The stakes are high as the CalPERS board debates whether to significantly decrease the nation's largest public pension fund's assumed rate of return, a move that could hamstring the budgets of contributing municipalities as well as prompt other public funds across the country to follow suit.CalPERS has now missed its investment return targets -- badly -- for the past 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Cities and state agencies are legally 100% liable for the difference.
But if the retirement system doesn't act, pushing to achieve an unrealistically high return could threaten the viability of the $299.5 billion fund itself, its top investment officer and consultants say.
[...]
Two years of subpar results — a 0.6% return for the fiscal year ended June 30 and a 2.4% return in fiscal 2015 — reduced views of what CalPERS can earn over the next decade. Mr. Junkin said at the November meeting that Wilshire was predicting an annual return of 6.21% for the next decade, down from its estimates of 7.1% a year earlier.
Indeed, Mr. Junkin and Mr. Eliopoulos said the system's very survival could be at stake if board members don't lower the rate of return. “Being conservative leads to higher contributions, but you still have a sustainable benefit to CalPERS members,” Mr. Junkin said. The opinions were seconded by the system's other major consultant, Pension Consulting Alliance, which also lowered its return forecast.
But a CalPERS return reduction would just move the burden to other government units. Groups representing municipal governments in California warn that some cities could be forced to make layoffs and major cuts in city services as well as face the risk of bankruptcy if they have to absorb the decline through higher contributions to CalPERS.
“This is big for us,” Dane Hutchings, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, said in an interview. “We've got cities out there with half their general fund obligated to pension liabilities. How do you run a city with half a budget?”
CalPERS documents show that some governmental units could see their contributions more than double if the rate of return was lowered to 6%. Mr. Hutchings said bankruptcies might occur if cities had a major hike without it being phased in over a period of years. CalPERS' annual report in September on funding levels and risks also warned of potential bankruptcies by governmental units if the rate of return was decreased.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
CalPERS may come clean, devastate cities
Pensions & Investments:
If Trump succeeds on the economic front, there may be a possibility that this disaster will be averted. If he doesn't, then we not only have this - we also have a rupturing deficit. It will also be increasingly difficult for cities to retain and hire people - a good and bad thing - so in the meantime, make sure you have at least a year's expenses in liquid investments and the rest in inflation proof investments!
ReplyDeleteOK - cue the drum roll - and let 'er rip!!
- The Sculpin
Liquid?? Then take all your monies out of the bank and keep your cash at home. Kill your credit card and have a 1 year supply of food stashed away...
DeleteSS is also insolvent and the majority of americans have no savings.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the mindset/rationale cited by Kranz for the purchase of Pacific View - that in 50 years no one will care that the city paid 3x the true value of the property, they will just be happy the City rescued this property from developers. Well, lots of cities are paying now, and dearly, for foolish financial decisions made 10, 20 and even 50 years ago.
ReplyDeleteWell said, thank you.
Delete"...bankruptcies might occur if cities had a major hike without it being phased in over a period of years...."
ReplyDeleteDoes a 35% increase granted in one meeting qualify as "major hike?" Hahahaha.
35% in one vote. Completely unbelievable, Muir will get his karma when the money runs out, just a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteThe city will let roads go to pot and cease services before they stop the pension handouts to the likes of Muir. And he was put back in office - to protect his interests and that of the Lincoln club.
Delete4:10- I don't believe Muir was on the Council when the 35% hike, introduced by Stocks, was passed. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. However, the city does continually say we have plenty of money. That is NOT TRUE, if you count out CalPers liability. However, as much as many citizens, including me, have tried to tell the city this, it seems to always fall on deaf ears. Remember, Muir didn't want Pacific View. You can blame our new Mayor, Shaffer and Kranz for that one. We are terribly underfunded in CalPers. I remember when Kristin Gaspar first got elected to the City Council, she said she wanted to get out of CalPers and go with 401K plans. Seems simple, but it's not. If we left CalPers we would still have to pay all of the outstanding pensions until those people die. Ironic that it was Republican Jerome Stocks who offered up the 35% and Council went along. So much for being fiscally conservative. Kranz offered 10 million when we could have gotten PV for much less, and it is still vacant. Maybe Barth was thinking ahead in adding it could be sold in 10 years. We may have to do that, as it only has about 6 years left before it could be sold. Who is running the show in the finances department? That's easy. Remember when Kerry Miller's assistant became Director of Finance when he left? Now, she is married to our City Attorney. It is a mess at City Hall, that I know for sure. And no one wants to take responsibility for any of it.
ReplyDeleteMuir was NOT on the council in 2005 when the 35% pension increase was approved. It was a 4 to 1 vote with Bond voting NO. Joining Stock voting YES were Dan Dalager, Maggie Houlihan, and Christy Guerin.
DeleteBond was the only fiscally conservative member of that particular council. Dan and Christy may have been Republicans, but they liked to spend money just as much as Democrats do. And yes, I do know the council is supposed to be non-partisian. However, those of us who have been around a while know how untrue that is.
DeleteBlakespear was not on the council when the majority bought Pacific View. P. Gaspar tried to pin that boondoggle on her during the campaign. He was wrong, so is 5:18 on that point.
DeleteBlakespear fully supported the misuse of taxpayer money to buy Pacific View. She attended the council meetings speaking in favor of the price paid. She never opposed the price
DeleteBefore she was elected to Council, replacing Barth, Blakespear spoke at the Council Meetings and at an EUSD board meeting in favor of the purchase of PV, in consideration of the appraised value. At one meeting, CB's mother, Liz Smith, did urge that the City should purchase the heritage property, even at the minimum bid demanded by Baird and compliant trustees (Mo Muir dissenting) of $9.5 Million. No one asked for nor expected Barth and Kranz's move of upping the purchase price to $10 Million, which doesn't include interest on the lease revenue bonds.
DeleteThe point is that Blakespear was not on the council and did not vote to buy Pacific View. She supported the purchase but did not vote for it.
DeleteOf course but Muir benefited from his buddy's vote and it's not like the firefighters didn't push for it and goose their pensions, and figure in disability if possible as well. And it is bankrupting our city while the roads rot.
ReplyDeleteMuir stated at a forum that he's the only council member who doesn't receive any retirement benefits as a council member. Maybe the rest should forego their pension contribution by the city.
ReplyDeleteI believe that 1-term council members don't get pensions either, so if voters keep dumping incumbents, they won't have to pay them pensions.
Deleteall the city politicos say that city finances are in good shape...all politicians are liars, not all liars are politicians...
DeleteHow much of this cities budget goes for salaries and pensions??
Submit a public records request to Kathy Hollywood to ask that question. Ask the absolute amount of the monthly payment and what percentage that amount is of the city budget. Then post the results here.
Delete2015 data shows $23.3 million in pay plus $6.5 million in benefits.
DeleteAnd that doesn't include the millions we're going to be paying for CalPERS' bad performance.
That may be an oversimplification.
DeleteCalPERS, like most pension funds, invests more in debt than equity. They trade return for lower risk based on long term trends.
During a period of unprecedented low interest rates, of course they have dramatically underperformed.
Stress tends to cause changes in strategy at the exact wrong moment.
During the Enron deregulation scam, we had induced supply and demand imbalances that drove electricity prices through the roof. When it looked like prices could go up forever, the state decided to lock in long term fixed price contracts. That was at the peak--a disaster.
Markets are currently forecasting a normalization of inflation and interest rates. If correct, lots of private money that has driven up equity prices chasing dividend yield as an alternative to bond yields will reverse, and stocks will fall in the rebalancing.
The worst case scenario for CalPERS is for public pressure to cause them to put risk on at the worst possible time following years of underperformance in the bond market.
8:05,
DeleteYou are wrong on a number of issues.
1) "CalPERS, like most pension funds, invests more in debt than equity."
False for CalPERS. Also false for most pension funds.
2) "During a period of unprecedented low interest rates, of course they have dramatically underperformed."
Actually, during a period of declining rates, bonds would be expected to perform well. When rates fall, bond prices and portfolios rise. And they did. We appear to be at the end of a massive 30-year bond rally. So forward bond returns, if anything, should be far worse than recent bond returns.
3) "Markets are currently forecasting a normalization of inflation and interest rates. If correct, lots of private money that has driven up equity prices chasing dividend yield as an alternative to bond yields will reverse, and stocks will fall in the rebalancing."
Perhaps, but that would be extremely bad for CalPERS which has more money in stocks than bonds.
4) "The worst case scenario for CalPERS is for public pressure to cause them to put risk on at the worst possible time following years of underperformance in the bond market."
No, CalPERS currently has risk on, with a heavy equity weighting and absurd return assumptions. The public pressure is to lower risk and return assumptions. And there have been no years of underperformance in the bond market -- this has been the greatest 10, 20, and 30 year bond market in history!
Muir gets $190,000/year pension as is. Foregoing any pension accrual for being on the council is like leaving the spare change - it was a campaign stunt. He said he instigated pension reform while on the council - I suppose this might have been what he was referring to, as he certainly never pushed any major reforms.
DeleteThe Stocks-Muir council did reduce benefits for new hires. It's still a sweet deal but not as obscene as what current employees get.
Delete6:28 PM Do you remember the % reduction or the details of the revised pension arrangement??
DeleteI don't know, but I'm shorting the market. If calpers comes with me we can hedge losses.
Delete10:45,
DeleteI think they went from 2.7% of max salary x years of service at age 60 to 2% at 62. So basically rolling back the 2005 Stocks pension hike, but only for new hires.
It's still worth millions to managers and at least a million to ordinary employees, which is far more generous than private sector plans and Social Security.
Operations budget totals $79.1 million. Capital projects budget is $26 million. Budgeted Revenue is around $91.8 million. Shortfall funded by prior year carryover balance of $13.3 million.
ReplyDeleteSo, salaries are about 29.5% of the operations budget, and benefits are about 8.2% of the operations budget, for a total all in of 37.7%.
Salaries are about 22.2% of the overall budget, and benefits are about 6.2% of the overall budget, for a total all in of 28.4%.
(Do you really need a public records request for that?)
So what do these numbers mean? How do they line up with other municipalities? These %'s in the private sector would not cause the alarm bells to go off - they seem somewhat reasonable. But then again, they're just numbers....anyone care to offer perspective or context to these?
- The Sculpin
- The Sculpin
Great 12:56, but your data does not give the monthly amount the city pays to CALPERS specifically for pensions. California Public Employees Retirement System has to do with pensions, not salaries or benefits other than pensions.
DeleteGong out on a limb here, 4:18 - but isn't the change net of cash inflows and outflows in the overall pension obligation netted into the benefits expense?
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin,
DeleteI believe the "normal cost" pension charge is counted in that benefit expense, but not the annual payment for underfunding.
For example, the most recent report showed the city paying for Fire pensions 19.5% of pay plus an extra $900K in 2018-17 and $1.2 million in 2018-19 to cover underfunding. For the non-Fire staff, we are paying 10% of pay plus an extra $1.6 million (2017-18) then an extra $1.9 million (2018-19).
Those millions are projected to keep increasing even before CalPERS makes any changes.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwNUuyQVVz1mdHFBN0U3UFVLeVU/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwNUuyQVVz1mYVRScnpQYUJaM2M/view?usp=sharing
As described from the dais by council members, the city pays a monthly amount to CALPERS, kinda like a mortgage. For the past few years, the city has been paying more than that amount to reduce what they call unfunded pension liabilities. A more direct word is debt.
DeleteThe city's claim of being OK financially regarding pensions is based on its paying the monthly amount, not the debt or the debt reduction amount.
So I think the question remains: What dollar amount does the city pay CALPERS per month as its contribution to the pension fund? The amount probably varies as employees come and go.
6:41,
DeleteCheck those 2 links in my 6:19. Lotsa numbers.
Ballpark, we're paying 10-20% of payroll ($23 million), so call it $3 million in "normal cost" charges, plus an additional (and rapidly rising) $2.5 million for underfunding.
6:47 Is that Fire/Safety and Miscellaneous combined?
DeleteWhat's your estimate per month for the combination, including current and future pension liability payments?
That's combined, so $5.5 million per year but rising rapidly, and will rise drastically if CalPERS follows staff & consultant recommendations.
Delete$458,333 per month. For at least the past two budget years, the council has bragged about a surplus, even after paying down the pension debt. How long will that surplus continue?
DeleteThey paid down something like $250,000 out of pension debt that's going to be well north of $50 million after CalPERS corrects the numbers.
DeleteBottom line is this, the taxpayers of this city, county and state are screwed.
ReplyDeleteSince I have a family member who is collecting CalPers retirement, although not from the CIty of Encinitas, here is roughly what this person collects. He or she made about $90,000 per year while working for the State of California for 30 plus years. His/her retirement benefits are $5,000 and change a month. He or she also receives healthcare, secondary to Medicare, dental insurance, and this does not change if he or she takes on another job. I don't know the formula for Encintas, but this is for the State of California. CalPers formula for retirement is based on how long a person worked for the city, as well as how much they made. It would be interesting to do a CPRA request for the information. I also don't know if the firefighters fit into the same scenario. But, at one time it was a lot more lucrative to work in the private sector. The person making $90,000 could have made a lot more in the private sector, and was offered positions as large companies. He or she decided to play it safe with the State and now it is paying off, as private sector companies are backing way off of retirement benefits. They cannot be a part of CalPers. The city once claimed that to get good employees they needed to raise the pay, especially to the managers and directors. Now, perhaps not so much. The ebb and flow or economics has always been there. This is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteAs for keeping a years worth of money, gold, etc.somewhere safe, the best bet is still real estate, in my opinion. And, it does not have to be Calif. real estate. A friend of mine has apartments in Nebraska that he rents for a lot less than here, but the costs of housing are a lot less there. I guess we could all dig a hole a the Encinitas Community Park and store our money there, but personally, I still have faith in the stock market. Maybe I am naive and maybe i will lose, but if I lose so do millions of other people. Hell, we survived the Great Depression, and we will survive this.
How did you do when the stock market crashed in 2007-2008?
DeleteYou can "survive" great losses when you have time ahead of you for stocks to come back up in value and many working years left.
DeleteThe closer to retirement age, the less you're likely to "survive" investment wipeouts before departing this world.
Which is why you move to less risky investments as you get older....
Delete10:11- It doesn't matter to the person who gets the pension how the market does? The State (CalPers in this case) is obligated to pay the person their full pension, whether the market is in good or bad shape. That is why, if the market crashes, it could play havoc on any city's finances.
DeleteNeed better financial management. Imagine if birkshire was running this. CA would be receiving monthly payouts.
DeleteYou mean Berkshire Hathaway, aka the Sage of Omaha, who said California's property taxes are too low?
DeleteVery useful information here and a good example of the value of the blog. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBrazil is broke and having to slash salaries and pensions. This is what will happen in America eventually.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile your kids are getting college loan forgiveness resulting in the next bubble. Here it is folks. Instead of sitting on this blog talking about nothing that you know of, get a job and pay for your kids education. Be a parent. Not an "obstructionist"
DeleteDilma Rousseff for mayor!!
DeleteAn example of what can and will happen is Stockton, Ca. Their city was so badly mismanaged by a council that was blind to the coming catastrophe, and spent funds like there was no tomorrow, and guess who came through it all with all their over paid salaries and pensions fully intact?
ReplyDeleteOne of these entities was their fire dept. When they would go on calls, their trucks would be pelted with rocks from the very people they were trying to help in some neighborhoods. Wonder why?
Outrageous salaries and pension benefits like you wouldn't believe, while their city went into bankruptcy. All the citizens knew they were treated like kings, while their city went into the dumpster and they suffered through no fault of their own, other than trusting their council to assume some responsibility.
The fire dept. was only one of too many others that carried on like there was no problem. The police dept. was the same, but when they had to cut many patrols, the gangs took over.
Pray it doesn't happen here. Bob Bonde has had some great ideas over the years and has been ignored. He and Muir don't seem to agree on much, if anything. Mark has not seen a proposed FTE position that he would not support, except with some of his own pension dollars.
The story of Stocktons' demise was covered on a one hour documentary episode CNN series by Morgan Spurlock that should be taken to heart for us here in Encinitas.
This approaching high tide of pension responsibility will have its say, Calpers or not. Fiscal irresponsibility will have its say and nothing on the horizon provides hope. Just wait till the economy 'adjusts' in the near future. The downturn to come will have to paid somehow.
Lets hope we don't have to cut essential services like Stockton had to do.
New planning guru is from Stockton, right? Kinda ironic even if no how related to their financial distress.
DeleteBob Bonde has never had a great idea. Nice try Julie G.!
Delete12:00, why don't you add something of substance, instead of calling out someone (the wrong person), by name. Bob Bonde and Marjorie Gaines helped to create our city through forming the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate, thirty years ago.
DeleteThirty years ago, I would expect bob bonde to be in a different state of mind. As time goes on, so does his coherence.
DeleteThe private sector moved from defined benefit (where the retirement payments are fixed, and the contributions of employers are variable and subject to market risk) to defined contribution (the opposite. Where the contributions are fixed, and the retirement income is variable and subject to market risk).
ReplyDeleteThe longer we wait to switch government workers to defined contribution plans, the more painful the switch will be. But staying on defined benefit plans forever just isn't sustainable.
When my company switched over, they rolled my vested stake in the pension assets into an IRA for me in one lump sum tax free, and opened a new 401k. The employer typically matches employee contributions into the plan up to a cap.
The employer's exposure is transparent and capped. The employee owns the responsibility of managing the funds. If I blow it all on high risk investments that crater, that's on me. If I invest wisely, I get to retire early and live well.
We have to get serious about switching public sector workers while there are still assets in PERS.
So if you take the defined benefit away, what are you going to give in return - higher salary? Bonus? Higher 401(k) match? Remember that over the long run the government sector will typically pay less than the private sector. It trades current pay for longterm security. If you want the government to have the same pay structure as the private are you willing to also structure incentive bonuses, deferred comp plans, and other incentives that exist there? Without a profit motive how does that get done?
Delete- The Sculpin
Based on a icma study, it pays 9 percent less
DeleteCity of San Diego opted out of calpers. They cant buy any good personnel...
DeleteJeff Murphy left Encinitas for San Diego.
DeleteSculpin,
Delete"Remember that over the long run the government sector will typically pay less than the private sector."
Maybe true at the federal level, but certainly not true in Encinitas. They advertised $50K for a high-school graduate cashier a few years ago.
The lower pay thing was certainly true in the past, but in California the unions have elected the politicians, so they control both sides of the bargaining table.
Sculpin,
DeleteStability is about more than retirement. It's also about working for an employer that can't be disrupted out of existence or acquired by a competitor to lay people off and kill competition.
The risk averse will still settle for lower wages in the public sector.
I agree - stability during employment and security in retirement. That's the trade-off, if you will. But if there's is more risk associated with the security, it makes the stability that much more dear. I have no problem with the way that public sector compensation is structured today. I do have a problem with public sector unions having a seat at both ends of the table. I'm not faulting them for it - it's their job - but it makes a travesty out of collective bargaining.
Delete- The Sculpin
The waste and dysfunction that is happening in Encinitas is nothing short of blatant robbery. One hire got physically sick reviewing the books, citizens have no idea what is going on.
DeleteThe city manager's compensation package is about $300,000. Who in the private sector does comparable work for that pay package?
DeleteThe city manager's pay package includes a $500 per month car allowance. She lives in Olivenhain.
You also can't forget that the reason that the public sector pays more than the private sector is that Private Sector Wages have been stagnant or falling for the last 30-40 years. I think the question has to start being asked why this is case.
ReplyDeleteJust displaying a hatred for public sector workers is not enough. Certainly some of the pensions in Encinitas are too high, and they clearly must be sustainable going forward, but the vitriol I've seen on this pages over the last 5 years is sadly over the top in many instances.
Agree.
DeleteMore working constructively to define and solve a problem; less brainless piñata whacking.
Why doesn't Encinitas close the pension to new hires and offer a 401K or whatever the public equivalent is? In the private sector, no one but the railroad (perhaps) offers pensions. Close it to new new hires. That would be a start... and please spare me the story about not being able to draw talent without a pension. This place is awesome - city / country employees do not need to be bonused to take these jobs.
DeleteGo to any college campus and ask those idiots which job they would like and the majority will tell you a " public service job". Why?? Great pay, better benefits and a lot of time off.
ReplyDeleteWhy do Encinitas city employees get a 3 day weekend every 2 weeks?? That was implemented under Gray Davis during the electricity crisis... to save electricity. Hasn't been a crisis in 15 years but city staff still gets a 3 day weekend every other week. Except when they tie it to a federal holiday that falls on a Monday. 4 days of doing nothing and the best pay and benefits around.... college kids might be idiots but they're not stupid.
You come across as a very negative and bitter person.
DeleteNot bitter, only realistic about what goes on at city hall. It's time to go back to normal working hours. Try visiting or calling city hall after 3 o'clock on Thursday before the Friday when city hall is closed. There is only a skeleton staff there, mainly in the planning department where someone has to be there until 6.
Delete10:09- you come across as an idiot and someone that fails to see how you are being screwed by an over paid over pensioned staff that shows no respect to the public nor the taxpayers.
DeleteHow'd that voting for Hillary get you??
Is that you, Barstow?
DeleteDefinitely the Barstow Thunderhole.
Delete7:44, 3:46- when you have no clear arguments to make you call people names. Nice. Idiot.
DeleteOnce again the fragile flower of Barstow has been offended by name calling, after making insightful arguments like:
Delete"Go to any college campus and ask those idiots. . ."
"college kids might be idiots. . ."
"You come across as an idiot. . ."
"How'd that voting for Hillary get you"
Sorry (not sorry).
8:30- and yet when I call college kids not stupid you forget to comment on my compliment....I'm pretty sure you are not sorry about that....
DeleteRight.
DeleteAnd maybe Bill Cosby should get recognition for all the women he didn't rape.
8:26- You're right that the city employees have 3 day weekends every other week. They are supposed to work 10 hours a day for 4 days per week, which allegedly will then be 40 hours a week.So they should be working 8AM to 6PM. However, I've been to City Hall many times at 5:30 on days other than Friday, and it seems as if there are not a lot of staff members to be seen. I remember Maggie Houlihan going nuts at one Council meeting when a neighbor of hers had to get her water bill in by 6PM at City Hall. She went with her neighbor to City Hall at 5:45 and no one was there to take her friend's money. Maggie started checking up on employees at times, and she wanted to change it back to a 5, 8 hour day, week. I don't recall if anyone made a second to her motion, but I don't think anyone would do it.
ReplyDeleteProbably no time clocks, which means they're all gone at least a half hour before quitting time.
DeleteCity of Dallas seeks to curb pension payouts, going after those getting rich off the system.
ReplyDeleteGoogle it...
a state initiative needs to be passed to tax pensions over 100k per year and mandate the tax revenues go towards the pension fund so the tax payers can lower their liability. Its that simple. Let Muir pay for a big chunk off the costs of pensions. His benefits are criminal.
ReplyDeletePensions are not taxed? Are you sure? I have a pension from a private company, and I pay taxes on it.
ReplyDeleteCalpers is taken out before local, state, and fed taxes. Roth based systems are not. Pensions are taxed.
ReplyDeletePensions that are disability based are NOT taxed. The firefighter that works 29 years claims disability his/her 30th year then gets that 90% pension 100% tax free.... is a con artist.
DeleteThe CHP routinely does this pension spike. They claim stress related disability at the end of their career and get a spike. The firefighters promote themselves thru the ranks and spike their pensions based on higher end salaries. I think this practice is carried on ion many public sector jobs.
DeleteSan Bernardino is struggling to get out of bankruptcy; the pensions are being left untouched, while city services are slashed and creditors will get one cent on the dollar. This tower of Babel is headed to collapse.
Christy Guerin, our former mayor, council person, and now on the Olivenhain Water District Board of Trustees, was a former deputy sheriff. She went out on "retirement disability," after leaving the Sheriff's Dept. Yet she was able to run relay races here and in Hondo, Japan, while on Council. She continuously collects retirement disability for stress fractures in her knees, as reported by Adam Kaye in the North County Times; C Guerine will also get a pension through CALpers. Council members only need to work for five years to get that pension, which she's adding to by working for OMWD.
DeleteIt's not just firefighters and CHP who misuse the system, feeding at the government trough at the expense of taxpayers. School administrators also are grossly overcompensated. We do need pension reform for public "servants," but, unfortunately, it could probably only apply to new hires.
Did Muir go out on disability?
ReplyDeletePhysical or mental disability? Either could apply.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching him too many times ask questions that were answered in the preceding discussion, and that the public patiently sat through and actually comprehended, he apparently did not. He didn't nod off, but he might just as well have, if he repeatedly had to ask questions that had just been provided to him.
If we can stand to watch and comprehend, lets hope the next 2 years will show he is not sleeping with his eyes open. It shouldn't be too much to ask. Please take this as constructive criticism for the time he has left. Paying attention is part of the job description. We should expect nothing less from any of them.