged to appear before the Board, the appearance is not mandatory. The Administrator shall notify the applicant ~~of the staff’s recommendation and~~ of the time and location of the informal hearing and provide the applicant with a copy of the staff’s recommendation no less than seven calendar days prior to the hearing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. The Administrator shall notify the applicant by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and the County ~~in writing~~ of the Board's action on the application.

(3) Acceptance of Tax-Deferred Roll-overs for the Purchase of Service Credit

Regulation 10.1.6 is added to the Regulations of the Board of Retirement as follows:

10.1.6 Acceptance of Plan-to Plan Transfers and Rollovers: To the extent authorized by both federal and state law, SamCERA shall accept plan-to-plan transfers and accept rollover funds from qualified plans for the lump sum payment of contributions and interest required for the purchase of service credit pursuant to Article 10 of these Regulations. If a member becomes entitled to receive a distribution that constitutes an eligible rollover distribution under both federal and state law as certified by the forwarding financial institution, the member may elect to have the distribution or a portion thereof paid directly to SamCERA.

0208.5.4

Adoption of Policy to Include GC§31592 Reserve Balances in the Actuarial Valuation Assets: Mr. McCausland reviewed the staff recommendation to include the 1% unencumbered balance in the GC§31592 Reserve as a part of Valuation Assets, the history of the Market Stabilization Account and the status of the Ventura Contingency Reserve. Mr. McCausland recommended that the item be continued for discussion with the actuary. Without objection, Mr. Bryan ordered the matter continued to a subsequent meeting when the actuary will be in attendance.

0208.5.5

Approval of Contract between SamCERA and the State Office of Administrative Hearings: Mr. McCausland reported that the recent California Supreme Court decision in Hass v. County of San Bernardino (2002DJDAR4893 May 7, 2002) had found that the use of a hearing officer who may be influenced by the prospect of future business places the appellant at a disadvantage. Mr. McCausland reported that Milton Mares, Deputy County Counsel, recommended that the Board retain the services of the State Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct formal disability hearings when requested by the applicant. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland reported that staff would also assemble a list of qualified counsel in private practice in the Bay Area who could also serve as a panel of potential hearing officers. Motion by Stuart, second by Colson, carried unanimously, to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to contract for the services of the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of Disability Appeal Hearings.

0208.5.6

Review of SamCERA’s Disability Policies and Procedures: Mr. McCausland noted that Ms. Tonsfeldt had requested the report. Without objection, Mr. Bryan put the item over to the September meeting.

Mr. McMahon asked if the Board’s authority to reexamine a disability benefit recipient under age 55 was limited to either service or nonservice connected disability benefits. Mr. McCausland said that he would prefer to double check the ’37 Act before responding, but that he believes the Board’s authority to reexamine extends to all disability benefit recipients under 55. [GC§31729: The Board may require any disability beneficiary under age 55 to undergo medical examination… GC§31730: If the Board determines that the beneficiary is not incapacitated, and his or her employer offers to reinstate that beneficiary, his or her retirement allowance shall be cancelled forthwith, and he or she shall be reinstated in the county service…]

0208.6

Investment Committee Report

0208.6.1

Acceptance of Monthly Portfolio Performance Report: Mr. Bryan noted that in Mr. Cottle’s absence, Ms. Colson had agreed to Chair the Investment Committee.

Ms. Colson reported that the Retirement Fund outperformed its Policy Benchmark by 1.01% over the trailing twelve months. For the trailing one year (8/1/01-7/31/02) the return was –10.02% vs. –11.03% for the policy benchmark. Ms. Colson reported that SamCERA’s return for July was –4.88%, while the policy benchmark return was –5.58%. Market value and performance for the month ending July 31^st were as follows:

Asset Class

Market Value

1-Month

1-year TTWRR

5-year TTWRR

Domestic Equity

$ 508,985,129

-9.08%

-21.80%

-0.30%

International Equity

150,015,641

-9.68%

-15.53%

-0.72%

Total Equity

$ 659,000,771

-9.22%

-20.49%

-1.47%

Fixed Income

404,846,239

1.49%

8.17%

7.26%

Real Estate Aggregate

88,277,091

0.64%

1.51%

7.36%

Cash Equivalents

231,073,659

0.32%

3.06%

Total Fund

$1,183,197,759

-4.88%

-10.02%

2.17%

Benchmark

-5.58%

-11.03%

2.10%

She noted that the portfolio will need to be rebalanced in the near future and that the rebalancing plans will be discussed later in the meeting.

In response to a comment from Mr. Murphy, Ms. Colson agreed to incorporate correction of the date of the Investment Committee meeting in the Committee’s Minutes.

Without objection, Mr. Bryan accepted the report.

0208.6.2

Acceptance of Quarterly Investment Performance Analysis for periods ending June 30, 2002: Mr. Thomas of Strategic Investment Solutions reported that equity markets declined significantly in the second quarter of 2002, with the Russell 1000 Index down -13.45% and the Russell 2000 down –8.35%. International Equity was also down –2.65% due in part to dollar weakness. Fixed income rallied through the quarter, due in part to low inflation and the Fed providing some signs of easing on credit, with the Lehman Aggregate up 3.70%. He noted that GNP increased 6% in the first quarter, but that growth in the economy has slowed since. He noted a number of the factors that have shaken investors’ confidence in the markets. With the equity markets down, the portfolio was down 5.13%, outperforming its benchmark, which was down 5.60%.

Mr. Thomas reported that SIS has concluded that its comparison universe is dominated by smaller funds. Since smaller funds tend to have lower equity allocations, their recent performance has distorted the percentile ranking of larger funds that have higher equity allocations. Mr. Thomas noted that SamCERA would have ranked near the median in universes that contain a higher percentage of large funds. For instance the Wilshire/TUCS Universe median performance for the past fiscal year was –5.8%, which would place SamCERA much closer to the 50^th Percentile in that universe vs. the 67^th Percentile ranking in the SIS universe. Mr. Thomas reported that SIS is considering identifying a subset of large funds in their universe to use to calculate percentile rankings for their larger clients.

Returns and SIS universe percentile rankings as of June 30^th were reported as follows:

Asset Class

1-Quarter

1-year TTWRR

5-year TTWRR

Large Cap Equity

-13.45%

-17.88%

3.92%

Small Cap Equity

-8.32%

-8.50%

International Equity

-2.12%

-8.42%

2.03%

Total Equity

-10.19%

-14.38%

1.68%

Passive Fixed Income

3.81%

8.87%

7.68%

Active Fixed Income

3.63%

9.49%

7.89%

Total Fixed Income

3.73%

9.09%

7.30%

Real Estate

2.48%

0.87%

7.23%

Cash Equivalents

0.82%

3.08%

Total Fund

-5.13%

-5.92%

4.14%

Benchmark

-5.60%

-6.50%

4.05%

Ms. Jadallah of Strategic Investment Solutions reviewed SamCERA’s portfolio characteristics and manager performance. Mr. Lewis suggested that BGI US Debt & Deutsche Asset Management Fixed Income Summary Statistics be consolidated on one page for ease of comparison.

Ms. Colson noted that the Performance Attribution Chart is an important tool to help the Board understand how the various components of the portfolio and each manager contribute to performance. She noted that the under weighting in large cap stocks combined with the active management by Bank of Ireland & INVESCO Real Estate Advisers provided the net 47 basis points by which the Fund outperformed its benchmark for the quarter.

Mr. Thomas noted that during the quarter the Fund was under allocated to equity and that this helped total plan performance for the quarter, but that it is time to rebalance the portfolio.

Mr. Clifton reported his plans for rebalancing the portfolio. The plan is to move the two Fixed Income portfolios back to their Asset Allocation targets based on August 31^st values and to re-deploy those assets to the BGI Russell 1000 and Bank of Ireland portfolios. Approximately $54 million in Fixed Income investments will be liquidated. The proceeds of those sales, combined with ~$10 million from short-term investments, would be used to purchase ~$45 million in BGI Russell 1000 units and ~$19 million in BIAM units. Ms. Colson noted that the rebalancing plan is consistent with SamCERA’s Investment Plan.

Without objection, Mr. Bryan accepted the report.

0208.6.3

Strategic Investment Solutions Workshop on Manager Due Diligence: Ms. Colson reminded the Board that it had selected Manager Due Diligence as the topic for this month’s SIS Workshop. Ms. Jadallah opened by noting that the workshop would provide the Board with insights into the way SIS manages its due diligence process by reviewing the work done for a specific client.

SIS focuses intensely on manager due diligence because of its central role in classifying managers in terms of their investment style; consistency of adherence to their investment style, philosophy and process; their commitment and management of resources; and their ability to explicitly support the manager structure assembled to manage a client’s portfolio. Rather than employing a shotgun approach of hiring a lot of managers with small allocations to cover the style bases, SIS prefers to select a few managers that will provide sufficient style diversification and then give them larger allocations. An additional advantage of using larger allocations is that it economizes on fees.

SIS targets its manager due diligence research efforts. SIS uses a focused research discipline to follow closely about 500 investment products/services offered by approximately 350 managers. SIS utilizes comprehensive data sources such as the Plan Sponsor Network, Mobius, Morningstar & Bankers Trust/ICC Separate Accounts databases to identify top half managers by style. The Research Focus List targets products and managers for intense SIS scrutiny, which begins with a comprehensive questionnaire. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Ms. Jaddalah indicated that SIS would provide trustees with a copy of SIS’ proprietary questionnaire. In addition, SIS adds managers to their focus list upon the request of a client. SIS meets with managers they consider to be serious contenders at least once a year, with as many visits as possible (currently about one in five) being in the manager’s offices. For managers that are currently retained by SIS clients, SIS meets with them two to three times per year, with at least one of the visits in the manager’s offices. Each SIS professional is responsible for meeting with managers in assigned style categories. In 2001 SIS held 676 manager reviews, with 104 on site and 572 in SIS’ offices. Since inception, SIS has conducted 211 manager searches and placed $45.3 billion in assets.

SIS uses no soft dollar services, so the firm believes it is free to be completely objective in its manager evaluations. SIS is willing to work with managers of start up investment management firms that bring with them a sterling record from their prior engagement. SIS approaches the manager selection process with a great deal of humility, because it is a challenging task. Consequently, SIS works closely with its clients to structure a manager selection process that involves the client to the level that the client wants to participate.

Mr. Thomas presented an actual case study of the changes SIS made to a client’s Manager Structure to resolve style bias problems that were in place when SIS was retained. SIS’ philosophy reflects a strong commitment to efficient market theory with an emphasis on the use of the information ratio’s quantification of risk-adjusted out performance of the benchmark. SIS tracks the performance of managers against their style peers and style benchmarks and uses both return-based and holdings-based techniques for quantifying a manager’s adherence to a style. SIS devotes significant effort to understanding a manager’s business plan and any limits to the capacity of the investment discipline to absorb additional assets. Another area of analysis is the manager’s capacity to capture upside gains and limit downside losses. Mr. Thomas listed the various key factors considered when selecting a passive manager vs. those utilized when selecting an active manager. Using Barclays Global Investors as an example, Mr. Thomas & Ms. Jadallah noted that BGI continues to meet all of SIS’ expectations and that recent statements from the CEO of BGI’s parent company indicate that the future of the organization is not in doubt at this time.

Ms. Jadallah noted that SIS dwells on performance when it is out of line with the stated strategy and when it is below expectations due to organizational changes or excess growth in assets under management, or represents active bets outside of the manager’s core competence. In response to a question from Mr. Clifton, Ms. Jadallah indicated that when abnormal performance surfaces, SIS will begin addressing the issue with the manager. If the abnormal performance persists for two years, then SIS is likely to conclude that the investment process is failing. Using Bank of Ireland Asset Management as an example, Ms. Jadallah noted that the manager had suffered from its strong bet on telecom-munications, but now seemed to be on the road to recovery. Currently, SIS’ concern regarding BIAM is that they not take on more assets than they can successfully manage now that they have acquired Iridian Asset Management.

Ms. Jadallah reported that SIS dwells on organizational changes when employees’ lose their ownership stake, or redundancy weakens staffing, or professionals are distracted from their core assignments and competencies, or the buyer later regrets an acquisition, or a firm undergoes a major change in corporate culture. Using Deutsche Asset Management as an example, Ms. Jadallah recalled that SamCERA hired Morgan Grenfell, which managed SamCERA’s active fixed income assets from their London and Philadelphia offices. Then when Morgan Grenfell was acquired by Deutsche Bank key London staff left the firm (after SamCERA had transferred its account to the domestic portfolio managed in Philadelphia). Now Deutsche has acquired Scudder and the Philadelphia team may be required to manage more assets than their investment discipline can accommodate. In addition, the global management team is re-evaluating the product mix and the head of passive investments has announced his departure from the firm. These events signal the need to monitor DeAM closely for some time to come to make certain that the firm can continue to meet its commitment to SamCERA and SIS’ other clients.

Ms. Jadallah reviewed the components of the manager search and onsite due diligence processes. Mr. Thomas noted that the client plays a pivotal role in defining the parameters for a manager search so that SIS can target the candidate managers that will be compatible with the client’s risk tolerance and expectations. In response to a question from Mr. McCausland, Ms. Jadallah recommends that staff and trustees participate in on site due diligence, though few clients have trustees who participate.

0208.6.4

Annual Review of INVESCO Realty Advisors' Separate Property Value Optimization Plans: Ms. Colson reported that the Audit Committee had referred the Property Value Optimization Plans to the Investment Committee for review. She reported that the Investment Committee had accepted the Plans and found them adequate, appropriate and informative.

0208.6.5

INVESCO Realty Advisors Workshop on Real Estate: Ms. Colson noted that the Investment Committee held an in depth workshop with INVESCO on SamCERA’s real estate portfolio and alternative courses of action for the future. She indicated that the Committee’s recommendations would be covered in Agenda Item 0208.6.6.

0208.6.6

Annual Investment Manager Review – INVESCO Realty Advisors: David Ridley, President; Sally Kittles, Portfolio Manager; Mark Roberts, Director of Research; and Max Swango, Director of Client Services were present from INVESCO Realty Advisors for the review. Mr. Ridley reviewed the structure of AMVESCAP, INVESCO Realty Advisors’ parent, noting the parent’s commitment to maintaining INVESCO as an autonomous entity. He reviewed the role of real estate in a well-diversified portfolio, and noted that the firm now has $6.6 billion in direct real estate investments in the U.S. and $1.4 billion in direct real estate investments in Europe.

Mr. Ridley shared an extract from INVESCO’s client list, noting that the firm closed its doors to new clients in 2000, but is currently considering opening its doors to new clients who wish to participate in a new opportunistic value-added commingled fund. While the firm is considering accepting a new core client, it will need to be a very meaningful relationship in order to entice INVESCO to accept an additional core allocation at this time in this market. In response to questions from Ms. Colson, he reported that INVESCO has yet to invest ~$300 million in current allocations from its existing core clients and continues to accept additional allocations from those clients. He also noted that the flow of new allocations has slowed, because of the “denominator effect” wherein the value of the client’s total portfolio is down, thereby shrinking the dollar value of the real estate allocation. He indicated that it has been a long time since the funds available for investment have been this low.

Mr. Ridley noted that INVESCO is known for its stability, with broad-based ownership participation. There have been no major organizational changes during the past year.

Mr. Swango summarized SamCERA’s real estate investment objectives: (1) maintain real estate allocation in direct real estate ownership, (2) reduce risk through diversification, (3) achieve SamCERA’s total return goals, (4) emphasize income returns and (5) minimize portfolio risk. He indicated that INVESCO seeks to facilitate these objectives through careful management of lease rollover schedules, scheduled capital improvements, tenant quality & credit worthiness and through focused active management of the total portfolio. He reviewed the assembling of SamCERA’s portfolio, highlighting its diversification by property type and region, noting that the properties had been 95% leased since inception and have performed well over time.

He noted that SamCERA’s portfolio is over allocated to office properties primarily because the Board’s reduction of the target allocation to real estate halted the acquisition program midstream, in aggregate SamCERA’s office properties have appreciated in value and SamCERA’s one sale was not an office building. In response to a question from Mr. Bryan, he noted that ~51% of SamCERA’s real estate portfolio is in office, while NECREIF is ~42% office and INVESCO’s aggregate portfolio is ~29% office.

Mr. Swango reviewed the performance history. He reported that INVESCO appraises all properties at the same time, while NCREIF appraisals are spread over all four quarters. So he expects to see other portfolios depreciate over the balance of the year. He reminded the Board of the fact that in earlier years NCREIF properties were being written up, after having been written down in the early ‘90’s, while SamCERA was buying properties at current market value. With strong cash flows and appraisals in 2001, SamCERA’s portfolio outperformed NCREIF. He expects that as NCREIF participants write down their properties, SamCERA will again outperform the index.

In response to a question from Mr. Bryan, Mr. Swango noted that SamCERA’s 9.76% projected income returns reflects appropriate valuations. Ms. Kittles reported that the March valuations reflected INVESCO’s anticipation of a slow economy’s lag effect on real estate markets. The March valuations included expectations of lower rents. In response to a question from Mr. Clifton, Mr. Robert’s reported that the valuations and forecasted returns are based on discounted cash flow. Ms. Kittle’s noted that lease income is pivotal and includes assessment of tenant’s current and projected credit standing. Mr. Robert’s noted that values may be a little low since sales seem to be running in the range of 10% over appraisal. Ms. Jadallah noted that SIS’s other clients that use INVESCO report that their appraisals are appropriate.

In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. Swango noted that INVESCO has concluded that the use of REIT’s is not an appropriate vehicle for maintaining a fully invested real estate allocation and that the initial concept was flawed.

Mr. Swango noted that SamCERA’s Fremont industrial property was sold with an internal rate of return of 14.94%, just before market rents declined 40%. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. Ridley stated that, as part of the development of the INVESCO Manifesto, the firm has concluded that INVESCO adds the greatest value to its client’s portfolios during the acquisition process. Mr. Roberts indicated that it takes a mix of top-down and bottom-up elements to add value: i.e., it is essential to have good information about the market, good people with strong local relationships to access and acquire the properties and a clear understanding of how the property fits within its competitive environment.

Ms. Kittles reviewed each of SamCERA’s properties. She noted that Tysons Office Center has been the subject of intense review because it represents more than 20% of the portfolio; the review concluded that the building should be held until the market strengthens and occupancy improves. In response to questions from Mr. Bryan, Ms. Kittles noted that the March valuations included the current 26% vacancy level in Tysons, but had not anticipated the 20% vacancy in the Highland Bank Building (caused when the Minnesota Department of Revenue was forced to vacant due to the State’s budget shortfall). She indicated that INVESCO will evaluate the Highland appraisal in light of the new income projections.

Mr. Roberts noted that real estate usually lags growth in the economy by 12-18 months. However, INVESCO is optimistic because of increased discipline evident in the addition of additional capacity. Consequently, there is less of an overhang of excess space in this downturn. Nevertheless, the slow economy has resulted in low levels of leasing activity.

Ms. Kittles concluded by noting that INVESCO’s strategic plan is to seek means to reduce SamCERA’s office allocation relative to NCREIF; to continue to evaluate sales opportunities and to re-deploy the proceeds of any sales to industrial, retail or multifamily opportunities, with an eye to maintaining a well diversified, income oriented portfolio.

Ms. Colson reported that the Investment Committee recommends three amendments to the real estate provisions of SamCERA’s Investment Plan relating to the requirements that (1) no individual property can constitute more than 20% of the value of SamCERA’s assets under a manager’s supervision, (2) the definitions applied to the limitations on the use of leverage and (3) the inclusion of debt on a property in the current definition of market value. Without objection, Mr. Bryan instructed staff to place the amendments to SamCERA’s Investment Plan on the September agenda. Ms. Colson noted that the Investment Committee had reviewed and accepted INVESCO’s Compliance Certification Statement and Written Responses. In response to a question from Mr. McMahon, regarding the fact that a significant number of SamCERA’s compliance questions are not relevant to the investment management of a real estate portfolio, Ms. Kittles noted that INVESCO has no problem taking the time required to complete the Compliance Certification Statement and Written Responses. Ms. Colson & Mr. Bryan thanked INVESCO for making its senior management available for the review.

0208.6.7

Approval of Topics for Investment Manager Review – Deutsche Asset Management: Ms. Colson noted that the Investment Committee had instructed staff to add questions pertaining to turnover in senior management and the integration of Scudder assets into DeAM’s investment management structure. Both Ms. Jadallah and Ms. Colson noted that Mr. Barr is highly regarded in the industry and that the Board needs to understand how his departure will impact the management of SamCERA’s portfolio. Questions were also added regarding capacity limits for the Philadelphia fixed income team and how the firm will make certain they are not exceeded.

0208.7

Board and Management Support Services

0208.7.1

Approval of Lease: Mr. McCausland reported that staff had reviewed ~15 properties of a size and configuration suitable to accommodate the Board’s and staff’s needs. In addition, staff had negotiated aggressively with the current landlord in an effort to remain near the County Government Center. However, the current landlord responded with a counter proposal that deleted space that had been intended to provide for an adequate Board Room and an average monthly rent over the term of the lease that was higher than the winning proposal.

Mr. McCausland recommended that the Board authorize the Chair to enter into a lease for Suite 125, 100 Marine Parkway, Redwood Shores. Mr. McCausland provided the Board with the non-binding Letter of Intent signed by the landlord and Mr. McCausland. Mr. McCausland noted that the landlord was in the process of calculating the impact on the base rent of SamCERA’s insistence that there be no annual pass through of building expenses [the base rents were subsequently increased seven cents per square foot and the pass through provisions were deleted from the lease].

Mr. Bryan noted that he had visited seven locations with staff and that Suite 125 appeared to make the most efficient use of its space. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland noted that the new location would provide a Board Room double the size of the current location. In addition, the individual offices are smaller and, therefore, make more efficient use of the space. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland noted that there is sufficient parking available in the area.

In response to a question from Mr. Lewis, Mr. McCausland pointed out the terms and conditions in the Letter of Intent. He reported that the landlord owns 702 Marshall and a Lend Lease investment vehicle owns 100 Marine. In response to a question from Mr. Hackleman, Mr. McCausland reported that staff had evaluated its interactions with members and the County and found that there are very few office visits during the month, so that the major impact of the move would be to require SamCERA staff to be more efficient in its visits to County offices.

Motion by Colson, second by Salas, carried unanimously, (1) to provide the current landlord forty-eight hours to accept SamCERA’s proposal to lease all of Suites 270 & 280 for a five year total cost of $445,000 and (2) in the event the current landlord rejects SamCERA’s proposal, to adopt Resolution 02-03-03, authorizing the Chair to enter into a lease for Suite 125, 100 Marine Parkway, Redwood Shores:

Whereas, Government Code §31520 vests the management of SamCERA in the Board; &

Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer recommends relocation to space that will provide for improved cost effective management of SamCERA; &

Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer reviewed numerous alternatives and recommends that the Board enter into a lease for Suite 125 at 100 Marine Parkway, Redwood Shores; &

Whereas, the Chief Executive Officer recommends approval of the lease. Therefore, be it

Resolved that the Board hereby approves relocation of SamCERA’s offices from 702 Marshall, Suite 280, Redwood City, to 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 125, Redwood Shores. Be it further

Resolved that the Board hereby approves, subject to review and approval as to form by County Counsel, the lease between the Board and Lend Lease Real Estate, Landlord, for a term of five years, subject to the terms & conditions of the lease and all amendments thereto. Be it further

Resolved that the Board hereby authorizes the Chair to execute the lease on behalf of the Board following its review and approval as to form by County Counsel. Be it further

Resolved that the Board hereby authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relocation, including contracting with third parties, if necessary, acquiring tenant improvements, goods & services from third parties and disbursing funds in SamCERA’s Administrative Budget in accordance with SamCERA’s internal controls. Be it further

Resolved that the Board hereby designates the Chief Executive Officer as its designee to perform those functions so identified in the lease and hereby authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to take all actions necessary to initiate, implement and monitor assignments, approve payments and provide the Board with timely reports regarding the performance of the obligations of the Board and Landlord as set forth in the lease.

0208.7.2

Approval of Contract for Editorial Services for Member Education Materials with MaryAnn Gutoff: Mr. McCausland noted that he had been unable to devote sufficient time to complete the basic and supplemental member booklets that he had been hoping to develop since he came to SamCERA. He had reviewed the proposals from the previous search for an editor and concluded that Ms. Gutoff was most qualified for the new assignment. In response to a question from Mr. Bryan, Mr. McCausland noted that SamCERA had been well served by Ms. Gutoff’s editorial assistance over the past two years, that Ms. Gutoff now had an excellent understanding of SamCERA’s programs and that the members have a serious need for more user-friendly SamCERA publications. Motion by Salas, second by Stuart, carried unanimously, to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a contract with MaryAnn Gutoff for the preparation of member publications and assistance with the website and newsletter, for an amount not to exceed $75,000 and a term of one year.

0208.7.3

Adoption of Policy providing for Long-term Retention of Board Meeting Recordings: Mr. McCausland reviewed the Board’s current policy [See Minutes of February 2000, 0002.7.6], noting that the current policy is to save the tapes for two board meetings and then to re-use them on the third meeting. He reviewed the legal requirements for the reporting of Board actions. He encouraged the Board to refrain from making itself responsible for maintaining records that it is not obligated to maintain.

In response to a question from Mr. McMahon, Mr. Murphy reported that there is no requirement in the Public Records Act to retain recordings of meetings. Ms. Arnott noted that the recordings were intended to assist staff in the preparation of the minutes and that once the minutes are approved there is no need to retain them. Ms. Salas stated that trustees from other systems tell her that SamCERA’s minutes provide an excellent overview of the Board’s deliberations.

Mr. McMahon said that the minutes are discussion minutes and can be written to reflect the viewpoint of the author, rather than the viewpoint of the individual trustee. He asked, how can the Board ascertain if the author has incorrectly characterized an action without listening to the tapes? Mr. McMahon stated that he felt the recordings should be a part of the permanent record of the meeting and should be retained for review in the future. Mr. Bryan noted that the Board had accepted Mr. McMahon’s alternative language [See July Minutes 0207.3] for the May Minutes, but that upon review, Mr. Bryan was unable to distinguish any meaningful difference between the language drafted by staff and the language drafted by Mr. Meiberger and submitted by Mr. McMahon.

Mr. McCausland offered to e-mail the Board when he completes the minutes, so that trustees will know that the tapes are available for review. In response to a question from Ms. Stuart, Mr. McCausland reported that Ms. Colson and Mr. McMahon had each asked to review a tape once.

Mr. McMahon stated that a verbatim transcription by a court reporter would provide the Board with an accurate record of what was said at meetings. Mr. Murphy noted that court reporters are used in adversarial hearings, such as formal disability hearings where a record is needed for a judicial challenge. However, board meetings are in the nature of discretionary legislative proceedings and the formality of the record is not usually an issue. The Public Records Act calls for the maintenance of the record of the meeting in minute form; it does not require that the record be maintained in verbatim form.

Motion by Salas, second by Stuart, carried unanimously, to reaffirm the current policy of retaining recordings of meetings for three meetings. In response to a question from Mr. McMahon, Mr. McCausland stated that the August 27^th tapes would be used to record the November 26^th meeting.

0208.7.4

Review and Reaffirmation of Committee Charters: Mr. McCausland reminded the Board that staff had been instructed to place this item on the agenda during the July meeting following a request from John Murphy [See Minutes July 2002 0207.4.2].

In response to a statement by Mr. McMahon, Mr. McCausland and Ms. Colson noted that the Investment Committee had held an in depth discussion on the real estate program, but that the agenda items heard at the Board level were not taken up during the Committee meeting. John Murphy noted that three members of the Board had attended the Investment Committee meeting and sat in the audience as members of the public, so that they would be fully informed on the items discussed by the Committee. Ms. Salas noted that the Investment Committee’s in depth discussion of the history of the real estate program had been very beneficial and she thinks that every trustee would have benefited by being present for that review. Ms. Salas noted later that she did not enjoy sitting through the committee meeting as part of the public, when she knew she should be sitting as a trustee. Ms. Salas noted that she spends the Board day in the Board Room so that she can follow the work of each Committee.

Ms. Arnott noted that many trustees attend Committee meetings so it is already like an all day Board meeting. While the Committees have done excellent work, a lot of the work is repeated at the Board level and there may be advantages to doing everything at the Board level. She said she is open to keeping or abolishing the committees. Mr. Lewis noted that the core assignments for the Audit Committee are issues that deserve the extra scrutiny the Committee can provide, but that other items creep onto the Committee’s agenda that he does not consider to be part of the core assignment. Mr. Lewis said he is open to keeping or abolishing the committees and that he would like to hear the views of the trustees who are not present before taking action. He noted that he would not be in attendance at the September meeting, but that he would support whatever action the Board decided to take.

Mr. Bryan noted that the committees have improved the efficiency of Board meetings and that they have permitted trustees to go into greater depth on specific issues at the committee level. He expressed his hope that, if the Board decides to eliminate its committees, that it make a commitment to slow down at the Board meeting and take as much time as necessary to go in depth into each agenda item. Mr. Bryan said he is open to keeping or abolishing the committees.

Ms. Colson noted that the complexity of the Board Agenda places a large burden on the Board Chair to prepare for and guide the Board through all of the different issues. Mr. McMahon recalled that for several years the Board met as a committee of the whole, and had a separate Investment Chairman to chair the portion devoted to investments. He noted that John Murphy had referred to the efficiency of that meeting format as part of his comments during the July meeting. Mr. Bryan noted that Mr. Murphy wanted to assure that decisions are made in public session by the full Board and that the work of Committees be conducted in full conformance with the spirit of the Brown Act.

Mr. Bryan reviewed the history of meeting formats since he joined the Board in 1986. He noted that during one period, Committees met ahead of time and when the other trustees came to the Board meeting they found they had little opportunity to influence Board decisions.

In response to a question from Ms. Stuart, Mr. Clifton noted that the Board begins to accelerate its consideration of items as the afternoon progresses, so that the major advantages of the committees is that they can spend time exploring issues in depth. Mr. McMahon suggested that the Board could convene at 9:00 a.m. and work through lunch in an effort to shorten the day, if that is what trustees want to do.

Without objection, Mr. Bryan continued this matter to the September meeting.

0208.8

Approval or Acceptance of Reports

0208.8.1

Chief Executive Officer's Report: Mr. McCausland noted that he had distributed a transcript of Mr. Meiberger’s comments at the May Board meeting, so trustees could gain a sense of the challenge involved in crafting the minutes.

•Mr. McCausland advised the Board that he has asked the Service Employees’ International Union for permission to go to flexible hours. If approved by the union, SamCERA’s office will be closing on Fridays.

He noted that since Employee and Public Services initiated Friday closures a year ago during the energy crisis, SamCERA’s volume of client contacts on Fridays has declined dramatically. When he asked EPS when they were going to return to routine work hours, Mr. McCausland was informed that the program has been so successful that EPS has no intention of re-opening on Fridays. He noted that EPS manages numerous programs for the County, several of which involve the general public.

Mr. McCausland reported that the office would be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Staff will keep track of visitors who leave a note at the door and voicemails received on Fridays. If the impact on customer service is minimal, he will make the Friday closures permanent at the end of the six-month trial period.

In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. Bryan noted that flexible hours are used successfully and efficiently by employees under his supervision and that if SamCERA’s staff can demonstrate that member service has not suffered, then it would be appropriate to make the Friday closure permanent after the trial period. Ms. Salas noted that the flexible hour contracts that employees must sign with their supervisors specify that the flexible hour program can be rescinded at the employer’s sole discretion. In response to another question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland described the process for establishing the work schedule.

In response to a question from Ms. Colson about maintaining a skeleton crew on Fridays, Mr. McCausland noted that members who need to drive to visit SamCERA now, typically telephone before coming. Ms. Arnott noted that SamCERA is a customer service office and should be open five days a week. She recommended utilization of a 9/80 schedule to maintain daily coverage, which she noted works well for their offices. Mr. McCausland noted that SamCERA’s public consists of fewer than 9,000 members, retirees and deferred retirees, so that the need for five day a week access is not in the same league as the need for the public to have access to the Treasurer’s Office.

Mr. McCausland opined that the flexible hours program would be an attractive tool for recruiting and retaining personnel, in response to a question from Ms. Colson.

Mr. McCausland reported that he will keep the Board informed as the program progresses. He assured the Board that he will inform the Board immediately if problems surface. In response to a question from Ms. Colson, Mr. McCausland assured the Board that if productivity declined or deadlines were not met, then the program would be terminated.

•Mr. McCausland proposed that the Board reserve two or three hours of its January workshop for a table top Business Continuity exercise. He noted that he will also invite trustees to observe staff’s Business Continuity exercise in December.

0208.8.2

County Counsel's Report: Michael Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel, reported that Ms. Carlson was on vacation. Mr. McCausland noted that Ms. Carlson had distributed memorandums to the Board related to (1) plaintiff attorney fee matters in the Ventura II appeal and (2) potential securities law litigation.

0208.8.3

Investment & Finance Manager’s Report: Mr. Clifton noted that he had provided the Board with (1) Deutsche Asset Management’s Market Commentary for July 31^st; (2) Bank of Ireland Asset Management’s Market Commentary for July 31^st; (3) an e-mail noting the availability of SIS’ white paper on alternative assets, as well as a copy of an SIS white paper on hedge funds; (4) SamCERA’s rebalancing report; (5) an e-mail regarding the resignation of Dean Barr from Deutsche Asset Management; (6) a letter from State Street, which had been requested by the Board, indicating that (a) there are no derivatives in their STIF, (b) they are not a defendant in any formal regulatory or reportable judicial proceedings, and (c) BIAM utilizes State Street systems platform, training, and global subcustody network for BIAM’s offshore mutual funds.

•Mr. McMahon noted that he had asked for and reviewed the SIS Alternative Asset material. He recommended that the Board hold a Workshop on Alternative Assets for the September meeting. Mr. McMahon and Mr. Clifton noted that the Board’s workshops need to be long enough to allow for an in depth discussion and that 30-45 minutes is probably not adequate. Without objection, Mr. Bryan instructed staff to schedule an SIS workshop on Alternative Assets for the September meeting.

0208.8.4

Information Technology Manager’s Report: Mr. McCausland reported that Mr. Hood was on active duty for two weeks. Mr. Hood’s written report for the Board noted that a total $342,673 has been expended for SamCERA’s PensionGold license, enhancements and maintenance since its selection as SamCERA’s integrated relational database pension administration system in FY96. The report also noted that Levi, Ray & Shoup is currently working on five maintenance fixes and five enhancement projects for SamCERA.

0208.9

Adjournment in Memory of the following Deceased Members: There being no further business, Mr. Bryan adjourned the meeting at 4:48 p.m. in memory of the following recently deceased members:

WILLIS, LEE M..

JULY 2, 2002

BENEFICIARY OF IRENE

SOUZA, DOROTHY

JULY 7, 2002

MENTAL HEALTH

HURDAL, IRENE

JULY 8, 2002

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

JUERGENS, JOHN

JULY 14, 2002

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BENNET, HENRY

JULY 19, 2002

CHOPE HOSPITAL

CAROLINE, JAMES

JULY 26, 2002

CONTROLLER'S OFFICE

MCDONALD, ADELE

AUGUST 10, 2002

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

TOM E. BRYAN, Chair

Top
Minutes Index

The information in SamCERA's web site is general in nature and is not considered a legally binding interpretation, enlargement or amendment of the provisions contained in the County Employee's Retirement Law of 1937 or by-laws of the Board of Retirement. Although considered accurate, information within the site is limited and, should there be an inconsistency between the web site and the governing law, the law will govern.

E-Mail:samcera@samcera.org - Tel:(650)599-1234 - Fax:(650)591-1488 - Hours:M-TH 7am-6pm
Address: 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 125, Redwood Shores, CA 94065-5208 - InterOffice Pony: RET141