 Good afternoon everyone. Today we have a few topics to cover the budget and a pensions one-on-one briefing from our guest David Coates as well as an update from Dr. Levine. I want to start with my first impression of the budget that came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday afternoon. In January as you know I presented a balanced budget that included investments to grow the economy by adding housing, expanding broadband, and combating climate change. To help make Vermont more affordable I also propose progressive and broad tax relief that's sustainable given projected long-term growth in base revenue. We also made significant investments in protecting the most vulnerable like money to prevent substance abuse and permanent housing for the homeless. You've heard me talk about my concerns with the House past budget and while the Senate version is better and comes closer to the budget I propose there's still some major differences. While I appreciate both the House and Senate funding many shared priorities they've also proposed and focused on government systems that seems to be their focus. It's really important from my standpoint to take full advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to grow the economy revitalize communities and make Vermont more affordable for workers families and those who create jobs. For example from what we've seen thus far they've reduced or eliminated funding I propose for substance abuse prevention programs tax relief for seniors on fixed incomes military veterans and low-income Vermonters nurses and child care workers and more. Economic development for rural and small communities that have seen significant stagnation and decline over the last ten years. A capital investment program which would help small businesses like child care centers and local general stores survive and recover on the pandemic. Career and technical education workforce retention and recruitment initiatives and cell phone tower expansion and much much more. These are the type of investments we must make in order to help all corners of the state see more prosperity and opportunity. The fact is investing in initiatives to grow the economy to make Vermont more affordable and retain and attract the workers we desperately need will do far more to change our trajectory than the bridge funding the legislature has prioritized. While the Senate version again is an improvement and is moved in the right direction it still doesn't make the most of the unprecedented opportunity we have before us. But fortunately it's still time to come together to make sure we are prioritizing long term growth over short term fixes with one time money. Next I also want to talk about pensions. During my five years as governor we've spent more on our pension obligations than the previous 20 years before I took office combined. I've talked about the need for true structural reform to write the ship because this is the massive 5.7 liability that we face and without structural reform it will only get worse. Now I'm not naive. I know the Democratic dominated legislature is much closer to the unions than I am so I asked the legislature to take the lead with support of my team and to their credit they did. However we were not part of the closed room deal that led to this current bill. So I found out what was agreed to by the tax force when you did and when the bill was formally introduced on March 9th the very next day we sent a letter with some additional measures that we believe are necessary for long term stability. In my mind the task force work was meant to be a recommendation or a starting point for the legislature and executive branch to discuss not a rubber stamp. Typically a bill is sent to a legislative committee where ideas are flushed out and built upon. Unfortunately our recommendations weren't included or for that matter seriously considered. This bill though it makes some positive steps doesn't go far enough and simply kicks the can down the road. I'm concerned that we're putting a more than two hundred million dollar band aid on this without fixing the underlying problems. Keep in mind for those of you keeping track the two hundred million is over and above the roughly four hundred million dollar payment we've included in the budget. As an aside five years ago when I first became governor that payment was just over two hundred million. So in five years it's doubled. History shows us that simply adding more money is only a short term solution and will be back in a few years with the same issues. Now I know it's easy to just claim victory and go home. As I've said the easiest thing for me to do politically would be to sign the bill sing come by a and sleep easy knowing it won't be me or many of the current legislators who have to deal with this again in five or ten years. But mark my words this bill doesn't solve the problem and in five to ten years the necessary fixes will be much tougher for both taxpayers and state employees. And making it even more challenging those decisions will likely come at a time when we're dealing with budget shortfalls not surpluses. I'm very pleased to have a real expert on this issue Dave coats with us here today. Dave is a lifelong lifelong Democrat and who I see as the somewhat whistleblower on the pension challenges we face. He's been sounding the alarm on this for at least 15 years and there are few in the state as knowledgeable or as well respected as he is on this topic. Dave will go through his recommendations for how we can show up the system on our promises and protect taxpayers with that. Thank you governor. I've never been called a whistleblower before. I think that's good. I'm not sure. I'd like to speak a little bit about act not act but S 286 which is the pension bill and the goal was obviously was to fix the pension systems. And I'm going to just say up front that I think that bill is a good start. But it doesn't go anywhere as near as far as it should. It's nothing more. I think the governor referred to it as the short term fix. There are no structural changes in there. And I think I believe you have a copy of the testimony that John Pelletier and I gave to the House government ops last Friday. I hope so. If not, you'll get one. And what I want to do is cover some of the highlights of that testimony. And let me begin as background. I think it's important that we understand what is the scope of this. The governor said 5.7 billion. When you're round up, it's 5.8 billion, just so you know. Now unfunded liabilities. That's a word that doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people. But in the context of the financials, it's long term debt. Bonded indebtedness is another of that. But when you look at the $5.8 billion on the state's balance sheet, it's the largest thing there. It's created a $300 million deficit that we have on our balance sheet as of June 30, 2021. And when you look at our general obligation bonds, they're $675 million. This is 10 times more than that. When you look at our general fund revenue, this is three times more than our general fund revenue. And when you look back, the governor talked about how much we've been paying out. But back in 2008, we had a liability of $466 million for these retirement obligations. Today, it's 5.8 billion, 10 times. And then further breaking that down, this obligation represents $9,000 per every resident in the state of Vermont. $4,700 of that is just for the pensions. And $4,300 is just for the OPED. And then the big picture, just the pension now, the liability is $7.4 billion. We have investments of $4.4 billion. This is as of June 30 last year. And that's where the $3 billion in the pension obligation comes from. Our funded ratio, and this is critical, is 59%. In other words, as of June 30, if we had a everybody retired in the state of Vermont, they would get $0.59 on the dollar that they were owed. And that's significant. So we're way over funded, underfunded, excuse me. So now let's talk about S286, the pension bill. What does it accomplish? Well, up front, it looks pretty good because you've heard a lot of people talk about the $2 billion deduction from our unfunded liabilities. Well, when you break that down, only $300 million of that is against our pensions. And that's not very much in the context of $3 billion. It's about 10%. And then when you look at the OPED, or the retiree health care benefits, that's $1.7 billion. That's a lot more. And that does a pretty good job on that, except for one thing. That's an accounting change. There's no structural change on the retirement benefits on the health care side. It's only an accounting change because we're going to pre-fund it, which I've agreed to. Treasurer has espoused this for years that we want to start paying that debt. However, because we're paying that debt currently now, more currently on the pre-funding basis, we're able to use, I don't want to call it a gimmick because it isn't a gimmick per se, but we can use a different accounting rule. Instead of the 2.2% discount rate, we now can use a 7% discount rate, which is the same discount rate we use on the pensions. And that makes the big change. But I think the point that I want to make sure everyone understands is that the benefits on the health care side for retirees does not change. It does on the pensions. On the pension side with S286, we reduce colas, and we also add more contributions from the employees. So that is reform. However, just not enough of it. And I believe strongly that our state has great exposure going forward with respect to projected current and projected economic conditions. And let me give you just a few of the important assumptions. Actually, just two. One, of course, is inflation. And I don't have to speak to you about inflation today because we all know it's at 8.5%. Haven't had this in over 40 years. And when we look at the assumptions that built up to the $5.8 billion, that assumption is 2.3%. That's quite a disparity just in that alone. And then you take a look at our rate of return that we're projecting, 7%. That also is the discount rate, which I'll explain a little bit later. And when you look at the states around this, New England and New York, when you average them all out, they're at 6.73%. Now, it doesn't seem like a lot. Does it just 25% basis points or one quarter of 1%? But in reality, it's a lot. And before I tell you what that is, let me just say CalPERS, the largest plan in the country, they're projecting over the next 20 years a 10 or 6.2% return. And we're only looking out for the pensions 18 years because that's when they have to be fully funded in our state. That's our plan. And that's 2038. Now, if we're wrong by 25 basis points or one quarter of 1%, that literally wipes out that $300 million of savings that we have on the pension. It's like $238 million. If we're wrong by 1%, remember CalPERS are saying 6.2. And we're saying 7%. If we're wrong by 1%, that's $950 million. And let me give you an example of that. Back in 2019, 2020 is the last time we looked at the assumptions. And at that point, we adjusted the rate of return from 7.5% to 7%. 50 basis points or 1.5%. That resulted in a $600 million increase to our unfunded liabilities. That was 100 million more that we had to pay required by the actuary. The ADEC is formally. So I'm saying when we look at this economic conditions, we currently have them where we're going that market experts are warning about a recession. Larry Summers. I think we all know who Larry is. Not only the former president of Harvard University, but he was a secretary treasury for Obama. And he's saying there's going to be one. And of course, just recently, the CNBC survey, 81% of adults said we're going to have a survey in 2022, not later 2022. So recessions are not kind to the stock market. They aren't kind to the economy. And they aren't going to be kind to the state of Vermont in particular, our retirement systems. So what do we do to prepare for that? S286 doesn't do it. It gets us a little bit into it, but not far enough. One of the things that I have espoused for a long time is what the governor has come up with. Actually, he's put a new wrinkle in it, which I think is unique, certainly unique for Vermont. That is, we create a new plan for new hires. I've been talking about this since 2010. If we had done it in 2010, over 20% of the workforce would be on a different plan. We wouldn't be sitting here today talking about this at all. So right now, new hires by contract, by union contract, they have to come under the union pension plan and the retiree benefits. And they don't have a choice that's required if you're a classified worker. And when you look at people coming into our state workforce, when you look at people that have been here five years or less, the turnover rate, overall the turnover rate in our workforce is about 8%. That's based on 2021. I think they're anticipating even more coming up. But when you look at that, it's 7.7. These are just voluntary and involuntary. So 8%. That's our turnover rate. Now, when you look at what makes that up, this is kind of interesting. People with five years or less, they make up 35% of the workforce, but half of the turnover. That's significant. We have a workforce of about 8,000 people. Now, I'm only talking about the state, not the teachers. I think I don't have that data, but I think it's probably as bad or worse. Now, I say bad or worse. The private sector has the same thing going on right now. That's really what's happening. So why is a DC plan option good? Well, it's good for the worker because they may not want to get into a lifetime job with the state of Vermont. They may want to take and have another job. And if you look at the data, look at residents, for that matter, I look at a lot of them, that people move five or six times in their lifetime. I think you're going to find that even more. So if they're moving, then they want to be able to take their retirement plan with them. A DC plan gives them that ability. It's portable. They can take it with them. And then the governor said, what the governor said, excuse me, is that he wants an option. Don't force the people. Let them make the choice as to whether they want the union plan or do they want the plan that they can take with them? And of course, that benefits the state of Vermont because we won't have as many people in the expensive plan. And as a result, we won't have to be subject to the assumptions that I just talked about. So I don't see how anybody can possibly object to allowing new workers to have a choice in terms of what kind of a retirement system fits them better, not being told. Now, another step is adopt a risk sharing policy. What do I mean by risk sharing? That means if we hit turbulent economic conditions like we're seeing now, then we can't expect the state to step up to the plate and pay everything. There has to be a sharing process. It takes the volatility out of the annual payment, the ADEC, which is a technical word for it. And let me give you the best example I think. Now, I think at least 16 other states have this. But I think the best example is the 2009 pension commission. I was on that. I was appointed by Speaker Smith and President Pro Tem Shumlin. I was their designee. And one of the things we recommended is that if there is a time that the payment goes over 3.5% per year on both the retiree health care benefits and the pension, that we would share in that with the participants. And we went to the joint fiscal office and said, would you give us the number? Because we think that's important. They agreed everything with it, all of that with us. And at the same time, they said we think 3.5%. Is a reasonable amount. Anything over that we'll share with the participants. Again, if we had done that then, we wouldn't be here today. We've been postponing the inevitable. And I don't know why that was postponed, because that was the recommendation of the commission. But when they negotiated with the union, it didn't come out. Finally, and I talked about this early on, the most what we need are frequent reviews of our assumptions and our pension plan. And I also think we should look at stress testing. The last study that was done, I mentioned it earlier in 2019, we ended up with a $600 million addition to our pension liabilities $100 million more we had to pay per year. And that was really that that started the pension task force. Basically, that was the genesis. So that's an early warning system. And right now, S 286 says, we aren't going to do this now to 2023. We can't wait four years. The last one was 2019. We have to do it now. And I would just end with that the old proverb saying that when you're forewarned, you're forearmed. And we need to know what's coming up so that we can be prepared for it. And I'm telling you with S 286, we are not going to be prepared for it. Thank you, Governor. And I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, David. And now we'll have a health update by Dr Levine. Thank you. Good to know there are other hard problems to solve. With regard to COVID, though, we're still in a similar place. Watching and monitoring for any substantial impacts from the BA two variant. We know the virus is still spread spreading here and in the northeast right now. But fortunately, the increases we're seeing in case numbers and hospitalizations continue to be on a much smaller scale than the original Omicron variant. Still in order of magnitude less than at the peak of Omicron. With our highly vaccinated population and the relatively milder nature of BA two for many people, most Vermonters are not experiencing severe effects from this disease. This is now referred to as the decoupling of cases from hospitalizations and other serious outcomes characteristic of the Omicron and BA two phase of the pandemic. Now Vermont continues to be in the top two to three states for testing, which means compared to much of the rest of the country, we have far greater insight into cases here due to positive PCR tests. Whereas many states have dismantled their testing apparatus, Vermont still offers both PCR and take home rapid testing at all of its testing sites for free. So while this pandemic is unfortunately still not over, we can live our lives more normal because the overall risk from the virus is lower for many Vermonters. But I want to emphasize this overall risk is different from a person's individual risk. What you may consider safe or low risk really depends on your own situation. There are plenty of people who are at higher risk for serious illness, and they may want to take more precautions. You may still be wearing a mask indoors around others if you're older or have certain health conditions. If you spend time with someone who's at higher risk, or have kids that can't be vaccinated, or if you just feel more comfortable that way. Wearing a high quality mask can give you an added level of protection, even when others around you are not masked. We all need to continue to support people's decisions around masking based on what makes the most sense for them and their situation. In a region like the Northeast, where the CDC level of community transmission is medium, the guidance is just this. If you're at high risk for severe illness, talk to your health care provider about whether you need to wear a mask and take other precautions. Now you may have heard that yesterday, a federal judge in Florida struck down the federal mask mandate on public transportation. This decision was on legal and procedural grounds, not public health considerations. Indeed, the CDC had just extended the mask mandate for public health reasons, citing the spread of BA2. While multiple airlines and Amtrak have already stopped requiring masks, this does not change our current guidance, which is in agreement with the CDC's guidance, that people continue to wear masks in indoor public transportation settings. But this is a recommendation and not a mandate. We'll await further word regarding the Biden administration's plans regarding this ruling. Next, an important reminder for those at higher risk of COVID-19 by virtue of being older than 65 or having underlying medical conditions. Please make sure you have a plan to call your doctor if you do test positive. Antiviral pills can greatly reduce your chances of having a severe outcome if you start taking them soon enough. They are available in Vermont with a prescription from your healthcare provider. And if you do not have a primary care physician, calling 211 can help get you connected with either a free clinic, a federally qualified health center, or an urgent care setting. Finally, a reminder about what to do if you do get sick. I know it can be hard, but please stay home to prevent any illness from spreading. We're also seeing more flu activity. And no, there are abundant other respiratory and gastrointestinal viruses circulating right now in addition to COVID. Staying home when you're sick is a basic step to keeping everyone healthier. And since COVID symptoms can be mild, it's important to get tested. Fortunately, testing is a lot easier now that we can do it at home. Free rapid take home tests continue to be available at test sites around the state that will allow you to take quick action to protect yourself and others. For more information, visit our website healthvermont.gov slash testing. In the end, living with this virus at this stage of the pandemic can be distilled down to the very basics. Be vaccinated and up to date, meaning at least one booster to prevent serious outcomes. In many cases, vaccination can and will mean the difference between being sick or being hospitalized. Test at home for any symptoms and be prepared to act quickly to the result. And access therapies through your health care provider if you're in a higher risk group within the first five days of illness. I'll turn it back to the government. Thank you, Dr. Levine. We'll now open it up to questions. Details on the office has done an analysis to determine by how much the 401k option would cut the unfunded liability. Have you done an analysis? I have not maybe David would have the answer to that. We haven't done an analysis. I haven't anyway, but I do know if we took basically using the option that the governor has proposed for new hires, if they would be about 450, I assume, maximum people that might elect that, that would cost the state of Vermont about a million five. And that's about the same amount that would be coming out of the contributions that would normally be going into the union plan. Is that helpful? The legislature does not amend the bill to include this option. Is this what your point on which you will veto the bill? Yeah, I mean, that's the multi billion dollar question, right? We, as I said in my remarks, it would be much easier for me just to go along with the gang, so to speak, and say, this is the best we could do and move on. Because we're not going to see the effects of this or the negative effects of this for maybe five or 10 years with a $200 million bandit that they're proposing. Having said that, I can't seem to let this go. Because we have this opportunity right in front of us, and it seems simple to me to offer a choice, to offer people the option of either going with a defined contribution or a defined benefit. It's their choice. And it would help in terms of risk. And it would help in terms of attracting more employees as well. I mean, we we hear from HR that they want portability. They'd like to be able to take it with them. They don't want to have to. I mean, we're seeing it again private sector, public sector alike. They want they want some flexibility and they want some freedom and independence. So this seems to give it to them and it would help us out. I think in the long run. So long story short, I'm still contemplating this. Again, I can't I can't seem to let this go. I think we've been talking about this for quite some time. David Coates came into the committee that I chaired the institutions committee when I was in the Senate, it was probably in, I would say around 2007 2008 and was talking about the same thing. And he has he will not benefit from this in any way. But he has been dogmatic in terms of sounding the alarm. And when David Coates has has an issue with this, I listen. And I think we should all listen to an expert like him. I want to make sure clear what you're asking the legislature to do. You know, we're talking here about defined contribution, defined benefit, but Mr. Coates just went through a litany of structural changes that he thinks are needed to truly address the situation. I don't get the sense that DC versus DB is key among those. Correct me if I'm all I did. Okay, but so what is the ask here? What exactly you're asking about? Well, that that is, that's first and foremost, I think there needs to be choice. DC DB. I think that that should be automatic that a new employee new employee gets a choice of what they do. So that's key to me risk sharing is another area that I think I agree with David on. He would I mean, in reality, David would go far beyond those two initiatives far beyond. But that's the two that I'm asking for. As an exempt employee yourself, did you choose which plan you want? I don't think I have the choice to be honest with you. I don't I don't believe so. I don't exempt. I don't know if I do. Yeah, I don't know. What do you want? I'm sure it's like a defined contribution. Yeah, I wasn't intending to be around for a long time. I mean, you're framing this as a big thing for employees, right? This choice. But it's only a good thing for the pension system. If those employees are drawn down less benefits in the future than it would be otherwise, right? Well, again, it gives them, you know, there would be we would know what we're we're doing for the vast number of employees. I mean, it's it's exact. We know we're giving them the money up front. It's the pay as we go type of approach with this other approach and and figuring in making assumptions like a 7% return. I mean, that's unheard of. I mean, we've been making the wrong assumptions about this pension fund for too long. That's what's gotten us into this problem. So that would eliminate some of that. But I just want to be clear that the reason defined contribution would be better for the state's pension system is because it would be a less generous payout to state employees once they're it's a pay as you go system. It's paying as you go. It's like a cash type of system. That's the way I look at it. But this issue has been around for a long time, private employers. It seems like IBM went through this in the late 90s. It was a long time ago when long time employees were going to have their defined, remember the terminology correctly, they were going to have their plan. I shouldn't say if I remember this correctly, but the bottom line is people who work for some place for a long time, you know, that your 40 year state employees, then if they make their bad investment choices, they could receive less when it gets around to retirement. But say a choice, right? They're in charge of it. At that point, they're in charge of their own 22 might make one choice that he or she would feel different about when they're 65. Possibly, I think, I think we'll find that and David probably knows this better than I do, that Vermont is a bit of an outlier on this issue. Most, most in the private sector. And some in the public, a lot of the public sector have gone that's a good question. I think if you would check in the private sector, and I don't think the pension task force did that quite honestly, and check with the employers out there, you'll find that they're doing pretty well. They've done as well or better than I think the state of Vermont has. And those balances are really good because they go through a whole long process as an educational process that goes to people with a DC plan, a 401k type is probably a better way to, and that's obligated, they're obligated by the government to do that. And they look at what their investment choices are, and it's based a little bit on your age. You mentioned somebody at 22 versus somebody at 65. They have different things and different retirement options. That's exactly why they had like a vanguard or a fidelity. They have plans that are for people that are younger, depending on what their risk tolerance is, and for people that are older. So as you get older, you want to take less risk. When you're younger, you want more risk. You said there is no actual, actuarial analysis at this stage, or what would happen going forward if you offered employees the choice? Would it be feasible to undertake that kind of analysis? I'm not sure I understand it. There's no option. Repeat it again. So you would, Sarah had asked, do we know what the projected savings to the system would be if you offered choice to employees? Okay, I don't I don't maybe it would be good. I don't know if they can do it, but they probably can. But I do know that if we done this back in 2010, when I was really beating the drums, 25 or 20% of the workforce would be in that plan. So the state wouldn't be faced with $5.8 billion in liabilities, because we would only have 60 or 80% of the workforce under this plan. How do you know all those other employees were chosen? Well, I'm saying if we'd gone with a DC plan, you need not given them a choice. That's exactly right. So which is what companies did? You mentioned the company IBM, okay, for one, they had sort of a cash balance plan for a while, which is a combination. And a lot of folks, a lot of states have gone with a hybrid plan. But just a full DC plan. That's what that would totally change the liability of the state of Vermont. This is way better. I like the governor's option. I think this is what's unique about Vermont. As we've come up with something that's better than what most people have. So I like this. This week, correct me if I'm wrong interpreting this, it looks like the not fully vaccinated case rate and the fully vaccinated case rate has both increased by the same percentage over the last week. How do you explain that when vaccinated people and unvaccinated people are getting sick at the same rate right now? That's exactly why we should not focus on cases anymore. This is such a highly transmissible virus vaccination pretty much guarantees you protection against the serious outcomes. And it's doing a really good job of that. But in terms of becoming a case or becoming a positive test, having a mild illness, Omicron and subsequently BA to have both proven that anyone can be infected. As well, if I could just add and you can disagree if you'd like. But when you look at those, you're looking at the raw numbers, right? So we have far more people in Vermont where the highest of vaccinated state, one of the highest vaccinated states in the country. So when you compare apples to apples, the rate of those who are not vaccinated is actually much, much higher. So you can't just look at the raw numbers and compare because there are less people in that unvaccinated category versus those who are vaccinated. So they're far less percentage wise, far less people vaccinated in the hospital and being infected. And in addition, how do we calculate a rate anymore when PCR tests are still being done? And those are what you're taking your data off. But so many people are testing at home. Some of those are reporting, but many of those are not. Those who have a positive test tend to report more than those who have a negative test. So it's really a challenge to understand even what the case rate means. What have this been more than in the past couple weeks? Yeah, so they've gone up from the high hundreds to a week ago 1000. And this last week was 1622 of which about 1100 were positive and 528 were negative. That still is wonderful news that more people are reporting and more people are doing testing at home. But I still wonder what the true numbers are and what proportion of people who are testing at home were actually knowing the data. The federal ruling yesterday taking so many people, I've seen people cheering on airplanes. Is there a concern there from your perspective, given how I think it's a little premature timing from a public health standpoint. But again, that's not the reason that the judge made the decision that she made. It was based on other considerations. So the reality is obviously when you're in a wave of B A two, which is pretty much the northeast right now and select other parts of the country, but could potentially involve more of the country. You'd like to be a bit more prudent and cautious. And so that's that's my attitude with regards to that. You know, these are enclosed, congested settings. Okay, I'll go. Before I came over here, I looked at it seems you were saying of some time not too long ago that, you know, watch what's going on in the UK. And the B A two spike in the UK seems to have fallen off as quickly as the Omicron did. I mean, are you expecting that to happen? And when do you expect to see that peak? Yeah, so if you if you presume that. So the difference in the UK is it actually was more of a spike that has come down. And here in the United States and even in the northeast, all of the states in the northeast have increased their cases by about 25 to 29 percent in the last seven days. And in the preceding seven days for that matter, that's not causing a surge or a spike. That's causing again this more low elevation plateau that is not going upward in a steep direction. So I would anticipate that can only run its course for a couple more weeks, I would think. But again, when you ask modelers and people who do these projections, they still come out with this kind of a pattern where you could be very low, you could be very high, you could be in between. So no one's really been willing to call it. But that's what I would think. A lot of folks in the medical sphere are sounding the alarm about the conviction of a nurse in Tennessee for a medical error. Did you share their concerns? I guess I don't have enough details in that case to offer a comment. I'm sure I'll find it. Last week about the medical monitoring bill, it's headed to your desk. Do you have enough data? Yeah, again, my answer is about the same. I haven't seen the bill, but I fully expect if there's no technical problems with it to sign it. Starting with Chris Roy, New Port Ailey Express. Chris Roy. We moved to Greg Lamaroe, the county courier. Nothing for me today, governor. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Andrew McGregor, Caledonian Record. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. For Secretary French, if I may, I'm curious about your takeaways from the school facility inventory in terms of the state of school buildings around around Vermont. Secretary French question. Yeah, thanks for the question. Yeah, not surprising to a certain extent, you know, the facilities inventory is just the beginning of a larger policy that's part of Act 72. That was passed last year. This gives us a very important starting point in our data. Honestly, we didn't have good facilities records in the school, so this was essentially designed to provide us some foundational information about facility conditions. The next step under Act 72 is to conduct a more detailed facilities assessment. So we'll begin to put a contract out on that in the near future. But we have some work to do in our facilities and I don't think should surprise anyone. And and to the policy considerations from the facilities assessment, do they intersect, you know, for instance, with pupil waiting and some of the larger equity and outcome considerations that that are put as well? Yeah, I think there is an intersection. I think, you know, like funding facilities are an essential input to ensure quality and equity in the system. So it is important that we undertake a more systematic approach to reviewing the quality of our facility statewide. Is more money the solution? Well, that's a big question. You know, I think it's important to acknowledge firstly, you know, that Vermont is always one of the top spenders in education. So we, you know, live in a state where we value education and make those investments accordingly. I think it is a question. This is probably, you know, akin to the pension conversations, we have some choices in front of us and facilities are, again, a key element of education. So I think that's ultimately going to lead for us to make some policy decisions around which facilities we invest in more so than others. Okay, thank you very much. Lisa Loomis, the value reporter. Lisa, I think you're on mute. We'll try guide page for my daily chronicle. Hello, Governor. Hello, Governor. So one of my readers wrote to me yesterday that he has experienced what he is convinced is a COVID vaccine injury to a reaction to the Moderna vaccine. His doctors cannot explain it in any other way, but won't say that it's that either. And he says he's contacted the both federal and state health agencies and has been has received no help on that. What do you recommend? Or just perhaps Dr Levine recommend to someone who reasonably thinks, Hey, I just have a reaction to vaccine, but the health system will not respond to them and give them any sort of answers either pro or pro. From my perspective, I would see another doctor to confirm the first doctor's opinion. But I mean, he's done some of the right things. He's made an encounter with the health care system presented his case and looked for the right look for an opinion and he didn't get the one he wanted. Now, I'm sure his case has been submitted through the reporting system. So we'll get vetting at the level of the CDC because there may be others like him who have had similar symptoms. You didn't give us details, which is fine. But that's how this process works. There are plausible and biologically implausible explanations for various types of symptoms and reactions. If he has an extraordinarily unique one, people will weigh in on that based on their experience with this vaccine and other vaccines. But he can certainly seek other opinions within the health care system as the governor alluded to, which would mean people, depending on the symptom, who are in the specialty that that symptom may fall within or perhaps in the allergy or immunology spectrum, if it's really looking for a kind of immune reaction to the vaccine, et cetera. It's about all I can give you for now. Thank you. Governor, you may have answered this question already. I didn't hear very well. Questions about H715, the clean heat standard. Commissioner Tierney has said there's a big problem with it that apparently the Senate has yet to address on both electrical utilities and fuel dealers being able to claim clean heat standards for the same installed heat pump and other things like that. Do you have, what are your concerns, if any, about H715 and are you prepared to veto if they're not met? I've said publicly, forget about the substance of the clean heat standard. My concern is the legislature advocating their position, their authority, and their vote by giving this to the PUC, the Public Utility Commission. I have said that it needs, if they want to have the PUC, take the first step and make recommendations, then it needs to come back to the legislature. They can give up their authority in their vote, but they can't give up mine or they shouldn't give up my authority to weigh in, and that's what they're doing. So, bottom line is it needs to come back to the legislature so that we have a vote up and down, up or down, on whatever they come up with. Thank you. Tim McQuiston for my business magazine. Hi, Governor. I was wondering, you know, I've heard David talk on this subject, the subject of attention by Bill at least many times over the years, as we all have. And I'm wondering, David, if you did an analysis of a new employee starting today with the same investment, what the difference would be at retirement age, given all factors, or haven't you, haven't you been able to play that out? Yeah, Tim, I haven't looked at that. I think that could be played out pretty easily, but I really haven't delved into it at this point, but I could do that. I don't want to put you on the spot here, but it is what you're, never mind the state liability, but for the individual person, one of the presumptions is that if they went with what you're suggesting, they would wind up with more money at the end of the day. Is that fair or am I right? I don't want to put words into your mouth. You mean the D.C.? The fine contribution? They could. It depends on what their choices are in terms of investment and where they are in their career and where they are based on retirement. Very well could be. No question about it. But I would, Tim, I wouldn't just finish up again repeating what I said earlier in that if you were to go back to the private sector and talk to some of the employers and talk to some of the employees within that 401K type plan, you'll find that they're very, very happy with the results and with the ability to have those under their control. You know, we've heard a lot about divestment, OK? And there's been a lot of pressure on the state investments about getting out of fossil fuels, et cetera. Well, if you have your own fund, you can elect what you want to invest in. That's totally different than being in part of a larger one. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Cut you up. No, I'm just wondering what the if there's if at this point, given, you know, that someone brought up the example of IBM doing it several years ago and there's a lot of there's a lot of consternation at that time with the employees. But the employees made out very well in part because they got they got sort of a big lump of cash there. But I'm just wondering if there's been an example either in the private sector of perhaps an even more relevant than a public sector in another state or something. I think it's all around. I can't give you the specifics. But I think the importance of that is that the people that are in the system, they're harmless, OK? They continue on. However, the new people coming in are the ones that have the different options going forward. Yeah. All right, great. Thank you very much. And I look forward to hearing more on that subject. Erin Potanko, B.G. Digger. I want to kind of go back to an earlier question that was asked about the breakthrough case rate because I took a look at the data that that reporter was mentioning. And it is it is more than just the relative population size, even when you go to your chart calculating the case rate and the hospitalization rate per person or per hundred thousand people. The case rate is very similar between unvaccinated and vaccinated people. And when you look at the hospitalization rate, it looks like it's doing some unusual things. Last week, the vaccinated hospitalization rate was actually higher than the unvaccinated hospitalization rate. And I know that's not a large sample size, but if that's something you're watching specifically, like the number of vaccinated or the rate of vaccinated people coming to the hospital. I'm going to let Dr. Levine answer as well. But that's why it's difficult to rely on the data these days because every state is reporting differently. Take right across the river in New Hampshire, for instance, they at this point in time are only counting those going to the hospital and being treated for COVID as the hospitalization rate as the number in the hospitals. We are taking both of those who come to the hospital because of COVID and those who just find out they have COVID when they get there. So that's about a 50% rate. So if you take, for instance, if you want to compare apples to apples, you would take 50% of our number of people in the hospital in Vermont and compare it to the number of people in the hospital in New Hampshire because that's the way they're doing it. They're not including those who just happen to have COVID and being hospitalized. So that's the problem with the data we're seeing today. Everyone's counting it different and we are just treating it the same as we always have. So, and that may be a discrepancy and show that we're out of balance as well. Dr. Levine? So Erin, I have the graph up that you're referring to. And just to give people context, it runs from last summer till now. And of course, during that time, there's one huge peak in January and February, which was the Omicron peak. But really, if you start from August or September of last year through February of this year, there's a gigantic gap between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated rates of new cases, which is what this is. When you get to the last month, the lines are much closer together. To me, number one, that represents the reality that I stated before that people are gaining this more transmissible virus at a very high rate. Number two, the virus may have actually exhausted a lot of the people who are unvaccinated in terms of their ability to get the infection because they've already gotten it. So that pool of people has really been used up if you will. And that is, as the governor earlier said, a much smaller number in Vermont than those who are vaccinated. Those are the two probably major recommendations I would make to you in trying to analyze this. But I guess, again, because of the uncertainty of what is a case and how much of a handle we have on cases now compared to earlier in the pandemic, which is every state's dilemma, that's always gonna be a challenge. And I guess the more we focus on those case numbers, the less relevant they become. And the hospital numbers are much more relevant and they continue to show that our healthcare system is not by any means close to at capacity. It's doing very well and it's not being overrun by COVID cases. I'd also add that this week's data, very similar to what we've seen in the last several months, shows that of those in the hospital, 48% are in the hospital because they actually were admitted for COVID itself as opposed to admitted and then found to have COVID. And that number has varied between 38% and 55%. The difficulty of tracking the data these days with cases meeting less and less, the Department of Health tracks pediatric levels of COVID almost entirely through the case rate. And that does seem to show a mild increase. And totally, we've been hearing from readers about a lot of outbreaks, especially in daycare facilities. It's still only really being tracked through kind of the overall pediatric case rate throughout the state. That's the majority, yes. And you're right, that case rate is now pretty much paralleling the overall population case rate. There was a point in time when Omicron, where the pediatric rate was actually higher. Now it's pretty much paralleling the overall case rate in general. And I guess I'm just cautioning you not to use the word outbreak too loosely because some of the things are probably clusters of cases or isolated cases, but childcare, schools, every sector of society is actually looking the same at this point in time. You yourself probably know people who have COVID right now. It's very common for people to tell you that they know people with COVID at this point in time, perhaps more so than at other points in the pandemic, even though most of the people they know are terribly ill, thank goodness. So I wouldn't just focus in on childcare age because really, they're just reflecting the society and the community that they live in. The one reader, Rishad Chowat, to point out that there was an increase in positive COVID cases at their daughter's childcare facility, specifically after the end of the Test for Tops program. I was just wondering if you had kind of also noticed an uptick at childcare facilities and is there any plans to continue to support child for facilities in other ways, even if Test for Tops is ended? So I'm not able to give you firm data on childcare, so I don't have that in front of me, so we'll have to see if we have any additional data on that. But again, the major way we support the childcare facilities has been through our guidance that we provide them with and they've had the ability to do testing, obviously, which is important, even if they're not doing it on a surveillance level basis. So nothing much has changed, we're still eagerly awaiting word from the manufacturers regarding vaccines for those under age five. Some promising words perhaps coming through, but nothing definitive that has been presented to the FDA and ruled on by the FDA yet. But we think that may in June that that promise may come. Okay, that's all, thank you. All right, thank you all very much and we'll see you again next Tuesday.