 So we just had a little break and we are now back. So let's think of, yes, Senator Clarkson. So Madam Chair, of all the people that are proposed to be on the task force, the one person we didn't hear from is the Commissioner of Human Relations, HR. Right. Beth Festigy who's been patiently with us here. I just was curious if you wanted to hear from her before we launched into our conversation. We can hear from her if you would like. Okay, thank you. Hello, Government Operations Committee. It's Beth Festigy, Commissioner of Human Resources, and I am happy to participate on the task force. It's obviously an extremely important issue to me and the administration, and we need to address the unfunded liability and the structural issues in the pension. So I'm happy to do whatever the Committee of the Legislature wants us to as far as moving forward. I actually had two comments. One would be that I thought the timeline was pretty aggressive. And I would just suggest that the legislature looks at what they want when and then kind of look backwards to what you expect the task force to do. And then the other thing, I just didn't quite understand some of the language in the task force and that could potentially change anyway, but it just was upon designation and approval. Any members appointed to subdivisions one D and one E of the subsection, which was actually would have been myself and the Commissioner of Financial Regulation that says shall be the only representative of the designator to participate in the task force proceeding. So I didn't really quite understand what that meant. It's section 10 on page 22. I just didn't know if that means do I designate someone or do I not? You know, I just didn't really understand the point, the purpose of that. And as long as someone explains to me what that means, we'll try to comply with whatever it is. I had similar question. And I think that it was answered by that you can't you will designate a person to be on there. And then the next meeting, it isn't a different person. And then the next meeting, a different person. Right. You designate one person to be on the committee and that's the person that's there. And it doesn't mean that other people from your office wouldn't be called on for testimony and stuff, but there's one person designated. And these are open meetings, right? That's not a open meeting so that we would have the ability to look at that. OK, I just wanted to make sure, you know, it's it's kind of important, especially if it's a really fast time frame that, you know, a lot of my folks haven't really had any vacation or haven't had any vacation and somebody might want to take some time off this summer. Yeah, but it doesn't mean that the same person should be representing your those offices throughout the whole process. If I pick a person rather than myself, does that mean that I am no longer representing or could it be that person or my designee? If you pick somebody as your designee, that's the person who would participate. Yeah, that's the way I read this. Yes, Senator Rom, I would I would imagine informally, if it's a meeting where there aren't critical votes, someone could miss it and catch up and not be sort of endangering the the group. They just someone filling in for them couldn't vote. Is that right? Yeah, I think that I don't even know why that needs to be in there, because usually when you designate somebody to be on a committee, that's the person that's on the committee. And if if for one of the. If Beth gets the flu and she's the person on there, then somebody else can sit in and there are probably won't be many times when there's crucial votes. But I don't even know why that has to be in there. But actually, it's important to be there, because I think you don't want a different person at every meeting. I think obviously sickness or reason you're not there is one thing and one meeting. But I think it's very important for this intense conversation to have consistency and have the same person representing that department or that. Yeah, whatever language there for everybody or just no, it isn't. And that's the issue. It should if it's going to say it, it should say that whoever the appointees are from the appointing body, that should be that those should be the people on the task force. But it only relates to the vote to DHR, DFR and the Treasurer's Office. Because generally as a legislator, you're appointed person. There is no desicc mean we don't. I mean, the it's really specific to the administration because it isn't specific to the administration because it should also be specific to the unions. The unions shouldn't be changing their appointee time here. I assume they would be named people. Yes, but good point. Anyway, that was the only I was just I just was a little confused. So I just thought that I just was hoping that someone would explain that, you know, if ultimately I end up being on the task force and I choose a dozen means rather than myself that I would want to understand that. Yes, I think it's whoever you choose. Whether it's you or a designee, but don't choose a different designee for every meeting is and we can check that out, but we can also change it however we want to make it clear. OK, committee, let's look at timeline. Anthony, I think you had a brilliant suggestion about some kind of an interim report. I thought that made a lot of sense. That would be me. Senator Caller, I do appreciate Senator Polina, but I have I told you that lately. I really do appreciate you, but we have to have the morning together. Don't forget, I like to suggest that we use Senator Polina's idea and that some sort of preliminary report is due. October 15th and the final report December 1st. Just shoot just throwing it out. Alison, what are Senator Clarkson? What what date was the date for submitting drafts? We we can find out, but it's always for the Senate. It's always the first week of December. And I think that's having that. Go ahead, Brian. Well, I'm just looking at the calendar. So December 1st is a Tuesday. Well, we could just ask Lodge Council. I can just text them right now and find out what it is. Well, and also it may be the deadline for to make a request, not necessarily to have the final version of the bill, right? We just put the request in. I just was throwing that out and I. Thank you. It was. Yes, we can put the request in in November without having the details. So, Senator Rahm, I think I saw your hand today. I'm I'm good. I was OK, Senator Polina. OK, Senator Clarkson. So I think that's not a bad idea. I just want to be thoughtful about our House members who do have additional challenges and there and we are too with appropriate with the reapportionment. So I think this is fine. I think that the work fills the time available. And so I actually think that Jeff's original idea is one I prefer, which is October 15th, because I think my guess is they're going to land sooner than you think. It's not that it's not that huge in scope. But I think I would be surprised if they weren't very efficient about their time. And so I I I would support Jeff's original proposal of October 15th. So you wouldn't have any interim report them? I don't I don't think I don't think you're going to need it. I think that this crowd to work well and move fast and be efficient. Can I ask a question about that, Senator Clarkson? I mean, if there's an if there's an interim report, October 15th, which I actually think that gives more time for legislators to process feedback to it than like a crush of feedback, you know, that we don't really have an organized way to respond to, I think the the task force getting organized feedback actually helps us in the long run. So it doesn't feel that different to have an interim report on October 15th, that then we get feedback earlier and in a more organized way, which so I feel like it's we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And this helps us do a better job at that. But I actually agree. And I think that and I do have a lot of respect for what the House is going to have to do when they start doing reapportionment. But I also know that there are 150 members in the House. And they the if we're if we there are only a few House members and Senate members, depending on where we land, who are going to be involved in this, it isn't all 150 and it isn't all 11 people from the GOV ops committee. There will be some people involved and the other people can go off and continue to do what they have to do. And we won't have a drafting. We won't have legislation until January anyway. Yeah, so I'm fine. I'm easy either way. And I think Acacia is right in and Anthony and Brian and you would give you then a chance to do the public hearings afterwards after you sort of hear what the interim, you know, what the sort of first flush of ideas you could then do a bunch of public hearings, take it around and and and have a chance to rework things if they were if it was appropriate. So I want to Beth keeps referring to the committee in 2009 that I was on with Terry McKay. And I came to a stunning realization at that meeting about retirement that if you wanted to have retirement pension, you had to have had a job that offered you retirement, which I have never had. It was all of a sudden I was saying, wait a minute, people are actually getting paid after they stop working. It was a shock to me. So OK, so we'll go with that date. OK, make up of the committee. Let's look at that. And then yes, I'm not sure where you landed. So I just so I'm clear where where you ended on the date. July 1st. July 1st. No, no. And I know Senator Clarkson, like my idea, I had not yet heard Senator Polina's idea, which I'll amend my my written my written testimony orally here by saying I like Senator Polina's and Senator Collin Moore's adjustment. And if I'm you know, I think it's an interim idea and it's a good one. I think that's where we landed. Interim October 15th, final December 1st. Thank you. Is that was that right committee? Yeah, fine by me. OK. So make up of the of the committee. Anybody have thoughts on I've been playing with numbers. Two legists, two legislators, two legislators. So everybody else been making their little columns here as we've been going along about who is yes, Senator Clarkson. Yeah, I had suggested that we move to four legislators. I mean, I like I like Beth's idea of a lean, mean fighting machine. I wouldn't mind if we just did eight. But I think some of the expertise from the administration would be lost. And I think if we went to four legislators, two from each body, that would be great with a treasure, DFR, HR, and then six members of the union. And that would be seven, six. I mean, you know, that's one more. Otherwise, I think you would have to go to eight. And then that, you know, the problem with even numbers is you get tie votes. But I would hope they would function by consensus. Anyway, anyway, I'm happy to do either four or two legislators. But I think six legislators is a little rich for our blood. I was I kind of had the same little thing as you. I had two house to send HR, retirement and VFR. And then I had three VSEA, three NEA and one VTA. So it really is that to seven seven. But that might be too big. I I don't know. That's 14. That's a lot. It is a lot. Any other committee members thoughts, Keisha? I guess just I I get lost. This is where I need a whiteboard. Like I function so much better seeing what we're talking about. But for me, there's two kind of principles that I'm mentally think, you know, noodling one is that gridlock might not be a bad thing. Like an even number of each might actually force a challenging conversation to happen, though otherwise I would I would weigh it more toward labor folks. That's the seven six proposal you just mentioned. But I'm really I don't know if this is exactly what Treasurer Peer said, but it's really hard to get that many people together over the summer. And I just that's stuck with me as you know, if too many people are missing and then we're trying to do this all in August, you know, in September, I just think less is more. And they can hear from more people that way. So that's where I'm at. So you're you're supportive of eight that the that the Treasurer's suggested. Well, I yeah, I came around and I'd love maybe to hear the thoughts of others when it's allowed and, you know, not committee members, but other folks in the room, you know, four and four is really interesting. That creates a need to sort of build consensus in a way that might be productive, but nine might make sense from another perspective. So I'm just sort of still mentally trying to figure out what I think about that. Brian, Anthony, and then go ahead, Anthony, I'm still fooling with numbers here. Yeah, I think I lean towards the smaller number as well. You know, eight would be OK with me. Nine makes sense if you don't want to get too many ties. But I don't know about that. I'm trying to visualize what who would actually be when when the when Beth was talking about the eight, I think she said one from the VSEA, one from the VTA, that's two and then two from the NEA was four. So four labor and then two legislators. And then there would be two members of the administration. Was that the no, I think she said one member appointed by the administration and then the treasurer's office. OK, that's that's where I was confused. Right. That's I mean, I could go for something like that. You know, I don't know. It doesn't have to be a quick decision. I mean, we could I'd like to hear what other people have to say. Oh, yeah, yeah, I definitely could go with that or something close to that. Brian. OK, I'm getting there. Say that one again, Senator Polina, please. It would be one from the VSEA, one from the VTA, two from the NEA. So you have four labor folks, two legislators, one from each body, one person from the administration, you know, a student young type, and then the treasurer's office. And you'd have to make it clear that the the member from the House couldn't be of the same political party as the member from the House. No, no. Sorry, we knew what you meant. We know you don't. But and I think the reasons she suggested one, just one from VSEA and one from VTA is because they both represent the same board where NEA is the different board. I mean, in a way, it sounds small to say one from the when I say one from the VSEA, one from the VTA, it sounds like, oh, my goodness, this is one person. But it does achieve balance, too. So I mean, that's why I'm open to it. Oh, I would I would agree with that. And I'd add one more on the administration. That would break your that would give you an odd number and would be able to break ties. I think if I count two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. I was actually just going to say, I think maybe you add more one more person from the VSEA, because I mean, I've just heard from so many different VSEA members who have very different jobs, you know, so it's like maybe there's five labor folks. So maybe we're just climbing back toward 15. But, you know, I hear that get us to 10. Right. I think 10 might make some 10. 10 is what Brian and Keisha, I think, were looking at, which would be then two VSEA, one VTA, two NEA, two legislators, two administration and one treasurer. And that's 10. And I quite honestly don't think you're going to see a lot of ties here. I think this is the kind of an issue where you're going to have all five people over here on this side and all five people over here on this side. And there are so many different issues that need to be addressed that I think people are going to align differently on different issues. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think 10 is OK. So let's hear from Mike, Steve, Jeff, Thomas, who wants to jump in? Well, I'll go over here. Go ahead, Steve. Thanks. So I do like the treasurer's proposal. I think also that the latest proposal, the 10 members would also work. What's really important for us is that the number of members of the three of the three unions be equal to the folks who are not members of any one of those three units. I think there is a lot to be said for what the treasurer proposed. It might be easier to manage, but 10 is not that much bigger than seven. And then they would be eight. I'm sorry. Eight, 10, that's what we're kind of an eight or 10. Either way, as long as it's 50, 50, we would be opposed to adding another member of the administration through the through the balance off. Jeff. So I hate to be the I was doing some math here. I was thinking the SCA to Troopers to us to be six. I was looking at 12, 12, four from the legislature to each house, Senate and two from the governor. You know, we've had the 2005 Commission had 13. It just feels like 12 gives everybody a voice and not, you know. So I just thought that any four from the house and Senate, four from the legislature, two from the governor and then two each from BSEA, VTA and Vermont and EA gives everybody an opportunity to say they had a voice in the process. And I think it's the balance is important. Yes. And so is voice making sure that people feel heard legitimately so. It's a tough, tough balancing act, I know. So you left the treasurer off. Oh, I did. Don't think that'll work. Yeah, my original proposal just, you know, was added, you know, four members from Vermont, EA Troopers or the SCA and one from the Troopers. It struck the balance. It didn't include DFR. So that's in my proposed language that I submitted. That total 18, though, Jeff, I think. Yeah. Yeah, that's way, way big. It's a huge bus. Yeah, that's too big a bus. Our curves are too tight. We don't even have a table in the state house that will accommodate them any people. Well, you could eliminate one from the governor and give it to the treasurer. I guess that's a simple way to go. But you still. So you're you're twelve. Four legislator, one governor, one treasurer, and two each for VSEA, VTA and Vermont and EA. I like the side better, the 10. Yeah, I like I think I'm landing on 10. Eight or 10 makes me think I think and you can bring in everybody. I mean, everybody can be brought in as a to testify. It's not like the room is closed. The room is open. OK, can or anybody else have any and I think that what we'll try to do is get this kind of a little bit gelled and then come back to it and give us some time to think about it, run it by I'd like to run this a little bit by our leadership by the Appropriations Committee just to see kind of where where we're landing. So should we propose 10? I think so. OK. OK, all right. So now we have the the administrative support that was a pretty easy one, I think, to. Beth suggested that it be the administrative support come from the Ledge Council. Which makes sense to me. OK, I think we hear from Ledge Council. I mean, they get every one of these study. No, I think that that the treasures. I think it would be nice to share a little bit of it. I mean, everybody is under stress. Everybody's workload is heavy. We and I would like to hear what Ledge Council says about its capacity. The legislators are the least number of people on this, quite frankly. I mean, the treasures actually are the least number, but it's the treasures office that oversees all this. So I mean, while I'm sympathetic, I also would like to hear what they have to say about their capacity this summer. The the one the one thing that makes sense about having it be legislative council is what Beth was talking about earlier is that this is owned and created and owned by the legislature. We are the ones that are going to ultimately make a decision here, regardless of what comes from this task force, and having our our trusted attorneys giving us advice makes a lot of sense. I I agree. And but I still would love to check with just their their what their workload is this summer. But I I agree. Thank you for reminding us of that. Yeah. OK. So I'm sorry. Do we meant where does JFO fit into this? Do we mention JFO or is that a given? No, we mentioned JFO. OK. Good. No, I think we should. That was the best suggestion. I thought she said Ledge Council and and JFO. I think assistance, it says JFO right here. It says assistance task force shall have administrative, technical and legislative assistance of the Office of the State Tree, fiscal assistance from the Joint Fiscal Committee, support services from the office of legislative, it should say council, I think, or maybe they now call themselves legislative operations is the staff staff. And so that would mean I think Beth would like us to strike A and legislative operations and council. So A would be administrative, technical and legal assistance from the Office of Legislative Council. B would be JFO and C would be operations. Right. Is that what you're suggesting, Beth? Yeah, I think that, you know, we can help with some of the actuarial work, but JFO has some expertise there. And I think that if we work together, you've got a better result in the long run, because again, as you pointed out that you folks are the owner and JFO works for you folks. And I think that the the technical the expertise is going to come from not just these the people. If it only comes from the 10 people on this committee were doomed or in trouble, it's going to have to come from other people. But I think that the kind of administrative and legal support is different than the technical than the expertise on the topic. Agreed. So Madam Chair, yes, what we haven't heard anything about and because our appropriations deadline is looming, we do need to hear from somebody about number two there on line 17 on page 25, which talks about the appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars in general funds to support to support this. That's more than most committee's. And I think we should understand why we're going to bat for so much money. Well, I think that I don't know that we even need to do that if it's going to be in the appropriations bill. I think they will deal with it if we tell them how many meetings there are and how many people there are involved if there are only two legislators and you're talking about 15 meetings, that's 30 meetings at approximately a hundred dollars a meeting that isn't that's three thousand dollars. But there will be and I think that the two hundred thousand was to be able to, as I remember, it was to independent be able to contract with with people who have external expertise that we don't have. So it wasn't for us. It was for for that purpose. It it it's still quite a bit. But anyway, there we are. Madam Chair, could I speak to that? Yes, please. So I believe and again, this is from memory that that it was some place between seventy five and a hundred thousand dollars in two thousand and nine. That included some portion for legal consultation, even though Legg Council is doing that, you're going to need to run some of this by folks that have some IRS background and some in actuarial firms do have consultants, not lawyers that will represent you, but consultants. And then the balance of it was actuarial work. And that was a while back. When you did some of the work in the for the the House did some of the work when they came up with some scenarios, we get ours, then they did theirs. It was someplace between 40 and 50,000. Bottom, yeah. So I think it costs some money. Yeah. Keisha. Well, I also think, you know, per Senator Polina's suggestion that this be, you know, shared publicly. There's a little bit of money that would probably be needed to make sure it gets to people, you know, that they're sort of maybe if they have a meeting or two that, you know, they have a little bit of funding for all of the costs associated with publicly sharing the draft plan. OK, we're leaving two hundred thousand in there. Great. Yeah. OK, I think that the the next. Where are we committee? I think that where we are is we've gotten to the charge. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yes. Yes. And I I have mixed feelings about leaving the the target in there, the charge on Romanette one and Romanette two, because it's so specific. And I wondered if if even if it was kind of tipped upside down and you said that the task force will look at benefit structures and put that first and then put that a potential goal might be this. I I just fear being so prescriptive in the in the goal. And I so that but committee, I don't know where where you are on that. And you're probably more more expertise at this than I am anyway. So, Senator Polina. Yeah, I I have a feeling I don't like it having it there. But I honestly need somebody to tell me in plain English what it says. OK. I don't like having that kind of target in this. It's just ironic, because all morning we spent I was advocated for targets in the Agriculture Committee on another issue. In this case, I'm not sure the targets are helpful. But I honestly need somebody to tell me what what it actually says. So that's OK, or best. Well, the board of trustees, and I think this follows off of their their their charge. So what they said was that they wanted us to to do recommendations that would bring us back to the levels that were the unfunded liability as of the two thousand twenty one budget, which was based on the nineteen valve. So there's a two year kind of process. And given that the senator doesn't want me to go into detail, I will definitely not do that one. Thank you. That's your message. So I go back to essentially what was in the twenty one budget. The difference is two hundred and excuse me, four hundred and I'm going to do this again. My apologies, six hundred and four million, I believe, roughly three hundred and seventy nine million of that was with the teacher's system. And that leaves that two hundred and twenty five million on the on the on the state side and to reduce the ADEC back to the twenty one level from the twenty two preparation and that is ninety six point six million dollar increase in the twenty one to the twenty two that helps. Thank you. The fear in some ways is that if they focus too much, I'm not saying I'm not saying this is shared fear, but the idea is that concern is that they might focus too much on that or number one, number two, if they achieve that, they might think their job is done without necessarily doing a whole lot of those things. So I am I my concern about this is very similar to when we set up some kind of a study committee or a task force. And we say but your results, your recommendations have to be revenue neutral. Right. And why we say that is way beyond me because the recommendations could come in with a reduced revenue or an increased revenue, but that is more effective in the long run by raising. So it always bothers me when and I think we get bad results when we tell committees that they have to be revenue neutral because that might not be the appropriate thing we should amount, we should be spending, we might be spending more or less. And I feel the same thing here. Is that really the appropriate? Is that the best target to shoot or should we be looking at the benefits? And then I don't know, Senator Clarkson. I think what this is intending to say is is really reinforcing the sustainability piece, and it is just not sustainable to have the contract. The ADEC eats so much of our general fund and take away from all the other things we're supposed to be funding in state government. I think this is trying to get at a balance that makes more sense for ADEC. You know, an appropriate contribution every year that that isn't so isn't a third of our general fund. So I think that's why they're using FY 21. I think and we can say it in a different way, but I think that the effort here is to to ensure that the target is is really sustainable in the general fund and isn't and we could say maybe isn't more than X percent of the general fund spending. But I think that's what they're trying to get at. And in some ways, it would be great to have John Gannon explain some of these because they had very specific notions. And I would I'd appreciate his input here on these two. I'm going to call on Senator Colomer and then Senator Ron, but I am also going to reflect what I believe it was. Don't remember which one who said it was that neither the treasures proposal nor the proposal that was originally put out by the House, which with their original proposal met this goal. So if they couldn't meet it, why would we why would we set this as a goal for the task force? They didn't meet it in their original proposal. That's right. Who said that? I think it was Jeff. Oh, Jeff did. So Senator Colomer. Well, now I have a point to make where you might have just talked to me out of it. I guess my position on it is since these are just recommendations and they're asked to find out about I don't think they're mandates. And I guess I'm not as bothered by whether they would spend some time looking at both of those issues as I might be. But you raise a good point, Madam Chair, if the other folks haven't been able to do it, maybe I don't know. I'm not as I'm not as against leaving it in because, again, I think they're just sort of saying, hey, could you take a look at this and figure it out? No, I think they're saying more than that. It says setting a pension stabilization target number that does these two things. I think they're being more prescriptive than just saying, this is one of the things you should be looking at. And this is a potential target. Madam Chair, could I suggest a change to that that might work? Yeah. So the change would be approaching that approaches the target. So then if you you don't necessarily have to hit it, but it gives you some sense of the range, getting to Senator Clarkson's issue of sustainability. But at the same time, but at the same time, recognize again, we got the seventy eight percent of the unfunded liability and eighty eight percent of the of the deck. And I thought that was pretty good. Now, that did not include any revenue, by the way, that included structural changes. So again, if you say it approaching, I think that you you get the sense of where you're going, but also leave yourself some room to to make that consideration. I feel more comfortable with that or even just saying that this is something that looking at this and to to making sure that it's sustainable in the long run and being clear about saying that rather than saying this is the this is the target. It might be it might be that it's less than that or more than that. And if our if our general fund budget goes up, maybe it's a different amount, I don't know. But I feel just uncomfortable saying, but are we going to ask Attorney Wasserman to change the wording once we get through all our discussions? Yeah. Yeah. I think that what we'll do is try and have her massage some kind of word wording to get to there. So that would be appreciated. Thank you. And then and then today, I can't remember. No. OK. I will I'll talk to her afterwards and give her all these. So then let's look at the other charges here and I have to turn on my light and all of a sudden got really, really dark here. I can't see my paper. I think it's I think it's hailing here. Huh? I think it's hailing now. Oh, is it? We had a lot of snow this morning and then it turned into rain. Now it's started snowing around. It just got really dark here all of a sudden. OK, and I'm sure before we move on and maybe this is related, I just wanted to say something. Well, I just want to underscore why I think it's better to have general language right now, which is. We're I mean, really, even before we adjourn, we're not quite certain. All of the federal parameters around the money we're receiving. We have so many moving targets around what is happening with the federal government that I think we'd be asking them to do something that, frankly, we can't do right now. And it feels like it would really box them in a way that's quite quite unfair with what we know and don't know about the federal government. Yeah, I'm confirming everything I've heard from our federal delegation. There will never be money for pensions. There I think that is a hope that is. I don't know where you're getting that hope from. I'm not I'm not even saying in that direction, but we also are trying to use. We're trying to redistribute funds for certain purposes, and we don't even have certainty around that. It just feels very hard to say to box us into any numbers when a lot of what we're doing, JFO hasn't been able to come and say, yes, that's perfectly fine in this budget. We do have our Appropriations Committee has been very clear, though, about the 150 million. OK, so that's certain. Well, yeah, certain as it can be. Well, it's certain whether it comes out of where it comes from. I think that they've been very clear about the 150 million. Right now, anyway, that's what I've heard at all of our meetings with Jane. So is Senator Clarkson. So would it make any. And maybe this puts him in a bad spot, but I don't think so. It would be interesting to have Chris Rook weigh in on these goals. I'd sort of like to have him our JFO expert on pensions. I'd I'd appreciate his input on these sections and see of what he might suggest. All right, we can do that. It still is a policy decision for us. I know, but we he's our he's one of our few resources that we could turn to. I guess I guess what I would what I would hope is that he would be when it specifically asked for help from JFO, that he on this task force that he would probably be the person that would be weighing in from the from JFO for with the task force. Yes, he's already submitted a fiscal note for this, which is terrific. And I urge us all to to look at it. I am just going to go back to it to see if it actually addresses these sections. Let me find it. So if anybody doesn't have it, they should. It is April 15th. Chris Roup on the JFO website is the fiscal note for this bill for how. What what kind of a fiscal note did he put on there? Because we don't know what the benefit package is going to. I mean, it's a full fiscal note. I urge us to take a read of it. It's it's it's it's got it's it's great and it's fiscal impacts. It's reporting requirements and it's a summary of what it does, basically. And I'm just I'm just looking for it to see if it mentions the goals. All right. Well, I I don't know if it's the fiscal impact of the bill or the fiscal impact of what the task force is going to come up with, because that we can't he right. No, it's not what it will come up with. It's what is in the bill. Right. OK, so I will ask him to weigh in on the goals and see what he has to say. And we should all read the April 15th report. And then are there other charges in here that we feel we need to address? Besides taking out the one about defined contributions, Senator Colomer. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not a charge, but the Steve brought this up and I just like to suggest that on page 22. That we take out line six, seven, eight and not six, seven, eight. And just as designee and not worry about. I don't know where that language came from. And I don't I don't understand. Oh, the thing about the designee and participating. Yeah, yeah, I think Designee is clear enough. I do, too. I mean, when people when people are asked, we I don't think we've I've never seen this language in any other any other commission or task force that's been set up that says, OK, Beth, when you appoint somebody now, she's that's the only person that's assumed that it's going to be that they're not going to change the person every for every meeting. I don't understand why I've never seen that in any other any other where it says designee. But I have served on task forces where there is a different designee often from the same office. And I think what this is trying to get to. When maybe we want to ask it for everybody who's appointed, except the legislators who are appointed by name, maybe we ask it for all the designee is that everybody be the one who is consistently serving on the task force once designated you need to serve. I mean, I think I think this is trying to get to. And we can we can we can we can say that, but we should make it then for everybody, not just I just I just want to. Yeah, I mean, I think that that's important. I mean, the legislators are named by person, but the rest are and I think what this is trying to get to is consistent representation of that office by the same person, which I have been on task forces where there it's inconsistent and it's it's not helpful because it means there are too many different ears hearing it. But if you extend it to all the designees, then that would be helpful that the hope would be consistent attendance by the same person. One time with that it just seemed to single those two people out and I couldn't figure out why I couldn't either. That's why is the consistency of attendance. No, no, no. He means why they just had it applied to those two people instead of if the NEA if the VTA has their one appointment and one time Mike appears and then one time somebody else appears and then Joan appears the next time and then Betty the next time. It should apply to everybody. I agree. OK, I think that's the purpose. But they didn't make it apply to everybody. I would then make it apply to everybody who's dead. I'm going to it's a good idea. Brian, thank you. OK, other charges that we need to. That we should look at here and center playing up. This is a little different. I mean, this is something I'm not sure it's in here, but I think we should consider putting in because we've heard conversations about the impact that the changes in the pension plan might have on retention of the workforce, whether it's state employees or teachers. We've heard that, you know, the effects, depending on how the system is set up, we may find ourselves losing workers. And I think it would be good to put into add into the charge consideration of the impacts of the potential impacts on the workforce. Got it. I think that's a good idea. Yeah, retention and recruitment. Right, retention and recruitment. So this is a pretty minor point. But so I realized that I didn't say this before and I apologize. But if if any of the rest of you who aren't committee members have something to say about what we're talking about, please just raise your hand and we'll call on you because we really want to get make sure that we're going in the right direction here. So I sorry, I didn't say that before. I just figured that you knew how this committee worked. And you were free to say something if you wanted to, although not you, Jeff. Sorry. OK, Jeff, just real quick. So I, you know, to Senator Polina's point, in my written to estimate my notes and proposed amendments, I talked about recruitment, retention. So I didn't I didn't give a page number. I think it's page two, maybe three. But I didn't get specific language as to the charge earlier about the targets. You know, certainly I understand where the number comes from. But since nobody else achieved it, I thought, you know, why put the task force through a process that just might not be achievable. So take it out, let them establish what they will. And I propose, you know, striking as an I.I. on that section. I'm sorry, as an educator. Do you know what those are called? Tucker Anderson is the one that those are called Romanettes. Oh, Romanettes, I did not know. I'm sorry. Now you do. I do now. I will forever cement it in my memory. Thank you, Senator. Be fair, Jeff, not an educator. Oh, wait, wait, no. Senator White, Chris Group just dropped me a note saying that he could join for about five minutes today, or would you like to have him another time? Um, if he can join us for five minutes now, that would be good. And we'll be very pointed about our questions for him. OK, I will send him an invitation. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, Jeff, finish your thought. No, I'm I think it's fine. I've I've made some recommendations, some amendments. And if a lot of what you're discussing here, I include so some language tightening up, I think, and some proposals to Senator Polina's recruitment and retention. I've got some language there. Yeah, I just I see that. So while he's coming to join us, I'm going to so based on benefit and funding benchmarks, it says proposed new benefit structures and I'm going to cross off new and just say proposed benefit structures. Where are you, my dear? Oh, it's just a very simple. I'm looking still at the draft because I didn't want to print it out again. But it's the two that very specifically have the targets. And then there's B and then there's C. Right, got it. I just need to know where you were. Yeah, and I'm just taking out new because it's a proposed benefit structures. Madam chair, Chris is here. Yep, I see that. Thank you. So, Chris, here's here's the question that we would like to pose to you. First of all, he did and I apologize, I guess I haven't read it. And April 15 fiscal note on the bill, but not on what the task force might come up with because we don't know that. Right. This is just carrying out this bill. And then if you would comment on there are two targets here in the bill that I'm sure you're aware of. And it's OK. And if you would just comment on those. Thank you, Madam chair, for the record, Cruz for fiscal office. Yes, to your first question, yes, the fiscal note addressed specifically the costs of the bill, meeting the costs of the task force, costs of the reporting that the bill would codifying the statute and the two hundred thousand dollar appropriation to support the work of the task force. It did not weigh in on any any proposed solutions, because as you correctly pointed out, there are no proposed solutions right now. To your second point, this is certainly a element that's more in the policy realm. But I participated in the House government operations hearings when they were having these discussions. And the intent here and the context in which this this language was proposed was the House government operations thought there was some value in trying to define the scope of the problem that this task force's work is intended to focus on in order to try to make that clear at the outset and not make this a point of contention. I don't believe the intent was to to predetermine an outcome on a way or the other or a set of recommendations, but it was to to try to define the problem and focus on both the ADAC, the impact of the budget piece of the equation and the actuarial accrued liability side of the equation. So you're not just focusing on one or the other, but taking a more holistic view and as as Treasurer Pierce noted earlier, this is the same type of lens that she applied in her January 15th report. And, you know, I think the intent here was to just try to be clear about focusing on the the size of the growth we saw from FY 21 to FY 22 and not on trying to boil the ocean, if you will, or or try to to have spirited debates or conversations over over the the size or scope of the problem. Having said that, you know, the language may be able to be worded a little bit more clearly, and I don't I don't mean to speak out of my role or out of school, but I think the intent here was to try to give the the task for some direction to to present some recommendations that focus on both sides of the equation that can get you to those dollar figures. It will ultimately be up to the General Assembly to pick and choose from among those recommendations what they may or may not support ultimately. And is it important to that we actually get to that dollar figure or just to something that is sustainable over the long run? I think I think defining sustainable is inherently subjective. And, you know, I don't know if I don't know if you necessarily have to get to those dollar figures in order to have a material positive impact on the funds. But I just speaking from personal experience, working on task forces when I worked in Philadelphia, you know, I think, especially when you're on an aggressive timeline and you have a really difficult issue, the more clarity you can provide at the outset about what the charge of the group is and what sort of the problem, if you will, is and then say, you know, go focus on providing some solutions that get us toward this problem, the smoother path you're likely to have in the process. So I however the General Assembly wants to define this, you know, I personally see there's some value in trying to define the problem at the outset. Thank you. That's helpful. Any questions? No, that was helpful. Thank you. And thank you for having been listening enough to be able to just jump in. My pleasure. That's great. It doesn't always happen that way. Try to be efficient. Thank you. OK, just just for your information here, committee, if if I go away, it's because right now we are in the middle of a huge rain, thunder, lightning and windstorm. And it looks like the trees are about to fall on my house. So if I go away, just keep on. OK. OK. OK. So were there other other of the I will ask Becky to work on some language around that with with Chris and Tom and just to try and get some language that is define helps to find the problem, but may not be as proscriptive. Is that? Yeah. And I want to say Chris just said in 25 words, what I wanted to say, but it took me five minutes to say so I thank you. But that's exactly what I meant. Of course you did. So other. Of the charges as Senator Plena. Yeah, this is partly a question. We've heard the labor folks particularly talk about the desire to have a revenue stream identified in the bill as drafted. There is a part that says examining permanent and temporary revenue streams to fund the state employees, etc. Including that's where it also goes on to the review of whether all are part of retirement income should be tax exempt, but putting that aside, it says this is on page 24 line G line 10 examining permanent and temporary revenue streams to fund the state employees retirement system and state teachers retirement system. Is that adequate? I mean, people have still talked about the need for revenue stream. But what is that language not adequate? That's I'm sort of asking the labor folks to say. Right, because it is there. And that's what I just want to know if we're leaving something behind. So yeah, Jeff, I did not center point. I did not propose any change to that language. I guess to answer your direct question, I think it is adequate given that the task force, you know, could look at it. I am going to take out though. I believe unless anybody disagrees, including a review of whether all are part of retirement income should be tax exempt, because I don't think that's the the purview of this task force at all. That's a ways and means and finance committee issue. And are it does it imply that you're going to look at all retirement income in the whole state should be tax exempt? Yeah, or just for retired teachers and state employees. And that doesn't seem so. Unless there's objection, I want to take that out. I agree. I agree. I agree. OK. OK, any other Steve, Mike, Jeff, Beth, Tom, believe time makes sense, right? Yes, I will speak that if you don't if you don't mind. I was actually going to include it and then I saw it. I caught it at the end. I think it's a really good provision to have. We've had some problems getting people released. And I think it's important if this is an important state issue, we've got to make sure that the people are on this committee, this task force, excuse me, are allowed to attend. So I think it's important and I appreciate it's there. Thank you. And I'll tell you, I am really, really, really hoping that when this task force is meeting that it can do so in person. Because this is less than satisfactory in terms of really getting to issues and talking to people. We had some thing yesterday and somebody said, well, maybe you have to have a signal, you know, like maybe Senator Clarkson can give eye contact to the chair. You can't give eye contact on these meetings. I can't. It looks like you're all looking exactly at me. But I know you're not. Madam Chair, the three labor units here I've been talking in code the entire time. Don't doubt that. So any other things here and the the remind me again why we particularly pointed out the Department of Corrections employees. I know why we did the the judge, the judicial, but remind me about that. So Madam Chair, it's part of the discussion. You may recall that in the statute currently there is a carve out for correctional officers and for staff at the Vermont psychiatric care hospital also at the veterans home. And this there's also a proposal for a new group called Group G. There is has been a lot of discussion given the recruitment and retention problems in the Department of Corrections and the fact that life expectancy of a corrections officer is only 59 years old, that perhaps this is an issue that should be examined in the same way that we look at law enforcement and whether they physically can be asked to perform the same level of tasks at age at age 55 that they could at 20, given the physical nature of their of their jobs. It's also was also part of the of the group. See study that you are part of that Mike was a part of. And I think Mr. Festige may have in the treasurer, of course, that looked at who should be in Group C and who shouldn't be. This was mentioned as something that the legislature needed to spend more time evaluating. But is this an appropriate topic for this task force? Or is it something that the task force should recommend that be looked into further? Yeah, if you're asking me, I would say it's an appropriate issue for this task force to look at because of the the impact it would have on the unfunded liability and the ADEC and being part of an overall if there was going to be an opportunity to address it and have there an offsets be proposed to cover it. This would be the vehicle to do it. I see. Senator Clarkson. Sorry, Steve, I guess I'm. Well, I guess the House had put it in so clearly they felt it ought to be looked at in the course of the study. So but is the expectation that people in corrections or correction officers would be able to retire in an earlier age and that would just put a further burden on the retirement system currently in the current statute. They can retire at fifty five without penalty, which is which is not quite what law enforcement has. Group C has and so the there has been some discussion about whether they should get something better than that, maybe not full retirement, but some in some reason to acknowledge that not everybody can continue to do the kind of physical work that a correctional officer at times has to do when they're fifty five and so or older. And it was particularly pronounced during the public hearing since the the speaker's proposal was to have people retire at sixty seven, which you can't be I mean, it's really hard to see how that would work. So, Senator Rahm, I'm going to ask you what your question is, but I'm going to ask you a question first. Did you had suggested that one of the things that we put in here is the impact that it's going to that any changes have on and Jeff has talked about retention, recruitment or attention. And then they talk here. It also talks about the kind of impact on the whole economy of the state of Vermont. But do we want to have some special emphasis on the impact on people of color and women? I mean, if you're asking just just me first, you know, I would say yes. I think what we know is oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. But a dog. I'm getting attacked by my dog, excuse me. So, you know, what I can say that that I have some knowledge in, especially from Change the Story and others is that women and people with disabilities and that could be related to old age and retirement face a disproportionate burden of poverty. And I think what I would also say is we just don't have a lot of good information on people of color in our retirement systems or on fixed incomes in the state. So I would say, you know, yes, to all of the above, I'm still an advocate for things like disability status, age, gender and race being disaggregated whenever we can, especially in understanding the needs of our elders, our older Vermonters. So yes, if you're if you're asking me. Yeah, well, I just wondered and if we can on, I think it's D, just add a sentence there that would address the particular impact and might have on any changes might have on women or people with disabilities. Yeah, I think definitely given the percent of women in the teacher's retirement group in particular and which is huge, right? It's a huge percent, particularly after a certain age. I think it's 77 percent. Yeah, 77. Right. 77 percent. OK, now that they we yes, change the story has been particularly illuminating about about their financial status. If I could just say, you know, I know I don't want to if it's too complicated to collect race and ethnicity information, I understand. I feel like a lot of immigrants and people of color find an entry point into work as educators, as crossing guards, cafeteria staff, bus drivers. You know, we do you see a disproportionate number of people of color try to work their way in as cultural liaisons or on lower wage work assignments to sort of help their kids get access to the workforce. It's anecdotal in my mind, but I see it a lot in Chittin County. And I do think it's worth understanding the entry points that people of color and immigrants have to working in our schools and the impact on them when they retire. And most of them are probably then not in the N.E.A. system, but in the municipal system, because they're not teaching staff. So they would be in the municipal system, I think. Madam Chair, if I could, we do have gender information. In fact, Senator Rahm, I would recommend you take a look at two charts that show the disparity in retirement. And it is getting better. There's a chart with the state system where it was really bad and it's getting getting a little bit a lot better, but there still is disparity. We do have that data. And the only other thing I'd say is a DC plan, because women live longer. They have a greater risk of running out of dollars in retirement. Right. Right. Which is what we learn and change the story. Yes. And if I may, they put in less because they typically take time off to have children. And they probably are on a stoop. Right. All those above are supported by our analysis. Yes. Great. Thank you for that, Beth. Thank you. OK. We don't see we don't have a lot of demographic information regarding employees with disabilities at the state of Vermont. I don't know if they do in the system, but it's not something that it's usually something that people would self-declare. It's not something that we particularly track. And so that would be harder to that would be harder to get information on that. I mean, we do we do in the research board anyway, we do work on disability retirement, so we get information in that sense. But the swath of employees or retirees that have disabilities, we really don't. I don't I don't I suspect that treasure pierces and have that as well. We you're correct. We don't have it if someone did not apply for disability. We do have the information in the demographics on how many years and so on. And the income related to individuals with disability. I did a demographic report in 2019 on both systems. And it has all this data crossed by by by gender, by user service, by early retirement, normal retirement and again, by gender. And I'd be very happy to forward both of those to the committee. That's great. And I think that we need to as a state, we need to kind of come up with a way of collecting a standardized way of collecting data among all of our agencies and departments and in education and in transportation and in health. Labor, all of we need to have some kind of standardized way of collecting data so that we actually know what we're doing and what we're not doing. And I've been I've been working on something with around that. But anyway, anyway, that's a different topic that. OK, anything else here? If I work with Becky to get this. Trying to look at the schedule that we have. You know, Keisha, you don't know this, but my desk in the state house would be perfectly. Tidy and clean in the morning and by three o'clock in the afternoon, there were piles everywhere and I didn't know anything. And that's what it looks like right now. So tomorrow, actually, we're looking at OPR because we need to get that finished up. And we're having looking at the eugenics apology resolution. We have some interesting people coming in. And then we're going to have a walk through of 435, which is the DOC, Steve, you you're interested in that. I know that's the DOC. Bill that around polygraphs and drug testing and sexual assault. OK, and then on Friday, we're going to look at this again. And so what I'll try to do is have these changes put into language and get it distributed by tomorrow afternoon so that everybody can have a chance to look at it so that we can. Does that make sense? That would be great. So I'll I'll work with Becky and whoever else needs to. I think, Tom, you were going to work with Becky around some language on the VPIC. There were a couple changes on there on the qualifications for the chair and some other things I submitted or I gave her a document of chair definition and the requirements that they utilized in 2016. It's pretty extensive. So that's in the VPIC policy. So you have that up on your document page right now. Great, great. OK, anything else here right now? Oh, I think this was good work. Yeah, I think this is good. I think we see what we get in writing and we'll probably have more ideas when we see what we get from Becky. Yeah, and so try and get this out. And then I also will check with Jane and we'll check with the house about what the changes are that they made. And appropriations, house appropriations that we need to find out if they made those changes that Jeff said they were talking about. Well, and what I think that those changes will be more appropriate to our appropriations committee, perhaps, than ours, us. But anyway, we'll look at that. And then I'll and I'll find out from her. I think they're hoping to vote out the budget on Friday. And her position was that. If that if we get this to them, not to get into the budget bill, but they'll do a floor amendment to put it into the budget bill, because we simply don't have time to. Pass it in 499, 449, send it back to the house of them work on it, send it back. So I think it'll end up having to be worked out in conference committee on appropriations bills. That's where I think we are.