October 8, 2026 · Ohio Retirement Study Council · 634 words · 7 speakers · 26 segments
All right, I call to order the October 8th SERS Judiciary Audit Subcommittee. I call the meeting to order. Director, would you call the roll?
Chairman Potagell.
Here.
Representative Brennan is excused.
Senator Romanchuk.
Here.
Director Higgins.
Here.
Mr. Wilson for the AG.
Here.
You have a quorum, sir.
Thank you. All right, for the minutes, the previous meeting are in your folders and on your iPads. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, the minutes then I will have them stand as approved. All right. Before us are the three proposals we received in response to the RFP and the ORSC staff did check the references of all three vendors in their due diligence. For the three proposals that we received, one was from Funston, with a total not to exceed a cost of $462,712.50. Is it Siegel or Seagal Seagal Seagal Seagal with a total not to exceed cost of And Weaver with a total not to exceed the cost of In my opinion, and this is with consultation of staff, the Funston proposal was the best overall proposal. We believe that the methodology, work product, and timeline proposed by Funston is exactly what the ORC outlined in the RFP. While Weaver and Segal appear to have previously completed components of the fiduciary audit we need, there was concerns that neither may have actually completed an entire fiduciary audit of this scope. For the cost of this audit, I think we need to be sure that the firm we choose is capable of the entirety of the project. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the committee? Thank you.
So Senator Robocheck, if you don't mind, I will say, because we had a conversation about follow-up on this. So we understand that the audit will contain some performance components in addition to the kind of checklist on the audit side and we thought it would be helpful the ORC committee is a whole to get some reports back from from SIRS as you kind of work through the performance pieces once they become known because we are picking up a product that's a little bit more in terms of scope and cost and maybe some of those performance pieces will do a return on investment and really justify, you know, why we're using Funston for that total cost. So I just wanted you to be aware that we were having that conversation. We'll probably make that recommendation to the full board.
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one of the items that were discussed is that historically, we have found SIRS to be very open to suggestions and recommendations, and for that reason, that's why we thought Funston would be, it's Funston, right, the choice. We have so many that we reviewing today I wanna make sure I have the right one We thought you would be open to receiving some third kind of suggestions and recommendations Among the five plants, it was thought that SIRS would be the most open of the five with regard to receiving some recommendations. Thank you.
Director, do you have any comments?
Make any comments? Sure. We'll just say thank you for that feedback, and certainly we'd be happy to continue with that approach and happy to track it and report back as we go and so forth. No problem.
That's great. All right. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, I move we favorably recommend the funds to proposal to the full council.
I'll look for a second. Second.
All right. If there are no further comments, Director, would you call the roll?
Chairman Potagel
Yes
Senator Romanchuk
Yes
Motion carries
Being that's the only business on the subcommittee agenda, I will move for adjournment. Meeting adjourned.