Marcus Erlander — Named as one of the presenters for the DRS-CEM benchmarking item.
Marcus Erlander — Introduced as a presenter for the DRS-CEM benchmarking discussion.
Marcus Erlander — Introduces himself as Director of Budget and Performance Management at the Department of Retirement Systems and notes his prior work at the Office of Financial Management.
Marcus Erlander — Continues his introduction and explains the purpose of the CEM benchmarking presentation.
Marcus Erlander — Referenced as having described the peer group.
Marcus Erlander — Referenced as having noted that the new report is in process.
Marcus Erlander — Referred to as the next speaker after Seth Miller.
Marcus Erlander — Explained the total cost trend chart, separating business-as-usual costs from major project costs and comparing DRS to peers.
Marcus Erlander — Explained that CEM provides detailed cost breakdowns by service area rather than only total amounts.
Marcus Erlander — Explained that DRS was $42 below the peer average and that CEM attributes portions of the difference to FTE and front-office costs.
Marcus Erlander — Continued the breakdown of cost differences by service area and emphasized the report's usefulness for detailed analysis.
Marcus Erlander — Summarized the value of the CEM benchmarking process and its large, clean dataset for comparison across systems.
Marcus Erlander — Concluded that DRS provides solid service at comparatively low cost, with large projects driving year-to-year cost changes.
Marcus Erlander — Identified as a member of Director Lathers' leadership team and praised for his contributions.
Seth Miller — Named as one of the presenters for the DRS-CEM benchmarking item.
Seth Miller — Introduced as a presenter for the DRS-CEM benchmarking discussion.
Seth Miller — Identified as Marcus Erlander's colleague and Director of Member Experience.
Seth Miller — Named as the next presenter who will explain the process further.
Seth Miller — Will explain how the benchmarking process separates different aspects of pension administration.
Seth Miller — Will discuss the impact of current projects on the administrative fee.
Seth Miller — Takes over the presentation and identifies himself for the record.
Seth Miller — Introduces his role as member experience and legislative and stakeholder director and previews the charts.
Seth Miller — Explained that the service score reflects response speed to customers and said phone responsiveness has been the main driver of recent changes.
Seth Miller — Explained that the chart combines base administration costs with major project costs, shown in fuchsia/pink.
Seth Miller — Described major projects as IT-related costs and referenced the CorePAM project to replace the pension administration system.
Seth Miller — Explained that project spending is a significant portion of DRS costs and that excluding projects makes DRS appear more cost-effective relative to peers.
Seth Miller — Cautioned that very low spending can negatively affect service and introduced a new chart on system age.
Seth Miller — Explained a new chart showing the age of computer systems and why modern technology matters for pension administrators.
Seth Miller — Noted that 17 administrators are replacing systems and emphasized the ongoing need to keep technology modern.
Seth Miller — Closed his portion of the presentation and handed it back to Marcus Erlander.
Seth Miller — Referenced for his earlier explanation of major projects.
Seth Miller — Referenced for earlier comments about the breakdown of costs.
Seth Miller — Identified as a member of Director Lathers' leadership team and praised for his contributions.
Director Lathers — Director Lathers thanked Seth Miller and Marcus Erlander, praised their contributions, noted that the CorePAM project is expected to be completed around September 2027, and then invited both men to briefly introduce themselves to the committee.
John Reschia — John Reschia is introduced as a new member of the Select Committee on Pension Policy, present in person. He then speaks briefly about his role as CFO and finance and asset management director for the City of Bellevue, noting that Bellevue administers related employee benefit trusts and that he looks forward to working with the committee.
Don Schwab — Don Schwab is introduced as a new member of the Select Committee on Pension Policy joining by Zoom, and then he introduces himself as president of the Everett City Council, a retired left member, and a risk management professional at Ziply Fiber.
John Risha — Introduced himself as CFO and finance and asset management director for the City of Bellevue and said he has lived in Washington for almost 30 years.
Aaron Gutierrez — Aaron Gutierrez, committee staff, is introduced for the next agenda item and then explains that the committee has a full new draft of the report in the materials, with several new memos and exhibits added, while the September report remains largely unchanged.
Steve Conway — Senator Steve Conway asks for clarification on the distinction between merger and reversion, specifically what is meant by saying that no reversion takes place.
Steve Conway — Steve Conway asks a series of related follow-up questions about LEOFF 1’s long-term overfunding and how the exclusive benefit rule applies to managing it. He notes that the plan has been overfunded for years, questions why a single plan is in this position, and presses for clarification on whether closure or merger are truly the only ways to address the overfunded status. He also asks whether there are any other options for dealing with the plan’s excess funding.
Steve Conway — Addressed as Senator Conway and raised a clarification about the merger and use of overfunding.
Steve Conway — Thanked by the speaker and referenced in the discussion of the proposal to the IRS.
Steve Conway — Referenced as having asked similar cost questions at the last meeting.
Steve Conway — Was recognized as Senator Conway and raised the need for a new fiscal note.
Steve Conway — Fred Yancey contrasted the merger bill with the temporary freeze that Senator Conway suggests.
Audra Ferguson — Audra Ferguson is introduced as one of the Ice Miller representatives on Zoom and as Rob Goss’s law partner, indicating both are appearing together from Ice Miller.
Audra Ferguson — Audra Ferguson first gave background on her firm’s work as governmental pension attorneys representing retirement plans in 43 states, then explained that contingent IRS approval is a common legislative safeguard when plan qualification is uncertain. The discussion then shifted into the exclusive benefit rule: she clarified that the fiduciary duty rests with DRS and, depending on the plan, the board, not the state itself; explained that trust assets may only be used for benefits and reasonable expenses; and emphasized that the rule is both a fiduciary requirement and a plan qualification requirement under the Internal Revenue Code. The exchange concluded with a question about how the IRS would review the exclusive benefit rule in practice.
Rob Goss — Rob Goss of Ice Miller introduces himself and explains the firm’s long representation of DRS and prior involvement with LEOFF 1 funding issues. He then outlines the recommended IRS process under both proposals: filing for a favorable determination letter on the resulting plan and a private letter ruling to confirm there are no adverse tax consequences, no distribution to members, and no violation of the exclusive benefit rule. He explains that the filings would proceed simultaneously through different IRS offices, that back-and-forth with the IRS is common, and that a built-in delay before the transaction’s effective date would allow time to resolve issues or withdraw a filing if necessary. He concludes by describing the merger as a legal transaction that must comply with IRS merger rules and other applicable tax framework to preserve qualified plan status and protect the plans, members, and beneficiaries.
Cyndy Jacobsen — Not mentioned in this section.
Cyndy Jacobsen — Asked whether the exclusive benefit rule looks at the state's fiduciary duty to plan participants.