Cecelia M. Carter, Executive Director

Seattle City Employees? Retirement System
9? Board of Administration

To: Cecelia M. Carter, Executive Director ?7 .
From: Mel Robertson CPA, Assistant Executive 

Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 I

Re: Responding to your memo dated Monday, March 2425, 2008.

This writing is in response to your memo where you have expressed concerns about
inappropriate conduct.

With regards to our meeting on Friday, March 14th, 2008 I did submit a request that the meeting
be between you and l, to review the auditors memo. This is a function that I have managed
since 1992, when I started working at the Retirement System. The 2 previous Executive
Directors empowered employees and did not expect to oversee every detail of their work. While I
appreciate you have the right to manage in your own style, and it is my responsibility to adapt to
that style, I hope you can appreciate that the marked difference in your management style and
that of the two previous Executive Directors may cause, from time to time, an occasional dif?cult
perception regarding expectations. When the previous Executive Director began, we met to
review how the audit process has worked in the past, including a general brie?ng as to which
staff members were involved. Because Selam's role would have been part of that overview, I
felt an initial meeting just between the two of us would have been helpful. We have always
received an ?unquali?ed?, or clean opinion, the best that you can h0pe for.

In truth, I have felt that have been pushed aside and kept out of the loop with regards to
information that would normally be part of my day to day routine. do recall asking you in the
March 14th meeting whether I was still in charge of operations, several times, and never received
a definitive answer. The statement that I began to get up to leave is inaccurate, was merely
repositioning my chair to make room for Selam, and I don?t believe that the level of my voice was
inappropriately loud. In summary, I do not believe that was confrontational, although it is true
that was questioning my role in the organization, and expressing my belief that my role had
become marginalized. I can assure you I will be more discreet in the future.

With regards to the information and documents that the auditor was requesting, was not
refusing to supply them anything. I relayed to you a part of a conversation that was having with
the auditors about their requests. I discussed the requests with the auditor, and met with the
audit partner to review the information that they were seeking. The auditors were completely
comfortable utilizing the data in the format that we currently have been using. We did not need
to establish a new format to provide the same data. We also reviewed their interest in seeing
additional data compiled along side the data we currently have available. There was no refusal
to provide data to the auditors. This type of interaction with the auditors is completely normal
and is a routine part of the annual audit.

With regards to the State Auditor, there was a list of information that she was seeking to gather.
Some of the information was easy to relay via email, which I did, and some of the other

 

City Employees? Retirement System, 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 386-1293, Fax: (206) 386-1506, Toll Free: (877) 865?0079
An equal employment opportunity. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided.

information was more suited to a voice conversation. The auditor was experiencing some
confusion about our two committees: the Investment Committee and the Advisory Committee. i
did meet with the auditor to provide the explanations that she was seeking. There was no
refusal to provide data to the auditor.

With regards to the opening of the mail, I had stated that I sometimes receive a card or letter of a
personal nature as well as con?dential personnel communications that doesn?t always get
marked confidential. Since 1992, have always been receiving my mail unopened. However, it
is a non-issue for me to abide by the new office policy. have absolutely no problem with it.

I have previously mentioned to you that since 1992 I have served as the operations manager of
the Retirement System. have plenty of information to share and I am completely willing to do
so at any time. Sometimes when things come up, I may be able to offer you some insight into
different ideas or options that you may consider. For example, when Jeannette was recently
having trouble balancing the retiree payroll, when Cecilia Kwan was unavailable to assist her.
Another example is when our Retired Section is bumping up to the payroll deadlines to get all
the retirees set up on time. I have some insight that I can share, based on the many years of
experience that have with the System; even if you chose to take a different approach, you
would still have the input available to consider. With regards to the Accounts Payable matter,
my point was that I wasn't consulted regarding the change in procedure, merely received an
email along with others stating that was no longer involved in the accounts payable process. I
realize that we have vastly different management approaches, and I suppose that was thinking
that in this situation you might have suggested to me in advance the change that was being
contemplated.

With regards to the meeting that we did not have on March 7, 2008, subsequently apologized
for missing our meeting. I forgot to schedule it on my calendar.

I do recall the conversation that you refer to as happening shortly after your arrival in January. I
was telling you that some of the worst problems that we have had to deal with were ones where
our Retired Section did not adequately communicate with a couple of recent widows, and a
widower. These are the situations that require the most care, when compared to most of the
other communications that we have to make. I realize that we have many people that we deal
with and occasionally it is easy to forget to get back to someone, however, the last thing we want
is to have a widow call the Mayor?s Office to complain about our service. The 2 widows that 
was referencing in our conversation were ones that were extremely difficult to deal with. One
was especially difficult to deal with, and very demanding from the outset of her contact with our
office. The other widow?s situation was aggravated when the process didn't flow as well as it
could have. In both of these situations I was called upon to come to the rescue and resolve the
situation, which I did. I have a lot of experience dealing with people that need extra special care,
or a problem that needs to be ?xed, or a wrong that needs to be righted. In the course of the
conversation I thought that it was just me and you talking, and that we could be frank and candid
with one another, and yes, I did use the word when I referred to the subjects of this matter.
However, in light of your statement ?that such disrespectful references are unacceptable"
reminds me of conversations that we had where you referred to Mr. Ken Yeager as "our crazy?.
You mentioned that you had ?2 crazies? at the place you worked before, and that we were
fortunate to only have ?one crazy?. I do agree that Mr. Yeager is an unusual individual; he is a
member of our System that is drawing a disability retirement.

I agree with you that respect is important. I also expressed that I felt as though I was being
disrespected. I have not been included in discussions or decisions that affect my work, my
decisions are overridden without informing me of such and other?s input is accepted without
providing me a chance to offer mine. One such example is that of recent retiree Malcolm Derr.
He was divorced a while back and the dissolution included a provision for the ex-spouse to
receive a portion of his future benefit. The documentation provided that if she were to pass
before receiving the anticipated bene?t that it would be payable to her heirs. She passed away
before he retired. Upon consultation with Ted lnkley, Assistant City Attorney, I reviewed the
intestate provisions as to who the rightful heirs could possibly be and the process we would take
to determine such. It was determined that there were 2 sons, and that they were the heirs to
which a benefit would be available. We contacted the sons, both of whom expressly waived
their rights, which then permitted the participant/retiree to draw the entire benefit. At some point
subsequent, we received a communication from the 2 sons, via their legal counsel, that they
wished to withdraw their waiver and begin collecting the portion previously determined to be
available to them. I changed the amount payable to the retiree to reflect the reduction that would
be payable to the 2 sons and presented the file to Jeannette Ocampo, who supervises the
Retired Section. asked her to contact the retiree to let him know what was going on and then
to contact the 2 sons to gather the necessary information. The communication was not made,
as requested, and Mr. Barr received his retirement allowance with a lower amount than
he was anticipating and of course, he called the of?ce to complain. When we ?rst received the
communication from the sons? counsel, we briefly reviewed the matter and you stated that the
ex-spouses benefit was no longer available to her, or her heirs, since she passed prior to the
participant?s retirement. The State Law regarding such matters does not prevent the heirs, or
bene?ciaries, of a deceased ex?spouse from collecting the anticipated benefit. This is
demonstrated in the document that we have available on our website that provides information
about divorces and how they are handled with respect to retirement bene?ts, as well as sample
QDRO language. In particular, there is language provided in either eventuality as to whether the
parties agree to provide for a future benefit payable to the heirs, or bene?ciaries, of an alternate
payee if the alternate payee were to die prior to the availability of the anticipated benefits. This
document was reviewed and approved by Paul McDonald, who is a local attorney that the City
Attorney?s Office recommends for tax matters. He is also an expert on how divorces are able to
divide retirement bene?ts. (Paul McDonald is also the attorney that works with the Executive
Director to periodically prepare submittals to the IRS, in order to help maintain the qualified
status of the Plan.) I came to ?nd out later that the claim of the sons was denied. This is an
example of where I think it would have been apprOpriate for us to have had a discussion about
the decision to override the claim of the 2 sons. have been dealing with retirees and ex-
spouses who are getting a divorce, or who are divorced, and about to draw a bene?t. I want to
be able to provide the best information that I have available to these parties. I enjoy dealing with
these people, both sides, and feeling like I can help them understand and work through a dif?cult
situation with each side hopefully coming away from the process, as it relates to the Retirement
System, feeling as though they have been treated fairly. My interest in wanting to be included in
the discussions, or kept in the l00p with the information that I feel that I need to know, helps me
to be able to provide our customers with the best service.

I have worked hard over the years to care for the System and continue to work hard. I look
forward to being able to continue working for the Retirement System until I am able to retire with
at least 30 years of service credit. enjoy my work and hope to ?nd a way that we can work
together. I am perfectly willing to show you the respect that you deserve and stand ready to
work with you in a subordinate role. I will readily answer your questions and provide you with
any input that you are interested in having. also stand ready to share with you the institutional
memory of my many years with System, if you so desire. I will also do my level best to provide

good customer service to our varied types of customers, as well as treat our staff with all due
respect and courtesy.

i hope that you understand that I have worked here for almost 16 years and enjoyed great
working relationships with my previous Executive Directors, and have shared in their confidence
and their successes. Our relationships were always constructive and collegial, and based on
mutual respect. In my entire career far exceeding even these last 16 years at Retirement I have
never received any form of discipline, nor was ever adjudged de?cient in any aspect of my work.
For whatever reason, it seems apparent that I do not currently enjoy the level of con?dence from
you that I have had with my previous supervisors.

I understand that it is my role to adapt to the different style of management than that previously
exercised here. I assure you i will do so. But respect is also a two-way street. As described
above, I have felt minimized and circumvented almost since your arrival. I hope that the
information I have provided you in this letter and in my June 6th memo to you allows you to
realize that some of your perceptions of me are miscast, and any actions I have taken are
neither negligent or ill?advised, but rather based on long-standing practices here, and based on
a desire to do the System's work in the best possible way.

Thank you.