MINUTES OF MEETING
STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
55 ELM STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106

March 18, 2010

TRUSTEES PRESENT

Peter R Blum, Chair
Bob Baus
Steve Caliendo
Charles Casella
Thomas Culley
Ronald McLellan
Claude Poulin
Linda Yelmini
Sal Luciano
Steve Greatorex
Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton
James Dzurenda
Robert Coffey
Richard Cosgrove

ABSENT

Paul Fortier

OTHERS PRESENT

Mark Ojakian, Deputy Comptroller and Division Director
Craig Henrici, Counsel to the State Comptroller
Jeanne Kopek, Asst. Director, Retirement Services
Helen Kemp, Asst. Director and Division Attorney, Retirement Services
Colin Newman, Asst. Director, Retirement Services
Peggy, Executive Assistant, Retirement Services
Nancy Paretti, Court Reporter

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT

George Gombassy, the CT Watchdog was looking to speak to Mr. Blum concerning Actuarial percentages. Deputy Comptroller Mark Ojakian told the Chair that he would take care of the call for him.

The Chair contacted Attorney Rose concerning the matter before the Federal Court. There has been no movement to report at this time.

DIVISION DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Following the close of the March 2010 retirement payroll, the current backlog of unfinalized retirement records is approximately 10,526. The Division processed 94 new retirees to the payroll, 69 normal and 25 disabilities. Finalizations for the month were 115.

As of February 28, 2010 there were 48 Pending applications for review. 18 applications were received, 27 were placed on the agenda and 19 were approved. We are reviewing March 2010 cases and the next available meeting for scheduling is August 2010. We have lost some members of the MEB and are looking to have a full compliment of the Board once again.

Mr. Casella asked about the numbers that used to be given of cases that were waiting for information. He had not seen those numbers in a few months. The Commission had asked the need for reporting those numbers if they were unchanged, and they were eliminated from the report several months ago. Ms. Yelmini asked if there was a limit of times cases could go before the MEB before there was final resolution. These records are open cases that are awaiting more information that has never been sent in. Mr. Casella asked if a letter could go out to those people and if the cases could be dropped if no further information is forthcoming. The Deputy Comptroller also reminded the Commission that we had 2 retirees leaving as of April 1st and 3 more June 1st. A request to OPM for additional staff has been submitted, but an answer has not be received at this time.

NEW MATTERS

1. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010 MINUTES.
Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Baus to approve the minutes of February 18
2010. All voted in favor

Unanimous Decision

2. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION CHAIRMAN'S PER DIEM EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS.
Mr. Cosgrove asked if this agenda item could be moved to the end of the agenda for further discussion. The Chair chose to call Executive Session to discuss the agenda item. At 9:30 AM on a motion from Mr. Coffey, seconded by Ms. Brown-Brewton the Commission
voted to go into Executive Session. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

At 10:15 the Commission meeting resumed with Ms. Fae Brown- Brewton reading the following statement. " The body agreed a group of Commissioners available after the meeting would put together an outline of duties and responsibilities of the Chairman on
how to efficiently schedule subcommittee meetings.
"
On a motion from Mr. Coffey, seconded by Ms. Brown-Brewton approval of the State Employees Retirement Commission Chairman's Per Diem expenses reimbursements Ms. Yelmini voted no, all others voted in favor. Motion passed

Majority Decision

3. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM SERVICE RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010 Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Retirement System Service Retirements for the month of February, 2010. All voted in favor

Unanimous Decision

4. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM VOLUNTARY PENDING DISABILITY RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Retirement System Service Voluntary Pending Disability Retirements for the month of February 2010. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

5. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM DISABILITY RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010 Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Retirement System Disability Retirements for the month of February 2010. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

6. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEMS RETROACTIVE RETIREMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Retirement Systems Retroactive Retirements for the month of February 2010. All voted in favor

Unanimous Decision

7. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTICUT PROBATE JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETIREMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Poulin to approve the Connecticut Probate Judges and Employees Retirement System Retirements. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

8. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTICUT PROBATE JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND PERSONAL EXPENSES FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Connecticut Probate Judges and Employees Retirement Fund Personal Expenses. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

9. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE JUDGES, FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATES AND COMPENSATION COMMISSIONERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETIREMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to Approve the Judges, Family Support Magistrates and Compensation Commissioners Retirement System Retirements. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

10. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETIREMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the Municipal Retirement System Retirements. All voted in favor

Unanimous Decision

11. REQUEST COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD FROM ITS MEETING ON FEBRUARY 26, 2010 RELATIVE TO APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT RECEIVED FROM THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Ms. Brown-Brewton to accept and approve the recommendations of the Medical Examining Board from it's meeting on February 26, 2010 relative to the applications for Disability Retirement received from the Municipal Employess Retirement System. All voted in favor.

Unanimous Decision

12. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION MANAGEMENT TRUSTEES PER DIEM AND TRAVEL EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Culley to approve the State Employees Retirement Commission Management Trustee's Per Diem and Travel Expenses reimbursements for the month of February 2010. Mr. Baus abstained. All voted in favor

Majority Decision

13. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION UNION TRUSTEES PER DIEM TRAVEL AND EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2010. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to approve the State Employees Retirement Commission Union Trustee's Per Diem and Travel Expenses Reimbursements for February 2010. Mr. Poulin abstained. All voted in favor.

Majority Decision

14. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE STATE EMLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMISSION FOR TRUSTEE CHARLES CASELLA EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENTS. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Culley to approve the State Employess Retirement Commission for Trustee Charles Casella's expenses reimbursements. Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Cully to approve the State
Employees Retirement Commission for Trustee Charles Casella's expenses reimbursement. Mr. Casella abstained. All voted in favor.

Majority Decision

15. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE INVESTMENT SUBCOMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE THIRD
PARTY ADMINISTRATOR AND STABLE VALUE FUND MANAGER FOR THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN.
Because of two people waiting for hearings the Commission, Mr. Luciano moved, seconded by Mr. Casella to table the discussion until after the hearings. All voted in favor.

16. REQUEST COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2010 RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED FROM ITS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OVERPAYMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS

A. James Mogob (MERS) Amount of Overpayment: $13,375.57

Mr. Mogob was a retiree of the Municipal Employees Retirement System (MERS). He asked for a waiver of an overpayment of $13,l375.57 due to an incorrect calculation of his final average earnings in 1999. Mr. Mogob's final average earnings used pay earned from 1/1/99 - 1/4/99: unfortunately MERS miscalculated the amount which caused Mr. Mogob to be overpaid since 1999.

MERS new procedure is to automatically recalculate the benefits for every retiree who reaches a significant event such as an award of social security benefits or reaching the age of 62 (social security reduction). Mr. Mogob turned 62 in October and his benefit was recalculated. At that time MERS discovered that it had miscalculated Mr. Mogob's final average pay.

Mr. Mogob did not submit a written summary or explanation with his waiver. However, telephone conversations he had with MERS staff indicate that his argument was that because it was a MERS calculation error there was no way he could have known of the error, that the error was not of his doing or of his making, and that as the error happened long before being discovered, that he should not be responsible for repayment. Mr. Mogob submitted tax returns, banks statements and other financial information which indicates that he has full time employment as a U.S. Marshal and his wife is also employed.

The Regulation and Overpayment Subcommittee of the Retirement Commission met on February 16, 2010 to discuss his waiver for repayment of overpayment. Based upon the financial information presented to the Subcommittee, and after discussion, the Subcommittee recommended that the Retirement Commission deny his request for waiver.

Action: Mr. Luciano moved; seconded by Mr. Poulin to accept the recommendation of the subcommittee and deny Mr. Mogob's request for waiver. The Commission found that Mr. Mogob was not at fault as "fault" is described in the regulations; that Mr. Mogob could not have reasonably known of the overpayment as the error was due to a MERS miscalculation; and although Mr. Mogob reached the first two prongs of whether waiver should be granted, due to his employment, assets and income, the Commission did not find financial hardship. The Commission found that Mr. Mogob's family income, expenses and assets were such that he did not show that repayment of the amount was a hardship. The Commission determined that effective immediately the appropriate repayment rate is a two (2) year recovery rate: that is Mr. Mogob's benefit will be reduced for 24 months at $557.32 per month for 24 months. This reduction will begin with the April 2010 retiree payroll check. Unanimous decision.

B. Robert Boggan (MERS) - Overpayment due to receiving a social security disability award and not reporting it to MERS.

The CMERS system has a built-in social security reduction. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 7-437 requires the CMERS retirement benefit be reduced when the retiree is eligible for social security (age 62) or earlier if the retiree receives a Social Security disability benefit ("SSDI"). Mr. Boggan is a former employee of the Hartford Board of Education and retired effective July 11, 2001. He was advised via an August 23, 2002 letter that his CMERS benefit would be reduced at age 62 or upon receipt of a social security disability award. In this letter he was also advised that if he received a social security disability award, he needed to furnish CMERS with a copy of the award notice. Mr. Boggan received a Social Security disability award effective June 2002 and did not inform CMERS. As a result, Mr. Boggan was overpaid the amount of $19,183.87 in his MERS benefit. Mr. Boggan did not submit a written explanation with his but in conversations indicated that he was not aware of this social security offset requirement and believed in good faith that the amounts paid to him by MERS and social security were the correct amounts. He stated that repayment would be an extreme financial hardship and that he has medical conditions which render him unable to work. Mr. Boggan has a family monthly income of $ 2,846.71. He had significant debt causing him to have monthly expenses of over $4,000.

Action: Mr. Caliendo moved; seconded by Mr. Dzurenda to accept the recommendation of the subcommittee and deny Mr. Boggan's request for waiver. The Commission found that Mr. Boggan was not at fault as fault is defined in the regulations; that he could have reasonably detected the error as in the August 23, 2002 letter that was sent to him, he was made aware of both the offset and of his obligation to notify MERS should he receive s social security disability award. Because he did not meet both prongs, the Commission could not waive the amount. However, upon review of his financial information, the Commission noted severe economic and financial problems and set a repayment rate at a deduction of $25 per month until such time repayment has been made. This reduction will begin with the April 2010 retiree payroll check. Unanimous decision.

17. HEARINGS: REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS FROM ITS NOVEMBER 2009 MEETING ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS OF REPAYMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS:

Anne Stupak (MERS)

I. Background

The CMERS system has a built-in social security reduction. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 7-437 requires the CMERS retirement benefit be reduced when the retiree is eligible for social security (age 62) or earlier if the retiree receives a Social Security disability benefit ("SSDI").

Mrs. Stupak is the surviving spouse of a CMERS employee Joseph Stupak. When Mr. Stupak retired via a non-service connected disability retirement effective October 1, 1999, he was advised via letter October 29, 1999 that his benefit would be reduced at age 62 or upon receipt of a social security disability award. In this letter he was also advised that if he received a social security disability award, he needed to furnish CMERS with a copy of the award notice. Mr. Stupak began receiving the SSDI benefits in February 2003 and his pension should have been reduced at that time. He did not notify CMERS of the award. As a result of this error, Mr. Stupak received an overpayment of $65,239.36 in his MERS benefit for the period February 2003 to the death of his death (April 2009).

On or about June 10, 2009, Mrs. Stupak was sent a letter from the Connecticut Municipal Employee Retirement System (MERS) informing her that her husband had been overpaid the amount of $ 65,239.36. She was informed of her right to appeal repayment of this overpayment. She (through her attorney's office) sent in an appeal, requesting that the Retirement Commission waive this overpayment. She submitted the necessary and required financial information with regard to her request for waiver.

Mrs. Stupak has asserted that she was not aware of this requirement. Her position is that her late husband experienced medical problems (from the time he applied for benefits until the time he died) which caused him to forget his obligation to report this award to MERS. Medical Affidavits were submitted from former caretakers and physicians of Mr. Stupak which appear to support the position of Mrs. Stupak that her husband experienced medical problems which caused him to forget his obligation to report this award to MERS.

II. Subcommittee Action

The Regulation and Overpayment Subcommittee of the Retirement Commission met on October 6, 2009 to discuss Mrs. Stupak's waiver for repayment of overpayment. Based upon the information presented to the Subcommittee, and after discussion, the Subcommittee recommended that the Retirement Commission deny Mrs. Stupak's request for waiver.

III. Retirement Commission - Discussion
The Retirement Commission met on November 19, 2009 and discussed the findings of the subcommittee with regard to Mrs. Stupak's appeal. The Commission determined that Mrs. Stupak had the following income

CMERS monthly benefit (July 2009) $ 1,783.00
Monthly Salary for Ann Stupak (2008 return) $ 5,234.00
Monthly Income (Total) $ 6,917.00

The Commission found (in November 2009) that Mrs. Stupak was employed full time as a Nurse and her assets include banking accounts and home equity. Mrs. Stupak's monthly expenses were estimated to be $3,050.

IV. Decision of the Retirement Commission - November 19, 2009


The Commission found that Mrs. Stupak's income, expenses and assets were such that Mrs. Stupak did not show that repayment of the amount was a hardship. The Commission determined that effective immediately the appropriate repayment rate is that Mrs. Stupak's benefit be reduced by $1,087.32 for 60 months. This reduction began with the December 2009 retiree payroll check

V. Request for Reconsideration

The Division received (through her attorney) Mrs. Stupak's request for reconsideration (hearing) on December 29, 2009. Attorney Donahue submitted a letter (Dec. 23, 2009 - 2 pages) explaining his client's position and answering some of the questions and issues raised by the Commission in its decision. Attorney Donahue noted Mrs. Stupak's economic condition had changed - for example - the nursing agency for which she works had curtailed all overtime work lessening her weekly income. Her bank assets had been reduced and her home equity had decreased. Additionally, Mrs. Stupak has some medical problems which her attorney believes the Commission should consider with regard to the repayment of the monies as the problems may affect her ability to work. On or about March 15, 2010, Attorney Donahue submitted additional information (financial/medical) as well as an updated financial Affidavit. The Division contacted Attorney Donahue the day before the hearing and requested that he or his client bring to the hearing a copy of a 2009 tax return and W-2 information.

VI. Summary of March 18, 2010 Hearing

Both Attorney Donahue and Mrs. Stupak were in attendance with regard to Mrs. Stupak's financial hardship. The Commission was give a copy of Mrs. Stupak's W-2 forms and earning summaries although not a copy of Mrs. Stupak's 2009 tax return. Testimony was given that Mr. Stupak's death left Mrs. Stupak with many bills and expenses to pay and Mrs. Stupak is currently working two jobs to make ends meet. It was noted that Mrs. Stupak is attempting to sell her condominium and had to reduce the sales price (at the advice of the real estate agent) and thus the equity in this asset has been reduced. Testimony was received that Mrs. Stupak's liabilities had increased from her original request for waiver (primarily increased credit card debt) and that her bank assets had decreased.

The Commission noted Mrs. Stupak's gross 2009 income and also noted that about 12% of these earnings were pre-tax payments into a deferred compensation retirement plan. Mrs. Stupak referred to a "loan" on/from her 401k and stated that she was repaying an amount borrowed from her 401(k). According to the financial affidavits submitted to the Commission, Mrs. Stupak's 401k amount had increased from the date of the original waiver request to the date of the hearing. March 2010.

VII. Decision of the Commission

Action: Ms. Yelmini moved; seconded by Ms. Brown-Brewton to deny Mrs. Stupak's request for a waiver of repayment of overpayment finding there was no information submitted to date that indicates that any of the Commission's findings were wrong or erroneous at the time they were made. The Commission also declined to change the rate of repayment. Mr. Greatorex, Mr. Poulin, Mr. Luciano, Mr. McLellan voted no. Ms.
Yelmini, Ms. Brown-Brewton. Mr. Dzurenda, Mr. Culley, Mr. Cosgrove, Mr. Coffey,
Mr. Casella, and Mr. Caliendo voted yes. Motion passes.

Majority Decision

Marie Laterza (SERS)

I. Background

Division records show that Ms. Laterza applied for a service-connected disability retirement effective September 1, 1993 from Southern Connecticut State University which was approved by the Medical Examining Board at its meeting of January 27, 1995. Ms. Laterza was informed in several letters that receipt of a disability retirement income was offset by social security benefits, workers compensation payments and future outside earnings. She was receiving workers compensation payments at the time of her retirement although the nature and amount of the payments changed over the years.

With regard to Ms. Laterza, Division records indicated that she applied for and ultimately received Social Security Disability benefits effective April 2002 and that her workers compensation rate increased over the years.

The combination of these amounts caused an overpayment. Beginning in March 2002, Ms. Laterza was being paid a SERS benefit when she was not entitled to any SERS benefit due to the combination of social security and workers' compensation income she received which caused an offset to the SERS benefit. The difference between the amount she should have been paid and actually were paid from March 2002 to July 2009 is $217,359.99.

Ms. Laterza did not dispute that she received these benefits but rather that she, as was her obligation, informed the Division on several occasions since 2002 that she was collecting workers compensation and social security benefits (although not the amount) and the Division did not take any action as to further investigation or seek recovery at those times. Had the Division done so, she would not owe the large sum she does today.

Ms. Laterza asserts because she notified the Division of these awards, it is inequitable for the Division to seek repayment of the full amount at this time. The Division admits that Ms. Laterza did notify it that she was collecting workers compensation and social security disability award benefits (although not the amount) on several occasions from 2002 to 2008.

II. Subcommittee Action

The Regulation and Overpayment Subcommittee of the Retirement Commission met on October 6, 2009 to discuss Ms. Laterza's waiver for repayment of overpayment. Based upon the information presented to the Subcommittee, and after discussion, the Subcommittee recommended that the Retirement Commission deny Ms. Laterza's request for waiver.

III. Retirement Commission - Discussion and Decision

The Retirement Commission met on November 19, 2009 and discussed the findings of the subcommittee with regard to Ms. Laterza's appeal. The Commission noted that through the years, the unit responsible for these investigations has lost staff while the number of disability retirements has increased. The inability of Division staff to timely investigate and/or recalculate an overpayment upon receipt of such information does not automatically provide grounds for a waiver of the repayment.

Utilizing Ms. Laterza's financial affidavit that she submitted to the Commission, the Commission found that she had a monthly income of approximately $6,200 (without any SERS benefit) and monthly expenses of $4,380. Ms. Laterza has equity in her home.

The Commission found that Ms. Laterza was not a fault as fault is defined in the Waiver Regulations. Ms. Laterza knew that workers' compensation and SSDI benefits were offsets to her SERS. Ms. Laterza did notify the Division of the receipt of these benefits and because she did so, she passed this prong of the three part test which allowed the Commission to look at the material to determine whether there was financial hardship. Ms. Laterza reached the prong of whether there was financial hardship; however the Commission found that Ms. Laterza did not show that repayment of the amount was a hardship.

The Commission found that the appropriate repayment rate for Ms. Laterza was the amount of $1,500 per month for 145 months. As she has no SERS retirement benefit, the Commission instructed Division Counsel to attempt to secure this repayment from her workers compensation payment pursuant to CGS Section 5-170 or in the alternative to talk to Ms. Laterza's counsel to work out an alternative repayment arrangement acceptable to the Commission.

IV. Request for Reconsideration

The Division received (through her attorney) Ms. Laterza's request for reconsideration (hearing). In addition to the financial hardship repayment would cause his client who was unable to work due to her injuries, Attorney Goselin asserted that his client had informed the Division of the receipt of these benefits, that it was the Division's fault or error that the overpayment had not been dealt with prior to 2009 and that the principles of equity prevented the Commission from collecting the overpayment.

VI. Summary of March 18, 2010 Hearing

The hearing was marked off at the request of Ms. Laterza's counsel. Chair Peter Blum had expressed concern that Ms. Laterza was being represented by an attorney in the firm of Livingston, Adler and Pulda which is also the law firm of SEBAC's chief negotiator. Chair Blum believed that such representation might inadvertently create the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. The hearing was marked off while these concerns were taken under advisement.

ITEM # 15 THAT WAS TABLED

15. REQUEST COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE INVESTMENT SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR AND STABLE VALUE FUND MANAGER FOR THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN
Dr. Woodruff stated there were 17 proposals received. He explained different aspects of the proposals. He briefly described the investment strategies of the proposals submitted, and the Subcommittee's desire to retain the 3% guarantee. Mr. Durenza expressed concern with
the 3% in this economic climate. Deputy Comptroller Mark Ojakian also expressed the feelings of the State Comptroller Nancy Wyman who felt that this was not the time to make changes or lose the 3% guarantee. M. Yelmini moved, seconded by Ms. Brown-Brewton to approve the Investment Subcommittee's recommendation regarding the Third Party Administrator and the Stable Value Fund Manager for the Defined Contribution Plan and Authorize the State Comptroller to negotiate a contract with ING. Mr. Casella and Mr. Dzurenda voted no. Mr. Caliendo, Ms. Brown- Brewton, Mr. Coffey, Mr. Cosgrove, Mr. Culley, Mr. Greatorex, Mr, Luciano, Mr. McLellan, Mr. Poulin and Ms. Yelmini voted in favor.

Majority Decision

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Calienda moved, seconded by Mr. Dzurenda to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 AM
All voted in favor.

_____________________________
Peter R. Blum, Chairman

__________________________________
Mark Ojakian, Deputy Comptroller And Division Director,Retirement Services

Return to Meetings, Agendas and Minutes Home Page
Return to Comptroller's Home Page