advocacy update | PAG News
When significant decisions affecting pension trust membership are under consideration, independent review matters.
At the October 15, 2026, CTPF Board of Trustees meeting, PAG called for an independent fiduciary-risk assessment of a proposal involving the grandfathering of certain non-licensed Chicago Public Schools staff into CTPF membership. The proposal appeared as Item 4(C) on the official meeting agenda, under consideration for potential Board action.
During public participation, I urged trustees to seek an independent opinion before proceeding with the recommendation. My concern centered on a fundamental question of pension governance: Are trustees receiving sufficient independent guidance to evaluate potential fiduciary risks?
Why PAG Is Calling for Independent Review
CTPF trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the pension trust’s members and beneficiaries. Fulfilling that responsibility requires sound decision-making, appropriate internal controls, and access to objective assessments when considering significant policy changes.
One question I raised during the meeting was:
Who provides CTPF’s fiduciary liability insurance?
Fiduciary liability insurance is intended to protect against certain claims involving alleged errors, omissions, or breaches of fiduciary duty, subject to the terms and limitations of the coverage.
I also questioned whether CTPF’s insurance carrier or its outside representatives had been consulted regarding the proposed grandfathering recommendation.
While management and legal counsel play important roles in evaluating policy and legal matters, PAG believes an independent assessment could provide trustees with an additional layer of protection and assurance.
As I stated during public participation:
Separation of duties is a fundamental principle of financial governance.
The principle is straightforward: Independent evaluation can provide an additional level of scrutiny beyond those directly involved in developing or supporting a recommendation.
Independent review does not presume that a recommendation is improper. It helps ensure that significant decisions receive appropriate scrutiny before action is taken.
CTPF Responds to PAG’s Questions
Following the meeting, CTPF Executive Director Carlton W. Lenoir, Sr. responded to my concerns in writing.
In his response, Mr. Lenoir stated that CTPF maintains insurance coverage and risk management practices aligned with applicable legal and operational requirements.
He also explained that staffing, compliance, risk, and related legal matters are evaluated through established procedures, with input from management, legal counsel, external advisors, and other subject matter experts as appropriate.
Mr. Lenoir stated:
The Board will continue to consider relevant information and recommendations as it fulfills its fiduciary obligations to all members and beneficiaries.
PAG appreciates the response and CTPF’s acknowledgment of its ongoing governance and risk management practices.
However, the response did not directly address several of the specific questions raised during public participation.
Questions That Remain Unanswered
PAG continues to seek clarification on four important questions:
- Who is CTPF’s fiduciary liability insurance carrier?
- Was the insurance carrier or an outside representative consulted regarding the proposed grandfathering of certain non-licensed CPS staff?
- Was an independent fiduciary-risk assessment obtained to evaluate the potential implications of the recommendation?
- Were trustees provided with such an assessment before considering or acting on the proposal?
These questions are not intended to suggest wrongdoing. They concern the process used to evaluate a significant membership-related recommendation and the information available to trustees when making decisions.
CTPF’s response describes its general risk management procedures, but PAG believes greater specificity would help members understand how those procedures were applied to this particular proposal.
We will continue seeking answers about the proposed grandfathering recommendation and whether an independent fiduciary-risk assessment was obtained and shared with trustees.
Why This Matters to Pension Trust Members
Decisions involving pension trust membership can raise important questions about legal compliance, financial responsibility, and fiduciary oversight.
PAG is not opposing change simply because it represents change. Our concern is whether significant recommendations receive the independent evaluation and transparent consideration they deserve.
We believe sound pension governance should include:
- Clear explanations of significant policy recommendations.
- Appropriate separation of duties and independent oversight.
- Objective assessments of potential legal and fiduciary risks.
- Sufficient information for trustees to make informed decisions.
- Accessible records that allow members to understand how decisions were reached.
These practices help strengthen confidence in the pension trust and the people entrusted with its governance.
PAG Will Continue Asking Questions
PAG appreciates the service of CTPF’s trustees, management, and staff, as well as the opportunity for members to participate in public meetings.
Our request remains straightforward: Before significant decisions are made, trustees should have access to the independent information necessary to evaluate potential risks and fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.
We will continue seeking answers regarding the proposed grandfathering recommendation, the role of CTPF’s fiduciary liability insurance carrier, and the Board’s final action.
Transparency isn’t just about providing assurances. It’s about giving members the information they need to understand and trust the process.
In continued advocacy,
Tina
