eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Soderstrom is specifically not saying that Mercer is
“guaranteeing” investment returns of the ERS, but the opposite – literally the first thing out of
his mouth is his comment that “there is nothing we can do to guarantee you that you will not
have a contribution because I cannot say that the markets are not going to loose [sic] 25% in
value by the end of the year.” Soderstrom goes on to note the truism that, as shown above,
County representatives like Ament, Dobbert, Mayo and Borkowski already knew, that “in any
one given year, they could be up or down.” 73
Soderstrom’s second set of comments to the PSC regarding the ERS’ expected
investment returns were as follows:
Here, again, Soderstrom was not “guaranteeing” that the County would have any particular level
of contributions to the ERS based on a particular investment return. To the contrary, all
Soderstrom states are various “possibilities” – that the County’s contributions to the ERS could
be “all zeros” if the ERS earns investment returns similar to those earned in the 1990s; or that the
73 PFF, 142-143.
QBACTIVE\6280487.1 33
Case 2:06-cv-00372-CNC Filed 06/09/2008 Page 33 of 52 Document 110