I was a little behind and although I have not had this Email but a few days, I have already heard about the bill changes entered by John Crescimbeni, so Curtis' hard work and diligence have paid off.  Curtis has been steady on the pension fund for as long I have known him and must be pleased as he seems to have finally gotten his point across the city needed to appoint 3 of the members of the pension board and that they could do so legally now and it would benefit our city for them to do so.  Nice work Curtis.  Here is another letter of his about the subject!

.......................................................

A copy of this letter was Emailed and another copy was hand delivered!

Members Jacksonville City Council

117 W. Duval St

Jacksonville FL 32202

Re: Support for, and amendments to, proposed ordinance 2012 – 203 (which allows City Council to appoint 3 of 5 PFPF trustees)

Dear City Council Members:

         As you know, I had recommended last year that the City should change its local laws so that City Council could have, and exercise, the power to appoint 3 of the 5 trustees of the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (PFPF).     I am glad that City Council Members Crescimbeni, Gulliford and Yarborough have chosen to introduce and sponsor enabling legislation – proposed ordinance 2012 – 203.

         I have written extensively about the PFPF’s many acts of misconduct and waste, and I will not now repeat those points.

         This legislation would not only change the law concerning appointment of PFPF trustees, but would also entail the appointment of 3 new trustees (yet to be announced) to replace the 3 current trustees who are not elected by either policemen or firemen – i.e.,  PFPF trustees Barbara Jaffe, Peter Sleiman and Nat Glover.      It is important that these 3 new trustees have no conflicts of interest, and no reasons to represent any interests other than those of Jacksonville’s taxpayers.     For example, as I told Council President Joost and others months ago, I should not be a trustee, because I have 2 pending lawsuits against the PFPF - a conflict of interest.     Similarly, financial advisors (or others in the business of handling the investments and other financial affairs of individuals, whatever they call themselves) should not be PFPF trustees, because they may use said position to seek clients amongst police officers (JSO employees), firemen (JFRD employees), and retirees receiving PFPF benefits.     (Many of such persons have large sums to invest, thanks in part to the DROP program.)    Once a financial advisor starts doing this, he or she loses his independence, and becomes a possible captive of the biases and interests of those clients or potential clients, and/or of those who have influence over JSO and JFRD employees, including Messrs. Cuba, Wyse and Keane.      The result – the status quo, which badly needs changing in so many ways, may not be changed, if just 1 of the 3 new PFPF trustee appointees “changes sides”.

         Barbara Jaffe illustrates this problem.    She is a long time and successful financial advisor at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MSSB), and a PFPF trustee for over 20 years.     She refused to speak with me or respond to me in writing, notwithstanding my efforts to commence a dialogue, starting in early 2010, on the apparent grounds that I have sued the PFPF.     (I surmise here, because she has refused to respond.    I cannot force anyone to respond to me.)      Thus, she has not informed me, nor will she inform me, about her conflicts of interest.    (I never wanted to know personal financial information concerning her JSO, JFRD and retiree clientele – I just wanted to know the number of such clients, to get some idea about the severity of the problem re: her conflicts of interest.)  

 So, I tried obtaining such information from MSSB.     I called its Jacksonville office in early March, in an attempt to speak with the local MSSB manager, whose name, I was told, was Joseph Agee III.    No response.    I wrote to him requesting such information in early March.    (I previously provided the letter to you.)    Still no luck.    I tried again in April – I called again, and after receiving no response, I wrote again on 4/25/12.   This letter was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, and thus I know that MSSB has it.    Still –  no response from MSSB.   Thus, I have made several efforts to ascertain the extent of Ms. Jaffe’s conflicts of interest, and failed.   If any governmental official wishes to attempt to do this, please advise and I will be glad to assist.

 Obviously, I am disgusted with MSSB and Ms. Jaffe – they should disclose their conflicts of interest, and they can easily do so in a way that does not reveal any individual’s personal financial information.        I am further disturbed that the law, as it now exists, apparently does not permit either me, or you, to require that even generalized proof of such conflicts of interest be provided.

 (Note – I am forced to assume that Ms. Jaffe does indeed have the feared conflicts of interest.   Her voting record – consistent support for John Keane no matter how wasteful – suggests same.    But, one would also think that, if she had NO clients who were current or retired members of the PFPF, that she, and MSSB, would have, by now, shown me up by so stating.)   (Further, if one googles Ms. Jaffe, one will see that she mentions her PFPF trusteeship as part of her MSSB vitae. )  

 And, so, this all illustrates a real problem that I suggest that 2012 – 203 should address.   

I attended a public meeting re: 2012 – 203, on 5/15/12.    Messrs. Crescimbeni, Gulliford, Joost and Schellenberg, among others, also attended.     I mentioned the “financial advisor problem” then, and Mr. Crescimbeni had a good suggestion – amend 2012 – 203 to bar such persons from being trustees.

 I believe this is an excellent suggestion.   Since I know that it is difficult for you to communicate amongst each other, outside of publicly announced meetings, thanks to the Sunshine Law, I thought that I would pass this along.

(An alternative – requiring PFPF trustee nominees who are in the financial advisory business to promise in writing not to seek or obtain JSO or JFRD employees or retirees as clients – is not as good, even if there is a verification/enforcement mechanism.     Follow – through may be lacking.)

I have another suggestion for amending proposed ordinance 2012 – 203 – permit non-conflicted attorneys or retired attorneys to also serve as PFPF trustees.     This is not intended to “benefit” me – (1) I have previously taken myself out of consideration, (2) I have other past experience that would “make the grade” under 2012 – 203 as it now stands, and (3) I can accomplish more as an outsider/gadfly.    A big advantage to having an attorney or retired attorney as PFPF trustee is to, hopefully, help control John Keane, or his successor, should they continue to foolishly and wastefully use outside counsel.  

 I further suggest that section 5 needs to be rewritten, to reflect the fact that, although Peter Sleiman tendered his resignation as PFPF trustee, such tender was only effective upon the appointment of a successor PFPF trustee.    Thus, Mr. Sleiman still continues as PFPF trustee.    Check the PFPF portion of the City’s web site, and you will see that he is still, there, listed as a PFPF trustee.    Therefore, his position cannot, for example, correctly be described as “vacant”, at least as I understand matters.      

 Please contact me if you have questions or want documentation