Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes synopsis_Pension Joint_02/02/2009SYNOPSIS OF JOINT MEETING OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSION BOARD AND GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD ON 2/2/09 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of both boards with the Village Manager held on 12/10/08 were approved. 2. Actuary Steve Palmquist discussed the following items: • Plan Assumptions vs. Actual Returns • Mortality tables Utilized for Actuarial Reports vs. Current Trends • Future Plan Contributions Based on Market Conditions and Economic Trends • Actuarial Considerations of all Income Affecting Pension Payouts and Liabilities • Revising Actuarial Assumptions Based Upon Modified Forecasts and Models 3. Comments from the public and staff were made. 4. Mr. Palmquist outlined his proposal for an impact study and estimated costs, which he was to email to Pension Coordinator McWilliams by the end of the week, and he estimated completion of the impact study could be between the middle and end of March, 2009. 5. Consensus of both boards was when they heard from Pension Coordinator McWilliams with Mr. Palmquist's written proposal, she would coordinate a special meeting of both boards for their consideration of approval of the proposal. END OF SYNOPSIS JOINT TEQUESTA PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION TRUST FUND AND TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PENSIONTRUST FUND MEETING MINUTES February 2, 2009 I. Call To Order And Roll Call A joint meeting of the Tequesta General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees and the Tequesta Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees was held at the Tequesta Village Hall, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, February 2, 2009. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. A roll call was taken by Ed Sabin, Chair of the Public Safety Officers" Pension Board. In attendance at the meeting were: Public Safety Officers' Pension Board Members: Chair Ed Sabin, Board Member Ray Giblin. Board Member Ken Nielson, and Board Member Robert Young. Secretary David Cooper was absent from the meeting. General Employees' Pension Board Members: Chair Michael Rhodes, Secretary Carl Hansen, and Board Member Archie C. Mangum, Jr. Board Member Deanna Mayo and Board Member Michelle Gload were absent, attending the FPPTA Trustees' School. Also in attendance were Attorney Bonni Jensen, Senior Accountant Monica Rahim, Finance Director JoAnn Forsythe representing Village Management, Brian Bacardjiev with Bogdahn Consulting, LLC, Steve Palmquist with Gabriel Roeder Smith and Company, Mike Dana of Dana Investment Advisors, and Tony Brown of Rockwood Capital Advisors. Pension Coordinator Lori McWilliams was also absent, attending the FPPTA Trustees School. Chair Sabin noted the Village Manager was not present, but was available if needed. I1. Approval of Minutes MOTION: General Employees' Pension Board Secretary Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the joint meeting of both boards held on December 10, 2008. Board Member Young seconded; motion carried by unanimous vote. III. Discussion by Steve Palmquist • Plan Assumptions vs. Actual Returns • Mortality tables Utilized for Actuarial Reports vs. Current Trends • Future Plan Contributions Based on Market Conditions and Economic Trends • Actuarial Considerations of all Income Affecting Pension Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 2 Payouts and Liabilities • Revising Actuarial Assumptions Based Upon Modified Forecasts and Models Mr. Palmquist provided a review of discussions which had gone on for a year regarding funding the pension plans. He explained the plans were defined benefit plans, meaning the plans had made promises to the members of the plans regarding how much their pensions would be if they met certain requirements. Those promises would come to fruition as people met their respective retirement dates. It was not known in advance how much those promises were worth, so the actuary looked at the benefits in the plans and then figured out how much was needed to put into the plans each year in order to meet those future promises. Looking at an individual employee who made $30,000 annually starting out, he knew if that person stayed until retirement age her pension would be based on how much service she had and how much her pay would be in the last few years of working. The actuary made an estimate of how much the pay increases would be until retirement, to estimate how much the pension would be. Being defined benefit plans, the plans paid pensions for life. That was a major factor in determining the cost of the plan. The actuary's first guess was how much the benefit would be and his second guess was how long the benefit would be paid. In order to figure out how long the benefit would be paid, mortality rates were used to provide that estimate. Over the years when money was building up, the actuary made an estimate of how much those funds would earn over time. Those earnings would replace the amount contributed by the Village; therefore, the more earnings the pension funds had, the less the Village would have to pay in the future and vice versa. Mr. Palmquist advised there were studies that showed, over extended periods of time, that benefit payouts were covered 75% by the earnings of the funds, not by contributions going in, so the earnings were extremely important. Mr. Palmquist reported he had arrived early and had answered questions at the Public Safety Officers' Board meeting that morning. One question had been what happened when you had investment losses. His response in the case of the Public Safety Officers' plan, was that investment earnings for the fiscal year ending 9/30/08 were minus 11.8%, or half a million dollars in loss, compared to zero. The loss from an actuarial standpoint was more than $500,000, because they were expecting a positive 8%. At the beginning of the fiscal year there had been $4 million, and 8% would have been $300,000+ that was expected. Because $300,000 to the positive was expected and actual was $500,000 to the negative, the actual investment loss was $800,000 from an actuarial standpoint. That $800,000 loss was spread out over the average future working life of the members of the plan. For the Public Safety Officers' plan, that was a factor of 10%; so 10% of that loss would be added to the Village's contribution if an Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 3 October 1, 2008 evaluation was done. For the General Employees' plan, that factor was closer to 9%; they started out fiscal year 2008 with a million dollars, their return was negative 17%. A positive of $80,000 had been expected; converting the negative 17% into dollars might be $150,000, or roughly a $250,000 loss, so the Village cost would go up roughly $22,000. Mr. Palmquist explained there were also other factors, such as if more employees than expected terminated during the year that would help offset that investment loss. Pay increases for General Employees had been less than expected; but pay increases for Public Safety Officers had been greater than expected, which would produce another negative. Mr. Palmquist's point was there were a lot of other things the actuary looked at besides just investment earnings to determine the required contribution. Chair Ed Sabin asked what other pension plans that had an 8% earnings target had done during the present economic crisis. Mr. Palmquist responded that 8% was still the most common assumed rate of return; several of his clients- certainly not the majority-had gone to 7-1/2%, and he only had three clients that were currently below 7-1/2%. The problem with lowering that rate now was the plans already had investment losses to make up, and also if the rate of return were lowered that made the cost go up as well. While he would really like all his clients to lower their assumed rates of return, he was not the one who had the money to pay for that, and it was going to be very difficult to pay back in the next several years. Although many plans would like to reduce their rate, he doubted that they would do it at this time. Secretary Carl Hansen commented everyone was going to suffer from this economic crisis, and asked if it could be expected that whatever loss there was to the pension plans could be made up by the Village or by employees so that employees would not suffer during their retirement. Mr. Palmquist responded that if nothing was changed in the plans, the Village was making up the cost over time. If one were talking about employees sharing in the pain, you were getting into collective bargaining, and he suspected that would be near the top of the agenda for collective bargaining all over Florida. Mr. Palmquist advised that while there were losses in the Village plans, not to lose sight of the fact that they were starting from a very strong position. Both plans were very well funded and had relatively low employer costs. If one compared the 8% or 9% of pay cost of the Public Safety Officers' plan with others around the State, you would see that was very low in comparison-most cities were paying 20%-30% of pay in pension costs for their Public Safety employees. For the General Employees, the Village was paying about 6% of pay, which was also low compared to other General Employee groups, and he cautioned not to lose sight of the fact that the Village was starting from a strong position. Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 4 Chair Sabin asked if it was fair to say the State FRS plan had larger losses that the Village's Public Safety Officers' plan for the most recent quarter. Mr. Palmquist responded he had no numbers, but the State valued its plan on a June 30 year instead of September 30, so their last valuation on June 30, 2008 included a 12-month period that was not as bad as the period following, therefore, their 7/01/08 actuarial report showed very little change in required contributions. He suspected that when they looked at the 7/01/09 report with massive losses, that it would be a much different story. The 7/01/08 report told all the entities that paid into FRS what to pay starting 7/01/09, so it would not be until 7/01/10 that there would be a significant cost increase for the FRS covered employers. The investment earnings rate for FRS was 7.75%. Mr. Palmquist recalled he had talked to both boards several months ago about the fact that sooner or later the mortality tables being used for funding purposes needed to be changed. He estimated that changing to the most recent tables, for the Public Safety Officers' plan would make the Village's cost go up 2%-3% of payroll, and for the General Employees' plan it would go up 1 %-2% of payroll. The reason that was important was the pensions were paid for the life of the retirees, and it was important not to understate how long those pensions would be paid. Chair Sabin asked why the tables had not been changed. Mr. Palmquist explained that even though the tables currently used were 26 years old, newer tables had not been much different, but what would make the cost go up was that static tables would no longer be used. New tables would be constructed differently to anticipate future improvements in mortality-in essence, there would be a separate mortality table for each year of birth, so people born in 1950 would have slightly higher mortality rates than those born in 1951, 1952, and so on. That was what would make the cost go up. Secretary Hansen commented if someone wanted to retire earlier, they would get reduced benefits, and asked if the cost would be more for those who chose to retire early. Mr. Palmquist explained there was a penalty of 3% for each year one retired before normal retirement date; the full actuarial penalty would be 7%- 8%. In essence, the Village would be making up for that subsidized early retirement benefit. The Village would be paying for that subsidy, and one of the actuarial assumptions was how many people would utilize the early retirement provision. It remained to be seen how many actually did utilize that provision. Chair Michael Rhodes asked for clarification whether the increased cost of 1 %- 2% for the General Employees plan was affected by the mortality tables. Mr. Palmquist explained that if the current tables were replaced by the 2000 tables, there would not be much change; the change would be in going forward from 2000 until each person's demise. Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 5 Chair Rhodes commented on the example given earlier of the impact of investment losses to next year's contribution, and asked how that would change if funding were done on a smoothing basis. Mr. Palmquist responded that had come up at the Public Safety Officer's board meeting, so he would use those figures as an example-the difference between their expected return of positive 8%, or $300,000, and their actual of minus $500,000 equaled an $800,000 loss. In the absence of the smoothing method you would figure 10% of the $800,000. With the smoothing method, you would take the first 20% of $800,000 and recognize 20%, or $160,000, this year. You would take 10% of the $160,000 as the cost increase. You would have another $160,000 each year for five years or so-those were not exact numbers, but gave an idea of how it would work. If there were a positive investment return, it would be treated the same way. Mr. Palmquist commented regarding future plan contributions based on market conditions and economic trends, that Finance Director Forsythe had indicated the Village definitely had less revenue coming in than in previous years, and with pension costs going up, something had to give. His guess was the Village was in good financial shape, but that was something the boards would have to ask Finance Director Forsythe. Mr. Palmquist commented going back to the asset smoothing issue, if that method were used, the resulting asset figure being used must be within 20% of market; and with the stock market going down quickly and deeply, one could easily come up with a situation where the asset figure turned out to be more than 20% higher than market. In that case, you had to lower down to 120% of market, and that differential could not be smoothed out over five years. In the 10/01/2008 valuations he had done to date, no one was outside the 20% boundary, but unless there was a dramatic turnaround between now and when he did the 2009 valuation, he suspected that the 20% corridor would be breached, and therefore there would be a double whammy of investment losses which would have to be made up the following year. In the example of the $800,000 loss, there would be another $800,000 loss in the 2009 fiscal year. In calculating the assets under the smoothing method, the asset value would be more than 20% than the market value. If the number that was ended up with was $5 million but the assets were still only $4 million, $5 million divided by $4 million was 124%., so the 124% would have to be reduced far enough to get to 120%, which would be $4.8 million; therefore, $200,000 could not go through the smoothing method-it had to go directly to the 10%. Mr. Palmquist commented that if money were unlimited he would like to change mortality rates, lower the assumed rate of return, and increase the salary increase assumption that was being used for Public Safety-all of which would increase the cost. Chair Sabin commented when the boards met with the Village Manager, there had been discussion about authorizing an impact study, which would be sort of a Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 6 baseline of where the funds were today and what was being done; Mr. Palmquist was also talking about a baseline and how it could be influenced by different things and how to plan, and the impact of that. Chair Sabin commented there also had been a dialogue about whether the Village would consider a defined contribution plan versus defined benefit plan. Mr. Palmquist confirmed that everything discussed so far today applied to a defined benefit plan. With a defined contribution plan, one knew how much money was going into the fund each year. Using an example of 8% going into the plan every year, what was not known was what that would produce as a retirement benefit at the end. The defined benefit plan defined what the final benefit was, and that was worked toward over time; the defined contribution plan indicated what was going in but you did not know what you would get at the end. In defined contribution plans, from 2002 through 2007 people were adding 20% a year; now everyone had really been hurt. Usually when an employer went from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, all the new hires went into the defined contribution plan, and current employees were given a choice whether to go into the defined contribution plan. Another option would be to shut down the defined benefit plans and have a defined contribution plan for all employees going forward. Mr. Palmquist reported that the Town of Lake Park had done that, but there had not been enough money to pay all benefits earned by the firefighters and they had been told by the Florida Supreme Court their obligation was to cover all accrued benefits of the plan. Tequesta plans would therefore have to be made whole; as of a year ago both plans had asset values that exceeded plan termination benefits, but it was unknown if that was still the case. Attorney Jensen advised that the decision of whether or not to terminate a plan was a municipal function-not a function of this board. Once the decision to terminate had been made, the operation of terminating was a board function, so the board had the obligation to decide how to distribute the assets. There were three options available to distribute the assets: (1) create a substitute trust fund to pay the benefits for the retirees; (2) operate it as a frozen type plan; (3) pay the money out in lump sum payments or purchase an annuity. The level to which the municipality had to fund the benefits depended upon the way that the plan was terminated. The Lake Park Police pension fund was actually terminated before the firefighters plan, but they had created a substituted trust fund and were able to pay out the assets to active members in a lump sum, and they continued the plan on an on-going basis as a substituted trust fund to pay the retiree benefits. The municipality funds those retiree benefits using an annual actuarial evaluation, just as Tequesta did. Chair Sabin commented he did not believe, unless the boards felt otherwise, that was within the scope of analysis of questions for Mr. Palmquist and his firm, but the point had come up in the dialogue with the Village Manager, when all options were presented. Chair Sabin indicated he believed today's direction was to give guidance to the actuarial firm as to what type of analysis the boards would like to see. Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 7 Mr. Palmquist advised that mortality rates and assumed rate of investment return would apply to both General Employees and Public Safety plans; the salary increase assumption would only apply to Public Safety. Mr. Palmquist clarified he had only 2 or 3 clients below 7-1/2%, and 8-10 clients who had lowered their assumed rate of return-a couple of which actually were doing it step-by-step, going down a tenth of a point per year over an extended period of time. Chair Sabin asked if in the areas of possible focus whether Mr. Palmquist would be able to see incremental effects of individual items, which Mr. Palmquist confirmed that he would. Board Member Mangum asked what the long-term exposure would be if the rate of return dropped to 5% actual. Mr. Palmquist responded we had seen what happened in one year-a significant increase in the amount the Village had to pay into the funds, and if over an extended period of time the rate of return was not achieved, then it was a problem that would have to be dealt with; the Village's contribution would rise each year it was not met, and if it continued to happen then the rate would have to be reduced. Board Member Mangum indicated he considered 8% too high for the next few years. Mr. Palmquist acknowledged that for the past fiscal year and four months into this new fiscal year, the Village's contribution would be higher. Mr. Palmquist explained it was also spread over future working life, and under the present aggregate funding method for the plans one was allowed to spread everything over 12-15 years; another common funding method, entry age normal method, allowed it to be spread over 30 years, which could be used, and would have no effect on the funding ratio but would have an effect on the required contribution. Chair Sabin confirmed with Mr. Palmquist that it could go to underfund the plans-underfunded within the guidelines allowed under the law-- and would have to be made up over time. Mr. Palmquist reported that both of the Village's plans as of 10/1/07 were over 100% funded, but as of 10/1/08 he thought the General Employees plan still would be, but did not think the Public Safety Plan would be; however, the funded ratios were very strong compared to other plans. Chair Rhodes asked if 8% return was still common; Mr. Palmquist explained it was still common within their firm's clients and also around the country-that there was no rush to change it because at this time there was also a loss to be made up that would be compounded. Chair Sabin asked Mr. Palmquist's thoughts on an impact study. Mr. Palmquist responded a study could be done that would show the effects of each item that had been discussed, both separately and combined; and he knew that the Public Safety Officers' board had not authorized annual valuations but he was afraid if his firm did a study based on the 10/1/07 assets and employee data, it would not help very much. Therefore, he recommended if they were going to authorize a Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 8 study that it be done on 2008 data or hold off until 10/1/09 and do all the studies based on 10/1/09 data. Chair Sabin asked if 12/31/08 data could be used. Mr. Palmquist responded they could use the member information as of 10/1/08, which was already in their system, and the asset data as of 12/31/08, which would still give a good comparison. Board Member Nielson commented the Board's obligations did not change regardless of which funding method was used; Mr. Palmquist agreed, commenting the amount of benefits was going to be the amount of benefits, and his firm was trying to give it their best guess as to the value of those future benefits and what parameters to use to determine that value. Board Member Nielson commented another known item was the employees' contribution. Council Member Arena asked, under the 30-year payback program mentioned if a lump sum could be paid to reduce the amount. Mr. Palmquist explained it could be paid that way-the more it was reduced early, the less that would have to be paid later. Council Member Arena asked if there were an emergency clause in defined benefit pension plans anywhere that in the event the bottom fell out, the employee contribution rate was automatically increased until things got better. Mr. Palmquist responded he used to have 3 or 4 plans and now had only one where the city contributions and the employee contributions were both variable. Different formulas could be created-one was if the city's cost exceeded a certain percent of payroll, then the excess over that would be shared equally by the city and the employees. Using an example of 10% threshold, if it went up to 12%, then the city would assume the first 10% and add 1 % for a total of 11 %, and members would assume 1 %, which was something that could be done. When it dropped back to 10%, then the city would pay. Chair Sabin commented the discussion had identified four areas that could totally change-Council Member Arena was talking about the required contribution level of the Village, and if changes were made to any assumptions such as smoothing, aggregate, etc., that contribution level could change. There would have to be clear definitions on assumptions and changes and how it was shared, etc., and that would be pretty complex. Council Member Arena commented he was thinking outside the bubble, because it was an out of the bubble problem. Mr. Palmquist commented he had mentioned the Village cost compared to other plans was fairly low; if the Village were to put in a minimum contribution, so that in good years that minimum was more than the actuarially required amount, that little extra would build up over time and really help out. As an example, Mr. Palmquist commented for Public Safety, the Village was paying about 9%; they might put in no less than 12% every year. Board Member Giblin commented on the amount the Village had paid in the past. Both Chair Rhodes and Chair Sabin suggested it would be very interesting to go back 5 years or to the plans' inception to see how much the Village had contributed each year, and in addition Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 9 to compare that to other plans, in order to set benchmarks where things had been, to help determine what to do going forward. Council Member Arena expressed his opinion that setting a minimum Village contribution right now would not do much since they were trying to catch up, and they should wait until it went to zero. Mr. Palmquist responded he had heard talk recently that if an employer had some cash available, now was the time to buy, while the market was low. Mr. Palmquist clarified that the contribution rate would never go to zero. Discussion ensued. Village resident Frank D'Ambra commented regarding defined benefit plans paying retirement for life and defined contribution plans not doing that. Mr. D'Ambra advised that with a defined contribution plan one had a set amount going in and received a specific amount in a lump sum at retirement; in a defined benefit plan the way it was guaranteed for life was either the Village continued to self fund the benefit, or they could purchase an annuity which would provide the income. In a defined contribution plan, the individual had that same option to purchase an annuity at the time of retirement to provide an income stream for life, and that income stream could either be a flat amount or could include inflation clauses and other things. Therefore, options at retirement were similar between the two types of plans, and people who retired back when the market was good might have done better being in a defined contribution plan. Mr. D'Ambra commented on benchmarking against other municipalities or other governmental entities, that municipalities and State programs did not have a reputation of being the best managed programs, and suggested being very careful comparing our well-run pension plans to other plans. Chair Sabin commented those were good points, and clarified that the plan's investment monitor did benchmark against other investment managers and was going to get further data outside municipal plans. Finance Director Forsythe advised the Village Manager had asked her to attend in his place, and advised he and staff had discussed the items under discussion for a few years; and in 2001 there had been discussion of the potential of moving to a defined contribution plan. There had been a time when the Village contribution for the police had been zero. Ms. Forsythe expressed her opinion this could not be looked at in a vacuum-the past must be considered to see the whole picture. As an accountant, she wanted to see firm hard numbers, but was unsure how to accomplish that. She agreed with Mr. Palmquist that during this volatile environment the boards should have annual actuarial evaluations in order to determine the annual contribution rate. Chair Sabin suggested the actuary work with staff to get history on the contributions and see what percentage of the total Village budget that was so staff could see not just funding requirements, but how it impacted the Village. Finance Director Forsythe commented staff could get information from the annual Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 10 comprehensive financial reports, and could look there first. Chair Sabin commented perhaps staff could determine what the contribution percentage should be, and the boards needed to understand the overall impact of the pension plan. Chair Sabin commented there had been discussion by the Public Safety Officers' board at their meeting that morning about having annual actuarial evaluations in order to have more timely figures, but at the same time considered smoothing, which would take the number and reduce the impact, and determined that at least going into this joint meeting that board did not see the need or value of having annual actuarial evaluations, but left open in this case and from time to time when there might be a need to have a special study or an interim one done rather than locking in having an actuarial evaluation. Finance Director Forsythe noted that when things were coming in as expected, there was less risk in moving forward with the same assumptions, and Mr. Palmquist usually provided projections for the current year and the next two years to use, to see what contributions should be, but currently looking at the 2007 evaluation might not help the Village in moving forward. Mr. Palmquist was asked to summarize his recommendations for an impact study. Mr. Palmquist recommended an impact study with the following items: Looking at costs and liabilities for each item discussed as far as assumptions, both with the aggregate method and the alternate entry age normal method; provide surveys of the percentage of plans that used each method to provide a comfort level that others were doing the same thing; and smoothing. They would provide for a few years back the required and actual contributions that were relatively easy to find; those were included in Mr. Palmquist's actuarial evaluations, but he did not have the percent of pay going back, which would be relevant. For Public Safety, the report would include investment earnings, mortality rates, and salary increases. For General Employees, the study would include investment earnings and mortality rates. For both plans: smoothing method and changing the funding method. Completion of the study was estimated by the middle to end of March, 2009. Mr. Palmquist indicated he would send an email to Pension Coordinator McWilliams by the end of this week of his proposal and stating the cost, but ballpark would be $3,000-$4,000 for the General Employees and a little more than that for the Public Safety plan. For both plans, Mr. Palmquist would use the December 31, 2008 asset value. Consensus of both boards was when they heard from Pension Coordinator McWilliams with Mr. Palmquist's written proposal, she would coordinate a special meeting of both boards for their consideration of approval of the proposal. Joint Meeting Minutes of Board of Trustees of Public Safety Officers' Pension Trust Fund and General Employees' Pension Trust Fund February 2, 2009 11 V. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ,~~~~ ~ Betty Laur Recording Secretary