 You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this morning to continue our work on the pay act and also take a peek at a bill that has come back over from the Senate with a few amendments. That's a technical correction bill that we'll do at the end of this meeting around one o'clock. But I also wanted to take a few minutes at the beginning of this meeting to talk about some current events. The tragic murder of George Floyd has brought a lot of Vermonters together with a renewed push for reforming our ways of policing. And before I give the committee an update on kind of where we're going or where I believe we're going in terms of consideration of the issues that were in 464 and 808, I wanted to give Hal Colston a moment to share some thoughts that he had shared with me a couple of days ago just to tee up this conversation. Go ahead, Hal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been through this rodeo before. I came of age during the 1960s, during the civil rights era, when most of our major cities were on fire every summer due to racism and racial injustice and economic injustice. And over time, I think it's fair to say that hope becomes fleeting about real change. And what gives me hope, some hope, today is the reaction that we've seen all over our country, all over our state, by so many of my white brothers and sisters who are now also understanding the harm that comes from this injustice. So it's now is the moment, I think, for us to do something different. And I'm hoping that we as a legislative body will do our part as we embarked on a use of force bill that I'm really excited about some of the momentum that has been created just in the last few days. And I think you'll hear some more about that from Madam Chair. But what I hope that we can come away from all of this is just a deeper sense of empathy. You know, how do we work out of our hearts and really understand how we're all wounded by this thing called racism? And if we can only become fully human, I think we'd be at a different place. So that is how I see it from my perspective. And I hope as well that you're willing to become vulnerable as we get into these conversations and really look inside and understand how you may play a role in perpetuating this menace that really impacts all of us. So thank you. Thank you, Hal. This has been a very busy weekend of conversations and planning and strategizing, but I want to back up a little bit and just remind committee members that before we broke for COVID, it had been my intention that when the Senate sent over a miscellaneous law enforcement bill that we would then resume our work that we've been doing since January on all of the issues that were proposed in 464 and 808 and leaving all of those issues out on the table and deciding the best way to move forward. When COVID hit and this remote meeting became the only way we could get things done, necessarily there was a little uncertainty in terms of whether we would be able to continue work on those bills just because of the very limited time that we have in committee from 15 hours a week when we are meeting in person to now at the most four hours a week. And so we had set about to have a subcommittee work on some of these issues to try to bring something back for August and I just want to say that now we seem to be getting a lot of support and a lot of traction from both House and Senate leadership in terms of making room for the committees of jurisdiction to have these conversations. And so I want to just let you know that there is very real conversation about the development of a broad modernization reform bill that will cover all law enforcement agencies in Vermont and will sort of run the gamut between from hiring practices and training all the way through policies and tactics, what we do with improper conduct allegations, body cams. It's all on the table at this moment. And so I wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of that to welcome you if you are interested in being part of those conversations that are ongoing right now to reach out to me and I'll be happy to connect you with the folks who are working on these issues. But I wanted to make you all aware and folks who are joining us on YouTube, make folks aware that these conversations are happening. They're happening between House and Senate leadership. They are inclusive of administration folks. So Commissioner Schirling has been a part of these conversations. And so these are ongoing issues that we are embarking on right now with the hopes that we can pass something meaningful before we get to final adjournment this year. Anyone have any questions on what I have just presented for information? Jump right in if you want to say something. Go ahead, Mike. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank Representative Colston for his leadership inside and outside the building on this. For a long time Hal is somebody many of us look up to and look to for leadership and I hear his call for us to walk alongside him. And I hope at some point we can create a picture that I'm remembering right now of President Obama and the First Lady walking across the Pettus Bridge in Alabama with hundreds and hundreds of people walking alongside behind them. It's time now for us to come together. These are human issues. These are not political issues. And it's time for us to join hands or maybe at a distance reach out. But it's time for us to come together over this. And I applaud Representative Colston for his leadership here. I'm with you. And I hope we can all walk together. Thank you. I truly believe that if we are not willing to be actively part of the solution then we are the problem. And so we will continue these conversations and this work even though meeting remotely makes that more challenging. Jim Harrison. Yeah, thank you. And and how I'd like to thank you for your comments and putting things in context. Can you folks hear me OK? I was having trouble with my internet the other day and had to turn off my video. As one who has family in the Atlanta area and visiting last fall, we had the chance opportunity to visit the Martin Luther King National Historic Site. And if anyone ever is in Atlanta, I strongly encourage you to visit. It's. It was not only very enlightening and. Seeing the the segregated South in the history and while I think we've made progress, obviously, perhaps not anywhere near enough progress, but. More to current events and the current. Pretext that the chair put out there, I'm I'm curious as to are you talking about legislative group that's looking to have some discussions on possible changes? Are we looking to see what the governor's racial equity task force comes up with recommendations? If you could help me with some kind of insight as to, you know, what the game plan might be, that would be helpful. Thank you. So there are companion bills to 464 and 808 in the Senate, and I believe that the Senate will move a suite of reforms that that rolls a bunch of those reforms in together, and they will likely also add to that some some reforms that are being worked on right now that'll come out of the administration. And so while the work that I believe we're looking at legislatively is going to be focused on police reform, I'm really hoping that the governor's task force is looking more broadly at at issues across society. We've got some serious concerns in terms of health outcomes and health disparities in COVID-19, as well as pre existing. And so, you know, there's just a broad range of issues that that I'm hoping the task force will look at because they will obviously not be able to begin their work until sometime later this month. So if you're interested in being part of the legislative planning, go right ahead and and contact me after committee and and I'll be happy to connect you with the folks who are who are looking at developing legislation. So I think we're going to shift gears now because our agenda didn't really leave us time for these important announcements. But nonetheless, we needed to to take a few minutes. So thank you and my apologies to the folks who are with us to talk about pay act and I appreciate your patience. I think we would. So I think that we probably should hear from some of the witnesses that we have with us before we get back into the language of the bill. And so I guess I'm going to ask John Gannon, if you have a recommendation on on which of these witnesses we should start with in committee, I would have whispered to you to say, who do you want to go with first? But now here it is right out in the open. Who do you want to go with first? Well, why don't we start with Luke, because I think his testimony be fairly quick and is related to some of the other testimony we're going to hear. Great. Thanks for being with us, Luke. Take it away. Hey, well, thank you, everyone. And good morning. Can everyone hear me OK or am I too loud? Great, thanks. I think my testimony will be quite brief. But as always, please interrupt a few of any questions or comments. Everyone who works for the General Assembly is an exempt employee. And that's set forth in three VSA section three eleven. So in that regard, legislative employees are different from the executive branch, because none of us are within the classified system. And I appreciate you taking time to hear from me today. What I wanted to do is to convey the point of view of myself and the other supervisors in Ledge Council. And we're very aware that this is a time of really deep fiscal and financial uncertainty. But we ask you to keep a couple of things in mind as you deal with the Pay Act and maybe in August or September, deal with related issues. One of our priorities is to no matter how bad it gets to avoid furloughs. And this was done in 2007 and 2008 in the last financial crisis. And it was not positive. So I know that's not something that's on the table right now, but looking into the future would ask you to work very hard to avoid furloughs or cuts to people's existing salaries. At number two, we still need to fill open positions. And this is partly the result of how lean we are in Ledge Council and how over time we've eliminated positions and asked people to take on more duties. So looking into the future, even if the situation remains bad in three or six months, we still need to be able to fill open positions. And number three, the reason why I originally asked to testify this morning is it's really important to include session only staff in the Pay Act. And after last week's testimony, it was unclear to me whether session only staff were included. But after talking to a number of individuals and circling back to JFO, indeed, session only staff are included in the Pay Act number in the current version of the bill. And that's something that was very glad to find out. It's really, really important. Those of you who have been here for a while know how hard we've worked over multiple bienniums to increase everyone's salaries to a fair level, but also to increase session only staff and make sure that they're paid adequately. And I think we're finally at that point, which is why I wanted to make sure that they still can have access to a appropriate pay raise. I wanted to also convey my thoughts and the thoughts of other supervisors, how important raises are even in very, very tough financial times. And I think you know how hard the folks in Ledge Council, everybody works and in the other offices. But I don't think it's just a matter of working hard. I think we or at least I hope we do very, very high quality work. And as I referenced a few moments ago, we've eliminated full time positions over the years. We streamlined duties. Almost everyone in Ledge Council does more than we used to do five years ago. I hope also do it more efficiently. And all of us multitask and wear more than one hat or fill more than one obligation. And so in that context, where we're comparatively lean, where we've really invested in being more efficient, I think even in tough times, it's really important to give people appropriate raises. And so I was very, very glad that you are considering that. I hope you continue that and we deeply, deeply appreciate it. Does anyone have any questions? I don't see any. And that's all my testimony. And thank you very much for making time. Oh, hold on. I've got a couple of questions popping up. OK. You didn't get away quite that quickly. Jim Harrison and then Mike Marwicky. Sure. Yeah, thank you, Luke, for joining us. It did sound like you were trying to do a quick escape as the chair kind of alluded. You know, we'll be going through the bill in details, but can you share with me what the current draft does or doesn't do in terms of legislative counsel? I mean, I see an appropriation, but the positions and raises or lack of raises for year one, year two, can you help enlighten us? Well, I think Betsy Ann can follow up and probably give you more information. And Betsy Ann, if I say anything wrong, please jump in. There's nothing specific in the bill, at least the version I last read that says so-and-so will get this or this job title will get that. But it does have a dollar amount. And my understanding is that that dollar amount is was calculated under the following understanding, which is that all year round legislative employees with two exceptions would receive a $1,400 lump sum and then a 1.9% pay raise. That's all year round folks. Section only folks calculated they would also get the 1.9%, but not the lump sum. So that went into the dollar amount in the bill, but there's no further detail in the bill about how that would be allocated. Each office would get a sum based on that calculation that those offices would would give those raises to their staff. OK, thank you. That's helpful. I, you know, I don't know where we'll end up on that. I mean, I certainly for one, and I'm sure I speak for others that the entire Ledge Council staff and more specifically the folks that work with our committee, I think are held in very, very high esteem and work very, very hard to to to do their job and service the needs of the state. So but I also understand the predicament that we're in today, too. So OK, that's helpful. Thank you, Luke. Thank you. Mike Berwicky. Sure. Luke, thank you so much for for coming in and thank you. Uh, please pass along to your staff. The the our thanks for for the work they do. I've said it before, we couldn't open our doors without you and the staff and let alone write legislation. And I think we've done some good things over the last few years in terms of the legislature looking ahead by socking away some money in the rainy day fund. Uh, in that regard, we're we're doing OK. And we'll we have some options looking ahead. I would agree with you. Long term, if we want to keep good staff, we have to take care of them. And we we would do well to to hear your advice and not just take care of them to make sure they they get the kind of raises that'll keep good lawyers here. And I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again, I'm losing a district mate right now because he just can't afford to get by on on what he makes here. And we don't want good lawyers to be lost because they are the essence of us being able to the draft bills that that help the people of Vermont. So I'm I'm with you and I'm looking forward to working with you moving ahead. Thank you, Bob Hooper. Sorry, I thought Mike would be more long winded. So I'm eating a chocolate covered raisin. Um, my prior discussion with you not was tending, Luke, do you think that when the $1,400 was given consideration for that, non for the session staff, were we looking at the length of time that those staff are going to be enjoying hanging out in the state house now, as opposed to the normal term that we would have them if we weren't dealing with the virus? I'm sorry, I don't think I quite understand your question. And just to be clear, that $1,400 and 1.9 percent is based on what executive branch classified individuals are getting. So that's where it comes from. But I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question otherwise. Well, non session staff are getting the one point nine. But not the 14. And I wondered why, you know, that was sort of based because effectively, except for a couple of months now, session staff are almost annual employees as opposed to part of the year. So the way it would work is, as I said earlier, the big lump sum that's in the bill, the big dollar amount for the offices divided up. So I don't know how much in the end of the day, let's counsel would get, but let's just make up a number off the top of our heads. Let's say it's two hundred thousand or a hundred thousand. The supervisors and let's counsel would then meet and we would divide that up. For example, for session only staff, which includes committee assistants, but also drafting operations in some other positions, they wouldn't necessarily get 1.9 percent because we've a pay plan where we've been trying to increase salaries over time. And some folks start at $18 an hour, some are now up to $23 an hour. So we might not get everyone 1.9. We might give some of the lower paid people a little more. And as another example, there's three attorneys who joined our staff who are excellent, but are relatively junior, so they're paid less. So we might give them a little more than 1.9 percent where someone who's paid substantially higher might get a little less. So not everyone gets $1,400 and or 1.9 percent. We try to be as fair as we possible. We divide up that lump sum amount to to give people a little more if they warrant it. Thank you. Any other questions? Mike, I think your hand is up from before. But if you want to jump in with another question, go ahead. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Luke, for being with us this morning. So, John, who do you want to hear from next? Um, I think Beth Festigy, with respect to the Twin State Paid Family Leave Program, and it's OK. So the collective bargaining agreement had anticipated the creation of a Twin State Paid Family Leave Program. And we would love to hear the administration's thoughts on how to proceed, given that that program is not likely to come into being until when? Fiscal, the beginning of fiscal year 2022. So right now we're projected. So one of the things that we're very supportive is a Paid Family Leave for our employees. And we, you know, we, our goal was to offer that program as soon as possible. We definitely got way laid by that by COVID. And so our right. So the bid for the vendor is on it's suspended right now. So hopefully, you know, some time within the coming months, we'll be able to reopen that bid and get some bids from vendors who had told us basically once they started, once they started, once COVID happened, that they were not, they would be unable to put the effort into putting a proposal together. So once, once that's, once that's, you know, we feel like that vendors could be able to provide us with bids, we will be able to reopen that process with a goal of implementing hopefully July 2022. So therefore, we didn't feel like we needed any additional money in pay for 21 to cover that cost. And the language is so the intention, of course, is for us to implement as possible as soon as possible, but the union contract doesn't actually say the date of implementation. So the goal is to get that done as soon as we can. Jim Harrison. Beth, thank you for joining us again. I'm still confused on the Paid Family Leave plan. I thought I heard in some of the press reports that if the Paid Family Leave program did not get instituted, for some reason or another, that there would be an additional quarter of a percent increase in pay for state employees. Did I mishear that? I'm 0.025, right, Gary is there. Gary Holden is there that it's 0.025. It's not 0.25 percent. It's a very small amount. And I think the thinking on that was, once we implement the plan and the plan goes away, the plan would go away because then the legislature may have created a plan after us that kind of superseded the plan. So we want to make sure that the employees had money to make up for what was kind of the plan that we had provided and then would subsequently take it away. So that money would help fund kind of a mandatory plan that the legislature might come up with. So that was the thinking behind it. And then so that that was kind of a replacement for what we're providing and then subsequently removed. Okay. Well, that's helpful. I guess I would like to get clarified what that percent is. Yeah, let me just double check. I mean, the 0.25 is correct. It says that I'm sorry. It's 0.25 percent, right? And Gary maybe not to say. So it's one quarter of 1 percent. So it's 0.25 percent. You're correct. It's 0.25 percent. So one quarter of 1 percent. Okay. Thank you. So given that it's a quarter of 1 percent in the paid the family leave program is being delayed. Is that also kicked in to the increases today? No. When does it kick in? It doesn't kick in because we're going to implement the family leave program. No, I understand that, but you haven't. There's no date certain in the contract of when we're going to do that. We need to do that within the contract period, but it wasn't there was no language before we implemented. Okay. So prior to implementation and once there's no particular contract date for that. Okay. So if I understand the contract agreement today. The $1400 per employees is on average 2.2 percent of a average state employee salary. I think is what I heard. The average overall step increase. I understand some get it. Some get more, et cetera is 1.9 percent. So that's the total of again averages and averages can be misleading. That's a total increase this coming year of 4.1 percent. Now what you're saying is the paid family leave is another quarter of a point. So now we're up to 4.35 percent overall. Are there any other benefits that were added that would increase or decrease that final number? There are non-salary pay act items that are generally always included in the collective bargaining agreements that continue typically from agreement to agreement. And those are usually considered in a separate portion of pay act not under the wage portion as the pay family leave is also not under the wage portion of the act. It's not considered part of it. It's kind of in the non-salary pay act component and how we budget it. That makes any sense. So it's things like tuition reimbursement, which would be similar program that we have the prior years in health care, I mean in child care and elder care reimbursement funds. There are those other components that are considered kind of non-salary and benefits that employees get, but we do put those in pay act every year. Are they different benefits than what we have existing? No. Okay. Thank you. John Gannon. Thank you. So Beth, a couple of questions. First of all, this twin-state program is the program that Governor Scott announced with Governor Sununu. Is that right? Yes. And it's currently the governor's plan. I don't think that we're really in a line with what New Hampshire is doing anymore. And the bid that we put out was just a Vermont state. It was just a Vermont state governor's pay family leave program. It's not a twin-state family leave program. Okay. So the twin-state now is sort of a misnomer. Okay. Got it. So if the paid family leave plan doesn't need to be enacted today under the collective bargaining agreement, when does it need to be? Our contention would be certainly sometime within the two-year cycle. The collective bargaining agreement starts in May, but there was no date certain on when that would be able to be started up. So, but that confuses me a bit. So, okay, if we move into FY22 and the program is not implemented until June 30th, would that mean you're within the collective bargaining agreement? Yeah, I think we'd have. Even though no one's going to benefit? I would think so. I mean, that's not our intention. The intention is to get the program up there running as soon as we possibly can and provide that to our employees as soon as we can. Okay. Because, I mean, if it was implemented like on June 30th or at the very end of the fiscal year, no one's really receiving a benefit during the collective bargaining period. But, I mean, sensibly, I mean, we try to keep benefits consistent and we would want to keep it going forward. And in that point, if we implemented it and then withdrew it at that point, then that raise would kick in. It would kick in even in June. I'm sure that that's what we negotiate going for the next contract. I mean, everything is renegotiable, but typically, you know, we, you know, you know, healthcare, we expect that every year we're going to negotiate, renegotiate our healthcare plans and sometimes we make changes and sometimes we don't. You know, and it's always a time in the year where we, a time when we see like, are there changes that need to be made? And that's all a part of the collective bargaining process. So it's, you know, obviously it's a long process and it takes time. I think the point is right now we're at, you know, we have this agreement with the VSEA that we came to in the fall. And we're very proud that we actually were able to come to an agreement at the table. It's the first time and on to, you know, this is the third, if we, if we didn't come to an agreement at the table, it would have been the third time that it went to the last pass to offer into the labor board. So we're really pleased that we're there. And now, you know, I think now we're at the point where it's the legislature's turn to provide or not provide the funding for to implement, to implement the collective bargaining agreement. So. And you recommend that we implement the collective bargaining agreement? Yes. And certainly we're the VSEA and the state discuss particulars of the collective bargaining agreement all the time. And there's, we don't always agree perfectly on everything and what the language means, but we have processes to work on that. And I'm confident that we will work through whatever process needs to be on this. It's a very in the grand scheme of things. It's not a small, you know, the paid family leave is a small amount. In the overall pay act. And, and it's, you know, if it's there's funding for it, that's okay. If there's not, we'll figure out a way to fund it. Okay. Well, thank you for that. But I just, I just want to clarify, you know, for the overall collective bargaining agreement, you know, putting it, putting the pay family leave component aside for a moment. The administration fully supports the legislature fully funding. The collective bargaining agreement. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Committee members. So John, who would you like to hear from next? Either Steve or Gary, you know, for on the paid family leave issue, just to make sure we get the full understanding of what everybody believes the collective bargaining agreements. Steve. Morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Steve Howard, I'm the executive director of the VSEA. First, I'd like to start by saying we are continuing to be so happy to hear the commissioner say that Governor Scott supports the full funding of the pay act and supports the passage of the pay act. We worked really hard to get an ideal at the table and we're very happy to be both supporting the full funding of the pay act. So our view is that, first of all, I would say that the proposal on family leave that's in the collective bargaining agreement was the proposal of the administration. And we accepted that proposal and we support that proposal. The view of the VSEA is that the quarter of a percent does have to be included in the pay act because you could just interpret a couple of ways in the sense that there's no timeline in the contract. One could argue that on July 1, the administration is obligated to have this plan up and running and the benefit available or provide the quarter of a percent that they proposed. The other argument is that they have until June 30 of the second year to get this done before they have to provide the quarter of a percent that was proposed. And I think the resolution of that question really is between the two parties. But the issue for the legislature and the pay act is does that quarter of a percent have to be authorized? And the VSEA's view is yes, it does have to be authorized. Questions committee? Jim Harrison. Steve, thank you for joining us. So I guess I'm a little confused and I appreciate your outlying two possible interpretations of the paid family leave program. Is that quarter of one percent included in our pay act draft bill at this point in terms of the appropriation in your view? I think I'm going to call a friend and look to Betsy Ann for that to answer that question. I did have a discussion with Betsy Ann and I think we talked about from VSEA's perspective that it had to be included. I don't know if in fact it was included. I'd have to ask her. Hello, Betsy Ann Rass legislative council and I am going to need confirmation from JFO since I get the numbers directly from JFO. However, it's my understanding. I don't know if I'm correct that the 0.25 percent is not included in FY 21, but is included in FY 22. However, I'm not completely certain and we really should hear from JFO directly on this. Okay. Thank you. Steve, I don't know if you were at our last meeting on this subject. But I raised the question and maybe it's just me, but I'm really, really concerned about our current economic situation and I raised the question whether or not we might consider postponing the implementation of the pay act until August and voting on it in August and then actually making it retroactive to July 1, assuming our revenue picture is better or we're getting federal CARES Act. And I'm curious if you and the union have a view on that possible scenario, which again may be just me, but I want to ask that question. So the view of I think we actually did talk about this at the previous meeting and I'll try to give you the same answer that I gave that, which is that the VSEA believes that the pay act is necessary legislation that needs to pass before July 1 when the new contract goes into effect. So I take it then you do not support delaying the consideration of the pay act until August when we have a better idea of revenue? Well, we believe that it's necessary because the current contract expires on June 30th. We believe it's necessary for the new contract to the pay act that corresponds with that contract that the pay act has to be passed by July 1st. And if the revenues aren't there to support the pay act, which they aren't in current forecast, even our latest numbers this morning, which were better than they were a month ago, still show a deficit of, I don't know, 320 million or more for the coming year. I guess the alternative would be to furlough employees, which probably none of us want to see. So do you see any other possible outcomes? Well, I think any time once a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, the discussion of that agreement really is between the two parties. So it would be incumbent upon the governor to make decisions that would, that his administration feels are in the interest of the state. And VSEA has always been open and willing to hear any suggestions the administration has. I will remind, well, I think I would leave it at that and just say that if the administration has, once the contract is in place and the pay act is passed, it really is an issue between the two parties. So are you suggesting the union, if our situation is dire as it may appear today, a little bit later this year, second quarter and the first quarter, that you might be open to a conversation to look at the contract again? Is that what you're saying? I don't think I'm quite saying that. I'm saying that the VSEA is always willing to hear what the administration would like to offer. Okay, thank you. Questions from committee members? Right, Steve, anything else you want to add? No, I think that's it, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, could I clarify just one thing? I was hoping you would, thank you. Okay, so not to create controversy between our commissioner and my executive director, however, the negotiated agreement, and I did negotiate that as the chief negotiator for the VSEA, does intend that if the insurance were not implemented prior to the second year of the collective bargaining agreement, that the 0.25% increase would be put into place. Representative Gannon was going down the correct path, I think it is questioning, that if there's not a point where either the insurance or the corresponding compensation kicks in, then it's really not an agreement at all. So that is correct, that the governor has an opportunity to implement this family medical leave insurance plan, and if it is not implemented or implemented and discontinued, that state employees would receive the extra one quarter of one percent increase. And the discussion and the agreement at the time was that in the second year, if it is not implemented or at any time in the first year, if the governor were to abandon seeking to have the insurance implemented, then the VSEA would request that the 0.25% be activated. So at a minimum, if the plan is not implemented prior to the second year of the collective bargaining agreement, that VSEA would move to make sure that that quarter of a percent were included in the second year pay raise. Thank you. Rob LeClaire, who do you have a question for? Gary Holdley, please. Good morning, Gary. So I just want to make sure I'm clear what I heard you say is that if the pay family leave wasn't implemented by year two, then the quarter of a percent pay increase would be expected to be implemented then. Is there anything retroactive about that? Or it would just all sort of begin and end in year two? About the agreement is that it would be implemented in the first full pay period following the decision to implement that quarter of a percent. So if the governor currently had abandoned efforts to implement this family leave insurance plan, we likely would be moving at the beginning of July, this year to implement the quarter of a percent. Our understanding is that that plan implementation is still in process. However, if the plan is not implemented throughout at some point during this next fiscal year or the governor is does not intend any further to implement the plan, we would be requesting to enact that quarter of a percent. But it would be in the first full pay period following our notice to to the state. It's not so answering it wouldn't be retroactive to any point in my opinion. It would not. It would not. Okay. Thank you. It would be going forward not. Very good. Okay. Thank you. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam Chair. General question maybe Betsy Ann. The pay act and it's prompted by Representative Harrison's question for delay. The pay act sets certain salary ranges for and funds certain things. But if July one is when it goes into effect and as in Representative Harrison's situation, we don't fund it until August or something. The state is not authorized until the pay act is passed to pay salaries in that gap. Or is this an authorization bill as well as specific to funds is my question. Yes, both authorization and funding. So right now it's set up to provide increases beginning at the fiscal one fiscal 21 beginning of the fiscal fiscal year 21, which is July one of this year. If General Assembly were to not enact it by July 1 of this year, then there is the language in a separate statute that provides that if the General Assembly does not fully fund the collective bargaining agreements, the state and the bargaining unit need to go back to renegotiate the amount based on whatever the General Assembly does provide. And also the pay act provides increases for statutory salaries. And so those statutory salaries would remain as is under current law until the General Assembly did enact a pay act to provide any of those increases. Thank you. Does that address your question? Yeah, more than I required. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members? Okay, I see Rob's got his hand up, but I think that was from before. So dive in Rob if you need to ask another question. I think at this point we need to go back to the language and have Betsy Ann go through that with us. And I believe that you have an updated draft of the bill. John Gannon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Stephanie Barrett's on now. So we might want to hear from her about whether the paid family leave, well the 0.25% is included in FY22. Ah, excellent. Thank you, Stephanie. Sure. My understanding is that the calculations that Dan ran in the last estimates that he gave to Betsy for the legislative appropriation in 2022 does include the 0.25% in FY22. That was one of the last pieces on the back and forth between he and Harold to come to closer estimates, and that was one of the missing pieces. In terms of the cost, whether it's through the leave program or the 0.25, but it's a cost estimate for FY22. Thank you. Betsy Ann. And just while we have Stephanie, to confirm my understanding from talking with Steve, it's to all branches, not just the legislative branch. Yeah, it was calculated in the judiciary also revised and included it in their revised calculation. And I understand it was always in Harold's calculation for the executive branch. Stephanie. All right, Jim Harrison has a question. Yeah, Stephanie, I noticed that the numbers in the first quarter appropriations bill were a little different than what's in this current draft. Does this bill, if it's the last one passed, is that the one that we utilize, or is there some other thing going on that the numbers would be different? No, there should be only one in the end to be clear. There should be only one appropriation. The appropriation for FY21 should be the most recent estimates. The reason they're different in the quarter one bill as it's passed this morning out of the house is those were our early estimates last week. And so the purpose of actually having that section in the quarter one bill was to create a place. It's not uncommon for the pay act to end up incorporated into the budget bill in the end. And so it was basically it's an appropriations bill, a large chunk of the pay act expenses early in that first quarter. And so the decision was to put only the FY21 appropriation in that bill. But the expectation is either it will be corrected in the Senate or replaced in a Senate, depending on what the decision is about the pay act bill itself. The sort of simple thinking was in the past pay act has been sort of folded in on occasion into the budget bill and timing, etc. It was just creating a placeholder for that if necessary in the quarter one bill. But the expectation is that the best estimates and what is in the draft right now, the pay act bill before you for FY21 appropriations are the correct appropriations and we only in the end want one appropriation in one place for FY21. And we created a little bit of a duality here, but the expectation is we come back to just one place somewhere. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Thank you. All right, John Gannon. Thank you. Another question for Stephanie. When you testified last week, Stephanie, I think there was some disagreement between you and Harold about legislative, the legislative appropriation. Has that been resolved? That has been resolved. And the last piece that be resolved was that 0.25%. Great. Thank you. All right, Rob Leclerc. Sorry, Madam Chair, I think I left my hand up from last time. I apologize. Your arm must be really tired. You should probably put that down. All right. Any other questions for Stephanie while we have her here? All right, nobody is diving for their button. So Betsy Yan, back to the language. All right. Thanks, Madam Chair. Committee members should be able to see draft 3.2 on your committee webpage. Thanks to Andrea for posting that. If you just want to work, Madam Chair, do you want everyone to just follow along on their own doc rather than doing share screen? Committee, are we okay with following along on a separate device? And if anybody needs it to be projected, you can just wave your hand and I will ask Betsy Yan to share screen, but otherwise go to the committee page and find the document under today's date. Thank you. Great. So only a couple of tweaks from the last version that you reviewed. The first tweak is just that I revised the statement of purpose on the first page of the bill just to better describe more fully what the bill is doing. So this is just a high level summary of the pay act draft. So if you just want to review it together, this is a summary of what this pay act bill would do. Fully fund the collective bargaining agreements applicable to state employees in the executive and judicial branches in both fiscal years 21 and 22. Secondly, authorize compensation increases for exempt employees in the executive branch in FY22, consistent with the FY22 collective bargaining agreement increases. Number three, adjust the compensation for our statutory state and county officers in FY22, consistent with the FY22 CBA increases. Four, what was not included in the description before, but importantly amend the legislative pay statute so that beginning in fiscal year 22, legislative compensation is adjusted consistent with the compensation increases provided to other constitutional officers. Remember the issue there being is that legislators right now are only entitled to the COLA, not the step increase like the other constitutional officers are. And then finally provide the appropriations to fund all the compensation increases for all three branches. So that was a revision to the statement of purpose was the first tweak. Madam Chair, do you want a high level jog through as I go through the whole thing or do you just want me to point out the other little tweaks? Let's do a high level jog through. All right. So just as a reminder, section one is a narrative description section to state explicitly that by this pay act, the General Assembly is fully funding the collective bargaining agreements applicable to between the state and the VSEA and the state and the Troopers Association for the two year fiscal year period. And as a reminder, right here on the first page or the second page, it's that those increases provide an FY21, an average 1.9% step increase and the $1400 one time payment to employees who are employed as of July one of this year. And then an FY22, an average 1.9% step increase and a 2.25% across the board increase. And that results in a total 4.15% increase. Section two is the second tweak. And that's that language that you had requested to put in here in explicit terms that although this pay act is providing increases to employees not covered by CBA in fiscal year 22, the General Assembly might have to revisit those increases because of the fiscal issues that the state is facing in response to COVID-19. So under this reader assistance heading of other compensation increases in fiscal year 22 to distinguish it from the CBA increases, this section two would address the potential to reduce or eliminate other compensation increases in fiscal year 22. It says that the General Assembly may amend the provisions of this act in subsequent legislation in order to reduce or eliminate the compensation increases this act would provide an FY22 to employees exempt from the classified service who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and to officers for whom compensation is provided in statute if necessary to address the fiscal needs of the state in response to COVID-19. Does that committee meet your intent of the language you were seeking? I feel comfortable with that. I'm willing to take a pause here to see if anybody else wants to weigh in on that language but to me it does send a very clear signal and an intention to check back and make sure that we aren't just putting this on autopilot. Not that I think there's any chance that anything related to the budget will be on autopilot for the next legislative year so but I appreciate that and I don't see any hands raised so I think we can keep moving. Okay so you won't see another tweak until the appropriation section at the end and it was just revisiting of those numbers as Stephanie had discussed going back over the final appropriations but that's not until the end so now we're just going to revisit the provisions that we already looked at so I'll do more of a high level overview. Section three is allowing exempt employees in the executive branch to get compensation increases in FY22 consistent with the FY22 collective bargaining agreement and that's 4.15%. Section four is that definition section about what it means in a couple of statutes that use the total rate of adjustment available to classified employees under the collective bargaining agreement. This definition applies to executive assistance and exempt agency and department heads and deputies and so this is defining what that term means and you'll see it's just saying that those exempts are able to get an FY22 a 4.15% increase which is consistent with the FY22 CBA increases. Section five is just in here as technical corrections to clean up to the language it's also provided for reference because it's one of the statutes that are that has that phrase that's defined in section four that 32VSA 1020B all that is happening here though is just cleaning up the statute to make it fit our statutory structure. No change the language no to the substance of the language and once we get down to section six of the bottom of page five this section six in subsection A amends the annual salaries of our statewide officers and that's providing them with an increase in FY22 a 4.15% which is consistent with the CBA and FY22. Once we start to get down to page seven this is amending the statutes that provides the base salaries of the heads of our departments and agencies in the executive branch and again is just providing an increase to that base salary in FY22 the 4.15% increase which is consistent with the CBA and FY22. Jim Harrison has a question. Yeah sorry I didn't know if we should ask questions by section or if we should wait to the end. Go ahead and jump in by section. Well so as we're going through all the individual salary changes for the second year I guess Betsy Ann maybe we talked about it before but is there anything that says that we can't take that entire section out and potentially talk about it next year? I mean this is all for fiscal year 22 correct? That's right and that's what's that new language in section two was meant to address that the general assembly may revisit those compensation increases in FY22 on page two it includes the increases that this act would provide to officers for whom compensation is provided in statute. Okay so maybe I missed that then so this would put all those increases into effect if we did nothing they would all take place. As opposed to not putting them in and force ourselves to look at it just a different approach. Different approach policy decision of the approach you want to take because for example if you look at our let's look at our statewide officers here on page six it says annual salary as of July 4 2021 so those salaries that increase in salary will not take effect until July 4 2021 July 4 is the beginning of the FY22 period so you could leave it in and if you want to reconsider or reduce or eliminate if this bill were enacted as is general assembly could always come back at the beginning of the next year and amend or eliminate these increases that's what this bill is currently structured to do or you have the second option which is what you just mentioned Rep Harrison is to remove this and then revisit the issue at a later date. Yeah except that taken away after we've already put it in statute might be hard politically. I've been called in the press as a supporter of the governor he might not support me too well if I was part to cut his pay so just something to be aware of thank you. I'm going to keep going through here thank you. So we already looked at those base salaries beginning in FY22. Down I'm on bottom of page nine there's a reference to the director of OPR and likewise the director of OPR would get an increase in FY22 to the base salary consistent with the FY22 CBA. Page 10 in section 7 we get into the judicial branch and providing judicial officers with a pay increase in FY22 consistent with the FY22 CBA so you'll see section 7 amends the annual salaries of judicial officers. Section 8 on page 11 amends the daily pay of assistant judges and again that's an increase in that daily pay beginning in FY22 of a 4.15 percent increase which is consistent with the FY22 CBA. Same thing that's going on on page 12 in section 9 amending the annual salaries of the probate judges beginning in FY22 with a 4.15 percent FY22 increase provided in the CBA. Page 13 and section 10 makes those same in compensation increases for sheriffs in FY22 4.15 percent in FY22. Same thing that's going on in page 14 in section 11 for the state's attorneys the actual elected state's attorneys of each county amending their annual salary beginning in FY22 by 4.15 percent consistent with this FY22 CBA. Then on page 15 starting in section 12 we get to the amendment to the legislative statutory salaries. It provides first what your salaries legislative salaries will actually look like in at the beginning of that 2021 biennium and that's with no increases to what legislators receive now it's just updating the statutory figures because you see right now it's referring to what the salary was in 2005. It hasn't been amended since 2005 because right now in the language on page 15 starting in line 19 it shows that legislators get an annual compensation increase that's adjusted consistent with the cost of living adjustment negotiated for state employees under the most recent collective bargaining agreement. Cost of living adjustment only not the step increase that other constitutional officers are also able to get and to remind in this year's collective bargaining agreement there is not a cost of living adjustment in FY21 in lieu thereof there's the $1,400 lump sum payment so legislators are not receiving a compensation increase. What this language would do starting on page 15 is to provide what your what legislative statutory salaries will be at the beginning of the 21 biennium without increase from today but providing that beginning on July 1 2021 which is the beginning of the FY22 fiscal year and annually thereafter on January 1 the annual legislator compensation shall be adjusted consistent with the compensation increases provided to other constitutional officers so if other constitutional officers do indeed get what their what this bill would provide right now which is the 4.15% increase beginning in FY22 which includes COLA and a step increase then that's also what legislators will receive in FY22. It's doing so because there's two legislative statutes there's one for the speaker and pro tem that's what is getting amended here on pages 15 and 16 you see they get an annual salary and a weekly salary and then other legislators compensation is provided in page 17 and section 13 and the same things going on here showing what other legislators weekly salary will be actually at the beginning of the 2021 biennium and that's what you're getting paid now without any increases but provided that I'm on page 17 line 7 beginning on July 1 2021 beginning of FY22 fiscal year and annually thereafter on January 1 the weekly compensation shall be adjusted consistent with the compensation increases provided to other constitutional officers same effect so this means if this what bill goes into law as is legislators would receive in fiscal year 22 the 4.15% increase which is both COLA and step equivalent. At the bottom of page 17 we get into the appropriations section so the appropriations to actually fund these increases and the collective bargaining agreements starts out by defining the or providing the appropriations for the executive branch on line 20 of page 17 it says that the two-year agreements between the state and the VSEA for their bargaining units which is the defender general non-management supervisory and corrections bargaining units and for the purpose of appropriation the state's attorney's offices bargaining unit since they're not technically executive branch employees but they're included in the executive branch appropriation for the two-year period of the CBA that's July 1 2020 through June 30th 2022 and for the collective bargaining agreement with the troopers association for that same time period and salary increases for employees in the executive branch not covered by the bargaining units here's how they get funded in FY21 it starts out by providing the amounts that are coming from the general fund the 11.2 million from the transportation fund the 3.8 million from other funds where they those might be special fund federal or other sources it's a 14 million on page 19 line three there's that transfer authority that is included with every pay act and then it gets into the FY22 appropriations so same language the amount from the general fund is 13.6 the T fund 4.7 and other funds are 15.8 page 20 line nine is just discussing explicitly that the appropriations would need to include sufficient funding for exempt pay plans that are authorized under statute and that's referring back to that 1020c that's included in the bill for reference then the bill gets into the appropriations for the judicial branch starts out with some intro language about the chief justice of the supreme court being able to extend the judiciary CBA to judiciary employees who are not covered by it um and then provides language um about the funding so to fund the two-year agreement between the state and the BSEA for the judicial bargaining unit for that two-year period and for salary increases for employees in the judicial branch not covered by CBA in FY21 there's 872,330 from the general fund and FY22 1.293 from the general fund to the judiciary so judiciary has employees covered by CBA and then they also have their judicial officers people whose salaries provided by statute and then they do have some non CBA employees and I think I believe the court administrator has provided information on that to the committee then finally in the legislative branch there's just language for the two fiscal years fiscal year from the general fund fiscal year 21,241,000 fiscal year 22,434,000 and fiscal year 21 as we I've I understand it as the the testimony has been provided this committee this would cover this would provide pay increases to year-round legislative staff except for the top two right now at this point consistent with the FY21 CBA that's the 1.9% increase plus the $1,400 lump sum and as I understand it this FY21 appropriation would also cover the 1.9% increase for our seasonal employees but those employees would not be able to get the lump sum in 21 and FY22 that 434,000 is providing to all legislative employees and legislators increases consistent with the FY22 CBA so that's the 4.15% increase finally section 15 is the effective dates saying that this takes effect on July 1, 2020 except that the two legislative pay statutes would take effect on January 1, 2021 so it shows January 1, 2021 what the actual legislative pay is now without increase but remember within the actual text of those statutes it says legislators would be able to get the compensation increase at the beginning of the FY22 fiscal year. Thank you, Bob Hooper has a question. The question and a statement first it still bothers me that we have certain people working for us in the legislative branch that are temps and get no sick leave no vacation no retirement and then the question in the provision for the Supreme Court to extend the benefits to non-bargaining unit and non-statutory where does that money come from since it doesn't seem to be allocated anywhere. It is coming from the general fund and the Chief Justice would have to work within the funds that the General Assembly is appropriating to the judicial branch here in this pay act. So some increases would be mitigated by other ones that aren't funded so they wouldn't go over their allocation. I don't know if I'm completely understanding the question so the judicial branch would get this appropriation from the general fund for both fiscal years it would need to cover their collective bargaining agreement employees and then I don't know if the court administrator provided specifics on how the court plans to or to whom compensation increases other than CBA employees who would get them in fiscal year 21. I'll see if maybe there's any language that we have here that I can turn to if you have questions about who gets increases Representative Hooper. Well it just seemed like all of a sudden somebody was granted the authority to spend more money than they had been allocated in the language that seemed here you're right it's not broken down as far as the appropriation so I'll withdraw the question and stick with the statement. I think the the main answer to your general question is the the Chief Justice can only work within the appropriations granted to the judicial branch here to be able to fund these increases. John Gannon has a question. And I think this question is directed to Betsy Ann and if it's not to Betsy Ann then it's to probably Steve Howard is it's my understanding that the state's attorneys and sheriff's haven't ratified their collective bargaining agreement yet. I think that's a testimony I heard last week. Does that matter as far as passing the pay act or Betsy Ann I'm not sure who so I mean I can well I can say that they may have not ratified their contract yet. I don't I don't think it really should impact the pay act. I'm trying to think I'm not sure it's unprecedented that contracts there are that that appropriations are authorization to pay act. I'm not sure it's unprecedented that contracts haven't been ratified for instance I'm not sure the VTA's contract is ratified yet. And I read the language I understand the legislative intent of the intro in section 14a to say that it's the two-year agreements between the state and the VSEA for the state's attorneys offices bargaining unit is what's getting funded and so that's expecting that there will be a contract and if so this appropriation would fund that contract. So just another question with respect to to the legislator pay increase it's tied to the constitutional officers pay increase. If the secretary administration decides that the governor won't take that pay increase that's not going to change the legislator's ability to get a pay increase. Is that true? That's I would believe I believe that to be true. If we go look at the language provided to our other constitutional officers you can see this is section six which begins on page five line 17. It's that each elective officer of the executive department is entitled to an annual salary as follows so the governor is entitled to get that a 191,754 at the beginning of fiscal year 21 so that's the compensation increase that's provided to the governor there but if the governor does not want to accept or any governor doesn't want to accept that full salary that's within the discretion of that officer it's still the general assembly is providing that compensation increase authority to that constitutional officer so I don't I don't read that in the legislative pay statutes. Actually it was a I forget how many years ago but house appropriations I wanted to ensure that all of the pay statutes or as many that they could find were amended to say shall be entitled to receive instead of shall receive in cases of officers any officer who didn't want to receive the full amount of his or her salary. So I just want to clarify something if we do nothing today I mean if we don't pass the pay act before July 1st that's going to force the VSA and the state back to the negotiation table is that correct? That's how I understand the statute that provides and I think it's what three VSA 982 is it or 925 I can find it quickly but that if the state does not fully fund the collective bargaining agreements the state and the bargaining units are supposed to go back to renegotiate that my understanding of that statute is consistent with the testimony as I've understood it also from the stakeholders the VSA and I believe also the Department of Human Resources have testified that if the pay act is not enacted into into law by July 1st that the parties will need to go back and renegotiate. Thank you. Committee discussion so we have we've heard testimony from a number of different entities I think as many as we could find who want to weigh in on this and now is the point where we can entertain discussion or any lingering questions so Jim Harrison. The other day I think my friend from Wilmington asked some questions about the expenses and the round trip mileage reimbursement I wonder if there's been any further thought to the wording of that I think Betsy and sent something out on what the current statute is I don't know maybe that's a question for Representative Gannon. Go ahead John. I've been thinking about that and you know depending on what hat I wear I do have concerns about people to you know claiming mileage when they're not actually driving their own vehicle and carpooling with somebody else but then I was thinking about it and I didn't come up with a solution but is you know from a sort of climate change perspective don't we want people to carpool to the state house and so is there a way to incentivize that? I'm not sure we have the time to get the answer to that question but I started to really think about that because I mean well I do have concerns about people claiming that expense I also would like to see more legislators carpooling together I mean the fact that I think we have like two or three carpool spaces is ridiculous I mean you know especially coming from Wyndham County there's no reason I couldn't be more open to carpooling with other members from my county I mean I drive past many of their homes probably I mean I know I've carpooled up with Senator White in the past I just so I'm still trying to figure out an answer to that and so that's why I have not pushed that issue. Thank you. Any other committee discussion? Bob Hooper. I echo John's comment and throw the same paradox on the fact that we don't encourage an electric car purchased by everyone and question at this point is the motion to move the bill forward appropriate. It is that is what I'm hoping we will end up doing. I will so move at this point. Thank you. Second. Jim Harrison. So my main motion may be out of order so I was going to ask that we postpone consideration of the bill until we return in August. I have some I am all for honoring agreements made however we did not make this agreement and it was made in a entirely different era. This agreement over two years depending on how you count the paid leave is the equivalent of an eight and a half percent or eight and three quarters percent overall or average increase. It's over 66 million dollars in appropriations across all branches of government. This at a time when we have an excess of 20 percent unemployment and as I said before hundreds if not thousands of businesses that are on the verge of going out of business permanently. No one's fault. I'm not blaming anyone or anything. I am really hopeful that come August we will have a much better picture of the economic situation that we are in and that we can enact it as agreed to and make any one time payments that are called for retroactive to July one. I think to do that otherwise is being blind to what is going on in the economic uncertainty that we are all facing and could require some pretty dramatic decreases in state government. So I am very uncomfortable. I would be comfortable considering this in August. Additionally the fact that we are putting into statute increases for ourselves in the second year as well as other elected officials I think is again being tone death to what is going on in the world around us. So I would if appropriate if the other motion supersedes it so be it. But I would my preference would be to postpone this conversation and discussion and enactment of the bill into August. John Gannon. Thank you. I mean one of the two things I tried to clarify with testimony today a couple of things that I think are really important for the committee to understand. Number one is if we delay action on the pay act beyond July 1st that will force the executive branch and VSEA and the other unions to go back to the bargaining table. So that that is the decision we make by doing that. We also heard once again from Beth Fustighe that the administration supports their negotiations of the collective bargaining agreements. They have not asked us to do Jim what you're suggesting which is to delay this until August. They've asked us to fully support these collective bargaining agreements. And you know that's what I hope we will do today. Mike Marwicky. Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm supporting the original motion that represent representative Cooper put up there to pass this bill. There's a lot of uncertainty out there. There's a lot of chaos out there. We don't need to create more. We can create some certainty by passing this. We need to look at it again. We can. But we've got an agreement here. Took a long time to get to. Seems to me all the parties want to move this forward. I don't want to start creating more chaos. And I think that's that's what it would do if we if we passed on this. We're here to make some decisions right now. I'm ready to make that decision and move forward to approve this. Rob LeClaire. Thank you Madam Chair. I am. I've been thinking long and hard about this. And as the bill stands right now I can absolutely not support it. You know we're in an unprecedented time here. And as we've heard several times not one single state employee has been laid off. Not one single state employee has been furloughed. And I get that. It is an unprecedented time. But like to remember from Chittenden said if we passed this we're looking at almost upwards of a nine percent pay increase for those of us in the private sector that have to pay this. There's a lot of us in the private sector that aren't going to see any pay increase. In fact there's a lot in the private sector. Those that are paying these salaries and benefits that aren't going to be around. When we have a 20 percent unemployment rate I think it's unconscionable that we're looking to Vermonters to pay this. Yes this is a negotiated agreement that we had prior to this. And the comment was made that the administration supports this. Well there's a lot of stuff that the administration supports that the legislature is very very happy to go back and change after the fact. We've got several large pieces of legislation that we're going to be working with in that regard right now. I know the executive director of the BSE has said a few times that he feels that any employer that doesn't meet the state's standard as far as paying benefits exploiting their workers. Well this makes it very very difficult for any private employer to meet even closely to that. We're already four point seven four point six billion dollars upside in pensions and now we're going to add to that problem. I just think it's irresponsible for us to go ahead and approve this when we all recognize that we're in unprecedented times. We're fiscally more in trouble than we've ever been before. We've been through this rodeo before. I've heard that phrase today and either pay raises were deferred or in some cases contracts were asked to be reopened. I think it's inappropriate for us to go ahead and approve this as it stands currently. So I will be voting against this. Thank you. JP you're going to want to unmute yourself. You're right. I'm sorry about that. I had written down some notes so I didn't forget things and I've been kind of waiting and biting my tongue and taking in a lot of things and I've talked to a fair amount of people in the last few days on this and I'm still consistently getting getting the comments from my constituents as to you guys keep raising taxes and raising taxes raising tax. You're killing us down there. You're literally killing us. You're starving us. I haven't had a job in three months. I wasn't able to roll for unemployment. My credit cards are maxed out. My savings account is gone. I have no checking account. I'm about to start bouncing checks if I can get away with it. And these are pretty hard things to hear. I heard this a couple times in committee when the questions was asked and answered a couple of few times and it really bothered me but the answer is very true from what I've been told in committee. And the question was did any state employees get laid off during this pandemic? The answer was simply no. The question was posed another way. Did any state employees lose any money during this pandemic? And the answer was simply no. I really can't say that for very many other people that I'm aware of that are striving to make a living to feed your family. I'm having great, great difficulties. I know an agreement is an agreement that you are, excuse me, the agreement that was reached was an agreement that everybody thought they could live with. But this was done at the time that we didn't have this pandemic. We anticipated millions of dollars in revenue coming into the state. This anticipated revenue is no longer here. It's gone. It's gone. And we've got to make up this lost revenue somewhere. I personally hate to say it but I would love to see this go back for renegotiation, go back to the table. And unfortunately, if that's the only way it can be done, then I certainly can't support this bill as it is at this point. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Chair. Other committee discussion. I'm not seeing anybody diving for their raise hand button. And so we have a motion from Bob Hooper to pass the bill out. Does anybody want to get any more information in their heads before we go ahead and do that? All right. So Marsha, when you are ready. I'm ready, Madam Chair. Go right ahead. Dan. Yes. And Warren's not on the call. Is that correct? That is correct. Roe Wickey? Yes. LaClaire? No. Harrison? No. Gardner? Yes. Lassek? No. Hooper? Yes. Brownell? Yes. Colston? Yes. Copeland-Hanses? Yes. 731. Just about motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you to Beth for sticking around with us and Gary and Steve. I appreciate your participation in this process. We're going to shift gears at this point. So unless you are just really jazzed by the subject matter that the Government Operations Committee has, you're welcome to sign off and we'll see you on another day. So committee, we need to switch gears to look at our Technical Corrections Bill, which was presented on the floor by JP and Marsha. And Jen Carby from Legislative Council will be with us momentarily to help us understand the changes that the Senate made. So I think I'm going to give everyone a moment to stretch their legs. Jim Harrison, you've got your hand up. I was going to suggest a break. Sorry. You beat me to it. I read your mind. So I'll ask Andrea to throw up the We'll Be Back in a Moment screen and remind everyone to mute their Zoom and stop video for a few minutes and we'll be back just as soon as Jen Carby is ready to join us. Thank you. All right. I see some folks popping back up on the screen. Jen Carby is in the middle of a House Health Care Committee meeting, so she hopefully will pop in to join us in just a few minutes. But I thought if we could come back and have a little committee discussion, that would be a good use of our time. Just to remind you what we laid out for a path last week, the speaker has invited us to make recommendations with respect to COVID relief fund money. I know that there have been a number of emails from the Joint Fiscal Office reminding us what the parameters are. In terms of use of COVID relief fund monies. And the speaker invited us to be thinking more along the lines of, hold on just a moment, asking Marwicky to start his video. Did that help? Yes, it did. Okay. The speaker has invited us to think in terms of having a larger possible recommendation for investments in August than what we have now with the understanding that our committee's area of jurisdiction runs broadly across state government. And if we have recommendations on how COVID relief funds might be used, we could spend some time doing some preparations for that. So I'm going to admit Jen Carby right now and leave committee members with a reminder about that dynamic and an invitation to reach out to me if you'd like us to begin to work on any particular recommendation. Rob LeClaire. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there a dollar amount? I know I'd heard that each committee was sort of given a budget based on their purview. Do we have a number you're working with, Madam Chair? I realize it's in flux. It is very much in flux. And I expect that there will be some committees whose recommendations exceed the box that they were given to play in. But I believe that the box that our committee was given to play in was a recommendation of $10 million in this first go round and $50 million as a possibility for the August timeframe. John Gannon, you'll correct me if I'm wrong on that. Are you perfectly right? Thank you. All right. So thank you, Jen Carby, for being with us. I do so appreciate your ability to switch gears quickly in the middle of your day. We just want to take a jog through the changes that the Senate made to our technical corrections bill and then the committee will make a decision on how to proceed. Great. Thank you. Jennifer Carby, Legislative Council. Thank you for your patience and flexibility. So you have, I think you have two documents that I sent. One is just the Senate proposal of amendment and the other is actually a summary document that we prepared at the very last minute when requested, when a summary was requested. But I also included a summary of a more detailed summary of the what of the Senate Government Operations Committee amendment. So the Senate Government Operations Committee struck three sections at my request and amended the effective date. It's all my request. So blame me, not them. Most came out wrong. So the amendment would delete three sections from the bill that you passed. Those sections amend 26 VSA sections 373A, 1400F and 1734B subsection A. They all relate to license renewal extensions for podiatrists, physicians and physician assistants who are serving in the military if an activation or deployment would impede the licensees good faith efforts to make timely application to renew a license. And as passed by the house based on language we had provided, the proposed changes to those sections would have updated terminology that refers to components, various components of the military. And it also made changes to language regarding military activation and deployment. But after you passed the bill, we were notified, I was notified by the Board of Medical Practice, David Hurley from the Board of Medical Practice who is also a recently retired longtime member of the military, that some of the proposed revisions around the activation and deployment language which could have substantive and unintended effects. And so the proposal of amendment to strike those three sections would delete the sections from the bill in their entirety. So those unintended consequences wouldn't happen. The pieces that still make sense to do around updating the terminology relating to components of the military are added to being added to other bills. H438, the Board of Medical Practice bill addresses the podiatrist and physician provisions and S128, the physician assistant licensure bill, does the updating for the physician assistant provision. So those three sections would come out of the bill entirely so as not to monkey with any of the deployment and activation language. And we're still making the updates to the terminology that everybody seems comfortable with. But we're doing so in the substantive bills on those topics. The final instance of amendment just fixes a cross-reference error in numbering for the effective date section, making sure that the section number given matches the description of the section itself. Should have been section 299, not section 300. That's it. All right. Questions from committee members? Marcia Gardner. So since I'm probably the person who will present this, just for clarification, this only applies to those people applying for these particular licenses or from the military? Right. It's actually license renewal for podiatrist physicians and physician assistants who are serving in the military and might not be able to renew their license during the otherwise required timeline because of an activation or deployment. And so really all you'd be doing is taking the sections out of the bill so that they don't have an unintended substantive effect, which is something we don't want to do in a technical corrections bill. And then it's just for your own information and your colleagues, if you want to share it, that the pieces of it that did make sense to fix that just update the language describing various components of the military are still being made, but they're being made in the underlying, in the substantive bills addressing those topics. Okay. JP? Question for Jennifer. Now you said that these specific items being eliminated from or via the amendment from the Senate have been taken up in other bills that we've addressed, and I'm very familiar with some of those. But my question is, is there anything that's being eliminated here now being taken up in other bills? Are those other bills going to be, are the items being in the other bills, are they going to expire when the pandemic is over? Or is it going to be consistent? No, they're not related to that. They're not COVID related type things. Nope, they are licensed, sure type ongoing bills, not COVID. That's my belief. I just want to make sure that that's the case. Okay, thank you. John Gammon. And just to follow up a little more on JP's question, I mean, both H438 and S128 are on the House calendar. So they should be coming up very, very close in time to our report on the Senate Proposal Amendment. That's true. So they will have already been included in those bills. They will have in fact probably just recently been addressed. Right. Any other questions for Jen Carby? I don't see anybody diving for their little blue hand button. JP. Keep forgetting to hit the voice button. Would it be appropriate to move the amendment? I think the motion that we are looking for here is to concur with the Senate Proposal of Amendment on H788. Okay, I will make a motion that we concur with the Senate Proposal on the amendment. Excellent. Any committee discussion on that? All right. Seeing none, Marcia, when you are ready. Anand. Yes. Marwicky. Yes. Leclerc. Rob, are you there? Yes. Sorry. I double clicked my button. Okay. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. Yes. Palacic. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Runout. Yes. Colston. Yes. Coplananzas. Yes. So the vote is 10-01. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time, Jen, and we'll let you get on with your busy day. Great. Go back to healthcare. Thank you. Excellent. It doesn't even take very long to walk down the hall anymore. I just have to jump from one Zoom to the next. So that completes the business that we have before us today. Any questions or committee discussion before we sign off? All right. Great. John Gannon. So the pay act goes to the appropriations, right? Yes. It affects the appropriations of the state. I assume that they will need to give it there once over. But now that you say that to me, it occurs to me that a couple of times since we started remote meeting bills that we thought would head automatically to a money committee didn't necessarily head there. So you might check in with the clerk's office on that. And I'm going to ask John Gannon to please be the presenter of the pay act on the floor, which will be, I'm sure, great fun because he's not going to get any interrogation or amendments for that matter. But yeah, if you want to just make sure that that the clerk is reminded that this bill needs to go to appropriations, that would be fabulous. Great. Thank you, Marcia, for your great work as clerk. Thank you, Andrea, for being so supportive. Andrea has gotten to the point where she's anticipating things that I might ask for and basically has them for me as soon as I ask her for them. So I can't tell you how wonderful that is, Andrea, given all of the complications of meeting remotely and how hard it is to get things done. You've been an absolute critical component to this team working. So thank you. I think that I think that completes our work for the day so we can go ahead.