Opening title slide description:
Aerial view of the Massachusetts State House with text overlay of "Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission" and the recording title of "Public Hearing on Proposed New Regulation on Electronic Signatures, January 7, 2026"
Recording transitions to the presenter and a view of the web page for PERAC Memo #34/2025, published on December 4, 2025 and the speaker's face in the corner of the screen.
00:00:02:19 - 00:00:31:18
Speaker 1 - Patrick Charles
Good morning, everyone. This hearing is being recorded. And we are having a hearing today on proposed regulation amendments to the Electronic Signatures Regulation. We sent out a memo back in December about these changes. So first, what I just want to do is go over the electronic signatures regulation as it exists, just as a sort of a refresher, and then highlight the one section that we are amending.
00:00:31:20 - 00:01:01:19
Speaker 1
So in, you can see on the screen you should be able to see that, back in 2022, in November, we sent out a memo to all the boards on the new electronic signature regulation that was adopted that month. And this was 840 CMR 28. And this laid out the process for boards to allow electronic signatures. The big thing that I want to highlight about this, and it's throughout this memo, will explain this.
00:01:01:19 - 00:01:21:10
Speaker 1
But if a board is going to use electronic signatures, they need to adopt a regulation submitted to act like a regular regulation so that we can see what you're doing, what what forms, you're going to accept the electronic signatures. And then we'll give you an approval. Just like if you did a credible service regulation, you have to send it in to us.
00:01:21:10 - 00:01:38:03
Speaker 1
And one of the things that you must do is you must specify what forms you're going to use or what matters you're going to use for electronic signatures. So for instance, we have seen a number of boards who want their board members to be able to use electronic signatures for things like warrants, signing off on the minutes to meetings and so forth.
00:01:38:09 - 00:02:06:15
Speaker 1
So they have adopted a reg that allows that, but they're not using it. Electronic signatures for member forms. We have others who have specific member forms like new enrollment forms and so forth, that they do through electronic, or maybe they're just doing applications for buybacks and so forth through the electronic signature process. So they have adopted regs that specify that. A handful of boards have actually adopted regulations that allow for electronic signatures on all approved forms.
00:02:06:17 - 00:02:30:01
Speaker 1
And that's fine. We and that is actually one of the reasons why this new change that I'll discuss today was implemented, because some of those forms really we prior to this, we wouldn't have allowed the use of an electronic signature. So you have to do that. The other thing that must be in any reg is that you are following a proper security procedure.
00:02:30:03 - 00:03:05:12
Speaker 1
This is basically to make sure that, the people that are signing are the people they say they are, and that there is a security procedure in place to ensure that the signature that's being given is the signature of the person that is, announcing themselves as the signer. So what does this really mean? It basically means that you're using a, secure system like a DocuSign or some some, program that requires authentication in order to access it and to use and create the signature.
00:03:05:12 - 00:03:31:08
Speaker 1
And so you need to just specify that that is in place. You do not tell us, do not put into your regs what procedure you're using or what, software you're using necessarily, because that obviously leaves it open to some fraud and better access for people who are trying to to commit that fraud. So those are the basics of the electronic signature process as it currently exists.
00:03:31:08 - 00:03:57:17
Speaker 1
And the one change that we're making, which you can see on your screen from the memo on December 4th, is this area highlighted here: Witness requirement waived for electronic filing. So if a prescribed form promulgated by PERAC requires a signature of a witness in written form, that requirement shall be waived in the case of a form submitted electronically, provided that a security procedure is defined in 840 CMR 28.02 is utilized.
00:03:57:19 - 00:04:27:10
Speaker 1
The security procedure is just down below in the memo. And that's again, it's basically the electronic verification process that's used by whatever program you're using for the electronic signature process. So as I mentioned a minute ago, we had this issue where some boards were willing to use electronic signatures for all forms. The problem is some Parekh forms required witnesses, and we didn't have anything in place to allow a witness to sign.
00:04:27:10 - 00:04:51:07
Speaker 1
It was only the member, that could or beneficiary that could be using the electronic signature. So this will allow the witness signature if the board is going to use electronic signatures. Now, one thing I should point out, because I have gotten this question many times about electronic signatures, our regulation does not require any board to use electronic signatures.
00:04:51:09 - 00:05:12:03
Speaker 1
It is a decision that the board must make whether they want to use electronic signatures, whether they believe them to be safe and effective, and whether they think that the security procedures are in place. That is the board's decision. This is just simply allowing the board to make that decision, because chapter 32 did not have a provision for electronic signature usage.
00:05:12:05 - 00:05:37:17
Speaker 1
So but again, you're not required. The one requirement with electronic signatures, even if your board says you're going to use them for all, you must accept wet signatures. If the person does not want to do electronic signatures, you have to allow them to do an in-person or a wet signature mailing in whatever you cannot force electronic signatures even if you have adopted a reg using it for all of your forms.
00:05:37:19 - 00:05:59:19
Speaker 1
That's pretty much the history and the current change. So what the process for our reg is we're having our hearing today. And then once we go through the hearing, we will take this to the Commission. If there are any changes or suggested edits, we will decide on whether or not to include those. And then we will take it to the Commission for a vote to approve a filing with the legislature.
00:05:59:21 - 00:06:23:18
Speaker 1
A little different from how the local boards work is. We have to file our regulations with the legislature and give them 45 days to review and comment. And after that, we go back to the Commission. If there are any changes by the legislature or suggestions, we take those into account, and then we go back to the Commission for a final vote to go to the Secretary of state with the final, official regulatory filing.
00:06:23:20 - 00:06:58:05
Speaker 1
So this is a months long process. As you can see, we released these in December. We're looking at, earliest March or April final filing. This is my guess. So I will take any questions if you want to put them into the Q&A, type them in there. I will take any questions if you have any, any comments about the regulation, I see.
00:06:58:07 - 00:07:10:11
Speaker 1
So I have one question. Is the spousal acknowledgment on the option selection form considered a witness signature?
00:07:10:13 - 00:07:16:11
Speaker 1
That's a.
00:07:16:13 - 00:08:00:16
Speaker 1
That's a good question. It's not technically a witness, per se, but I would say yes, that we would consider it that way. And you would use you could use electronic signature process for that, but you would have to go through the security procedure and use the authentication and verification method.
00:08:00:18 - 00:08:14:03
Speaker 1
Another suggestion, perhaps the regulation can specify that or make 28.06 clear that the spousal acknowledgment requires security procedures. I will write that down and take that into consideration.
00:08:14:05 - 00:09:09:02
Speaker 1
Just like a note.
00:09:09:04 - 00:09:26:16
Speaker 1
Are there any other questions? I was waiting to see?
00:09:26:18 - 00:09:58:17
Speaker 1
So I have a question here about the notary piece on the benefit verification forms. I believe you're referring to the annual "I'm alive" or the semiannual "I'm alive" form. Is that is that correct? Because, yes. Okay. So we do not require a notary for that any longer. We amended our regs to change that so that they just have to do an affidavit that does - not an affidavit - an attestation.
00:09:58:19 - 00:10:11:14
Speaker 1
So it does not require a notary any more, so electronic signatures, you would just use the same process if you want to, if you want to use electronic signatures for that, it's permitted.
00:10:11:16 - 00:10:15:10
Speaker 1
I mean.
00:10:15:12 - 00:11:38:23
Speaker 1
It's trying to pull it up, but I'm having trouble finding it.
00:11:39:00 - 00:12:19:20
Speaker 1
Will the script for this meeting be available? I am not sure if we prepare a transcript or not. I will leave. Have to ask Natacha to weigh in on that. If she. She's typing an answer.
00:12:19:22 - 00:13:15:23
Speaker 1
Okay, so we are recording this session and we'll post this to the website along with the transcript.
00:13:16:00 - 00:13:44:19
Speaker 1
So just a little update, a PERAC update/ special COLA Commission update. If you go on our website and you'll see there's a tab that says special COLA Commission. We just actually finished this and the final report has been posted. It was finished and posted on December 31st. This was a special Commission that was specifically tasked with looking at the state and teachers COLA ways to fund increases, ways to do different enhanced benefits.
00:13:44:21 - 00:14:02:06
Speaker 1
So it's not specifically tied to the local systems, but I think a lot of the ideas there would be possibly implemented if implemented for both the state and local level. So it's, worth a look if you want to take a look. It's not a huge report. It's, I think about 20 pages long with, with the appendix.
00:14:02:06 - 00:14:21:04
Speaker 1
So just thought I'd throw that out there because we spent a year, a number of staff. Director, Bill Keefe, chaired it. There were a number of different folks from the retiree community and from investments and the governor's office and the legislature on that Commission. So it's worth looking at. Like I said, it's not tied.
00:14:21:09 - 00:15:25:09
Speaker 1
It's not, specific about the local systems, but I think that there's a lot of overlap there with what the state teachers does or may do, and then it trickling down to the local level.
00:15:25:11 - 00:16:21:06
Speaker 1
I'm not seeing any other questions. I will be on this for the next 45 minutes. The hearing runs from 10 to 11. If anyone has a question or wants to jump in with a question, feel free. If not, that's the only prepared remarks I had for the the hearing. But if there are any questions, I will be on for the next 45 minutes.
Video description: Screen transitions back to the aerial view of the state house and the text "After 45 Minutes, no additional comments were received. The hearing concluded at 11:00 a.m.
00:16:21:08 - 00:16:26:05
Speaker 2 - Natacha Dunker
We will now be closing the webinar. Have a great rest of your day.
Screen fades to black