 Good morning. You're with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this morning to hear some perspectives on the creation of Task Force to study and come up with recommendations on reducing our pensions liability. And I wanted to invite Mike O'Neill, the Vermont Troopers Association to share some thoughts with us. Good morning, Mike. How are you? Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. For the record, my name is Mike O'Neill. I'm the Executive Director of the Troopers Association. I'll be fairly quick in reviewing the draft yesterday in the makeup of the Task Force. I see that the VTA wasn't given any representation there and our members feel it is very important that we be represented. The other unions are being represented there. We clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of whatever the Task Force makes for recommendations. And we would really like to have the committee consider that we be represented. What I would really like to have is it looks like the time frames that the Task Force is going to have to work look like it's very short, July 15 to September 1. I would really question if they give them enough time to effectively complete the work that they need to be doing, you know, with a day of October 15 and November 1 to make more sense to ensure they have the time necessary to complete this work. So just for context for folks who are maybe following along on the YouTube stream, the Troopers in Vermont are a small part of the state employees pension plan. So we're looking at solving the challenges within the state employees and the teachers pension plan. And you all have a very unique position within the state employees plan, because as law enforcement officers, your, your line of work is more dangerous your pension benefits are are different and your contribution rates as employees are, are higher than the other members of that state employees continue. Can you, can you just remind me how many active employees you have that are in group D right now. I mean group C. About 270 to 280 it depends on vacancies VSEA does have members in group C they represent the state police lieutenants and other state law enforcement. So I think total they're about, I believe it's 400 active members in group C, and the VTA represents 270 to 280 of them somewhere in that ballpark. Thank you that's helpful context for folks who are maybe not not familiar with the landscape around our pension system. Rob LeClaire. Good morning madam chair thank you good morning my thanks for being here. I have a couple questions one. How would you envision your groups participation being in this. This endeavor as far as, would it be you, would there be other members. I had a brief conversation with my president about that. I assume they would want me to do that. I don't know if you would give us one seat or two seats like VSEA and NEA have, and we would have another member as well. But since I'm the one that is the most up to date and what's going on with retirement and understand the issues the best I assume they would want me there. And I think, like you I share some concerns about the timeline. My question would be, how quick could somebody like you get up to speed and be prepared to participate in these type of conversations. I think I can get up to speed fairly quickly I've been following all of this from the beginning, starting with meetings with the treasurer. And I've been following these issues, probably starting back in 2008 the last time. I was a commission established to study the retirement system. So I know the issues fairly well. I, by no means in an expert in the retirement issues I never will be. I think as your committee learns they're very complicated issues that take a lot of understanding to get to a point of really being informed on them. Just another quick question and every group is different but in yours. These conversations obviously would be very fluid, and you'd have to get back to certain people for feedback and get them up to speed. Do you end up interacting with like an executive council, do you end up having to try to get back to the, your whole group. How does that work traditionally. Generally we get back to we have an executive board, and it's a much smaller than the other unions because we're a smaller unit we can meet fairly quickly. The meetings on zoom has actually become very effective for us something we had never done in the past but it's very easy to put together a quick meeting so yes we can get back to our board fairly quickly and make decisions. Very good. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you madam chair morning Mike. I think, you know, I fully agree with you the more seats to table the impact of people the better. When you threw out the number of 400 were you talking about troopers and command structure and see or were you talking about see entirely see entirely. I believe the members and see entirely or around 400. Thanks you're 100% right this is complicated deserves a deep dive. Thank you madam chair. Mark Higley. Thank you madam chair good morning Mike. I agree as well as a timeline. I know I checked in with representative of the fave. After a discussion yesterday I wasn't here for that but we don't see why this task force couldn't meet prior to the July 15 time frame so I'm glad to hear that you could gear up before then and I guess we just have to hear from others is to, you know when when they're able to gear up but that would certainly. That I would certainly feel better about that. Thank you. Peter Anthony. I'm chair good morning Mr. I wanted to relay a suggestion I made on the heels of understanding that there was a tension between keeping the task force at a manageable size and yet, making sure we dug into the usual group things within the broader state employees category of which there is obviously one, and I said well, what would it be. Would it be workable if we had a periodic subcommittees that were focused on on particular groups who have very divergent interests and very divergent plans. I was thinking of the SP also the judiciary which are very unlike virtually any other group in state government. I thought that might be a cure, not to have you feel left out, but at the same time, make sure that your, the unusualness of your group has respectful do attention, I don't know if that's workable, but it was an idea to keep the group from growing and growing and growing. So if you could comment I appreciate it thank you. I don't think that's a bad idea, but I would say although our group is unique and the benefits are different. We face the same issues. Yeah, the retirement system is funded as one funds the state employee system it is one fund we're all combined as there's been conversation about. I think the issues we face are the same as all other state employees that the funding problems are not unique just to the state police. They are one in common for everybody and I would prefer that we be part of the larger group in the discussion. Any other questions for Mike O'Neill Bob Hooper. Thank you again madam chair I apologize for not hitting this earlier. This is a bill that has two components in it one of it is the committee the other is the underlying structure of VP you're familiar with that. And where it's going to go do you have any comments on what would seem to be the diminishment of member input on that body. I'm really going to get into this because, although I do see that there is not a lot of employee representation there. I don't think I can honestly speak on the best way to manage investments, and you know how that can be done the most effectively. So our members is exactly that the management of the funds be done as effectively as possible, and that we're successful going forward. So, I don't think I have the expertise to say what way of doing that is the best. Thanks Mike. Alright, so I very much appreciate you taking time to to come and share your thoughts with us this morning. I'm just echoing back what I heard you say that VTA would like a seat at the table and you believe the timeline is a bit too tight. You would be able to start as soon as the task force is able to form and you think it's reasonably going to take till October or November to to get through this work. Yes, I would agree. Excellent. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. And so Bob Hooper your hand is still up. Do you have a question. No, but I did manage to mute myself immediately so I know it's really difficult to to get all of those, all of those zoom clicks done in an appropriate order. So that is all we have for this early morning session we will be back in committee at 1030. And so I appreciate that everyone got promptly to their computer at nine o'clock and Mike O'Neill thank you so much for for being with us. Thank you committee thank you Madam Chair. All right Peter Anthony. I wonder if he shouldn't ourselves caucus about in respect to our own availability. Since this timeline issue is undoubtedly going to come up on and raised by other potential participants. I don't know what my colleagues have available for summertime I love to garden but this is my first job and so the gardening will have to wait but I don't know about my colleagues and maybe we should decide or at least have a glimmer as to when we could get to work, and whether we could or couldn't work into the fall, and respecting teachers schedule being different than hours different than the VSP. Try and have an answer to those kinds of issues as they come up. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Peter I, I appreciate the suggestion. I guess at the end of the day I would say that the appointments to this task force on pensions will be made by the speaker, and I would presume that she will check with whoever she desires to appoint to the task force to see if they're available. We will come back at 1030 for some more testimony and and to have some committee discussion perhaps after the floor this afternoon, and then we've got a few more entities that we need to hear from to get their perspective on the governance and the task force. Just for the sort of overall expectation. You know, I, we need to be thinking about moving this bill out by early next week, so that the Senate has time to consider. As we know from normal sessions and I guess for the benefit of our new members who maybe don't know this as we move towards adjournment. The Senate shuts down half of their committees in, you know, with a couple of weeks before session ends and so we want to make sure that we get this bill over to them so that they can give full consideration to, to the task force and the changes. And so that that is the sense of urgency in getting this bill moving. Any other questions before we sign off from Claire. Thank you madam chair I'm glad to hear you say that and I encourage you to emphasize that that there is a sense of urgency here. In conversation administration yesterday they're meeting with the bonding agencies as we're speaking right now. So there truly is a sense of urgency to at least get a plane in place. Thank you. Hi, I, there's some weird thing going on here between Rob and I in the atmosphere I don't know what it is but it has to stop. I wanted to bring up the issue of moving 150 million forward, whether that's going to be on our agenda I think that has a direct impact on cost immediate cost. And also whether we're going to address in the context of OPEB. The plan holiday issue which also is a couple million bucks that could go where it needs to go as opposed to where somebody has a discretion of throwing it. Good points to keep track of. To punt on that one but the those money decisions are are above my pay grade, but I will bring them up when I have my next meeting with the speaker who is in contact with the appropriations chair. And you are more than welcome to express your opinion to her as well. Is the, has there been a change in our earlier mandate that we were going to make recommendations for the 150 and Mike McCarthy are you raising your hand to update us on on that thank you. Yeah, so my understanding in conversations with the speaker and what she said publicly last week was that with the formation of the task force, we were going to leave the options open with 100 in regard to the $150 million. I have a question about the premium holiday that's another one. I don't know if that's going to be in our purview here or not, but in terms of the $150 million dollars the speaker made it absolutely abundantly clear that her desire and our mandate was to form the task force and work on governance, and at the $150 million as it was passed here will remain in, or as it was passed by our body in the budget will remain in reserve, and, you know, we'll be able to hear what the task force has to say so that's that's what we heard from the speaker last week that's what I've been operating under the assumption. That's my recollection as well. All right. Any other questions before we sign off. All right. Thank you committee and we'll be back.