Travis County Commissioners Court
October 9, 2007
Item 13
13 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, deferred compensation oversight committee membership;, but, consulting services by if retirement store, so that would be additional services, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and c of 13 is time line for consultant and committee review of nationwide retirement solutions performance and recommendation for renewal of contract ending December 11, 2007.
>> judge, Commissioners, it seems like a year ago we were here before you talking about a deferred comp oversight committee, and this was discussion on January the 9th actually where we talked with the court about exercising some due diligence and oversight of the deferred comp plan which we contract directly with nationwide retirement solutions as administrator. Part of the oversight was to create a committee that would serve as an organization or structure to review the plan performance, the administrative services, and to assure we were receiving the contractually required services from nationwide. The court did approve an oversight committee and we're back today to ask you to approve the membership of that committee. And norma gray, who is co-facilitator, is going to review the committee members, some of whom are in the audience today.
>> can we assume that all the recommended committee members know of this opportunity to serve?
>> yes.
>> and have agreed to do so?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> the membership is in the attachment a, as you can see, and we had one slight change from what was originally approved back in January is that we increased the number of members of the committee because of -- getting more departments involved in the committee membership. So we have 11 here with three not currently participating in the deferred comp plan. So that was a slight change. Originally we had nine and the two not participating, but we wanted to increase that coverage of departments involved in the committee. You can see the names here. We feel the department -- the departments involved asked these individuals to participate on the committee and they've agreed to do that.
>> the non-voting members would serve as resource persons?
>> exactly. They just wouldn't have a vote in the committee action.
>> okay. Any questions regarding the membership?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> that's of basically all of the voting and non-voting members recommended.
>> right.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B?
>> b is the services by the retirement store. Retirement store was contacted as consultant with the county to review its plan at the very early part of our work, and they've continued to work with us to develop some areas of expertise that our members on the committee would not have but that the consultant would work with us on. The services are shown, I believe, on page --
>> page 6.
>> page 6. And the contract with the retirement store continues on through January, but we wanted to be sure and mention to the court that that relationship is still there and that now that the committee has been approved the next step is for the orientation to take place where our committee members would be informed of the plan, the intraca cyst, the different approaches used and review the nationwide performance.
>> let me ask this question to you, dan, and maybe you can help me out as I'm trying to go through this and digest it. The role of the retirement store, of course, they are consulting folks, I realize that. However, the amount of money that they are receiving, if I'm looking at this right, they are receiving some funding from nationwide to, I guess to also look at whatever their performance and a whole lot of other situations that they are dealing with as far as they are looking at the overall picture of investment potentials and all these other kind of things that we deal with with nationwide. Is that -- you know, the $5,000 that have been set aside as a contribution to the retirement store for these services, is that in maybe some type of conflict?
>> no, sir. Actually the --
>> or am I looking at that right? In other words, did -- what I stated, is that correct or incorrect?
>> except for one point.
>> what's the point?
>> the $5,000 is a contribution to the county for use in administering it however it needs to to manage the program.
>> so it's not going to -- so the county will have the authority to do with what -- do what with that money that it deems necessary or would it be directed to pay for the services of the retirement store?
>> it's at the court's discretion.
>> it's the court's discretion. Okay. But it's just money that's been set on the table, given to Travis County for it to use in any discretionary manner that it deems fit. And it just appears from appearance it appears that that $5,000 is to provide the necessary consultant services as it -- as the retirement store conducts those services for nationwide. That's the way it appears. Now, I may be --
>> actually the contract with nationwide which was negotiated hard and they didn't want to give us. I mean it just didn't happen in there. We negotiated for money because we knew we would have certain costs associated with administering this program. And we were advised by various people that it is common in the industry for the administrator to assist with those assistive costs. And so we put a provision in that nationwide would pay the county the $5,000 and the county would be able to use that -- and the reason they were doing that was because they recognized we had administrative costs associated with having the prom at all, and the county would then be able to use it in whatever way it chose. Nationwide is not paying anything to our consultant. They are paying the county so the county does not have as much out of pocket in relation to the consultant.
>> okay.
>> now, that doesn't create a conflict for the consultant we hired because they don't get money from nationwide, the county does.
>> they get it from Travis County.
>> and if the county has a conflict in selecting a consultant based on having part of its money to pay for that provided by the contractor, then I guess we've got a conflict in every one of our federal grants and every one of our state grants because we get money --
>> don't go too far now.
>> [laughter]
>> she's going to throw all of it out. But I'm just saying as far as appearance is concerned. I was trying to make sure I separate that so it didn't appear that the question that I asked I think more appropriate to separate this out of this arena of appearance -- and I aappearance. I didn't say it was a conflict. Appearance of a conflict, since that the retirement store would actually be looking at evaluating under contract the performance and a whole lot of other things that we deal with as far as nationwide is concerned. And I just want to make sure that's very clear and spelled out so that's why I'm asking the question and thinking about as I have asked dan and you all for that response. Thank you.
>> so b asks the court to do what today?
>> just fyi that that contract with retirement store, purchasing will be bringing that back we think around November 20th or so.
>> because the current contract runs through December 11th in.
>> the contract with the retirement store runs through January 22 n, I believe.
>> we'll be utilizing the services of retirement store based on the schedule I think that's included in your backup. If we can meet the requirement for nationwide's renewal.
>> the services described in attachment b are different from the ones set forth in the current contract?
>> the same services. I think the only difference, judge, is the committee shall have 11 members instead of nine if the court approves that. As norman said earlier, we wanted to make sure we had a good spread of representation on the committee.
>> but b deals with the retirement store contract.
>> right. That's the same language that we had originally when this item came up last January.
>> okay. So you all will be coming back for a contract renewal.
>> yes.
>> all right. C?
>> c is the time line for the committee and the consultant to work toward the renewal or review for renewal or recommendation to come from the committee about nationwide retirement solutions and the schedule --
>> it's just today we hope to get the committee members approved and then we want to set up some meetings October 24th, November 7th with the oversight committee and the consultant of the retirement store to discuss nationwide performance in the last year and the -- then we want to make a recommendation regarding the plan administrator for the deferred comp plan based on the meetings that we've had with the retirement store and the oversight committee. November 20th, that's just the date we wanted to show that the purchasing should be bringing that back. That could change based on purchasing schedules, but December 11th is just a date the nationwide solutions expires so we could have the court make a decision and January 2nd shows the current retirement store contract expires, and we anticipate meeting those services again in f.y. '08.
>> do we anticipate the terms and conditions in the current contract to be pretty much the ones recommended for the new contract? Or contract renewal?
>> I think -- is that an option to renew? We have an option to renew. Until we exercise our option to renew, it would be the exact same.
>> option to renew but with contract modification I guess with the date.
>> one year with options.
>> okay. Anybody here on this item who wishes to address the court?
>> can I ask what -- what presently is being done, like, mary, maybe you can answer this -- with regards to preparation or looking, you know, outside, you know, last year we had a very arduous --
>> we sure did. You remember that.
>> -- process with this thing. And I think we've -- I'm happy with the relationship that we've had this year. I mean I think we've -- you know, we obviously, you know, made some great strides this last year. But is there something going on as we speak with regards to talking with the retirement store to say what are you going to do, are you going to bring a proposal to go and to look outside, obviously, nationwide being one of the --
>> attachment c you will see we're want to go have a couple meetings with the committee which will hopefully be approved today and the retirement store to discuss what has happened in the last year with nationwide and whether they met all of the expectations we've had in the contract. And then for us to put something together to discuss that -- our recommendations, the committee's recommendations with the the cot hopefully soon after that.
>> mary nays, I have been part of the previous committee as well. As you may recall, we did recommend going out for an r.f.p. And ended up doing as the court requested, negotiating with nationwide and making some real improvements in our relationship with them as well as the contract. But this new committee will then need to look at that, but at least so far the recommendation of the committee has been to go out, kind of like Commissioner Davis was saying, it's the appearance. You know, not that nationwide might not be the winner, but that after 20 years it would be best to go out and look at other possibilities.
>> it would certainly seem to be the prudent thing to do.
>> well, and the reason I ask is because, you know, we're here in October. Given the fact that we've got one plan that expires December the 11th, and then the consultant, you know, January the 22nd. I can see what's about to happen to us. It's going to be -- I mean unless there is a lot of work going on right now with regards to we're going to look, you know, and put nationwide, you know, in the middle of the mix as well, which they actually should. That's the reason I wanted to know is there something being done or is this just going to be a we don't have the time to go anything and we need to go forward?
>> there has been some work done since the contract went into effect last December.
>> okay.
>> the funds have been moved from the old selection to the new and the retirement store, we worked, I think mary has talked with them as well on how those funds are starting to perform. Just different investments. So some of the analytical work was taking place. The recommendation ongoing out or not going out I think will come from the committee, not from the retirement store. He may have suggestions, but I think the final decision is going to come from the committee.
>> I'm sorry for playing catch-up here. Did the Commissioners court make the decision we were going to wait on the committee's decision on whether there was an r.f.p. Or does that decision still rest with the Commissioners court?
>> I think the decision rests with the Commissioners court. The committee was created to do oversight and to come back with recommendations, but certainly the court can make that decision at any point.
>> what would be the turn-around time on issuing an r.f.p. --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> a six-month. So we basically made the decision by attrition. Is that the circumstance here?
>> in attachment c there is a scud, but the schedule only covers -- a schedule, but the schedule only covers certain things. It doesn't cover the whole --
>> this was just to get the new committee members on board and some meetings set up to come back to the court before -- to give you all a sense of the committee before the contract expires with nationwide on December 11th.
>> so what would happen -- what would happen on the r.f.p. Is I guess we would invite a recommendation from the committee, but the court would be free to do as the court -- as the majority wishes, basically.
>> I'm sorry, judge, go ahead.
>> these are specific things that have to take place really over the next two or three months.
>> yes, sir.
>> and they kind of point to a decision on whether to issue an r.f.p.
>> and judge, -- and I guess for those employees that are looking at this, and how -- and investment opportunities with our current provider, nationwide, I think what we are talking about here today, I don't think that we're going to
>> [inaudible] a person would like to retain their relationship with whomever, nationwide, in this particular case, that does not have to be -- I don't believe that has to be sacrificed. But see then again, I don't know. The r.f.p. Would be issued, but do you have to go -- would there be multi providers involved in this? And that's a question that I think one carrier or multi carriers for the Travis County employees. Because if I'm -- you know, those persons that have invested their money already and say hey, I'm happy and satisfied, why can't they retain it. And that is a question I guess I don't have an answer to, barbara wilson, but I do know that there are some folks that may be happy where they are now and an r.f.p. Go out and say, well, okay, does this work similar to what health insurance is. We have one health insurance provider and that's united health care. And I don't care what you believe in anybody else, the county Commissioners court has decided to use united health care, period, end of sentence. Does this follow similar -- or would this follow, is the question, would this follow similar dictates as far as an r.f.p. Going out and stuff like that? How would this work?
>> there are a number of options.
>> what's the option.
>> you could look at two providers, two administrators, but the recommendation from the consultant last year was that our plan wasn't large enough to have two administrators.
>> okay.
>> that may not be the case today, but at that point in time that was the recommendation. The court can decide at any point in time to go out with an r.f.p. To either create a second administrator or replace the current one.
>> but what would be the trigger that we pull or the level we pull -- lever we pull to determine one versus two or however many? Barbara wilson, talk to me.
>> the decision about the number of administrators is a management decision.
>> management decision.
>> one would think that you would want to get the best circumstance available. You have advice from a consultant who works in the industry that generally you get the best deal for the employees and for the county with one administrator with a plan this size. But one would also think that if you were going out for an r.f.p. And you had questions about whether that was accurate, you would have in your -- you would have an open mind when you went out and you would have in your r.f.p. The request that the responders indicate what kind of situation they would offer if it was one administrator and what kind of situation they would offer if it was two, and you would look and say, okay, this looks like the best answer and whether the best answer is one administrator or two administrators would depend on what you saw in your response and in any kind of response you got from people who were invested. It may well be that when you get your responses back you find out that another -- I mean this is a possibility. I don't know what's going to happen. But another administrator could give everybody who is invested now a better deal than what they are currently getting in their current administrator. In which case one would think that the logical decision would be to go with a single other administrator. But until you go out, you have no idea what kind of response you are going to get so it's kind of like my crystal ball says, and I don't have any idea.
>> there is a --
>> may be clouded this morning.
>> costs associated with changing administrators. The market value adjustment which I saw just the other day out for -- it was through September is around $380,000. That would be what the market adjustment fee would be that the county would pay to change administrators.
>> that's what we would have to pay?
>> yes.
>> I want to talk on behalf of the anger. Several of my employees, people don't want to talk about their own financial situations. But the reality is what we did is we had people that had investments in nation wide that were happy wit. And we negotiated a different plan and we took those investments and we made -- we dumped them into funds that they did not pick. And they were furious. And some people had a lot of money invested in that. So I think that what the committee needs to do this year is talk to people and see if they are happy with what happened. You know, maybe my office is an anomaly, but they were not just unhappy, they were furious. It was much more of a displacement than even if we changed administrators. We took them from a place they were happy with and dumped them into a place they were not happy with and it's their money, it's not the county's money. I think we need to look at that really hard because I think maybe we took something that wasn't broken and broke it, for some people. Maybe my people are not typical. I wouldn't say they are, but I do think we need to find that out because it's not the county's money, it belongs to employees. And we did a disservice to a number of -- I don't know how many, but a number of employees. Wanting to do the right thing.
>> I remember this and -- but the question was is we didn't know. And the reason we didn't know is because we had been somewhere with someone for 24 years without even looking. No, I think that everybody -- or that most people felt like the plan that we got when we renegotiated with nationwide was very beneficial to the county, but people are still going to be confused about, you know, what does it cost to move. I mean the reason that you may have to look at two administrators is because you are right, susan, there were some people it didn't make any difference what the return was. They were where they were and they weren't going to be moved.
>> they wanted to be there. They chose to put their money there.
>> right. But if somebody thinks that you can perhaps make more money somewhere else, most people are like, well, if I have the opportunity, I'd like to know, you know, what the possibilities with that are. I don't think we'll ever know -- I mean unless we really go out and find out, you know, what there is out there on the street as to who could administer our deferred comp plan. I mean you know, it got to a spot -- you know this -- where it was uncomfortable for all of us because it was like that somebody was attacking nation nationwide. Heck, that wasn't the intent of what we did. The intent was that we had never put the thing out. And there aren't very many things that I think the county has gotten into where they haven't actually -- they have actually never looked at anything for 20-something years.
>> the association of counties was doing the performance evaluations. Now, were they doing it in the best interest of what we thought we could do? That was the issue, that we did not feel like that they were doing the oversight with nationwide that we were comfortable with. That's why this kind of all got started. And, you know, it's like insurance. If we didn't have to bid out our insurance every four years, we would probably be a lot better off. There are some very specific things that you just can't jump around every two, four years because you've got to pay out or you've got something else. So I mean it's a difficult deal. That's why we hired a consultant to help us. He's the one that said two plan administrators is not a good idea. I don't know why it would be good this year if it wasn't good last year, but if you want to pay the money --
>> to get an r.f.p. On this.
>> and remember, he will make more money if we do that because we'll hire him to help us go through that process.
>> I don't think you are going to find any consultant who says leave something in place for 22 years without review and competitive bids.
>> but see, we hired him to look at the market so we didn't have to do that.
>> but really, your claim that that opinion was out of self-interest I think is --
>> I'm saying going forward. We hired him to tell us what the narkt was. He in a sense had the authority to go out and do a request and contact all those people and tell us, okay, this is the best deal for you. That's what I anticipated he was doing. In fact, I sent an e-mail saying why don't you go out and do that informal solicitation and find out if there is something better.
>> let me play county judge. Nationwide.
>> good morning. Kim wilder, nationwide retirement solutions. Thank you. The request for services was put out shortly after I came on board with nationwide and that was in November, December of 2004, I believe. So there was a request for services put out, not a formal r.f.p., however, we went through that process with you all, I believe, in December of 2004. So you -- I think you have some proposals out there, and I was going to reiterate -- excuse me, I don't know her name.
>> susan.
>> susan, and I'm the person in front of your employees every day, every week, you know, talking to them about the investment choices. The voament choices were not nationwide funds by any means. They were chosen by the consultant. So as an administrator, we're doing the paperwork. We -- we again -- you all picked funds that we can -- we can administrate effectively and then -- just so you know these were premier funds and you do get into situations like that with the employees' money because this is, again, their money.
>> thank you. In c, we were not asked to evaluate the current program. We're simply asked to consider and take appropriate action on the time line recommended by staff for consultant and committee review for nationwide's performance ending December 11. Whatever we need to do we need to do before the contract expires December 11, 2007. We have been given an attachment c that says on November 13th, the deferred compensation oversight committee that we just approved a moment ago makes recommendation to court regarding plan administrator for the deferred compensation plan. It seems to me that at some point in here what the oversight committee should did is make recommendations to the Commissioners court about a variety of matters, maybe even including that one.
>> yes.
>> the other thing is that we may as well stick on here consideration of an r.f.p. The pros and cons. And if there is any advice that a consultant has to give us before we renew his contract, we may as well put that down there too. The question is can -- should we have November 13th or does the committee need a little more time? I mean you need time to have two or three committee meetings, don't you?
>> we scheduled two before that, but I don't know, dan.
>> we're working backwards from a date of December 11th, and time to get a modification. So I think we would defer --
>> recommendation regarding plan administrator, we wouldn't do that without some sort of competition, right? If it's nationwide, it doesn't matter, but it does seem to me at some point we need to do a formal r.f.p. If it's going to take six months to do that, there's no reason to rush into it. And if it takes six months to do that, we're really stuck with the status quo through the end of that process whether we like it or not. You see what I'm saying?
>> yes.
>> these recommendations could be tweaking the current contract or making investment changes or things like that.
>> could be or could not be.
>> right.
>> it depends on what the committee recommends. And then the court needs to receive the recommendations before the meeting so we can decide whether to go along with the committee or have our own. Do we stick with the November 13th date?
>> I would ask that you do, and if we need to slip this in a week or two, we can come back to court.
>> 20th we've got contract renewal with retirement store. And December 11 current contract with nationwide solutions expires. So I assume recommendation there would be to renew that one even if we do an r.f.p., right?
>> I think we would have to.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I don't know that --
>> would there be sufficient time, judge, if it was extended a little bit longer? Or do they need time beyond November 13th?
>> I think after the expiration, you are probably looking at least through the end of the fiscal year, anyway. After this expiration, I don't know there's any way of getting around not renewing nationwide's contract at least through the end of the fiscal year. So instead of just the notice on December 20th, there really ought to be some sort of action part of this. December 11, rather. See what I'm saying? Notice of the deadline is fine, but if that's the deadline, nationwide and we need to take some action to get us beyond that. And if we consider the issuance of an r.f.p. As early as November 13th, you know, court may take a week, it may want to take an additional week. That gets us through the 20th, if in fact the r.f.p. Process takes six months and if we think it may take six, it could take a little longer, a little less, but we need to give time to seriously consider it and do whatever is appropriate. You see what I'm saying?
>> I don't think we have an option.
>> a suggestion might be that the '08 fiscal year might be one in which the committee works to release the r.f.p. It says six months to deliberately structure and release and review the r.f.p. And r.f.p. Results. So if the court is suggesting that an r.f.p. Should be released, then we could use the --
>> my suggestion that the consider needs to consider that and come to court with a recommendation and that we take action one aor the other. If we take action to issue an r.f.p., then we have to have time to work on it to come up with an appropriate one. That will take time. Then it's got to be time for it to be on the street. Then we get responses and consider those. There is -- last time we had a pros and cons list to the issuance of an r.f.p. And we need to either pull out the old one and tweak it or come up with a new one, but when it comes back, we may as well know what the advantages and disadvantages of the r.f.p. Process. Susan has made reference to the market adjustment. $87,000 is a significant sum of money. But then the question is weigh it against what. I don't know if -- I don't know what benefits or value of benefits we would weigh that against. But I assume that comes from Travis County, not the employee participants.
>> that depends on what the court depends on that because the reason that the market value adjustment exists is that there is a guarantee of an interest rate payable to some of the investors, and even if the market doesn't support that interest rate, they get it and it's paying back the difference between what the market would support and what the -- they have gotten. So it's kind of the sort of thing you could also say it comes from the employees because --
>> at least be on the pros and cons list. Employees susan said were upset a minute ago, they will be even more upset if we make them pay $387,000. All I'm saying is there are a whole lot of things that we need to consider. They need to be on the list. And if we're -- if we're pointing toward a November 13 date for another court discussion, then we may as well try to have the list as full and complete as possible.
>> yes.
>> that's all I'm saying.
>> I agree with you, judge. I think that's probably the appropriate direction we need to head in.
>> we know from previous discussions that there will be two sides on most of these issues. And it would help us to get them in writing prior to November 13th. And if the oversight committee is overseeing this, the committee members may as well as best they can put that together for us. The other thing is I guess we want input from the consultant, purchasing. Are you on the committee? Resources? May want input from nationwide. You know, maybe they have some flexibility with the market adjustment.
>> I think, judge, that the main thing is like -- I don't think the average employee who is invested, you know, we've got all this stuff going and people with their money in it. And one of the reasons I think that some people didn't like the idea of changing carriers is they didn't want their current investments disrupted. They didn't want to have to leave some funds and go to different funds because they were happy with the funds they were in. So I think that was one of the arguments, and I get that argument forever we did that anyway. What we did is we stayed with the same carrier and we disrupted them. We pulled them out of funds they were happy be and put them in funds they were not happy with. That's my concern and I --
>> but that's an issue separate from whether or not to renew a contract with a specific provider.
>> and I think there needs to be -- and I've got a member on the committee, either the committee needs to have a hearing where these people come in -- they are not going to come and talk about their personal finances on television, I don't believe, but I do think that some of these people had a significant amount of their retirement savings in those funds. And then they might have been in five funds and all that was dumped in two. They were really unhappy with that and rightfully so. And I think they also worry about, well, now, how often does that happen? What control do they have over their own money. And so I think that the employees that are invested did not get enough input and it's their money. So just the process needs to I think involve them more. So they understand what's being considered.
>> but the
>> [inaudible] ought to be when it looks like we may do something.
>> right.
>> there's a world of possibilities.
>> I just think we need to get them involved. No one intended this to happen but it did.
>> and I'm trying to separate out the issues here. It seems like the issues of whether or not to issue an r.f.p. Is separate from that and a rather non-cont versal issue. Am I totally nuts?
>> well, it's already been done.
>> there won't be a non-controversial issue when it comes to this. I'll guarantee that.
>> and how is it going to affect me.
>> but in c though, the only question is the time line.
>> right. And in terms of the time line, what I'm trying to understand here is the idea of creating a committee, which I think is a good one to address exactly the kind of concerns susan was bringing up as far as fully vetted set of circumstances what people's concerns are, fears, past experiences, what can we avoid in the future. We decided to create such a committee in January, correct? So what was the holdup in actually getting ip up and running?
>> I would take responsibility for that. It didn't move as fast as I would have liked it to. We recruited -- we sent notes out to departments for nominations. As they came in, we began to add to the committee.
>> so it doesn't look like we're going to be rushing into things. So now it's taken us about eight or so months to create this committee. And then what -- in terms of the time line, what -- I'm looking at it and I'm trying to discern what are the actual things that are to be accomplished by November 13th? I don't understand it from the time line.
>> why don't we take another week, take atrachment c and put as much specifics as we can think of for the court to address either on November 13th or November 20th. And vote on that next week.
>> did we vote on b?
>> just a point of information.
>> coming back with that. That was the direction you gave.
>> c, I think, doesn't really lock us in, but today we have thrown out numerous issues. And it seems to me we may as well make it clear that at some point we decide or at the time we decide whether to issue an r.f.p., we'll address those issues and give them some discussion. That's why I asked a question a few minutes ago would we be ready to do that on November 13th or 20th?
>> it really depends once the committee meets and we'll see what all the issues are and what they will recommend to the court.
>> what sort of jumps out on the page to me, will we have a performance review of nationwide retirement solutions available to us by November 13th?
>> I think that's what we're anticipating the oversight committee meeting and our consultant meeting to discuss the performance. To discuss the performance -- the investment performances and the whole aspect of what's happened in the last year since we made these changes to the contract.
>> so will the committee have --
>> we maybe have al at iewr meeting to tell us what he has done under his contract
>> [inaudible].
>> and at the point of departure, perhaps, these are the things that -- not that I'm saying this is what the committee should do, I'm saying this is what I would assume the committee would be looking at is performance review, recommendations on elements to go into an r.f.p. If that's the route that ends up being taken. And a -- I suppose a schedule for receiving input wider than committee, some sort of surveying ability for the employees to be able to voice their experiences. I don't know how one would do a review of a plan administrator without having some sort of survey.
>> years ago, Commissioner, we looked at -- when our -- when I became a member of this Travis County Commissioners court, we looked at health insurance, blue cross, blue shield, and there had been a lot of complaints from the employees because of whatever reason they thought it wasn't adequate service provided. Of course, the contract was about to expire or coming up to an expiration date and as a result of a lot of things, but hearing from the employees of Travis County, we made a switch. We haven't always been with united health care.
>> I know.
>> we made a switch to united health care. Based on a lot of things we heard --
>> it was a happy switch. I was an employee here when we did the switch.
>> well, I didn't know that. I'm sorry.
>> it was much better.
>> it was maybe a similar situation as this, but I still would like to know from the employees if they
>> [indiscernible] and administrators or providers as far as these particular investments are concerned. But anyway, that's another bridge we have to cross.
>> the issues that have been suggested today.
>> yes.
>> who would be the person to receive recommendations from the court or anybody else in preparation for another discussion next Tuesday?
>> you could send it to me.
>> give us your full name.
>> norman mccree.
>> by e-mail?
>> e-mail is fine.
>> preferably. And court members too. My suggestion would be that if we stick to the November 13 or November 20th date, that we try to list the issues that we want brought back for court consideration that day.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I thought you were laughing at the idea.
>> if we're going to have this thing back on next week, I think we ought to ask our consultant to be mirror, because I really want -- to be here because I really want him to answer some of the things that susan said that there are people upset about what's happened. I mean I think that most of us usually get pretty scathing e-mails or whatever if they are not happy with something, and I don't think that I've got one of those, but obviously there are some because susan said there are people out there. I'd like for al to come and say here's what transpired, here's why, here's why we did it. I did not think if somebody was forced to leave something that they were in and go somewhere else and then they can show that they have lost money because the stories that we got at the time that caused us to do that were there were people that said I think I could have made more money had I been able to have more flexibility. Now, I don't -- I mean nobody wants to buy stock that loses the money. I mean but quite frankly, I mean that's what happens in that market. If you had a crystal ball and you could buy the right things, everybody would buy those things. But I'd like for al to come and explain to us. He certainly needs to explain, sara, because you weren't here, and if there is somebody that's that's happened to them, susan, we have to do whatever it takes to rectify that.
>> I would like to point out as a member of the previous committee and potential member of this one, when we talk about performance reviews, clearly in here, we're talking about not just a review of the provider but also of the investments. And it was the belief of the committee that based on the performance of the funds that were renewed, that they were replaced with funds which would make more money for the employees much that's the whole point. And perhaps we were remiss in not talking with those employees and we probably need to do better about that next time, but that's part of the purpose of the committee, to look at the performance of the investments. And if they are not performing well for the employees, then we need to explain that to them.
>> now, this item really is simply to set a date for the committee and consultant to do that performance review, and a date to present it to the court before December 11, 2007. That's what this is. So I don't know that the consultant will be ready to give a performance review next Tuesday.
>> no, not a performance review. I would like for them to come and explain why we did what we did last year because I think, quite frankly, I don't know that I could repeat that and I don't know that anybody in here could repeat it, that there ought to be a good explanation from the consultant about let me take you through what we did and why we did what we did and what mary was saying. My god, nobody thought we're going to take you out of this that you are happy with because you are making money hand or fist and put you in something you are going to lose money. I can't believe that we wouldn't have gotten buried with e-mails about thanks a lot for doing that with us. Obviously it's happened somewhere.
>> it has to be posted separate. We need to post it as a subpart. We moved on a. B we don't need. C we'll bring back next week. Anything else that we need to discuss today?
>> no. We'll have it back for you.
>> the one thing that has not been mentioned today that I think is very important in the negotiation that went on is the fact that in the prior plan, nationwide was charges fees which they hid. And when al discussed this with the court, he said that the average fees would be about $2,000 based on the amount of investment I had. I took the list because I was on the committee and was told what those fees were and found out that al was grossly mistaken. My fees were between 36 and 38 hundred dollars a year. So that even if people made exactly the same as they made before on their investments, in my case, I would be $3,600 ahead because those fees were no longer payable under the new plan. Commissions that went to nationwide. And if people were upset about the changes, then I think we did a very poor job of letting them know that there were hidden commissions. I know that after the change I happened to drop by kim's meeting with somebody, with somebody that I knew, and I asked her a little question and while I was in there, the people who were there asked her for a copy of the commissions that had been payable under the old plan and she refused to give it to them. And so there was an effort to make sure that the employees didn't know what they had been paying in commissions. I looked at her and I said, as a member of the committee, I'm allowed to have that, right? She said right and handed me a copy of it and I handed it to the employee and the employee was therefore allowed to see what commissions they were paying. But if people are not going to be allowed to know what it costs them to be in a plan by the people that are administering the plan, it's hard for these people to understand how they could have been better off by the change.
>> okay.
>> just to reiterate, the fee schedule is on the back of the enrollment form. All employees have a basic fee schedule. And I think barbara, that was a confidential -- that was an internal document that I was not able to hand out based on my back office. But I appreciate that.
>> like I say, those fees --
>> this has all been very interesting. I eagerly anticipate the discussion next week.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> 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, October 3, 2007, 18:30 AM