 And you are live here. Thank you. We have somebody that needs to mute. There we go. So welcome back. This is the second part of the house appropriations meeting on Friday. Now this is May 8, I think. Wow, the days are flying by. I did check in with with leadership about timing of bills. We're not meeting every day and I need to understand timing. And so I said that we had a couple of questions about this bill, whether it's, you know, how, if it fits into the category of COVID emergencies, or whether it could be considered within the skinny bill when we're addressing the current year bill. So, Larry, we're just holding off on some information. I think as we circle around with the committee so we can understand the emergency aspect and then the timing for the floor. And in the meantime, our committee will wrap our heads around the $9,000. That's needed. In order for the group to meet. Does that sound like a plan? You're muted, Larry. Yes, that that sounds fine. I'll report that back to my committee this morning. Okay. Here in about 15 minutes. And thank you all very much for your consideration. It's. It is an important bill and certainly. As our children go back to school this. Fall, hopefully they will. The needs are going to be greater than they've ever been before. So thank you so much. So Larry. It's the timing. Can it wait? Can it wait for the skinny bill, which will go out. Prior to June 1st. That's one question. Or if it is a COVID emergency, what puts it in that category? Prior to June 1st, I think we'll be fine. Okay. The governor may not get it signed by then. In that time frame that we're, you know, we're, we're going to move BAA out and get the skinny bill done as fast as we can. And I'm hoping that, it's out of the house and out of the Senate before the end of May. Madam chair. Yes. This is the timing on the skinny bill will be fine because they, yeah. This bill will allow them to continue to have meetings in fiscal year 21, which we will get the bill out and it'll be signed by one July or else everything shuts down. So skinny bill out. This, the meetings will continue in the skinny bill will be fine. Thank you for speaking for the education committee. No, I think I, as I indicated, I think that will be, that will be fine. Okay. Will you check though, Larry and get back to me and. Yes, I will. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I'm off to another meeting. I'd be off to the golf course if I were you, but two o'clock. I hope. Okay. So very quickly, I was hoping we could make a couple of decisions about the. Budget adjustment act that is in front of us. We can't make, we cannot make a decision about the end of year. The treasurer. Well, I guess we can, but I'm asking the committee if they would allow the treasurer. She was going to make some phone calls today. And get back to us Monday. Regarding the news that Steve dropped to us that. There's rumblings that the administration in Washington is considering pushing out. Tax collection dates even later. And if that happened, the treasurer's. Construct wouldn't work for us anyway. And she wanted to check with other states to see what they were doing. So since we're not voting today, I think we have time. I'm asking the committee, can we give the treasurer time. To come back with additional information. Can I just get a, I see a couple of thumbs up. Perfect. Okay. So the first thing that I'd like to do then is the first thing that I'd like to do is I'd like to make sure that we're not playing jazz. The administration's language, the end of the, the language. With the amount of dollars. And I think we can all be unmuted as long as you're not playing jazz or. Your wife's not probably going to lunch or your husband's. Being demanding. I couldn't help myself. I apologize. I don't think we can hear you. Jazz, music. Peter, do you take requests? Well, I can't play anything myself. I spilled tunes trying to pour them into a pocket. I love listening. So I got a question. We're doing now going to be in lieu. For 30 or one other. Yes, it is. If we can work really quickly and get done by noon, Lou of that. Okay, so the first thing is on the second page of the language. They have not to exceed 50,000 and they have added four different agencies and departments. And they have also deleted from one component of the agency department or other unit of state government to any component of the same entity, department or unit. redundant. Am I missing something there? The agency department unit. They just want they want to be able to go to a different agency if necessary. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And so we there is the vehicle of the urgency board. The governor can convene. So there is always that option, but this is for FY 20 only. It's in the effective dates that it will end with the end of the fiscal year 20 knowing there's a few weeks left. Was that Maria? Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to you would mention the effective dates. I just wanted to point out that the committee could do and not withstanding the statute and given a clear end date for this change so that it's a little clearer when a person reads it that it's just for a limited period of time. I understand they're changing the statute here and then they're putting the time limit in the effective dates that maybe I don't know you can decide what you want to do, but there is an option you could just do it not withstanding. I think that you're correct that we would not stand for a period of time. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So it's not permanently changing statute. And so Maria that would be in section session law rather than in the statute. Correct. Right. Yes. That was a good point you made, Mary. That was that was great. I just checked with Steve and we both agree that and not withstanding would work perfectly in this section. Right. I think Mary that was a good catch and not to change statute since it's just temporary. First with the committee agree that if we make any changes that we do it through session law and not changing statute. Agreed. Agreed. Yes. Yes. Okay. And so what is the let's talk about the money amount first either we put it back the way it was or I think that there's some concern from my conversations with members about just having unlimited an unlimited number. First do we even want to give a number here and if we do do we want to limit it or go to unlimited. So if you can you tell me what those concerns are well if it's unlimited you you really have quite broad capabilities of what you could do in budget. I you know unlimited it would you know I do to see that it's for transfer of appropriations but we have hefty balances and special funds. I I just think it's very very broad but that's up to the committee to decide that. I'm just trying to figure out what the disadvantages are. I mean it sounds as if he wants to be able to move funds around within the general fund. He said not special funds and I don't know how that's stated. The money we're not increasing the appropriations pardon me. But I don't think it's stated here just within general fund. No but we could if we wanted to and if they have to plug hole in one department how else are you going to do it? They could do it by convening the emergency board and and and not doing it one at a time but to to bring we have these five issues and this is what we'd like to do. They wouldn't have to convene the board five times. Kitty could you could you outline how complicated or uncomplicated it is to convene the eboard? The governor would need to convene the eboard and I think that we would have to allow for vote for remote voting. So I'm just I have an email text about that and I'm looking for it. Probably have to add language authorizing that remote voting could happen through December 31st. Okay thank you. We may this is in our business but it strikes me that it might be wise for the eboard to seek that permission for whatever reason going forward regardless of what we do with this language. So Teresa can you take down the language so I can see everyone? Oh sure. Thank you. So what are committee members thinking? Marty and I don't know if you were before we went into another question. No. Marty asked what the concern was about allowing an unlimited amount of money to be moved even for a time limited period. So I had a first concern about from fund to fund and so we can manage that. My second issue is simply one of powers. I mean one it is the legislature's responsibility to appropriate and and this starts to step over into that and is essentially an erosion of what is our appropriate authority and and so I'm concerned about that. I didn't hear from Adam a particular need or insight into why they need this this amount. He said early you know when they were first thinking about it it totally made sense a month ago because it was totally unknown what they were looking for but we're now three weeks to the end and he could not identify an area where there was an urgent need for this. If there is one he can bring it to us in the BAA and we can manage it right now. So I'm a little lost as to why this is so necessary right now. Right as time has moved on it's become less necessary and so do does the allowance need to be as broad perhaps. Mita you have your hand up? Well Mary in the course of Mary's comment she covered what was running through my mind. At this point I would at only that to me wanting to I would feel much more comfortable leaving things the way they are because it establishes a framework such as for instance the Joint Fiscal Committee discussed with regard to the framework for accepting the big grant from the cares of the same issues came to play in terms of that conversation as to who has what responsibilities. Mita you're frozen? Mita we'll come back to you you froze? Those means you're unfrozen? Do all the things already exist? Dave? Yes I think Mary makes a good point you know there's not many weeks left and this is really needed. I will say though I think the 50,000 has been spent around for a long time when I was first in state government in 96 it was 50,000 it's still is the day and I can remember having a you know a child care center that was about to go under that needed a bridge grant to work things out I didn't have any money in child care but I had it in reach up because of declining caseload and I can remember saying to my business manager why don't we just transfer it you're limited to 50,000 Dave and I said oh okay so you know I can see the need for it but maybe maybe increasing it to 100,000 and having some see how it goes some parameters the reason it shouldn't be unlimited is because we set policy and people can just go in a whole different direction well intended and maybe with good cause but that's why we have a legislature to do those kind of reviews so if people wanted to do it now I'd be comfortable but up to 100,000 I'm really not sure it's needed at this point in the year thank you and I agree with a lot of what both Mary have said I do it does seem to me that this could be a very useful thing for the administration to be able to address issues that close out that are just significantly different this year than in other years and I'd be happy to see us give them the authority to do it and and you know at more than $50,000 I'm sort of struggling to come up with what is the right amount because I I do think that Adam has a point that you don't want the governor to call the eboard for something that's really insignificant but but I will go back to what I was trying to say to Adam which is I'm also not comfortable having it be unlimited because it does at that point I think it does start to get into Dave's issue about we're sort of changing potentially changing policy I guess at at a lower at some number that could be greater than certainly greater than $50,000 I don't think we risk changing policy at this point in the year for the limited work they could do with it but it seems to me that we should give them the authority we should make it more than $50,000 I'm struggling to come up with what the right number is I think Marty Marty can you hear me there you go yeah yeah I think they need the authority to be able to move money around I and I think $50,000 is a peddling amount given the circumstances the way money is moving but and I feel that having a limited amount of time this is only until the end of June you aren't going to have any policy changes I wouldn't think it would seem to me it was just if there's a big overrun in one area that we had wanted to support and there's less someplace else and you can cover the hole by moving it from the big hole to the other hole to the to the excess that that makes sense to cover it as long as we're not spending more money than we had originally planned to spend and I don't know Adam suggested the million dollars it sounds as if many of you there might think a million is too much but whatever number seems to make sense for them to move from one area to another to make things come out even at the end of the year I think is our goal Linda I agree with Marty I really think we should give them some leeway the million gives me a pause but I think it should be somewhere in that general vicinity of a million dollars just because of a any need that might come up at the very last minute okay um Dave your hand is up is did you have another comment I forgot to lower it okay Marty you have another comment just okay Kimberly and Mary and Peter yeah I um I'm hearing what everyone says for me it's really a two-part question um the dollar amount I agree should be updated and should be raised and I defer to those of you with more years of experience in terms of what that number might be it is an unusual year um on the other hand moving it between agencies that seems to me a different level of moving around resources and for that it seems to me that the eboard would be the more appropriate place that makes sense yeah yeah um I'm going to go to Peter and then Mary doesn't speak yeah Peter so Kimberly I agree we had we had to insert language that states if you're going to move it from agency to agency it ought to be the the eboard as far as a dollar amount I've heard a lot of different dollar amounts um I would like to just offer a 250 thousand dollars is a bit of a compromise here to put in there um absolutely agree with with what Chip was saying earlier and when the senate does receive this bill they'll they'll again we'll further down the road and they might be able to further refine what's actually needed there but at least we'll we'll put a number there that's not overly um um unconstrained you know we're we're constraining it to some degree but not to not to not loosing the reins a lot that's it um Mary I have a question that maybe Maria can help me with um we are concerned about there being you know big holes in created in the budget what is the likelihood of that given that we are also backfilling um those holes or the governor has the ability to move money with both with the three with the two pots of money that he has authority to spend in an unlimited way effectively so what is the likelihood of there being holes created beyond the over two million hundred million dollars that he has an ability to fill right now okay I think that because this language has to do with the closeout of the fiscal year sometimes there's unanticipated things that come up you know um there could have been an expenditure that we haven't been um keeping our eye on or there could be some unanticipated need for money and I think that's what the commissioner is saying that um he needs that flexibility just to address any of those um issues that come up as we try to close the books I could try to find some examples of that for you um and you know let me get back to you on that since I'm since I had the floor for one minute I just wanted to also mention that the legislature is also um limited by that 50 000 transfer clause and so if you feel that it's appropriate we could add some language allowing the legislature to also transfer between appropriations because you know that may happen as we move further along towards the end of the fiscal year okay so thank you Maria it just to I so I think we as a group are appropriately concerned with the ability to do closeout but I'm a little flummoxed by why there will be an additional amount you know a huge amount given this ability to bring other funds to bear okay I let me find let me get you a good answer on that I think Mary that that this language came to be um several weeks ago when when they were much more in turmoil and they didn't know um how what what smoothing was going to look like and I think that we're in a smoother plane right before four or five weeks ago um it seems like it's getting much more complicated if the legislature has the same requirement at 50 000 and the administration does there's a there's a procedure there there is a policy in place now if these changes are needed you use the eboard and so do we want to and this is up to the committee do we want to go in and change it for the legislature change it for the administration or do we want to say use the process make the eboard come together I mean we we came together back on a zoom seven seven or eight minutes after the floor I know it's a little bit different to call a meeting but I would think within 24 hours you know has said that they would be able to meet within 24 hours I'm not sure if the need even really exists now to make the change and if we do we should make it equally between our own branch and the branch yeah that's all I'm thinking including judiciary yep yeah um yeah I mean I it does it does still make sense to me to to allow them to have some more flexibility than exists now and certainly a some more money level than they have now in order to do close out in this particular year to Mary's point about you know the money the other money they that the administration potentially could use I'd be I'm more uncomfortable with that and with this I mean this is money that we've already appropriated it's not increasing the amount we're spending in any way it's just allowing the movement of some of that money to to address what is you know we might probably should expect are going to be a little bit unusual circumstances at the end of this year I I think I get more comfortable as people are suggesting that maybe we not require eboard to meet if they're going to move it between agencies if you keep it with agency um that that seems to me you know even more of a constraint on on what they could do that might affect policy and I guess I'm I'm still for giving them some flexibility increasing the amount to some degree I look at that okay Diane is your hand up yes please thanks so I like listen I'm pretty comfortable with the following but you know I'm also pretty flexible on this but where I would feel comfortable with is like Mary's that you know the notwithstanding to make sure it's just session only the amount 250 as Peter suggested might be a good good number or even even 500 if we need it to but but I would also be real real comfortable with and that's where I think my heart burning is that there's no movement not just between agencies but department and unit without the eboard um approval and then I would include the legislature and the judiciary but it doesn't have to but it would be nice so those four things okay any other discussion so I think what I would like to do first with a raise of hands how many of you would agree if we make any change that we do it within session law and maybe we already agreed okay so we do it within session law not change statute temporarily we've got that one down the next piece is is to where they would like to change from same or different agency I've heard from a few of you that the eboard should be used if it's going to go from when I keep coming back to and if it were going to go into natural resources um that if they're going to make a change where it's really leaving you know uh an agency completely uh ahs to natural resources that it would remain with the emergency board we don't have to write anything because that's the way it is right right just write their deletion so if you agree to leave that piece alone in the emergency board would um would be the path razor to to leave it as is not as in there as is yeah okay so so right now we're going to strike their change for different agencies and that would be left for the emergency board uh how many of you would like to set a dollar number it's my first question how many of you would like to set a dollar number I have one two three four five six I have plenty of those hands okay so if we're going to set a dollar number there already is one of 50 000 so it's going to be more than 50 000 but not unlimited I think that yeah I'm hearing from the committee um we have a couple of proposals on the table there was an earlier one at 100 000 in Peter there was one for a million and Peter said to come together at 250 um not me um let's see if we can come to a number that we all can agree upon and and feel good about knowing we still have the eboard Marty um no we have 100 250 a million we had 500 Diane said five well let's just let's just pick the middle of the road number 250 250 let's take Peter's 250 and see how many votes we get because I think people want more than 100 and less than a million Peter will we be going for the questions to whether or not that amount applies to the other branches of government also oh that's the other piece yeah yeah we would uh let me ask the committee that if we choose a different number how many of you agree that it should apply to all branches of governments I don't know if this happens within judiciary I don't either it should okay yeah it was my whole face so Maria will find that piece up so the legislature will have the same capability okay so now let's uh come up with a number so can I ask a question yes um so I'm at a bit of a loss to to know how to decide what's the right number and I just wonder if your experience on the eboard helps you you know give us some I'm looking for some benchmark like you know what would I do what would I look to to say this is a reasonable amount of money to allow them to transfer or or this is this is a reasonable amount of money to expect that they might have to transfer I don't know how to come up with that yeah I don't think that there has been any consistent um anything that would be telling that's that has been a consistent problem year after year where the eboard has weighed in on an amount that's I couldn't weigh in on that because I haven't seen it that would that would um tell me to do that but if it were that sub some substantial amount you would probably want the eboard because you're both branches of government are represented yeah I'm just trying to determine what what makes it a substantial amount yeah because if it is substantial it really should go to the eboard and not one branch deciding I see hands up but I don't know what the hands mean um are they left over or Linda no Linda well I was just going I was just going to suggest that since I originally said a million I would like to lower that but go higher than Peter and just at a at $500,000 it seems to be considering what they're going to be dealing with right now and the issues that may come up that seems to me a reasonable amount of money but we've already been already vote didn't we already just vote on that no not on the email yeah Peter I'm going to go on mute I will leave this on I have to make a really important phone call I've been involved with something going on here with state government and I've got a noontime phone call that'll take three minutes but I'll you'll see me I'm going to be on mute and I'll be able to okay Mary um so as you all can tell I've been uncomfortable with increasing this authority to state the obvious I appreciate the fact that this amount hasn't changed over time and so I let myself get comfortable with a hundred thousand given that the administration could not articulate a reason to go you know substantially beyond where we are right now um I I cannot get comfortable with going to 500,000 but that that is a large amount of money in the in ahs it's not any money at all in the judiciary it is a large amount of money to be able to move from one program to another without our appropriate policy oversight of that and I'd really rather land at 250 okay I'm letting you drag me up to 250 putting some weight on the 250 takes more to drag I think the the question is because I wanted to get one more thing done and I've got to get to a meeting um I think there the two numbers on the table now are 250 and 500 you get one vote not two so does that sound fair to the committee that will vote on those two amounts of whichever one gets a majority and just don't make me break the tie okay um let's vote on the first one 250,000 do you want to do this by raising our blue hands I have Peter, Diane, Mary, Kimberly, Chip, Dave, we're at 250 all right I felt like I was just at an auction okay I'm going to go into my meeting a minute late um or actually will yes are are you aware of thinking via the email from Karen Horne that we may need to do a tiny on the floor amendment to our municipal thing I haven't seen it I haven't seen it we'll bring it up on Monday yep I haven't seen it yet okay to the end so you're aware okay thank you very much and we'll bring that up on Monday the last thing I wanted to do and Mary has a meeting I've got a meeting I have to go to I wanted to to clean up clean water we'll do that first thing on Monday morning to decide what we're going to do with the clean water piece and then that way we'll also have heard from the committee of jurisdiction I was hoping to take that off the table but we're late okay so Monday we'll be back and Teresa you guys can start drafting that language when are we when are we Monday you need Maria Maria yeah I was Maria she knew yeah I knew I knew 8 30 Monday so I I need to stop the live stream