Travis County Commissioners Court
June 7, 2005
Item 9
We did say we would try to reach number 9 at 10:00. Number 9 is consider and take appropriate action on a pro turplt process for a financial consultant with expertise in 457 b, deferred compensation plans to assist with developing a request for services for a deferred compensation administrator, and b, negotiating a new agreement with nationwide retirement solutions including lower fees and improved services in the administration of the current Travis County deferred compensation plan. Good morning.
>> good morning. Good morning, judge and Commissioners, alicia perez, substitute I have manager for administrative operations. Last fall in November the court appointed a committee to look at our deferred compensation program, and it's deferred compensation 57 b plan. The program was first adopted in 1980 by the Commissioners court in cooperation with the national association of counties. Also naco for short. The program allows employees to set aside compensation pre-tax dollars pry fairly for retirement. As of March of 2005, the fund has approximately $22 million and about 3600 participants. And 3600 participate papbtsd may be employees that are currently in Travis County or that have left Travis County and choose to leave the funds in the -- in their deferred compensation account. The committee deliberated over a number of months. They brought in about seven or eight vendors or companies that offer deferred compensation. And after the meeting I think we all agreed and there was a consensus that we need to do hire a consultant. Neutral funds and a fund this large of 2 # million dollars really needs the expertise that a financial consultant could bring in order to either negotiate for a better deal with nationwide or indeed go out for an r.f.p. We left that at the -- to the choice of the court which direction you wanted to go. The primary recommendation from the committee was to hire a consultant. I checked around and the amount of money we're looking at about $30,000, we would have to go out and get either requests for qualifications or requests for information to verify that. There are several agencies and individuals in the area that offer these sort of consultants. The consultant would not be able to partner and also bid, for example, if you decided to go up for an r.f.p. They would be --
>> would you repeat that last statement about what they will not be able to do?
>> they would not be able to -- they would act as a consultant and therefore not be able to bid or partner with someone else to submit a proposal for the management, the administration of the 457 fund.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> in terms of funding the consultant, we used the same model that we've used before in the inmate telephone contract where you have the company that receives the contract for administrative, for the administration of the 457 fund or the deferred compensation fund reimburse the county for the amount that we would pay for the consultant. The contract would be directly between the consultant and Travis County. The company that receives the contract would reimburse Travis County for that amount. Between now and when the contracting would occur, we would request a -- the funding come from allocated reserves, but then be reimburse to do the county upon the execution of the new contract. We also included in your backup a full scope of services and the reasons listed that the committee felt that a consultant would be necessary in order to really produce a product or have the expertise to produce a -- either an evaluation or the development of an r.f.p. In terms of the options for the actual administration of the deferred comp program, i'd like to refer you to the backup. You have in your backup several key hr-lts of information. And it has a background on when we started the deferred compensation program. It was in 1980. Resolution signed by anne richards herself and richard moya who was here earlier, and a couple of other folks. Have you the expense-Travis County fund expense summary, and that is attachment number 1. That delenny it's a all the funds, the mutual funds that are provided by nationwide now. And what the management fee is, what the 12-b-1 fee, and the 12-b-1 fee is a fee allowed by the securities and exchange commission for marketing and advertising. Then you have a total fund expenses administrative fee which is a fee that is charged by nationwide now, and total expenses. So as you can see, they are different for each of the funds or may be different for each of the funds, but it adds to the complexity of evaluation and managing such a fund or a program. You have as your second attachment a fiduciary fundamentals, and this is a guide for government sectors and talked about the fiduciary responsibility of both, for example, the Commissioners court, a city council, and naco also because we are under a sponsored plan with naco. You have on attachment 3 the hole chronology, 25 years of chronology and the documents, ou have access to in the judge's office. But this is all the documents that we know have been recorded, signed by one party or the other or both. You have a letter also from naco which outlines what naco does for the program, and they have been very, very involved along with the international city management association in not only the creation of the legislation but then taking the programs out to counties and cities and getting employees to participate. Naco is paid between $15,000 and $20,000 a year, of which they share 50% with t.a.c. For administration of the program. They do evaluate the program on an annual basis and in attachment 5 you have the evaluation attributes, selection criteria, and the deselection conditions, and then the other criteria for evaluation, including performance, track record, style consistency, risk, fees, asset size and the firm and management in the firm. And you have a couple of others, evaluation criteria in the back of that sheet. You have as attachment 6 the March statement of account. We get these on a quarterly basis. And as you can tell there, the fund now is -- anyway in March it was a little bit over 22 million, a significant amount of money. And this particular document delineates the deferrals, the exchanges, the withdrawals, and where you see charges and credits, those are the piece charged for loan that the court approved in November that employees could take loans out as part of their 457 benefits and there are the loan fees. So it's a pretty detailed statement of all the funds. What the committee and what I tried to do in working with the committee is lay out a couple of options for the court. And they are included and all the information is included in the materials that you received. A would be developing a request for proposal for services for deferred compensation program. We had been under naco since 1980. They have contracted with first pepsco and then nationwide. Last time that I asked about when was the last time they went out on a competitive r.f.p., it has been over eight years. But on an annual basis, there is a committee that gets together represented of different counties that goes through each of the funding, the evaluation criteria and determines what funds should be in -- what mutual funds should be part of the account and which should not be. They also determine policy for management of the account, and this is done by elected and appointed officials from counties throughout the country. We do not have a representative on there, but representation has been offered to Travis County if the court wishes to appoint someone to that committee. The -- a would be a request for services, like I said, for deferred compensation administrator. This would be where you would go out and -- for a r.s.s. And make it competitive for administration of the fund. And the committee wanted to put this on there again as an option to the court. Under b, the negotiating new agreement with nationwide retirement solutions including lower fees. Nationwide has offered to lower their fees for an exclusive contract. In studying this and working with this over the last, six, seven months, it would be beneficial to us to have an exclusive contract with an individual vendor. And that is different from perhaps what we discussed before. But much like health care, if you remember when we went out to bid on health care, we got better prices when we went with one particular company than to go with a lot of companies. The same case is true for this sort of fund. So there you have the choices, the background on the program, and we are prepared to answer any questions which you may have. There is also a representative from naco here and that's tom sweet, and he is the director for corporate relations. And we have --
>> sweet sounds a whole lot better than sweat, by the way.
>> yes. I was thinking about heman. But tom sweet is here from naco. You also have someone from the Texas association of counties, shala fleshman is here. If you have any questions about any of those organizations and people from nationwide here and members of the committee.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge. Basically this came up before and we were basically going through the possibility of having the opportunity for employees to have access to the loan program, a gift that was afforded to other persons under this particular nationwide as far as deferred comp is concerned. And, of course, we did -- the court did allow this to happen, and of course I see that we have some related data to that. But I guess during that conversation that last discussion of deferred comp, I know there was some things that were asked and some questions that were out there that still, I guess, need answers. And that is that if the court decides to go with a r.f.s., what would that do to the persons that -- the 3600 p erpbs that we have now -- persons that we have now under the structure that we have in place and what kind of impact would that have if -- if this action takes place. And I need to get an answer, is this a forced type of situation where if someone do come in and take care of the administration management of the assets, of the $22 million assets, what actually takes place, or would they have a chance to opt out or stay in the current setting that we have now? That's the first question.
>> well, in terms of the negotiation of an agreement, we would recommend an exclusive agreement with whatever company you could go with. Imagine that with that we would ask the transition of employees that are currently participate in the fund under nationwide to be transferred to the new fund. And that would require mapping and it would require probably a blackout period where you couldn't necessarily buy mutual funds. You can contribute, but those would be frozen until you have a new choice of the different funds that they are different.
>> okay. So in essence, let's say that there are employees out there that don't want to -- are happy where they are now and don't want to opt out or go into another direction. Whether that be mutual fund investment or fixed assets. Because in the fixed assets scenario, and I am a participant in this, I wanted to just tell you, experience there that there is a fixed amount that is guaranteed on the investment that you place as far as deferred comp is concerned. And that fixed amount is guaranteed. And, of course, I do not know if that would be something that personally I wouldn't want to give up and I?m not coming from a person's perspective, but I?m thinking there may be other employees out there that are happy with the situation they are under now and don't want to lose those opportunities. Barbara, I see you've got your hand up.
>> I think that you have to look at this as sort of a two-step thing. If you go out for a request for proposals, you are asking people to tell us what they can do. I am going to make an assumption that I think is obvious. I think that the fact that naco and nationwide are here in force this morning suggest that we get a proposal from them. And the question isn't decided when we go out for an r.f.p. That we're leaving them. The question is can we do better with them and what's the best way to get the best situation with them or with someone else. And, you know, you say now you wouldn't want to leave what you've got, but if something else better were offered to you, you might change your mind.
>> well, I know, but --
>> I said might. I didn't say you would. So basically what the r.f.p. Does for us is let us know what's out there. It doesn't pre-determine who we're going to go with or that we're going to change.
>> and I understand that, but my -- but listen to what I?m saying, all right, listen to what I?m saying. Even during this r.f.s. And I know you search around to see if there is a better deem, and I understand that, no big deal. However, conditioned on a lot of things you come back with some stuff and if one of those situations it's going to depend on what the Commissioners court wants to do as far as landing on something that they think is the best for the employees, but again, there may be a situation whereby you have and do not want to move in that direction because the point is that you already are in a setting that you pretty much are well pleased with. And if that is the case, because the court still has to make a decision one way or the other. And that is real. And if that is the case for movement, I?m just looking ahead of the game, if there is a movement in another direction or something like that where people aren't satisfied, there needs to be something set aside that whereby we can have chances to opt out or stay in. Secondly, my next question is has there been any new federal requirements or any new federal legislation that's dealing with 457 that we are not apprised of? What's the latest on the federal government's involvement in 457 funds as far as deferred comp? Has there been any movement in that as such? And if there has, then what is it?
>> there's a lot of legislation I think probably for us the more significant one is the setting of the maximum that can go into a deferred compensation program. And it moving -- changing every year. And then the catchup provision for over 50. Over 50. That you have catch up. But other than that, i'd have to turn over to -- i'd have to ask naco if there is any -- anything significant.
>> [inaudible].
>> since about 2000, 2001 there hasn't been an amendment to the laws that relate to 457 programs. Each year there are changes that were enacted back when that amendment was made, and alicia referred to the fact that used to be it was $7,500 was the maximum that anyone could put in. Now it's for this year it's --
>> 15 and 3 --
>> no, 14. 14,000 is the maximum amount that any person can put in this year. Next year it will be 15,000. It's 14 plus 4,000 if you are over 15.
>> okay. I?m going to have some other questions, but I?m going to hold back for a little bit, judge.
>> let's move forward.
>> a real quick one here. And I got some correspondence as well from Texas association of counties to kind of give us some perspective here. And the comment from Karen norris that hit me the most was deferred compensation programs are such a different beast from a typical purchase. Moving your business in this area will have a impact on your employees and probably their retirement so we know that you will not take this lightly. And I think it's important for us to note that about half of the money that is invested in these 457 accounts are in the fixed account and that has a guaranteed high rate of interest compared to what we get with our s and zero fees. You can't get any better than zero fees. To me you can get to the position the true position of strength is you know what, we're going to give you the first crack of giving us everything that we want. But if we're unhappy, we're going out for a r.f.s. And then have to compete, and you know what, when you go out for these things, you need to be prepared to switch. And I think it does a great cyst service to half of the assets in this account, and there are people attached to it, and I will say outside I?m within of those fixed account people, and there are also a lot of folks that are in certain kinds of mutual funds that are not available under other plans. So you would have to force people to pull out of certain kinds of accounts because that exact blend of investments are not available with other companies. If doesn't mean there might not be something comparable -rbt but it's different and you would be forcing people to sweuf. To me that's the place you go is to say we're not even going to give the people that have been here a chance. But I think the position of strength is to say you've got one more chance to make us happy, and if we're not happy, we're going out for competitive process and then we see where it goes. But I think that is the most respectful position of the people who are in the fixed account who are half of the assets of this account. That is not a small number to just play with their retirement accounts like that.
>> any comments from visitors on this item? If so, now is the time to come forward. Who is on the employee benefits committee?
>> would you stand, please, the people that are on the employee benefits committee. That way you can recognize them. And --
>> how many?
>> I believe there are 12 or 13. On the committee.
>> so what's the recommendation from the committee?
>> well, the recommendation really it's a choice or option for the court --
>> just give us directions on a or b.
>> a or b. And the only real recommendation was to be able to hire a consultant to either help us develop the r.f.s. Or go ahead and negotiate with nationwide.
>> okay, now, do we need a consultant no matter which one we do?
>> yes, it is recommended that you do hire a consultant. And mary, if you want to comment on that.
>> yes, i'd be happy to. Mary may, investment manager for Travis County. There are two reasons really. One is that, you know, obviously I do have investment experience, for Travis County I invest directly in securities. Because mutual funds naturally have a fee for the management that they do. And so i've never bought a mutual fund in my life, you know. That's not an expert tease that I can provide you. It is appropriate for the deferred compensation plan, but not for what I do for Travis County. The second is i'd just like to draw a parallel. The broker dealers that I use for Travis County would be similar to the different providers of this service for Travis County. Including nationwide, obviously. I could tell you which one of my brokers would be the most likely to offer a treasury, in other words, what kind of securities they specialize in. I can tell you the individual people, what their knowledge level is and what kind of securities they would recommend, how big each one is. Its history if it's combined from other -- I know a lot about our brokers. But i've gained through experience. This translates into additional interest for Travis County. We don't have anybody here that really has that knowledge about the providers in this field. Because we've not been doing it. At this point, you know, we've gotten big enough I think to think about whether it's nationwide or one of the others. So I think it's important that we do have a consultant to help us make this decision.
>> instead of doing one or the other, why wouldn't we do both? If the first one basically is to let us know what's available and the second one is for us to try to get from nationwide some indication of the best deal possible, when we're negotiating further with nationwide, why wouldn't we just treat that as being their proposal? And if they wanted to augment that, they would be free to do it. If you bring a consultant on board. Seems to me this is one of those deals you wouldn't want to go every two or three years, you would want to do every five or ten. The other thing that you would have analyzed and evaluated would be what impact it would have on employees who currently participate and what hardships may be imposed, just how easy is it. I mean wouldn't we have that looked at too?
>> yeah, absolutely.
>> I mean this is -- you know, it's -- Commissioner Daugherty, were you about to say something?
>> i'd like to say something.
>> Commissioner Daugherty, Commissioner Gomez and we'll swing back around.
>> well, there are a couple of things that are bothersome to me. And I don't want anybody to take any business away from wherever they are happy doing business. But when this thing is basically the one thing that comes strong out of the committee seems to be you need to deal with one person. If that is the comment that comes from the committee, then it really does put us in a bad spot because I may not want to be doing the same business that Commissioner -- with the same company mr. Dave does. I respect his prerogative and all the employees who have money in 457. But this doesn't set well with me. I mean I get a letter from t.a.c., and how much money does Travis County pay to belong to t.a.c.? Aren't there did you say that we as a county -- do we pay tax and how much is that?
>> quite modest.
>> [inaudible].
>> well, well, well, whatever it is, however modest it is, it is a little concerting to me to get a letter from t.a.c. That says before devoting resources, however, we would encourage the court to seriously consider option b which is not going anywhere. And then, you know, the -- as Commissioner Sonleitner read, maybe your business in this area will have an impact on your employees, I mean that is -- if that's not a scare tactic, now, maybe it's true, but you don't have the ability to move business in this country where whoever is going to take that business on that it's not going to be at least cost neutral to you. I mean I don't want this thing to sound like that this is -- well, you're an idiot to even look at this, which is, again, we get put back in this spot where, you know, we should look. I mean I understand that we have been with naco for, what, 24, 25 years. When is the last time that we looked at this business? When is the last time that we looked outside or that we had a process like what we are considering now? Kph- wh is the last time we did that. Who can give me an answer on that.
>> in terms of Travis County going out independently, not since the inception of the program and at that time it was a partnership with naco. Naco has not competitively bid the administration of their 457 program, their deferred comp program in over eight years.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [audio problems]
>>
>> ... That persons experience who, whatever they're dealing with, and if that's the case, then I?m concerned about having the ability to stay put where you are at that comfort level and that there be an option to opt out or stay in. So that is what I brought forth before and I want to make sure whatever takes place in this process, whatever the court decides to go, that that comfort level be retained for those employees in Travis County that have a comfort level with the relationship as far as who they're experiencing right now. I want to make sure that that is understood as I stated that.
>> if we do this and it seems to me that are to know how the participants will be impacted.
>> exactly.
>> it may well be that impact on them requires that we stay -- that we stay put and I can live with that.
>> or that you have a nonexclusive contract, but I will tell you that you will get a much better deal with an exclusive contract, but we could look at both.
>> I think we ought to know. I can accept what testify facts show, and if -- whatever the facts show. If the deal we can work out with nationwide is better than anything we can get based on what is given in response to our request, then, you know, sobeit, I?m as happy as anybody.
>> judge, that's where I -- Commissioner Davis, the only way that you're going to allow people to stay where they are at and still get a better deal in terms of exclusivity is for us to try and get a better deal with nationwide. Commissioner Daugherty, there's one thing here I need to make extraordinarily clear. This is not like health insurance where sometimes we have to make hard decisions on behalf of our employees because the county is footing the bill. This $22 million does not belong to Travis County. It is not the Commissioner's court's money. It is not in the Travis County budget. This money belongs to the employees of Travis County who have made decisions that are very difficult on behalf of their families. It's their money. It is not the county's money and for us to act like somehow moving stuff around, well, you know, we'll try and make it cost neutral. No, this is the money of our employees, and unless we stay with nationwide, there is no way we are not going to impact employees and half of them, half of the money is in a fixed account that is exclusive to nationwide with no fees and you will be telling people half of the money, you're going to have to move to another account and not our --
>> most are going to do that and that is not a discussion.
>> and I wanted to put out there for a substitute motion, judge, and that is that we hire the consultant and go exclusively with b, and if we are unable to reach an appropriate accommodation with nationwide, then we would move very quickly on a to go with a, but not simultaneously.
>> let me ask you a question, Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> is there a consultant?
>> there is no consultant attached.
>> is there any second to the substitute motion?
>> i'll remove the consultant. Commissioner -- Commissioner Daugherty.
>> well...
>> hold on.
>> I mean I am blown away that somebody would put me in a spot. I?m not telling you what to do with your investment. But I don't think that you ought to tell me what to do with my investment and how and who ought to deal with my investments. Yes, this is county -- these are county employees. They ought to have the ability to do that, you know what, so what that may take us away from is this, as alicia is telling us, the single vendor option, because somebody is going to lose in this thing, I think. Because somebody is not going to be happy with where they are. I just don't think that it is appropriate because I think there's some scare tactics in this. I think that there are points that are being implied that you really could either lose your investment, not have as much gain, and that is not -- that is not the case. I mean we are, as a court, we do have a fiduciary responsibility to deal with the 457 plan. Unfortunately, we, as a Commissioner's court, do have to decide on that. I mean it's not, unless you just go out to the 3600 folks and say, "go find your own investment vehicles," it -- I don't -- again, it gets back to what is wrong with the competition? I think -- they may -- I mean in shining light come forth and say that's who we ought to deal with. But it's just not right to put people in a spot where the only people that we're dealing with is naco, and that -- and the only thing that I gather out of this is it's because we've done it for 24, 25 years that that's where we ought -- where we ought to be, and so -- but maybe, you know, as the -- your motion was taking the consultant out?
>> yeah, the --
>> well, hold on, first substitution died for lack of a second.
>> I?m expecting where Commissioner Gomez is coming from --
>> do you have a second motion?
>> second.
>> what is it?
>> we just move on b and that a clan to assist us with this would not be toward the motion. We could go through a new contract with nationwide with the aim of lower fees and improved services.
>> that was seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> our committee has told us that we don't possess the necessary expertise in house to get this done.
>> we do not, and you have a fund of $22 million and what is expected to be spent is 30,000. It is a minuscule investment in making sure that the employees are getting the best deals. When you look at a fund like this, you look at risk, you look at fees, and you look at performance. And those are areas that are extremely complex.
>> okay.
>> and so...
>> thank you.
>> anything new and different that we would need to hear?
>> I would remind the court that there is a due diligence expected of the court an fiduciary responsibility and part of that is obtaining a consultant to make sure that we are moving in the right direction, so I would request the court --
>> are you say we're required to or ought to.
>> you ought to.
>> okay. There's a substitute motion. Basically to do number... Yes, sir.
>> thank you, judge. What I?m concerned about, as I stated earlier, and I think the impact on the employees is very necessary as far as coming back with some of the impacts that have a cause on Travis County employees, but what I?m also interested this is the fact that what will happen -- in other words, I guess my point is if -- I don't know where the court is going to go in the future on any of this other stuff, what ever comes back to us, and my whole opinion is, again, to have the possibility for those folks that are within the system right now to retain that, and -- and I don't know how many more adequate -- adamantly I can focus on that, but that is the bottom line in my opinion and there's nothing wrong with taking a peak-see, but that peak-see does not necessarily mean that we will go in that direction, but it will be good to have a peak-see and see exactly what else is out there, I don't mind that, but I just -- my whole point is that even within the peak-see that we have to make sure that all of the personnel have a chance to go ahead and do what they need to do as far as going through the process, if that's the way the court wants to go, but also the bottom line is that we have the opportunity to look at all of this information and then go accordingly, but I want to make sure that the employees, that we also allow in this particular system that we're in right now can retain it, because it is a personal thing here. This is their money and we should respect their investment as far as where they are. So exclusive things may not be the -- be the answer to this thing. It may have to be cured. I don't know, but I do know I?m going to try to protect the investment of the employees and let them go in the direction they want to go in if they see something better, but as far as I?m concerned, right now personally I don't see anything better than what we're dealing with right now as far as my fixed account, and I want to stay home with that, so I?m just letting you know where I?m coming from. But nothing wrong with a peak-see. Let's go and look. Doesn't mean it has to be binding if we look.
>> the substitute motion is to negotiate a new agreement with nationwide retirement solutions without a consultant. All in favor of the motion. Commissioners Gomez and son lightner. Those against the motion sew Commissioner Daugherty, Davis and yours truly. We're back to the motion which is to retain a consultant and look at both, (a) and (b), as best as we can with the conditions that the court imposed today and that is we see what impact it will have on our employees and our goal is to hold them harmless and if we need to put this back on the agenda for other standards e. , then that makes more sense too if the original motion passes.
>> judge...
>> yes, sir.
>> define what homilies mean, because that is a very significant word, homilies, because the way I?m looking at this thing, homilies to me means having an opportunity to stay home if you want to.
>> I mean just that.
>> no adverse impact, we would see --
>> yeah, if they want to stay home, let them stay home.
>> okay. I want to make sure that is broken down to what homilies mean in this particular case.
>> can I ask a question?
>> yes.
>> if I?m hearing Commissioner Davis directly, we're not really talking about getting a new deferred compensation, completely switching, what we're talking about there is an rfs related to additional deferred compensation administrators, that is a very different thing in terms of saying we're going to introduce choice, and that may or may not give us the leverage that we want related to any kind of fees with our current provider. But that is a very different thing to say we will add to the menu of choices of Travis County employees as opposed to a competitive process that seems to say we're going to go with one unless we have something very specifically that says we're going to go out for multiple. If we're going out for --
>> the motion is to invite competition by using a consultant to help us not only draft the document that we need to do that, but to help us analyze and evaluate. At the same time use a consultant to negotiate further with nationwide and my view early on was that it may well be that the result of our negotiations with nationwide could be nationwide's proposal. But I would -- I have no problem with them reserving a right to augment that toward the end. Now, we -- we -- we have often sort of focused in on one vendor and directed staff to go out and try to come back with the best proposal, so I have something like that in mind, so in my view, it's a lot more open ended than -- than I?m hearing, but my goal is to make sure that I?m -- county employees are in no worse position than they are now, certainly, and when I say hold harmless, I mean avoid harmless impact.
>> I?m going by what is the language on our agenda, it says deferred compensation administrator, one, it does not say deferred compensation administrators. It is a difference there of implying there will be choice which will be the hold harmless that Commissioner Davis is seeking, but if we say we're going out for one provider, that one provider may be different from our current provider, and it is not a hold harmless situation for our employees.
>> I?m relying on to the language "take appropriate action" which is a lot less restrictive than your interpretation. Is there any question in y'all's mind about the motion?
>> so if we went out for an rfi just to make sure that we understand, it would be for either exclusive or a coprovider with nationwide, either -- either/or, then bringing the information to the court and let the court deciding -- decide which way to go information given any impact or any gain or loss to the employees?
>> that is my thinking.
>> yeah.
>> part of this is -- the data, the information, the proposals that we receive in response to whether we do an rfi, rfg or rfp, an at some point we need to figure out which one of those we would do is a lot more open ended.
>> I want to make sure what alicia just said right there covers a. We have also talked, if I?m hearing your motion correctly, about b as well, meaning at the same time we're looking at an rfs for either an exclusive or a coprovider, we are also moving ahead on b, I?m making sure that is part of your original motion, that we are also going to be in negotiations with nationwide to see if we can carve a deal at the same time that we are also going out for exclusive -- the other one.
>> that's been said so many times, that cannot reasonably be a misunderstanding about that.
>> well, judge, I mean, the disadvantage that we basically have put a true other competitor in here is that it's obvious that the majority of this court, by what has been said, is that we want naco to be part of the mix, because there are -- because there are, I think, unnecessary accusations made about it is going to harm somebody if you live naco. I don't want anybody to leave anybody if it harms them. But I do want every employee to understand that if somebody can come in and make a presentation to them that says "we need to be a single provider and you're going to have a --" I don't know of anybody who doesn't want a better deal. I mean regardless of how conservative you are. If somebody comes to you and says I can yield better than what you have been yielding, now, all of that is always speculation, which is, you know, by nature what 457 is going to -- I mean there's an element of risk in it but, you know, if -- if where we're -- if we're going to monkey around with this thing to the point where we're sending the committee out to go, you know what you really need to bring us, you need to go through the motions and what you're really going to do is you're going to put naco in a spot about we're going to hammer you, we're going to hold you to the ground, because you know that that's what we're after is a good deal and the best deal we can get. Obviously companies are in the business to make money and I?m sure they will go, okay, you can hammer us and hold us to the ground, we're going to give you the good deal. If the committee is supposed to come back withhold harmless any of the folks that if one person says I don't want to leave naco, then that really puts us in a bind.
>> but I think that seeing full facts is advantageous.
>> me too.
>> and seeing what is in the marketplace is advantageous, and that is really what I?m looking for.
>> yeah.
>> and, you know, where the facts lead us, I can go there, and one condition is I don't think any of us wants to adopt anything that adversely affects employees who have been part of a certain system for years.
>> right.
>> so, I mean I --
>> right.
>> judge, I think you hit the nail right on the head there again, so -- so let's --
>> we're all in agreement, then? All in favor of the motion.
>> that motion passes by unanimous vote, y'all.
>> it does.
>> to the surprise of everybody else.
>> where I always wanted to be is be in discussions with nationwide to say what can you offer us and we're there, we'll be able to see if we can stay with our own company.
>> congratulations, everybody.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 7:12 AM