But I couldn't just not really have a four words of so it's hard.

Did uh, I start to do uh uh song six, did you ever?

I remember you know, it's like a little bit of three.

I don't know if it's a six, right?

Yeah, I think we're gonna say I made it, I mean, I think it's the other side.

And uh, I uh I made a information about it, right?

I mean that was how I survive it.

Yeah, that's what I think.

But it probably I've never played it on, but it wasn't really important.

I was watching it like it has like an empire.

And it's got a good eye, it's like a little like a little bit of a year.

Oh, yeah, he's got some kind of a little bit of a good thing.

And he's like, I think it's like a lot of time.

I mean, it's just like a lot of words.

No, it's like the more targeted notes, it's like the uh, yeah, okay, okay.

But it's uh, I might win one of the only things that I think.

For some people that is quite games, we've got me too.

Yeah, I think about vampire is that they can do it.

You know what?

I need to do that.

I don't know, but the dog version is all that.

But so we can't uh just differently stuff like that.

Oh, version of code, that's all.

I think it's really like it's kind of like a massive way, I have a lot of that's good.

I believe that it was always the top card or like, uh, like uh, you could like it.

Yeah, yeah.

It made me think of data sounds like an actual.

That's another game.

I think it's like the function.

I got I don't know I get like maybe two.

I think it's not a man.

I didn't want to get everything out of it.

I remember the second one, but I think it's what it's like.

I think it's uh there was a division of the uh lock spots, and then like one of those like a lot of things.

Oh yeah, I think it would be a little bit more than that.

Yeah, and it's uh, it's not the right page.

I don't know.

That can be pretty close to the point now, I think.

But we've got a lot more.

If you like, I think we can see how you want to make a remote.

Oh, true, okay.

Yeah, free camera.

Okay.

So it's not.

Apparently, it was upon it.

I think it's an interesting movement.

You can do it's all green.

I would have remembered that.

That's also a good one.

And then I think that's a very important screen.

So I don't think you can bring it in like that.

I would I'm just going to do a problem.

No, no.

No, the beginning of the end of the yeah.

This is a new thing.

I think it's not the most important one.

I don't think it was even more doing this.

I don't think we played the same.

I mean, I think that could be down to the situation.

I want to do something.

Good morning.

Can you hear me okay?

Okay.

Good morning, everyone.

Um today uh we are um meeting for the first quarter 2026 Lucas County Investment Advisory Committee.

Um I've been advised to read a few words before we begin.

Public comment today will be conducted pursuant to the committee's adopted rules.

Public comment is limited to five speakers per topic, with each speaker allotted three minutes to address the committee.

Comments addressing the same subject matter will be grouped together and treated as a single topic for purposes of the public comment rules.

As always, written testimony is welcome.

All attendees are reminded that this is a public proceeding and must be conducted in an orderly manner.

Outbursts, interruptions, shouting, signs, or flag waving or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.

Individuals who failed to comply with these rules will be asked to stop.

Continued refusal may result in removal by law enforcement officers.

I'm now going to call the role.

Treasurer Webb is here.

Commissioner President Sabeki.

Present here.

I'm here.

Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you.

Additionally, um, and for reference, um, in on council, we called it the pit, and the pit is uh Deputy Chief Mark Hans from the Treasurer's office, along with our intern, um, and um also to my right is um Kaylee Hall from the Treasurer's Office and Jim McCourt from Neeter Investments.

Um, Treasurer Webb I could before we start taking a moment to thank the committee and you for moving this to a larger facility.

I think it's uh respectful of the folks that we have, they seem much more able to observe, so we'll be here.

Um, it's appreciated.

Thank you.

So the role has been called.

We're now going to move on to the meeting minutes from the uh last meeting.

Those meeting minutes are um published online and are available to the committee while in advance of today's meeting.

Um I'm assuming that everyone has had a chance to review them.

Are there any additions or corrections to the meeting minutes?

Otherwise, I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the fourth quarter investment advisory committee.

So we'll move second.

I have a motion by uh Kirk of Court Quilter and a second by um Commissioner Saveki.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, those are approved.

We're now going to move on to the public uh comment portion of the hearing.

And um we have received uh a number of um applications to speak publicly.

Every application that was filled out in accordance with the public comment rules um has indicated that their topic is Israel bonds.

I am going to randomly pull five from the um from the box.

Uh so we'll pull those following.

One, two, three, four, and five.

Okay, the five uh public comments um have been uh drawn and we will start with Patrick E.

From NWO DSA.

Patrick.

Excuse me.

When your three minutes is complete, we will um ring the bell.

Awesome.

Awesome.

Thank you guys.

Uh I'm just here to say that you know investing in Israeli bonds I think is a big mistake for the place of Lucas County to be investing in, you know, place that you know is bombing civilians and just continuing to do horrible things and I don't want Lucas County to be a part of that.

Um, you know, I have family up here that really could use more investments in this community, and that's all I gotta say.

So I guess the next speaker is Sella Carter.

Hi, my name is Sayla Carter.

Uh I uh I build a lot of my life around the joy of helping my community, and that's pretty much the foundation of it.

Um and I gotta say, investing five million dollars uh outside of my community is something that I see as a huge mistake, uh a grave failure of our county.

Uh I've personally been unhoused, a lot of my friends have been unhoused.

Young people are really struggling right now.

We have really no hope for our future.

Uh we can't go back to school, we can't find housing whatsoever.

We struggle to afford groceries.

Gas is insane right now, and we want to spend five million dollars in a country that is rapidly declining on the global stage.

Uh it seems like one of the worst financial decisions I can ever think of, to be honest.

Um I I just want my friends to be cared for by their community, and this decision seems like you're separating us from you.

Um, and that breaks my heart.

Uh we have a multi-generational coalition sitting in front of you who I'm very certain uh feel the same way that I do, and uh I really really hope you reconsider now uh rather than later because this will show that you are not stagnant, you are open to change and growth.

You are listening to the broadly popular s uh mention broadly popular sentiment that we should not be investing in Israeli bonds and letting the bond mature this December.

Thank you.

The next uh public comment speaker is Peggy Daly Masterneck.

Esther.

I'm so my comments are on the saying uh I know uh okay.

I will do that.

The next speaker is Nora Riggs.

Good morning.

My name is Nora Riggs.

Thank you so much for your time.

I'm here today to urge you not to reinvest the five million dollars currently invested in the Israel bond that's set to mature in December of this year.

I'm a member of the Toledo community and I have been for the past decade, and I count that a great honor.

I spend most of my time working with our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness and poverty and housing instability, many of whom are uh, as you just heard from one of our neighbors, challenged by the rising costs that our community cannot afford to waste five million dollars in a place that is not our own home.

It is not an accident.

Homelessness is a policy decision, as is this Israel bond that Lucas County has continued to invest our dollars in.

The Israeli military has been committing an active and horrific genocide for two and a half years, in addition to the nearly 80 years of land theft and murder of Palestinians, some of whose family is sitting here in front of you today, and I don't know how you can look them in the eyes and continue to send money away while their families' lives are lost.

This genocide has been cited by financial institutions as an economic concern, contributing to Israeli bond credit ratings facing two significant downgrades in the last two and a half years.

Making this conscious decision to reinvest in Israel is making the conscious decision to support genocide while pulling resources that we don't have from our own community.

And that feels like a disgrace.

Treasurer Webb, I appreciate your email response as we emailed you uh requesting that this Israel bond not mature.

I'm sorry, mature without reinvestment, and to prioritize the investment strategies that really do reflect the needs and priorities of our own community.

And I appreciate that you stated as elected officials you're required to follow Ohio law, manage public funds consistent with our fiduciary duties, and that means investment decisions must be based on lawful financial considerations.

And you continued on in a lot of economic terms that I know you know.

Um but at the end of that email you said right to uh that it's for the best and safest return available to Lucas County.

So the good news is I think we are all in agreement.

Reinvesting five million dollars into this foreign entity that is committing genocide and war crimes is not the best nor safest return available to Lucas County, especially in a time where SNAP and WIC benefits and housing resources and vouchers are not supported to the extent that they need to be.

Our neighbors are going hungry, they're going unhoused.

Just this past winter we lost three neighbors to the streets, uh, and these five million dollars could truly save the lives of our neighbors.

Five million dollars in Lucas County could build and staff safe brand new affordable housing units in our own community.

This would allow dozens of neighbors to be housed safely.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Nora.

Order, order.

The next speaker is Michael Stram.

Michael, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

No problem.

Hello, my name is Mike Stram.

I'm a Jewish resident of Toledo who proudly stands with the Palestinian people in their fight against ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Lindsay Webb, you've said on multiple occasions that you can only use financial and legal facts to inform investment decisions, but this will not absolve you or us as a community from the moral and ethical repercussions of your choices.

This is why we cannot reinvest in Israel bonds.

The truth is that investing in Israel is as much a moral and political decision as letting the bonds expire.

When you invest in Israel, you invest in genocide, warmongering, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, some of whom are in your community and have firsthand experience of this.

You believe by simply ignoring these facts and making a decision based purely on market absolve you of your part in geopolitics, but we all know better.

There's nothing apolitical about a decision on whether or not to pour fuel on the fire of a state accused of genocide by hundreds of humanitarian and human rights organizations.

There's nothing apolitical about forcing the members of this community to pay for the wholesale slaughter of their family members.

My point is that as much as we'd love to separate the financial choices from politics or morality, the truth is that this is an impossible task.

And I get it.

You are standing in a flashpoint of something that goes far beyond what you ever thought this job would entail.

But here you are now, and you need to rise to the occasion.

And even by purely financial standards, reinvestment raises serious concerns.

Israel's credit outlook has experienced significant volatility in recent years with multiple downgrades and shifting assessments tied to ongoing military operation and regional instability.

Fiduciary responsibility requires evaluating the full pattern of financial risk and certainty.

Since everyone in this room is at least mildly interested in local politics, it means we're all here.

Uh, I'd hope that we could all call ourselves students of history.

And as students of history, we all know that the pages of history are filled with the condemnations of people who have stood by and done nothing to curtail injustice when they've had the opportunity to fight it.

History also judges public officials who ignore obvious warning signs in moments of instability, including financial warning signs such as repeated rated rating fluctuations and shifting risk assessments that signal underlying uncertainty.

We are here today to tell you that you don't have to be one of those people.

Let Dave Yost have his stupid opinion, because that's exactly what it is.

It's an attorney general's opinion, not binding law.

No court has issued any order or injunction requiring counties to invest in Israel bond, and no provision in the Ohio revised code obliges Lucas County to do so.

The suggestion that allowing a maturing bond to expire constitutes an illegal boycott has been debunked by several attorneys who I know you have heard speak.

You have made it very clear that you hold the final say on how county funds are allocated, yet you appear to treat a non-binding opinion as though it overrides your independent fiduciary authority and the judgment of your own community.

Do you stand with the people of your community, or do you stand with a man whose legacy includes forcing children to carry their rapist child and dismissing 77 sexual abuse cases to protect Richard Strauss and OSU, free Palestine?

Order.

Okay, that concludes the uh public comment portion of the meeting.

Thank you for your comments today.

No, there, uh, I think it's probably a law.

Or I would take back my department.

Hold on.

That was for.

My apologies.

I thought.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Brianna Fangman.

Brianna Fangman.

I apologize.

Uh I'm not perfect.

I never said I was.

Hi, Brianna.

Good morning.

Three minutes.

My name is Brianna Fangman, and I am a lifelong Lucas County resident who loves this community and believes in this county and humanity's longevity and success.

Because of this, I urge you not to reinvest the five million dollars that is currently invested in the Israel bond that matures this December.

Your job is finding security, liquidity, and a solid return on investment for Lucas County residents.

That is a great responsibility.

I respect and ask you to adequately comply with.

I know we are capable of achieving the aforementioned while keeping our money here for us taxpayers to directly benefit from and multitude of ways.

When the current five million dollars in Israeli bonds matures this December, I'm asking you not to reinvest and rather bring that $5 million dollars back here to Ohio.

More specifically, back here to look at this county's economy.

Our investments carry both financial and ethical weight and reflect our values as a community.

Israel uses our money to further the development to the demise of other human beings.

Human beings like me, like you, like everyone here, like my nieces, my two and four-year-old nieces.

They have hopes and dreams, they sing, they dance, they laugh and feel just as any Palestinian, but right now, investing in Israeli bonds carries geopolitical risk and economic volatility.

If you decide to keep our money 6,000 miles away, we miss valuable opportunities to build wealth and stability right here at home that taxpayers could greatly benefit from now and into the future.

Like my niece, who hopes to run your own restaurant or veterinary hospital, whatever.

I propose we place these funds into collateralized certificates of deposits or structured deposit accounts with local banks or credit unions.

Right here, we could expand in Lucas County building program where these loans are paid back with interest and the community benefits or more local jobs.

We can invest in the state treasury asset reserve to maintain liquidity.

This route has the highest possible investment rating, and often we can outperform board bonds while being safe.

Our tax dollars are accumulated from incredibly passionate and hardworking people in the county.

And your fiduciary responsibility is not that requires you to put that money toward improving their lives, our infrastructure, and our futures.

Lucas County has been a leader in many ways throughout our conception.

We have the opportunity to continue that legacy here today.

Other counties, such as Summit County, have already allowed their Israel bonds to mature without reinvesting those funds.

Lucas County now has the chance to join that example and show that we value keeping our taxpayer dollars at home rather than contributing to atrocities abroad.

Please do not reinvest the five million dollars currently invested in the Israel bonds that mature in December.

Free Palestine.

Okay, order.

Order.

Order.

Thank you very much for your public comments.

I appreciate the opportunity to hear from the five members who were randomly selected on the topic.

Um there were no additional topics that were submitted today, so that concludes the public portion, public comment portion of the agenda.

The next item on the agenda is the attorney uh general's opinion.

Um, and for that, I've asked uh prosecutor Burrell to um provide um some comments on the age opinion.

Thank you.

At our request, um the attorney general has issued an opinion dealing with several topics and uh that are of interest to the investment advisory committee.

I want to start, he by and large, merely summarize what has been long-standing Ohio law.

I want to go start with, and one of the speakers mentioned the boycott statute, and I want to start with that because that's that's the one topic I think where he did get it wrong.

Um, is Treasurer Webb and I have discussed for the last several years the boycott statute 9.76 applies to state agencies.

Uh, there's no doubt that.

I'm sorry.

There's no doubt that counties are not state agencies, and he does admit in his opinion, he's come off some of his previous statements.

He does admit in the opinion that it doesn't apply the statute doesn't apply to state to counties only to state agencies.

He tries, however, to say that some of the factors that are mentioned in the anti-boycott statute uh would apply to the to the treasurer's investment responsibilities.

That's a scratch.

That's a stretch.

The important of thing of this opinion is what it does say.

Not with not what it tells you not to do, but it would tell what it tells you to do.

That means your investments have to be based on safety, liquidity, and yield.

That is long-standing Ohio law, that is nothing new, that's nothing that that uh attorney general Yost thought up.

If you go back 30 years to Lee Fisher, much of this opinion dealing with safety uh yield and term comes from the opinions issued by then Attorney General Lee Fisher.

That is with what this committee, and that was what the treasurer has to has to focus on.

Focus on if the whatever the investment is, whatever your investment decision is, whether it's to invest, not to invest, not to reinvest, whatever policy the IAC wants to uh promulgate, it must be based on safety, liquidity, liquidity, and yield.

Those are the three factors.

That's long-standing Ohio law.

That's not new.

You can go back 30, 40, 50 years.

I stopped at 40 years, and you will find attorney general opinions that basically say the same thing.

What you cannot do is you cannot invest on the basis of non-economic factors, uh, such as environmental, social, personal, or ideology.

Once again, that is not David Yost's opinion.

He just quoted a statute.

There's an Ohio statute that says exactly that.

He merely quoted it.

Charlie, I have a question.

Okay, wait, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'll I'll recognize the speakers.

Yeah, we are having a committee discussion.

Uh Commissioner Gergen um was uh asked to be recognized first.

Commissioner Lopez, you'll be second.

Thank you.

Um, so now we're into the heart of the matter here.

Um, this opinion was requested by I believe Treasurer Webb after our uh October vote and resolution.

Uh it has now come out.

I just want to point out some history and irony if I can.

I think it when you look at someone's opinion, you need a full background and context from which that opinion is issued.

Let's start most recently.

This opinion was issued on the last day that he was in uh declared in office as attorney general.

He abandoned his post the same day as attorney general.

This is relevant context to how this opinion gets gets formed.

You abandoned his post to go be part of a rather right-wing white crash and nationalist think tank to do that.

So I think the content of the thinker of opinions is always uh always uh uh germane to the thought.

We're also wrapping around our arms around a decision by an attorney general that has done things I'm not sure we would condone as sound legal advice.

Let's start with his public questioning of a 10-year-old rape uh victim not long ago.

Demissed out of hand.

Let's talk about his uh defense of abortion bans after there was a constitution uh uh amendment passed by the by the people.

Commissioner Gerkin, please clearly.

I use my time.

Um, this is the topic.

When we asked someone's opinion, I think it's relevant to know their history um and how they come to these things.

Voter fraud protection, first energy.

These these are the opinions of these are the record of a man who is giving this opinion.

It is, as uh our prosecutor said, a lot of it is uh based just reiterating, just reiterating the law to it.

I agree with John.

Um he has cited some uh reference to ORC 9.76 about the boycott.

I agree that that language is faulty to do that.

Um, not investing cannot be considered a a boycott.

I think you're clearing that, we're clear that, and many of the community on that.

But he does reference, so now we have an attorney general who has a spotty record of rights and humanity, basing some of his attorney general's opinion on something he is wrong on.

So as we try to take what relevance this attorney general's opinion has to our investment advisory policy, I think all these factors need to uh come into play.

Um he sets this up as a either or um format.

The uh AG opinion appears to frame investment decisions as either economically motivated or ideologically motivated.

Legition legitimate fiduciary considerations can fall in between those.

This is not.

I think when we heard speakers today, legitimate fiduciary concerns should encompass who we're investing in and what their status is.

And I will say this um as I yield back.

It's ironic to me, and even though John, you're right, some of this goes back for 40 years about how these statutes even came into play.

To deny that the statutes on investment, BDS, social economical uh considerations being barred are born from the fruit of a tree that's entirely political.

This entirely statutes came out of the policies of 40, 20, and 30 years ago uh that cannot be denied.

Just the most recent ones were brought in late at night in an omnibus uh Ohio General Assembly's bill without debate, without hearing.

The last two provisions of this uh years ago were done at the end of Josh Mandel's um term as treasury, and and then with Robert Sprague.

These were born out of political decisions, so the irony is not lost on me that they now cover themselves.

We can't have a political discipline based on historically politically derived uh legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

The um section that you're citing is page 12 on the uh opinion.

Um, and it reads because 9.76 it only concerns state agencies and procurement contracts, the statute is not directly on point, speaks the attorney general opinion.

Nevertheless, it illustrates the kind of actions that may violate the applicable statute, and um goes on to say that under revised code 9.76A1 boycott means engaging in refusal to deal, terminating business activities or other taking other action, etc.

And then it says a county investment policy that prohibits investments in Israel bonds that satisfies the investment criteria without any economic justification would resemble a boycott.

So I think it's not cited as directly on point, but rather analogous.

And so I just wanted to cite directly to the AG opinion.

Um Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you.

So my question speaks specifically.

John has the law or there have been legal cases specifically defining what is safety of a investment.

Have you done that research?

The opinion itself, I I it's typically referred to as uh as safety, liquidity and yield.

The opinion itself, but the opinion itself lists a number of factors to be considered.

He got most of those from 30 years from the opinions of Lee Fisher from 30 years ago.

They are specifically listed in the in the opinion.

And for the public, would you please define what is considered safety?

Let me read it out of the maybe Mr.

McCourt, maybe the more knowledgeable of what is defined safety since you make recommendations to our county treasurer.

I'll allow the question to our fiduciary investment advisor.

Thank you.

I think it refers generally to the get your mic, Jim.

Your mics.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I think it refers generally to the ability to invest one in in eligible investments that provide safety in the in the sense of their credit worthiness to repay the investments.

So your return of return on your principal is number three in this order of priority.

Return of your principal is number one.

So the ability to get repaid by the issuer.

Then the safety also refers to uh market risk or interest rate risk.

So the the when you have investments tied up long-term, interest rates move, you the the market value of your securities moves as well.

So you want to have safety in the sense that you are available that you have investments that will be returned fully with the principal you put into them plus interest.

So it involves one credit risk and two market or interest rate risk.

I think are the two factors of what applies directly to safety.

Okay.

Thank you.

And let me read right out of the opinion.

What it says the amount of proposed investment in such securities, the markability or lack of markability, the investing authority needed for liquidity, the size and diversity of the investment authority's portfolio, the investment authorities' investment policies, and a variety of other possible factors such as the contingent nature of the income stream, the risk associated with such investment, including the potential loss of principal.

That list came from a 1994 opinion of an attorney general.

Thank you.

So have you researched recently our investments, all of our portfolio, and seeing anything that would question the safety and return of full payment to the county?

No, we're we are comfortable with the ability to be repaid by all the investments in the portfolio.

And have you recently done that in light of the public conversations that are happening?

Correct.

We have.

And do you have that analysis available to the public?

Respectfully, um, oh I'm sorry, Commissioner Lopez.

Uh the code uh 135 35.

Let me make sure I get it right.

13531C defines the investing authority as the treasurer.

And then 13535F, the treasurer means the county treasurer.

That's me.

Um I have evaluated and continue to evaluate uh exercising my investment authority on a regular basis, every investment that we have through the analysis of the conditions that um Mr.

Burrell has outlined that regularly occurs.

As we've indicated, this bond will not mature until December.

And so for me to preliminarily indicate what we're going to do would be a mistake because those market conditions, those factors that I must take under account under the AG opinion and the statute require me to make that decision in advance of the maturity.

So to answer your question as the investing authority and with the council of my fiduciary investment advisor, I am regularly engaging in an analysis of quite frankly the safety, liquidity, and yield of any holdings that Lucas County has.

Thank you, Treasurer Webb.

And so I guess for my I now again I'm just trying to understand more specifically after the attorney general's opinion.

Do you have a written analysis?

Is there a steps that you go through what you're actually in detail, like what you do?

Like for example, when I assess, or I'll just let's I always compare.

If I'm comparing cars, okay, and I'm gonna make a purchase of a vehicle, I do an analysis and compare what is my best investment for me to put my money into something that is going to be important in my life, and how long is it gonna last?

How safe is it?

How good is the miles per gas?

I sort of look at everything and then make a knowledgeable decision on what is the best vehicle for me.

Of course, ideally being American made, but so I'm just wondering, because I'm I'm really it's your job, not my job to do that, and I I'm just trying to understand for myself.

Yeah, we're regularly engaging in that process, and to that end, then um, you know, it requires that I communicate with the Office of Management and Budget to find out what um the county's liquidity needs might be, what the spend rate is, any concerns that I have, what tax collection looks like, um, and so uh, but every single investment decision that is made uh whether to allow it to mature and to keep it as uh as cash that is available for the county's um liquidity needs or to reinvest are made based on the decisions and the information that we have at the day using the code as the guidepost.

Those decisions are made every day with regularity driven by the investment policy that this committee approved.

Thank you.

Any other comments from members of the committee?

I do have a question for Mr.

McCord meter.

Um you advised many counties and municipalities, correct?

Are all your counties and municipalities um advised to invest in Israeli bonds?

They do not all invest in Israeli bonds.

The ones that you advise, do you want to advise?

Do the ones that made your investment advise are all your clients advised to invest in Israeli bonds?

They do not all invest in Israeli bonds.

Do you advise them to?

We with investments that are more private placements, we tend to defer to the elected officer whether they whether they desire to.

Okay.

Bobby, go ahead.

Go ahead, Anita.

Yeah.

Do any of them invest in Israel bonds?

Yes.

Which ones?

Currently, and if not, you can provide it to us later.

I mean, I can get you a comprehensible later.

Again, I guess my question is directed toward your investment policy as a as a uh business entity.

But I'm interested in is it your business entity's philosophy to guide municipalities into Israeli bond investments?

We believe they are eligible and they will evaluate the offered return at the time that so yes.

I'm sorry.

Is that a yes?

At times, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions of Mr.

John Burrell regarding the attorney general's opinion?

Okay.

Um next on the agenda agenda is proposed resolution 2026-001.

Um the resolution is updating the investment advisory committee's guidance regarding the investments in light of the Ohio Attorney General opinion uh number 2026-004.

Before I ask for a motion, I want to clarify the purpose and scope of this item.

This resolution is not a recommendation to purchase, reinvest in, or to decline to reinvest in any specific instrument.

It does not decide the future of any particular security.

Rather, it provides guide guidance for how the committee and the treasurer as investing authority should evaluate the lawful investment options going forward.

The attorney general's opinion addressed the legal framework for county investments under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 135.

This resolution is intended to bring the committee's guidance in line with that framework.

It recognizes that investment decisions must be made based on lawful financial and fiduciary considerations, including the safety of the principal, liquidity, yield, credit quality, marketability, maturity limitations, diversification, statutory eligibility, the needs of the county portfolio, and current market conditions.

Because this is an agenda item properly before the committee, the chair will now entertain a motion to adopt resolution 2026-001.

Well, they can make a motion to table this amendment.

Here's why I make that motion for the board's consideration.

First of all, it's unnecessary, I believe, and redundant, and we can if I can ask Mr.

Burrell to uh respond in this, I will, but this is a attorney general's opinion that you're bringing into our policy.

Is this unnecessary?

Why this has to be incorporated now into our policy?

I think it's it's unclear and not necessary.

It is redundant that it stands on its face.

Are we to in put into our policy our oath of office?

Um, let me finish.

A motion is not a motion to table is not debatable, Commissioner Gergen.

Um so I think I've given you enough leeway to be able to express your opinion on this.

I make a motion to table.

So I will call the question to motion to table the resolution.

I'm sorry.

It's not debatable, Mr.

Quilter, I'm sorry.

I just want clarification.

Once he table, do you need a vote on it?

Once he tabled it, do you still need a vote?

I believe that we do.

Um, so I'm gonna call the question.

Point of order on your thing that's not debatable.

Unfortunately, this body has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order as as its operating floor.

So free to quote Robert rules of orders or thank you on it.

Which we've never done.

Well, Commissioner Gherkin, before August of last year, the only people who were really interested in the IAC meeting were you and I.

Um, and so respectfully we haven't needed to have the Roberts Rules of Order, but as is the ordinary course of business of public conduct in public and open meetings to comply appropriately, Robert's rules of order, um, is a natural reliance.

And in fact, when we adopted the public comment rules at the last IAC meeting, we regularly engaged in the use of Robert's rules of order.

So I would argue that by default we have effectively um uh de facto relied on Robert's rules of order as a way to um uh maintain order through the through the meeting.

I'm going to call the question on the motion to table.

No.

Okay.

Commissioner Gherkin.

Yes, the table.

Clerk of court quilter.

I'm going to say no.

Commissioner Lopez.

I know we're not supposed to debate.

You can.

Yeah, no.

We're not supposed to debate.

Let's finish the call.

I would like John Burrell, though, to clarify that.

Is that legally true that to me?

I need to know is is that legally that we must defer to Robert rules of order if we've never adopted them?

Because I still think this is worthy of debate.

Public bodies in Ohio do not automatically use Robert's rules of order unless there's a statute that's that requires that.

So Commissioner Rick is correct.

Unless it's unless it this board adopts it, you are not obligated to file Robert's rules of order.

Okay, is my decision though that the motion to table is not debatable.

Do you want to challenge my decision?

I do, and here's why I think it is very relevant about why I am motioning to table this.

I think the discussion of why it's unnecessary, and they've had a discussion with the prosecutor's office that this is already in place, doesn't have to be or should be into our uh our policies.

Um I think that's a relevant question.

If it's if it's redundant, why do we put it in our policy?

If it's already, as you said, established, why does it go into our policies?

And the second piece, I'll just say it now.

I think since we're having the debate, um this policy change came solely, as you like to say, from your discretion.

This resolution was given to us earlier this week without any input from other members of the of the IAG.

Either the I IAC is a policy investment committee that can advise you, and that includes policy.

We've had no chance to advise you on this resolution, and now that it's here, you want to shut down debate over it and additionally, I wanted to shut down the debate on the motion to table, which is what I think.

Which is not proper, I think we're having the debate now because Robert rules of orders doesn't apply here.

So as we I think for the uh my ability to influence the thought of my fellow colleagues on this, I want to emphasize those two things.

It's not necessary, it's redundant, number one.

Number two, my motion to table is because it hasn't had a process with the rest of your members of your committee, which I think could be disrespectful.

And I think if we want to change these policies, uh if you remember back in October, there was a motion to convene a policy review that was tabled at the time.

That was tabled.

The kind of exercise that I'm asking that we do today was tabled before, I think that appropriately.

We have an opportunity to make up for that here.

If you want to have legitimate, if you want to have legitimate policy debates over our role as an advisory committee and what the policies say, we should all have an opportunity to weigh into that.

Okay, so challenge my decision, and we'll call the question as to whether we will allow debate on the motion to table.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Barrell, our county prosecutor.

Did you just legally advise us that the Robin rules of order do not apply?

And therefore, if a majority of the members here wish to debate, we may have that opportunity because I have several questions legally for our prosecutor.

I did state yes.

Robert rules of orders do not apply to this body, either by statute or by policy because we've never adopted one.

Regardless of what the treasurer wishes to state.

Well, all I can state is that you're not bound by Robert's rules of order.

Okay.

So then I have some.

Treasurer Webb, I have a legal question for the prosecutor.

The floor is yours.

Ask your question.

Thank you.

So one, no official legal opinion has been issued by the county prosecutor on this matter.

And what matter?

On the entire question on what our investments can be done.

She concurs with the attorney general's opinion.

Or does she not?

The attorney general opinion accurately states Ohio law, with the one exception I mentioned, boycotting.

I don't agree with this with his statement on boycotting.

The boycotting that a failure to invest in to reinvest net investment constitutes a boycott.

With that exception, the rest of the opinion accurately states long-standing Ohio law.

Okay.

So then we may not invest or advise the treasurer not to invest if we are boycotting in Zrael bonds.

Is that accurate?

If the treasure, if the treasurer decides not to reinvest in Israeli bonds, that would not be a boycott under under 9.76.

That would not be as long as that decision is made on base basis of the factors we discussed.

Safety, liquidity, liquidity, and yield.

Second, I have another question.

Do you, as our county prosecutor and legal advisor, believe the IAC, our advisory council must adopt this policy to avoid potential litigation, or does it create potential litigation?

It doesn't create potential litigation because the policy accurately reflects state law.

Is it absolutely required by law that you adopt this policy?

No.

What are you advising us to do as our legal counsel?

I can't advise you whether to adopt this or not.

That's that's a policy decision.

But what I can advise you is if you adopt it, you will conf you are this thing this accurately affects state law.

If you don't adopt it, you're still bound to follow state law.

The law is the same, whether you have the policy or not.

You still have to this this body cannot change state law.

There's no authority to do that.

You are bound by state law.

If you pass if that's the Junior General Opinion says, if you um pass a policy that conflicts with state law, the treasurer can ignore it.

It would have to ignore it.

So you have no authority to change state law.

No, I understand that, but the policy just reiterates what the state law is.

The policy is a summary of state law, which we are bound to follow, whether you follow this, whether you adopt a spousal or not.

Do you recommend that we adopt it?

I I think that's a policy thing that goes beyond what I'm talking about.

I'm asking you legally, as an advisor, if I'm trying to make a decision and I'm trying to make it based on the law that we're trying to adhere to.

If you had asked me that question two years ago, I would have said no, this is not necessary because everybody understands what investment, what Ohio law is rating investment.

It's well it's well grounded, it's well established, and nobody has ever questioned it.

Up to two years ago, that's what I would have said.

In the last two years, though, there seems to be a lot of question about what investment policy is.

And for that reason only, maybe be supposed to so the public will understand what your obligation is.

Maybe this would be a good idea to pass this again.

But after listening to these meetings for two years, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what this body does, what the treasurer's obligation is, and what her duty is.

For that reason, I would think it might be a good idea to pass this.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we were in the middle of a vote, but uh commissioner quilter has uh I mean sorry, clerk of court quilter um has uh a question.

Mr.

Brawl, I just have one question.

You approve this.

I reviewed this before it was presented, yes.

That's what I want.

And I made you a number already.

I mean, you saw the draft.

I saw the draft.

I made a number of suggestions, to change it.

All the suggestions I made were incorporated by the Treasury.

Thank you.

So let me ask this question now, having the discussion in your opinion on the Ohio attending attorney general's opinion and its basis on on boycott.

Um, you have suggested that the boycott language in this attorney general's opinion is faulty.

We are now asking this board to adopt into our policy a faulty uh portion of a faulty opinion.

Is that correct?

With all due respect, Chair, we are in the we are in the middle of a vote.

So we never took a vote.

Did she shut down debate on a false premise that we're operating in a robber's rule.

Made a motion in the middle.

We are in the middle of the year.

And then you shut down debate because of bogus.

Order, order, order.

Very simple.

Very simple.

On the issue of 9.76, the reason why I went through the trouble of reading the provision on page 12 of the attorney generals uh is because he uses it as an an analogy with respect to 135 35.0, which is directly on point.

And so what I'm doing is providing clarity through this resolution to reflect the understanding of Ohio law as it exists currently, along with the change that came after the motion from this body, I believe in August, not October of last year.

And so that is 135350.

And so that was the purpose of the resolution.

The purpose of the resolution is not to give me power that I don't already have or to circumvent the advice that you may offer me as part of this committee.

It is simply to be very clear about what my responsibilities are as the treasurer.

Additionally, um there was some preliminary discussion during the motion to advise me not to reinvest, um, that failure to reinvest could be construed as a rational basis to take my investing authority, which the voters have entrusted me with, and so I just want to make it perfectly clear what my responsibility is under the code and nothing more and nothing less.

Again, I'll make final point before we go to the vote.

This is unnecessary redundant.

It's in Ohio revised code, or it is a stand is uh red letter law right now.

Um general, I don't know why we would be investing into our policy.

This and not other statutory codes to do it.

Uh secondly, I think maybe we have cured some of it.

We've had some at least a discussion, which despite your best efforts to repress, we did have, anyways, thank you.

Um to do that.

And uh at this point, I guess there is a my motion stands to table, and there will be a vote.

So the vote has uh taken place so far, just to uh provide clarity.

Commissioner Sebecki voted no on the motion to say table.

Commissioner Gherkin voted yes on the motion to table.

Commissioner, I'm sorry, clerk of court quilter voted no on the motion to table.

The call of the question is now before Commissioner Lopez.

I have one more legal question.

Does it need to address the language of boycott?

John, no, it doesn't.

No, it does not need to deal with that.

So then it is not faulty the existing resolution.

The boycott argument has always been, in my opinion, a red herring argument.

You don't focus on on that, you focus on what you can do.

You focus on the three factors that the that the treasurer must be used with when determining any investment.

The boycott statute has always been to me, as they say it's always been a red herring, it's never been a valid argument.

And the resolution does not reference the boycott provision.

No, it's my vote, okay.

Commissioner Lopez, what say you?

No.

To the motion to table.

And then uh Treasurer Webb also votes no.

The motion carries, the motion to table is denied.

We'll move forward with the vote on the motion uh on the resolution before the committee.

I'll make a motion.

I have a motion from Commissioner Sebecki.

Do I have a second?

Can I add some discussion?

We're not under Robert's Rules of Orders, but it seems to be appropriate.

We have a motion and I'll make a second and I will recognize your discussion, Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you.

I have several amendments I'd like to make to the motion, which I have prepared to hand out and go through the committee with me, if I may, please.

Um hand these down.

Give me a minute to do that, and I will read my motion to amend while that is being distributed.

Madam Chairman, I move to amend resolution number 2026 001 by revising the language throughout the resolution.

Not the whereas, is only in the resolution, to reference to the words guidance with policy and advice.

We're applicable.

So in any word where you see the words guidance, it is policy and advice.

And the purpose of that is to recognize the role of the advisory committee to give policy and advice to our uh to our documents.

Uh removing language that could be interpreted as directing mandatory reinvestment decisions.

There are some language in here that speaks only to reinvestment decisions.

I think should be made to take all decisions, as you will you'll see that.

Clarifying that investment evaluations occur upon maturity on a case-by-case basis.

Adding consideration of the committee's written county policies to the evaluation criteria, number 11, that you will see, and further clarifying that the resolution provides neutral statutory guidance, consistent with Ohio law and of fiduciary responsibility.

I think it maintains a lot of uh of the motion of the resolution that you uh and just cleans up some of the language replacing uh uh guidance uh with the words policy and advice, which is our role uh to do it, basically says that we this should be um a standard on all uh