 Um, so, um, and I did explain that we took out the flying of the US flag at half staff, just in case anybody had concerns about that. So, okay. Do we say half staff or half mast, I've always said half. Half staff. Oh, oh, I changed that in my floor report. I always said it wrong. All right, committee. Can we look at our two compositions of our two boards I think that's where we are. Am I right about that. Yes. So, um, which would, what's your preference which would you rather tackle first here. Let's do it. Okay. We had a great feedback. I don't know why I thought we don't have feedback. We had a lot of notes and a lot of iterations. So I don't think we had agreed to it. So the way it is in the bill is one. Visors, one visors, one muni, two governor, one treasure, DFR, the LCT and Brown school boards association. That's the way it is in the bill. And we've had some iterations of that. So just some, um, I will say for my part, that for the VP. I am happy with the way it is constructed now. I think that it's an investment board. And, um, as we noted earlier, everybody should be concerned with getting the best investments, the best returns possible. And when I look at this, it looks like there are three, three kind of. The first here, there's the participants, the kind of the union people, the employers, and then the kind of other taxpayer type people, the public. And we have three union or participant members to employer members. And three, what I would consider kind of the public taxpayer members, that's the two governors and the DFR, I guess I put there. Okay. And then the treasure. Put separately, but that's anyway, that's depending on how you look at it. So I'd like committee discussion where everybody else is. I'll just, that's where I am. So Senator columnar. Thank you Madam chair. So as I counted up there are 10 members but nine voters. Yes, because the chair doesn't vote except the chair doesn't vote, except in a tie. And this is the way it came over from the other body and I think, as I said, it seems like a week ago now. I support the way it came over from the other body is the center, Ron. So, I think that if we believe that the governor, you know, is has, you know, their person or their perspective represented with one financial expert. We don't believe that they're going to have people who sort of disagree on their financial positions. I'm sorry my dog is just really wanting today again, because it's for 40. I think that having their DFR commissioner and one appointee is sufficient. And what that does is move it back to eight voting members, which, you know, first of all, brings down the number which I heard was less is more on this front and I rather started to like the idea that there was a little bit of friction that it was rare that you'd get a kind of split vote that there's often consensus that happens. So should there be the need to really, you know, hash something out, you'd have four and four with the chair being a tie breaking vote so I would move to remove one of the governor's appointees or remove DFR and they can be either one of the governor's appointees or someone who comes as a staff person and kind of shares their perspective. I apologize because I thought I was done saying what I was going to say but I forgot to add what I think is one of the crucial issues here is that, although we have the voting members, we have at the table we have more voices. And so the, the three retirement system people each have two people two voices at the table, and I think voices at the table is as important as votes because voices at the table. I'm thinking of just our committee, when we have five people who actually vote on something, but we have a lot of people here who have voices at the table and they help us get to a place where are where we can vote on it and so I, I, when I look at this I look at, there are actually six union representative, I mean, yeah, six voices at the table. Well then there's, you can add that up for for a lot of other folks too so they don't. Well the governor has two alternatives as well. On one alternate one alternative it's still. Okay. So I would support the governor having one vote one voting member and one alternate. Got it. And then there. So then that would be two voices at the table from the governor, plus three actually because of yeah, three. Yeah, got it. Okay. I can just add, the governor gets a lot of say the whole time, you know, the governor has a lot of people involved throughout the process as other staff around and the governor has a lot of power after this this group does their work I just don't think the governor needs. I don't know for voices or however many, it would be at this point, it would be yeah. Okay. Senator Polina. I would basically just, I would agree with what the conversation he just had with what Senator Ron was saying I think the governor having one, one appointee plus one alternate seems like plenty. Okay. Senator Clarkson. So then you'd have eight members and the, and the chair. Yes. I mean, eight voting members. Yes. You'd actually have six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 voices at the table plus the chair. Okay, got it. Yep. So, you know, I guess just so eight voting members one non voting member, right. No, well he's voting in a tie. The chair votes in a tie. Yes. Oh, I guess I hadn't taken that on board. Okay. I guess that's her hand up, which might mean something important. Okay, okay. Thank you. Our attorney. Becky needs to leave at five o'clock. And if we do need an attorney present, she said that she would find coverage for us. So I just wanted to put that out there now since we still have about 20 more minutes. So committee here's. I'm concerned about us. Going late here and coming. I'd like us to come to some decision. But is it possible for us to come to some decisions tonight and get them to Becky or whoever the attorney is. So any possibility we could meet on Monday to actually vote out when we've seen a nice clean copy of everything we've decided. Yeah, I was going to say I have preferred times but I would also clear anything on my schedule for this. So, just anybody. One more. Could you meet. I would hope that we could come up with all of our decisions today, but then allow Becky and whoever else the attorney might be to do it and get a clean copy to us so that we can actually vote out what we see as a nice clean copy instead of asking them to stay tonight. And I do have an edited version of everything you've done so far. So it would just be the membership decision making. Yep. Yes, I can meet Monday. I don't know that that advances the calendar though. Well, I think that if we can vote it out on Monday we could. If we voted out today it's still going to go on notice on. I'll check with Bloomer but I think that we can probably, and I'm going to ask if we can pending entry on the calendar if we can actually take it up. Senator Polina, could you possibly just a little bit. Okay, and Senator Clarkson. I could conceivably meet it at like 1212 30 to 330 or four. Oh, I don't think it would take that long. But I mean I could meet early afternoon. Yeah. Okay. How about really early in the morning. Yeah, that's my favorite time you know that. I'm fine with that. I can't. I have a, I have a something I have to do in London. Early in the morning. I'm, well, I mean, which is fine. You can meet without me. I'm not. No, I'd like us to meet all together, and we can set a time but with that decided we'll figure out a time later on but we'll allow Becky to to do what she needs to do and not to have to try and find somebody to sit in for her right now. Okay. Yeah, yes. Okay, great. Thanks. All right, so let's go back to our. And look what I did. I did go pick one. It's been raining here all day. It is, it is the most beautiful day so far here. It is been raining for the last 24 hours hasn't stopped. It's really blustery. And it's cold enough that you have to have on a sweatshirt when I love it's my favorite, my favorite weather. Anyway, okay. Enough of that. So, Senator Rom you are voting for one governor appoint the only change in here would be one governor's appointee and one alternate. I'm just changing it from. So, there's really two appointees, but only one vote. Yeah, okay. And Senator Plena you agree with that. Yes. Senator Parkson. Well, I hate being the deciding factor here. But I'm fine with it. Sadly, I'm fine with it either way. I think it's fine. And I'm well, I think it's it's an investment group and everyone, every for monitor should care enormously about how well these investments do it is on all our shoulders. How well this perform. So, that being said, I, so I just, I think everybody has ideally the same interest and the thing I'm reluctant to give up with the governor's appointees is that they have to be financial experts and independent. And listen, what it says that. I know that's what I'm saying. I'm willing to give up a financial expert. That's, that's what case is proposing is that we give up one financial expert. So I guess what I'm here's what I'm saying is that the governor gets one appointee they're a financial expert they get to they have the ability to move the entire group in a direction that feels more political than just why do why do they need to financial experts I'm not saying we can't have another financial expert if we if they're chosen by another group but why we would give the governor to financial experts and to alternate feels like a lot to me. There aren't two alternatives and one also one alternate but also the governor is going to not the governor but the commissioner of financial regulation is one of the members and that financial expert as well. As is the chair. Sure. As is the chair, as is the treasurer. Right. Experts everywhere. So, so actually then I would, then I would support the one, one member of the, of the governors, and, and I would support the that. And my, yeah, my only other concern and now that I know the chair can split votes that's. Okay. The other thing we have to remember is, you know, Senator Palmer I'll get you in a second is that the people that are appointed by the femurs and beasters and visas. Those are such bad names but anyway, the people that are appointed by them, do not have to necessarily be. They can be a financial right also. I mean, my guess is that they're going to want to appoint people who are as well versed and find out there. They would never appoint me, for example, to this board, but they, because they're going to think very carefully about who they're going to appoint so I would love to get to Senator Palmer I just want to say one thing about that too. That's okay with Senator. I see that I hope at some point you know everybody would agree. It's good to have some financial experts and maybe even a preponderance of financial experts but as Jeff and others have pointed out people with other perspectives also make great points about financial matters right we can get ourselves into a world of trouble and global recession by only listening to financial experts so I just don't want them to become so paramount in this conversation we forget other perspectives are valuable. It is interesting because I always said standards and poor are whoever they are are the ones that rate us and yet they're the ones that got us into the 2008 recession so Senator Palmer and then Tom. Yeah, and I realized we've sort of already the dais cast as it were, but I just would say for those that are worried about any undue influence from the administration, the current composition, the governor has to, and there are fewer people on the right board. So he has or she has more of an influence now. And, you know, we're proposing that it go to 10 with nine votes. So I don't know why we wouldn't leave the governor having to. Anyway, that's just. Okay. Tom. I would support the current the way it's written with the two and one for the governor and here's my reason. If you change that it's going to affect the current composition, just like Senator column or said so we have to address the transition issue differently, because he currently has to voting in one. One non voting. The new member you're adding is this secretary of financial. The commissioner of financial regulation originally was the commissioner of finance and so I would prefer if you want to take one away. That would be where I would look only because it wouldn't affect the transition process. And we'd have to get rid of one has already been appointed by the governor, which I would rather not do you at this point. The second point is I do think the house and the way this came about was the house is insistence on having the financial appointees, and we whittled away that from Beamer's members and Vista's members and Vista's members through this whole process to make sure we had exposure that we wouldn't exclude like superintendents and city city members. So, I prefer how it's listed but if you do take one away, I would not touch the governor's appointees and I look for the new member that you're looking at on. So thank you. Senator Ron. Before I allow myself to agree with Tom on this, I will just start by saying, you know, we were changing the composition material anyway by leaving it at three labor folks and still going to 10 people. I just want to say that someone's feelings being heard or not making it through the transition would be the best reason to change the composition in favor of giving less of a voice to the labor folks and more of a voice to the governor's folks. But I will agree that I have said all along, if the governor had two appointees and they wanted to appoint their DFR commissioner, great, you know, but let's just give them those two appointments and not have DFR on there then. Senator Parkson. But Tom the commissioner of financial regulation is a governor appointee. So I think the point I think if you keep the commissioner and one appointee that that are that is keeps your current two governor appointees quite frankly. So I think that's, that's part of why I'm okay with going with that suggestion because that keeps you with two governor appointees. I think it would be more the institution knowledge from the investment professionals that are the current governor's appointees. You're talking about the current people not just the positions. This change would affect the current makeup of the VPIC which would affect the institutional knowledge of the two members which do have a significant level of expertise on the current board so I just bring that up as a point. The transition period. Yes. I would say that I think that the governor's appointee is their transition under the transition language right now. They're actually they would actually need to be reappointed as of this June. So, but you're getting rid of a spot. That's why you wouldn't be able to replace one of the governor's positions in an existing spot if you remove it. Right, I just was bringing up for for everyone's reference of the, the reappointment would happen in June it would just be for one, one person. And, and also I just want to make the point just so this is on your radar that if you change the number of members on this commission. There's also language about the how many, how many votes you need for certain decisions and so I think you have to think about whether you want to change that as well. So right now there's five, five votes needed to make a decision of the committee, but six in the case of setting actuarial assumptions. So you might want to keep that as is but I just wanted to raise that for you as well. I actually like Tom's idea here and one of the reasons I like it is because my guess is that the, the VP board will work with the commissioner of DFR when they need to anyway and that if, if the original person that was appointed was considered else was the commissioner of a secretary of finance or commissioner of finance and budget and management I guess that they had some on clarity about which, which government agency or department was the best represented on here and so I would. I actually like Tom's suggestion of leaving the two governor appointees and the one alternate and removing the commissioner of DFR and if the, and, and they, and the commissioner of DFR when, when his or her expertise is required I'm sure we'll be asked to, to work with them anyway. So I actually like that, that suggestion. I could live with that. Brian. I guess. Anybody else have any comments about that. Senator Polina. I think that's okay. That would have been my second choice. Me too. It might have been my first if I thought about it but I wasn't smart enough to think about it. That's why Tom's joining us on this. So, let me just ask everybody else here then if that if, if we leave the VP board the way it is in here, but remove the commissioner of DFR. Does that so I want to hear from everybody here Beth. I actually submitted the original piece with with commissioner of finance. I would like to have kept it that way clearly that's not going to happen. So I would agree with Tom that this is the, the next best approach. Thank you. Tom other Tom. I'm sure for the record Tom out to know our legislative specialist via CA. We support any decision by the committee that would move the composition of the toward parody between the representatives originating from the employee groups and those not so yes we support this shift as well. Thank you, Mike. We would support this. Jeff. In a turn about I will support what Tom and Mike just said. Yes, we support it. All right. Chris. It's a policy question madam chair that I defer to the legislature for I just work here. Okay, you're right. You're right. Okay, and Eric probably would say the same thing. Madam chair, we do I do and I emphasize Tom's point about continuity of the folks serving on the now in the institution of knowledge we have there. Okay. So, so before I sign off I will I will make that change but I just want to double check that you also want to keep the votes as they are. You have eight member eight voting members and nine and one tiebreaker. Do you want to five. So I think you need five concurring votes so that you would have a majority but then do you want to keep the six votes for the setting actuarial assumptions. Yeah, I think so. No, I see you're shaking your head Tom. That's fine. Oh, it just makes a little super majority but we'll be fine. Yeah. I like that a lot. Is everybody okay with leaving the numbers as they are. Yes. Okay, great. Oh, that was easier than I thought okay let's move to the task force. So, we, I went through my notes and I have about 30 different suggestions for compositions for the task force. And I am going to throw mine out right now. I think I did it earlier to house. And I know this gives us 13 members but to house to Senate to governor. VSEA one VTA and three NEA. And I don't know if Tom and Mike you were with us when I justified this by saying that that gives the two, two boards. I don't remember because while VSEA and VTA are separate bargaining units they're part of the same board or whatever that's called. So that that's my suggestion and then the treasure. So, Well, as I mentioned before. If you set it up that way which is almost there. That leaves seven people who are non beneficiaries, but that way. And six people who are so the imbalance is would be on the side of the non beneficiary so I would prefer to see it. I would actually suggest the same thing we were considering in the last conversation about the commission that the governor get one vote, or one person. And that way it would be six and six beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. Senator Clarkson. Are you with us. Yes, I'm with you. Yeah, I, I, I, I, I support this I also was playing around with thinking about going back to three house three Senate and the director of retirement and a non voting member. And I was sort of thinking about that too. In addition to all the other people or no, no, just that. Okay. Three house three Senate, one director of retirement who doesn't vote who's a non voting member. Three NEA to VSEA and one trooper. And no governor appointees. No. No treasure. I think that the director of retirement. You want on here, but I think we heard from the treasure that it would. While the director of retirement would certainly weigh in that there during this time period of time is her busiest time of the year and she simply would not be able to do it. That's what we heard. Yeah, I think that if, if we were to do that and her, her, her designee I probably end up a Michael anyways. That's right. I do remember that it's very difficult. I do want to point out, although I, you know, I do see myself as someone independent and I actually that I am a member of the system, while I have the opportunity as an exempt employee to participate in a defined contribution plan. I believe the DB plans are the best place to go and that's why I'm there. Right. So, well, can I ask the treasurer. I mean, let's say people saw you as like, you play this interesting role. If you're the 13th member, does that sit well with you I mean this could get intense so. So, you know, I, I guess what I would say here is that, you know, to you've got to legislate to house to Senate. Then I would look at the same thing reducing the governors by one, but I would also think that they need to have real skin in the game. And I would suggest is that it would be the secretary of administration or her designate. I think it's important to recognize that a senior member of the staff because the appoint somebody from from another from the community and I think there's obviously advantages to that. There's someone that is in contact and working with this and assigned to the governor's staff some, you know, it has enough influence on the process, because ultimately the governor needs to have skin in the game as well. You know, we've talked about that this is, as I said earlier that this is turn that off. This is the I owe you some dinner at so do cheese. Oh, yes. I think that's the rule that the phone goes off. The rule. I owe you that. But, you know, I think that you folks, as I said earlier are the creator and the owner. So I see that, you know, there has to be a lead from the, from the, from the legislature and I would again recommend that the co chairs be one from the house. But you do need the treasurer's office on there and you do need the governor's office on there. And again I think that it has to be has the is is part of the administration because ultimately the administration is going to have to weigh in on this. And I think that frankly the governors all of us represent the taxpayers that's why they elect you. That's why they elect me and that's why they elect the governor. And I do think that this gets to equal members. And I would, I would think that this is a good way to go. And thank you folks for thinking about this I think equity with with the unions is extraordinarily important on this committee. You know when we started our process we met with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks, because we wanted them to be involved in this. And I think that this is the way to go one way or the other getting. And the other thing is the larger it gets the harder it is to do things so. I think this is a balance. So you yours would you're suggesting yours to house to Senate, and specifically the secretary of administration or designate so that there's it isn't just a governor's appointee from, from wherever. Yeah. You're right you're right it does have to be somebody who represents the administration, not just who is appointed by the administration. I think that's a great point, Beth, that they need the governor's office really needs skin in the game. That's a very good suggestion. I, I'm going to be really frank. I think that I worry about 5050 just I worry about, you know, a stalemate vote and I and I worry about that so what do we do if we end up, you know, it just that the an even number is just a concern. And that's all I, I cannot for Senator Rahm I'll call on you. But I cannot for the life of me, think that for legislators would always be of the same mind. Oh, great. Or that six representatives from the VSE and the NEA and the VTA would always be of the same mind. I am not worried about a stalemate vote here because I, I don't think I think everybody is going to be going into this with with the best interests in mind of the participants and the state itself so I Those four House and Senate members. Have you ever seen four House and Senate members that are all of the same mind always. No, no, of course not. No, look at the five of us. Right. So I actually think that's an interesting proposal. And I didn't mean to jump ahead of Senator Rahm, but I, I'm trying to follow the Treasurer's plan. So to to the Secretary of Administration, the Treasurer's Office, and who else, and the six Labor members that we've been turning to VSE a one VTA and three NEA five six seven eight nine 1011. No, no. I'm confused. Well, so you're saying no governor appointees. No, the Secretary of Administration. Right, right. That Secretary of Administration. That's all from the administration. And the governor gets an additional one as well. No. And I don't come up with 12. Well, to house. Yeah. To Senate. Yeah. Secretary of Administration. That's five. Yeah. To VSE a one VTA. Three NEA. That's six. The Treasurer. Or five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Okay. Well, I originally, I think earlier supported your position, Madam Chair. I think I still do. I would 13. Yeah. I would. I, I could go with this or I could go with the Secretary of Administration and another appointee by the governor, but I think that that's. That there's going to be. That the. I am not. I'm not concerned about a stalemate. I am concerned that. That there is going to be. This. The process here is so important. That if there is a feeling that. Any way. That it is stacked against the participants. That there is not going to be the kind of. Energetic buy in. That there needs to be. That there needs to be an inclusion and. And because I think that the. We've made, we will make sure that the two. The four house and Senate people are not the two from each body are not of the same party. I think it's pretty clear that there will probably be. At least two Republicans. On here. And. That that. And so I feel comfortable that in this case, and we're talking about a Republican governor and two Republicans on the committee. I mean, that that's going to be a given, I believe. So. I think that there will be the ability for the governor to have. Some voice in here without necessarily having that vote. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good, I think that's a good general statement, but I. I do think it's true. Senator columnar. Yeah, no, I think you're right, Madam chair. And I appreciate your, your honesty and openness. I think that's exactly right. So the only difference between what you originally. Proposed today. And what the latest suggestion is the specificity of one of the governors. Well, Appointees, if you will, I would have one one voice there. Well, have one voting voice. Yeah. And as part of the administration, but, but in fact, I think it's going to be very clear that there has to be. That the governor will have influence in other ways. All sorts of people have influences in other ways. I mean, right. Right. It will hopefully this group will hear from. A whole range of interests and expertise. I mean, they'll have influence left, right and center. I, I'm okay with best suggestion. Could I, I don't want to sound dense, but I just want to go through the numbers one more time. So I know what we're talking about. Okay. Two from the house, two from the Senate. Secretary of administration. Three from the NEA. Three from the VSEA. No, one from the VSEA, two from the VSEA. Two from VSEA. And the treasure. And one from VTA. Okay. I was combining VSEA and VTA. Okay. Now. Mike, Mike just gave you the death stare. And there's one governor too. No, there's the governor is only represented by the secretary of administration. Is that what we're saying? No, some legislators potentially. Well, it, you know, we don't know who will be appointed by the legislature. So it might, but the governor is going to, for terms of the administration, the governor saw the executive branch secretary of administration. Is it. That's that's suggestion that gives us. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Then I was misunderstanding because I thought when I said your original proposal today, madam chair. Yeah. Two, two, two treasure. Three, two, one. And that the only difference now would be that one of the two from the governor would be in fact, the secretary of administration, but that would still leave one other one. Actually that is, that was my original proposal was two for the governor, but I think that. I think that. Having the secretary of administration there is a pretty powerful voice. And, and I think that that. That voice. It really carries the weight of the executive branch and of the governor. And, and I did listen to. Beth's. Justification for that in that. If this isn't seen as balanced that they're the. Energetic. The energy going into this might be less than we hope for if, if there's a feeling that it's stacked against the participants. I mean, I think that that is a very powerful voice. And, and it is true what Beth says that it's the. Legislature. Really is that it's going to make the decisions here. And that has to own this. And so having four legislators on here. Makes sense to me because. We better be behind whatever. Comes out of this. Here, here. Here, here. I agree. That's, that's a Senator column or why I. You are right. My initial one was two. But I think that. Beth's statement. And I think that. We heard before from the unions that the process here is so. Important. And the, the. The perception that it's. That it's really balanced and. And I, as I said, I, these. Two house and two Senate members. We don't know who they might be. They might be. Right. We don't know who they'll be people who hate unions or they might be. Union members. I mean, not of these unions, but. So we don't know who they'll be. So we don't know where they're going to. Kind of politically line up. So I'm, I'm fine with Beth's suggestion to. Have the one. And I know the governor would like to have two, but I think that the secretary of administration is a very powerful voice. The only other thing, which I put out, but nobody nippled at all. So I'm just going to be. Willing to put it out again, which is to, if, if Brian, if we were to consider that, that we would then make one of. Those three people, a non-voting member, and then you'd have balance on the vote. That's just an idea. So if you had. What? So if you, yeah, so if you had. The secretary of administration and a governor's appointee and the treasurer. One of them. Would be non-voting. And then you'd have nine. What you'd keep. You'd have nine people, nine voices, but only. Only eight votes. You'd have balanced votes. It's just an idea to kind of. Oh, play with this a little bit. I see what you're saying. So that the governor would have. The governor. Basically an alternate on there. Who would be a voice at the table, but not a vote. Right. And then you'd have nine. What you'd keep. You'd have nine people, nine voices, but only. Only eight votes. You'd have balanced votes. It's just an idea to kind of. Oh, play with this a little bit. I see what you're saying so that the governor would have. You know, I see what you're saying. Yeah. And then that keeps. That addresses. Brian's concern or. You know, anyway, it's, and it depends on who you'd want to make. Not have the vote, but I mean, it's just an idea. It was just so that you. Anyway, if you wanted to do that. I think that. I think that, you know, there will be many, many, many voices at the table here. I don't think I agree. I think about it. I'm not sure if I, I'm looking at my screen right now and there are. One, two, three, four. There are 12. People here. And they're really, there are only five votes here, but there are 12 voices at the table. And those voices, I think. Have been very instrumental in helping us to. And so when this committee meets, whether it's 11 members or 12 members, they are going to have other voices at the table. They are going to be talking to. To tons of people out there. I mean, they'd better. If these. Nine people or 12 people think that they're going to solve this on their own. They're crazy. Right. We're going to be talking to all kinds of experts and to Tom and to Chris and to. DFR and to human resources. And they're going to be talking to all those people to try to come to the best. Solution here. So I'm, I'm not concerned about. Adding. When I think about it, I like your suggestion, but I don't think it makes any sense because there will always be many, many more. Just trying to be creative and thinking. Another option. No, I appreciate that. To go to say, you know, to say, you know, Allison, it was my third choice. I actually wrote down on my notes before we went before we came back in. That one option would be to make one of them non-voting. So Anthony. And I do appreciate your attempt. Senator Clarkson to. At least consider my position. And I guess I find myself in the rather familiar position of. Four to one's. Voting here, which is fine. I don't think it'll keep me from voting against the bill, but I do want to make it clear out. I still think. Because I think, Madam chair, you raise a good point. If you take a little bit of your time, I think it's a good time to make a decision. I think that's a good time to make a decision. I think. Because I think, Madam chair, you raise a good point. If you take a look at the four legislators, you could easily say two of them are going to go one way. And two of them are going to go the other way. And so then we've got five labor representatives and possibly seven votes. If you, if you take the two Democrat progressive, whatever. So. You know what I mean? It just. I still feel that the governor should have that extra voice. But as I said, I think it's not going to prevent me from. Not voting for the bill. May I just say, I just, I just have to say. But I don't, I think there's a common purpose, which is a sustainable pensions. A sustainable pension system that benefits our workers. And our state going into the future. I think everybody should have that same goal. So I would hope that was not a political thing. I mean, I think all of us want a sustainable pension system. It's really important. It's important to our, our, our credit rating around the state. I mean, it's important to everything. It's important to our taxpayers. They, you know, it's important to our beneficiaries. I think. You know, and the, we, they piece about who, who's a participant and who isn't, we're all participants. We're all taxpayers. We all support the system. We all care that it's healthy. So I just don't see this as a political, you know, where that there's any sort of position politically actually. And I would hope if there wouldn't be, I would hope that we all would be wanting the same thing. How we get there is going to be, of course, the robust conversation. But I would really hope that. That piece was not political and that we all hopefully want the same thing. I agree, but I wasn't the one that brought up the balance issue. That was brought up by the, by the labor unions. And so I'm trying to respond to that. Well, being fair to the administration as well. That's all. Yeah. Senator rum. So I just want to say, you know, maybe. I think there are very few decisions where if we just said, let's get a room of financial experts together. And they can solve it, you know, and we would be satisfied with the outcome. No offense, Tom. You know, I think there are very few decisions that, that are, that are that nature. We have loaded this task force up with a lot of big questions and a lot of things that are bigger than just is this pension fund sustainable. And frankly, we're not all in the position of being told, you have to work longer in a prison or doing some back breaking work or teaching after you're burnt out, you know, we're not all in that position. Those are other questions that this group is being asked to consider where it really matters to have labor voices saying that are diverse, right? Because they don't all have the same job and they don't all have the same and elementary school teacher is different than a high school teacher, you know, is different than someone who works in agriculture. So, you know, these are really non monolithic perspectives that all need to be at the table for these big questions we're asking. Right. I think they will be. I think you're right. I think that if you really look at this, there are probably. 12 different perspectives on almost any issue that's going to be presented. Because and because I don't know who will like who. Any A will appoint to this or who VSEA will appoint to it. If the VTA will probably appoint somebody who represents the troopers, but the VSEA could appoint somebody from corrections and somebody from. Who doesn't work in such a high stress situation. I mean, you're right. You're right. There will be many different perspectives. Yeah. Well, that's a given. It's 12 different for monitors. So that's a given. Right. Okay, committee. Can I, I'm going to ask other people now to weigh in on. On the. This proposal that was given to us by the. The treasure, which is to house to Senate. The secretary of administration or designee. To VSEA one VTA. Three NEA and the treasure. So can I hear from. People. Who wants to. Jeff, I see you unmuted yourself. Yeah. Thank you. Madam chair and thank you committee. This has been. It's a much improved work and I appreciate the effort. Significantly as to this particular item. I support the treasurer's move here. I think that. We've, we've been calling a center column or pointed out for balance. For years. Before I worked at Vermont NEA, I represented ERISA plans, which are required to have balance. Multi employer plans have balanced by law. And, and you rarely, if ever have. You know, really divided questions. You really, you know, because everybody, as you pointed out, Senator Clarkson, they're trying to, they want to plan this here today as well as tomorrow. And I will point out that it was a teacher member in the late 90s. Who was really sounded the alarm about the underfunding back then. And file a lawsuit. So as a teacher member of the board. Who really pointed out the underfunding issue. And so. That was, you know, that, that was. So I firmly believe that this balance. On this task force is really important to achieve. And I thank the treasurer for the suggestion and I support it. Thank you. Tom. Thank you, Madam chair. I want to thank you, the members of the committee and treasurer appears for really highlighting the importance of balance in this discussion. We would certainly support this proposal as it accomplishes a balance between voting members of the, who are appoint, who are appointees. And I think that's really important. I think that's really important. I think that's really important. I think that's really important for the members of the three affected labor unions and those who are not. We think that's really essential. And I will just say quickly to a point that senator Clarkson had raised earlier. About the possibility of, of, of stalemate and that being a concern. I think that as you said, madam chair. Balanced composition actually perhaps counterintuitively. Lends itself. I think that's really important. I think that all members of the committee would agree that this has to be a productive productive conversation. As opposed to a system that would be set up in such a way where there might be a perception of a lack of balance either way. And I'll just say our members are eager to have those productive conversations. They have experienced having those conversations in a balance set up through their years of experience. In the collective bargaining process. I know members of this committee will have experienced that And we really do think that is the thing that is most likely to yield what Senator Clarkson and other members of the committee had said quite correctly that we and everyone else wants, which is a productive and stable pension system going forward. So we would support such a balanced approach. Thank you. I got a little distracted there by Steve's t-shirt. Oh, is he joined us. Maybe he heard what we were working on. And he went out quickly and had a t-shirt made. Well, he's been vaccinated. He's been all this time, you know, Oh, hey, that's good. Maybe they even that t-shirt to wear. I'm going to have Mike weigh in. This makes it easy for me. I agree with Jeff and Tom and the points they made. The most important thing is that going into this task force and starting this work, the state employees and teachers have confidence in the process that's laid out to get to the endpoint. And the balance you're suggesting accomplishes that so we support it. Beth, we know what you think since it was your proposal to begin. She's maybe had time to rethink it. You still support your own idea. Tom Galanca, do you want to weigh in here? I'll just say I support, I support the treasure and the suffer it. And although VPIC isn't named in this task force, we do stand ready and willing to help in any way we can, you know, through this process. So thank you for your efforts here. Thank you. Now, I will ask one more question about the, this board. So currently in the bill, it says that the members from the legislature shall not be direct or indirect beneficiaries of either of the two retirement systems. Do we, do we continue to support that? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Everybody. Okay. And it also says that the members appointed to that the other members. So that would be the F and H, who are F and H. Oh, the, I have to look who are the the any the members appointed by the unions that those six members shall not currently be currently serving as a legislator, or the spouse or partner of an individual currently serving as a legislator. Yes, I support that too. Senator Polina. Sure. Sure. Senator Ron. It's fine and there's a transition period I think for the person we would affect most personally. Well, this there's no transition here because this is a brand new task force. This is the task force. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry, I went right back to VP. Yeah. Yeah. So it does. Is everybody fine with those? Yes. Okay, great. All right, so shall we. I know that center column are that you disagree with this position but does is everybody else in agreement with the with the treasures proposal. Okay, I think we have it. And we didn't even have to pull out the PJs. I know or our dinner, even. But it is time for a glass of wine. Sure. So, I guess, yeah. I will, I will say that I will get this information to Becky. And if we could just meet for a few minutes on Monday to make to get a clean copy and, and have a vote on it. Can we do that. And what time is best we need to make sure that the five of us and Gail and and Becky won't have to be with us because she'll have a clean copy to us but what time should we try to plan on. What. Senator column are. I know that won't work I said 630 in the morning. Okay, great. I have no problem with that. That is so not. I mean, Are you kidding me. 630 okay publicly I am a nighttime owl. You'll still be up by 630. Well, that's, you know, if we met at 1230 I'd be fine 1238. I'd be fine. I would, I'm, I'm kind of tough on Monday until 1130 or 1145 but I could do any time after that. And I vote for three o'clock it's the one time I wouldn't have to move anything, but I can also move thing. So from like three to four. I doubt we need a whole hour we could say, huh. Hey, some of us work on Monday Sunday to do other. Working at me is that most of us book things on Monday for because it's the one day you have to book all the meetings that you need to do and you're, you know, so. I think it's nine to noon on Monday so afternoon works better for me. So how about Brian if we did it tagged it on to lunch and did it like from one to two, in case you would, it would that be a difficult one for you to move. One to two is probably the hardest one for me to move. Okay. Where about noon. Do it during lunch we could all have lunch together. I'm not exactly expecting an hour either. No, I'm not either noon to two involves work of mind that involves other people other city officials and people that are hard to reschedule around. How about five PM. I've got a meeting at five. I can't do that. How long does your meeting at five last. It will last an hour, or an hour and a half. Or four, four to five I could do. Let's do 430 I doubt if it'll take us more than half an hour. Okay. Does 430 work. Only if it doesn't take more than half an hour. I can, if we can refrain from getting back into the debate on anything. I think that all we need to do is we'll have a clean copy and have a vote. Okay. Okay. Okay. Madam chair. Yes. May I ask a favor? Could you send that to the witnesses as well? No. No. I'm sorry, Beth. We will make sure that it is sent to everybody as soon as it's there is a clean copy. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And that it's also posted. I just want to make sure that in cases like technical, something in and or in order that we take care of it. I absolutely. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. For more debate. Believe me. I'm getting a little punchy here, but. Yes. This bill. This bill was on a journey. Agreed. One stop. There'll be plenty of time for more input. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So. Just in case. We don't have our usual cast of characters with us. On Monday. I just want to. Thank. Everybody for your. Really. Committed and. Flexibility here in working. This is a really hard issue to deal with and it affects so many lives. And, and the. Finances of the state, the, the health of the state. So I think that. Personally, I just want to thank everybody for your involvement here and. Thank you. Tom and Chris and Matthew have been just amazing. And the VTA and the VSEA and the NEA have been. Really helpful and work. I think it's been a good process and. I'm proud of everybody for the work we've done. And committee members for. Hanging in there and for putting up with my. So. I wouldn't call it. Yes. Senator columnar. Thank you, Madam chair. So even though again, I'm in my familiar position. Of the underdog here. Just to show you that there's no arm felt here. And I'm in good spirits. I did look this up. I don't know whether this will help Senator Rom later, but the term half mask is preferred by dictionaries. And I'm in that position. I'm in that position. And I'm in the position that we have staff is more appropriate on land. Right. Thank you. That's great. I thought that confirm a sort of the gut feeling and how about that's great. Thank you, Brian. Your welcome. So. Our eyes. Our eyes are now at half. Half. Okay, so anybody else have anything they need to share right now or want to please know who's cooking dinner.