 Good afternoon, and you are back with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are coming back this afternoon to take another walk through the draft bill around creation of Task Force and membership and duties of the Vermont Pension Investment Committee. We have taken a look at gone, gone once through the changes that were made in response to the testimony that we heard last week and conversations that we had over the weekend and I wanted to give members the opportunity to go through this one more time because it is my intention that we will move this bill out of committee tomorrow. And so I'd like to go through one more time right now so that we can give some direction to legislative council if there are any things that we think need to be redrafted to look at a more final draft in the morning. And so, Becky Wasserman thank you so much for being with us this afternoon we we gave our vice chair the duty to walk us through the last, the last time we walked through the bill and I think I'll let you go ahead and guide us through the bill this time. I will let you know when I hear or see questions so that if folks have questions or suggestions or need clarification on anything will pause and take a moment to to discuss what we're looking at. Sure. So, I'll just start I know you went through it already but you just want me to start from the beginning again. Yep, let's go through section by section and give folks an opportunity to ask any final questions or express any desire to discuss changes. Great. So Becky Wasserman legislative council this is draft 1.2 of the drafting request. 0967 it does not have a bill number yet because it has not been introduced but it's relating to the membership and duties of the Vermont pension investment committee and the creation of the pension benefit design and pension benefits design and funding task force. So on page one, what it what is first highlighted there is the renaming of that task force and the renaming of the title to incorporate some of the changes that were made. So the task force is the benefits design and funding task force, because now the duties of that task force have been expanded so it's reflecting what those responsibilities would be. So section one of the bill. This is amending the VP sec statutory section of law in the definition section and section 521. There is highlighted in yellow at the top of page to a new definition of independent. The definition includes independent means an individual who does not have a direct or indirect material interest in the plans. And then there's some additional clarifying language. So an individual has a direct or indirect material interest. If one individual or their spouse parent child sibling or in law is a beneficiary of any of the plans. Or if the individual or the any of the those family members of the individual has been within the past five years and employee director officer consultant owner. I see consultant is here twice so I need to correct that manager or had another material role with an entity servicing the plan. And then there's also some clarifying language on what it means to be an owner. So an owner of a publicly traded company is someone who owns directly or indirectly 5% or more of a class of the company's equity securities registered on under the Security Exchange Act. Right. I will keep going I don't see any questions so section 522 is the membership of the pick. I added some language here in subsection a under lines 19 to clarify that this is an independent committee. And this is just sort of speaking to the committee's independence from the Treasurer's office. And there's some more clarifying language with respect to that. So in the section the current statutory language has be picked attached to the Treasurer's office. So this is trying to get to the fact that it's an independent committee. And I think that there's also some language on a consultant doing a study of how to make it a separate legal entity so I'm not sure if this is a committee discussion point but if this is sufficient for now for sort of being explicit that this committee is independent. Representative Cooper. So I didn't realize the impact of the top part in the bottom part before but Becky will this language. Essentially, the bill is effective on passage. Throw somebody out into the middle of the wilderness alone. What's the caveat that keeps the be thick functioning during the period of time when this is in transition before the report is issued and accepted or whatever. I'm sure so I'll get to this a little bit later on in the language but the committee still has the administrative and I believe technical support of the Treasurer's office. So it is not changing the support that it receives from the Treasurer's office. It is just not attached to it as sort of a division of the Treasurer's office. So then, where is it. I mean, if you're. It's got to exist someplace in state government it's got to be under something it seems to just be floating and then Netherland after this. So right now it's, it's not under a specific office I think the request was to make it independent. I would say more typically I see this with boards than committees I think are more more examples of that but I think it's taking that kind of structure where it's an independent board or independent committee, rather than being like under, you know, the secretary administration or, for example. So like the labor board or something like that. So, I believe, like the Green Mountain care board might be another example or where it's an independent board. And do they normally have appropriations to. Um, so, so the there are some language in here that I'll get to that says that for any expenses incurred by the committee, they may collect payment proportionally from each retirement system. And as well as they can collect payment for any of the expenses incurred by the Treasurer's office for providing administrative support to them. Thank you. So in terms of the membership of the committee. There's one member and one alternate that is elected by the board of the Vermont state employees retirement system. One member and one alternate elected by the members of the state teachers retirement system and then a member and alternate elected by the members of the municipal retirement system. There are two members and one alternate who are each financial experts and independent that are appointed by the governor. The state treasurer is a voting member of the board. The committee chair is elected by appointed by the nine other members of the committee. And then there was a change here the commissioner of financial regulation is now on the board. I believe that there's an a municipal employer member appointed by the ED of the league of cities and towns and then a school employer appointed by the school boards association. And I had some notes that your discussion earlier. I have a question around the municipal and school employers and whether you wanted to change how that was phrased so I don't know if that was decided yet. We can certainly have some committee discussion about that. I'm not sure that we I'm not sure that we came to a consensus about what we intended that to be and and therefore we still need to design what language gets at what we have consensus around what what we're trying to get to so anyone want to weigh in on that. I don't think we're going to have to flag that for a fresh look maybe over a morning cup of coffee or something. I'm not sure. Rep Dan. As I suggested earlier I thought maybe just putting in representative of a municipal employer representative of a school employer with the assumption that the school employer is a school district or supervisor supervisor union and the municipal employer would be a city or town. That makes me peaceful. I'm not sure how other people are feeling about it and any folks have different concerns, but he's diving representative Leclerc. That actually works for me madam chair, I think it leaves us the flexibility and latitude to get the right people on there. I see thumbs up if folks are okay with that. All right. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Vice chair for crafting a phrase that works. Rep Lafave. Sorry, I was just saying I agreed with that. Okay. Excellent. Representative Anthony. Thank you I agree with it to I, I, I, I keep remembering that there's language elsewhere to urge your pointing authorities to focus on the issue of expertise and I assume that that language. If you like is permeates the whole bill, including this section we're now focused on. And if it doesn't I'd make that explicit. So the financial expertise requirement is not required of the member representing a municipal employer or the member representing a school employer, or the independence requirement. I still think it would be useful, but that's what we're aiming for anyway. Representative Hooper. I tend to agree with Peter. However, that second comment about the requirement that they not be independent throw up a flag in the context of why not committee discussion. Rep Ganon. And as I explained, based on some feedback, I got from Tom Galanca from the beam or viewers representative on be picked their concern was that if we had an independence requirement with respect to these two positions, then a superintendent, or a town manager who would likely be beneficiaries of the pension and would not be able to serve. I thought we excuse me for being obtuse. I thought we sort of basically said, you weren't not independent if you were a beneficiary. Did I miss that position of independent includes a beneficiary of pension. So that is on page two lines three through five. And I thought I heard we were going to exclude beneficiaries not being that significant, but fine. It would be my hope that that if either of these entities wanted a town manager or superintendent to be appointed and found that someone had a level of expertise that they thought was beneficial to represent their representation that they would be able to appoint them so I think I am comfortable with the language in front of us. If other people are can we have a thumbs up. Would you like me to just go through the highlighted language or just kind of go through the whole bill right now. I think we should go through the whole bill we focused largely on the highlighted sections before and I just want to make sure that folks have a fresh view of all of the way the whole thing fits together so that we can close this down. Tomorrow morning. Great. So moving on to the top of page four subsection B is a training section section. Alternates of the committee would be required to participate in onboarding and ongoing periodic training requirements in investment securities and fiduciary responsibilities. And the committee would also provide an annual report to the authorities that elected or appointed those members and alternates regarding their attendance at these trainings and educational programs. Subsection C has to deal with deals with member terms. So, except for the ex officio members of the committee, all members of the committee are serving staggered four year terms. Vacancy created before the expiration of a term is filled is done so in the same manner as the original appointment. It's appointed to fill vacancy created before the expiration of that term is not deemed to have served a term for the purpose of the subsection. And in terms of eligibility members are eligible for reappointment, but they cannot serve more than three years. So a total of 12 years. Some new language that was added. Requires that if a member is can only be removed from the board. Sorry, this should say the committee, I will fix that from the committee for cause. And that the committee shall adopt rules pursuant to the APA, which is three VSA chapter 25 to define the basis and process for that removal representative Anthony has a question. I think in your absence, Becky, this is a point at which, at least I thought it would be useful to be clear as to whether we were counting the years already served by people who were going to continue on. But I still go back to my attitude back then which is, we start with a clean slate and so the aforementioned limits, 12 years, etc, etc, would be applicable from the day that the commission is reconstituted. So there, there is language and the transition section on page. 12. Current members and alternates may be reappointed if they meet the eligibility qualifications and term limit requirements in three VSA 522. So, I think this does address that situation of if you have a current member or alternate who has, let's say served eight years that they're still subject to that 12 year term limit requirement if they are reappointed to another term. That is a discussion point that the committee will need to make a decision on. I, I, it was my intention that that term limits would not start afresh at zero. Once we reconstitute the committee but that time served would count towards one's term on the pension investment committee. Happy to have a committee discussion about that representative Cooper. Thank you madam chair odd odd that you should use the word time served because sometimes I think it feels like that. I think, as John mentioned earlier in the day we're expecting a turnaround in the action of what VPIC has done recently and I would be in favor of starting to clock over rather than disrupting or blowing up maybe what is working all of a sudden. All right, this is a decision point for the committee and since we're on this question right now. Let's go ahead and have some committee discussion representative Leclerc. Do we have any specific specifics of the people and time served to date that we're we can use as a reference. Meaning, do we have the tenure of the current membership of the committee, much, much better said madam chair yes. Yeah, and I don't know. If I don't have that immediately in front of me I don't know. Mr Vice Chair if you did some digging to to figure that out. It's not immediately easy to find. I did request that information from Tom Galaco, who then forwarded to Eric Henry, and I have not received a response at this point. Other committee discussion on time served versus start the clock afresh. An answer to that question would help me some if we have a lot of people who are 10 years into the 12 years might be worthy of a conversation but if we've got people who are fairly new to the positions. And the 12 years isn't a major concern that I could go either way. Representative Higley. Thank you madam chair yeah that information be helpful for me as well but right now I'm leaning towards starting the clock anew. Okay. Any other questions, comments or suggestions on this because it sounds like we'll need to come back to this in hopes that we can get more information before before we make a final decision. I would ask that if anyone's got that information in front of them that they actually email that to the House government operations committee that way our committee assistant can put that information up on our committee page so that folks who may be following along from home can also see the answer to the to that question. Thank you madam chair. I was wondering because we talked about how hard it is to get people if we also have on record if there has been any vacancies and how long it took to fill that vacancy representative Hooper. Madam chair, I might be able to address parts of those questions. If you grant me leave. In the chat prior to realizing what the question actually was that Rob was asking. This is term expiration off the top of my head I could say probably who's new and who isn't. And as to representative of faves question, generally speaking the employee boards do their elections immediately or a little bit before the governor's appointees seem to take a while to fill but the person that's in the seat doesn't leave until the new one is appointed so there's really not ever a quote unquote vacancy. Thank you. So keep an eye on our email and if, and if we get an answer that question via email will post it under documents for the day. Let's flag this Rebecca, if that's okay and we'll come back to the to the issues about time served versus reset. So then I'll move on to the chairs limits. So the chair shall serve not more than 20 years on the committee. And that is combo serving as a chair or committee member. The committee can elect an interim chair who has to have financial expertise or, or be independent. If the chairs unable to perform his or her duties. A technical question maybe towards the issue of terms. If you're not, if you're an alternate, are you considered to have been a member under this, because an alternate is technically not. So if you've been an alternate for eight years. I would assume that doesn't count towards your. Does it actually a great point and this language does just references the members having staggered for your terms and a limit of three terms. I am noticing that the original language. It's a requirement for both members and alternates so I can. I can add that I can add alternates into those term limits. If that is what the committee is looking to do. So you can be an alternate for a specific. And then you can be a member for a specific. If you get promoted. So I mean, I guess this is a committee decision. I'm just pointing to the original, the current language which says that both the alternates and the members serve for four year terms. So that is a policy decision point for us. I think that the term limits should apply to both alternates and members. Because I think the same issues come up with people who serve lengthy periods of time on a court, whether that's in a member position or not. And as I understand VPAC, the alternates attend all the pick meetings, they're allowed to speak during the meetings. They're just not allowed to vote representative Anthony. I agree with the vice chair and I was linking my set contribution with whether I am personally comfortable with distinguishing the chair with a longer term or not, given that Mr. John has already served for three years. And if there's no reset, I think it would be unfortunate, but I'm sympathetic to shortening the distinguishing length for the chair, if it's a reset. But I agree with John the delegates and the sorry alternates and members want to be treated in tandem, that is to say, identically, in terms of a crude time. Right, so can we just drop hold the question of whether alternates and members are treated the same are if you are comfortable with alternates and and VPAC members being treated the same for the purposes of term limits. See in a few hands. Okay, mostly ups and and one down. And a couple of abstentions. We still have to make a final decision I think as a committee about whether, whether we're going with resetting the clock at zero or counting time already served but we can come back to that question. Other committee discussion on either of these points. Representative look there. Um, thank you ma'am truth that that question it's only got to do with this particular point in time correct. So, it's just kind of a once and done. Discussion, the transition language. Yes. So, knowing what we're looking at for 10 year of existing members would be helpful for me. All right. Back to the language. Sure. So, moving on to subdivision three on page five so I'm on a term shall end on June 30 and new terms began on July 1, 1. And then not withstanding the term limits members. And I'll include alternates here shall serve until their successors are appointed subject to the term limits provided in this subsection. So that makes sure that there is no vacancy on the committee until someone is appointed. In terms of the chair and the vice chair. The chair of the pick shall be a non voting member except in the case of a tie vote. And the committee shall elect a vice chair from among its members. Top of page six eligibility. No legislator who's currently serving in the general assembly shall serve on the committee representative again and has a question. This is a question, you know, for representative Cooper. I was just wondering about the diversity of the pick members today. I mean one of the reasons to have more change over or term limits is as our population changes. It's an opportunity to have more diversity on boards and both public and nonprofit entities are really focused on encouraging diversity on their boards and so I was just wondering if you could identify. The diversity that's currently on the pick. There are no people of color. And if you consider the six members who are not the alternates, I think. Beth Mary Alice and Kim. One is a governor's appointee one is the treasure one is a municipal board. And the other one is the governor's appointee. The governor represents myself. Joe Mackey. And I think John Henry Huber Huber or something like that. So it looks like in the voting members of the pick it might be three three. Alternate wise, we just had a very strong voice from the female side of the aisle die. At this point, I'm not sure if it's been approved. And I can't really speak to the governor's. There's an alternate that is a male for me. The alternate for the teachers was a female. The municipal I think the alternate is a male he used to be the actual voting member, they switched seats. That's what you're asking. Thank you. So I'll move to the, oh, sorry, was there a committee discussion on the eligibility. Nope. So in terms of committee meetings. Five members of committee constitute a quorum. If a member is not in attendance, the alternative that member shall be out eligible to act as a member during their absence. The committee needs five concurring votes to be necessary for a decision at any meeting. Subsection G leave leave time. So public employee members and alternates are granted reasonable leave time to attend committee meetings and education programs. The health ski has a question. Thank you. I don't know that this is actually a question for legislative council. I'm just trying to really quickly wrap my head around things and do some math. Why would it be five and not six wouldn't we want 50% plus one, as opposed to just half of the committee to make a decision. So there, there are nine voting members unless there's a tie, there's 10. The, the previous draft had six members needed for a quorum and I believe this was a request from the pick to change that from a super majority to just a simple majority of five. Yes, I wanted to confirm that that was a request from VPIC and the language change that I asked Becky to make was that it would only be a super majority for setting the assumed rate of return, which I think is the most critical decision that any other questions on that. Great. I think we're on to each. So compensation reimbursements. The members who are not public employees are entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses for their service on the committee and the chair of the committee may be compensated at a level not to exceed one third of the salary of the state treasure. And representative Dan. Just so for Becky's information, there, there was, and I don't know if you caught this or not there was a discussion about having a compensation study related to the compensation of the chair. Yes, and there is. I did see notes on that. There is language in the consultant study that says that the report is including a review of budgetary authority frequency of trainings transfer or hiring a personnel and compensation. Would you like me to be more specific of compensation of, of chair and employees or is, is it does a language work as is. Probably, if you said chair and employees because VP, VP will have employees moving forward. Let me find my place again. So then, in terms of assistance and expenses and subdivision, subsection I. So I referenced this earlier that the committee shall be administrative and technical support of the office of the state treasure. In terms of funding the committee can collect proportionally from the funds of the three retirement systems and any individual municipalities that have been allowed to invest their retirement funds through through the committee. Any expenses incurred that are associated with carrying out its duties as well as any expenses incurred by the treasurer's office in support of the committee. And then finally, the, the attorney general serves as legal advisor to the committee in terms of the committee's duties. They are responsible for the investments of the assets of each retirement system. And they, the committee has to strive to maximize total return on investments. In accordance with the standards of care under the prudent investor rule so this is all current statutory language. The committee can enter into agreements with municipalities about administering their own retirement systems. The state treasure serves as custodians of the funds of all three retirement systems. And VP can also enter into agreements with the state treasure to invest the state employees and teachers teachers OPEB fund. In terms of the committee's powers and duties. So the committee shall set the following actuarial assumptions. One is the retirement rate of return, the inflation rate and the smoothing rate method used for the actuarial valuation of assets and returns. Not more than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year and this was a change from the previous draft which had it at 90 days. So the committee has to conduct an asset allocation study that reviews expected return of each fund. And that looks at risk analysis using best practices methodologies to estimate potential risks to the funds assets over 510 and 20 year period. And their remainder of the statutory amortization period. So I did hear that the study would be sent to the general assembly. The governor and may publicly available on the state treasurer's website within 10 days. I think there was some discussion last time about whether it should go to a specific committee rather than the general assembly. And whether posting it on the state treasurer's website was the correct place to do so. I would think that House and Senate government operations at a minimum should should be recipients of that representative Anthony. Definitely concur and I even put a date on it. Like right after the Cavill falls in January. Well, the materials are collected and anyway, there is the date of not more than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year. So, okay, that would would typically be by the end of the year end of December. Excuse me, Madam Chair, I don't want to beat a dead divorce but right after we just listed the assumptions and the actions that the in the case of the rate of return to super majority of VPIC. I wonder if it's worth. I know we've added it and I thank you very much to the task force I wonder if it's worth simply saying and by the way that the rate of return shall remain at its current level until January. 2024 or something to sort of settle the waters. No, I don't feel like that's a legislative decision to make. Okay. To tell you the truth. I wouldn't want to get into prescribing what VPIC can and can't do in that way. There are other committee discussion on that point. Representative Hooper. I mean, which is why I raised my hand but that's, I mean, that's a number that could really need to be changed quickly and it would make us fiduciaries of the plan to some degree which I don't think we really want. Becky, can you go back up to the, the treasurer shall be the custodian of the funds. What does that really mean in the context of, we have a custodial bank that is under the purview of VPIC. The OPEP funds that Beth gave VPIC to manage she put into contract that she continues to be the custodian but once again this is sort of that everybody gets set adrift when this gets signed. I don't know where that leaves the custodian relationship. Because all the money is in the bank if it's not invested then it looks like this says Beth gets to write all the checks and I'm not entirely sure that's what we have now. I think this might be a question for the treasurer's office on what this means in practice. Oh, that's current law so I think maybe the treasurer's office could speak to how what the current practices in terms of being a custodian of the funds. So I didn't, I didn't change that language I was just sort of reviewing what was in statute currently. Okay, thank you. All right, back to the language. And I am noting that I don't have the super majority requirement for setting the actuarial assumptions so I will add that into the next draft. So moving on to record keeping the committee keeps a record of all of its proceedings which shall be open for public inspection. In terms of policies the committee can formulate policies and procedures to carry out its functions and what the responsibilities are of the chair. There's a new language about the committee having policies with respect to their standards of conduct for members and employees of the committee. And I'll point this out later on but in current law this, these standards of care are referenced in the individual boards statutory sections. It says that the treasurer sets those standards. So for the committee standards of conduct I have moved those to the committee statutory section and I'm having them create their own standards of conduct for for their own committee rather than the treasurer. Of course, this could be a question for committee discussion. So I'm going to turn to Rob Hooper on standards of conduct. Trying to click too many things at once here. Standards of conduct are pretty well prescribed in the future responsibility but anything over and above that. Self governance I think is a good thing so if the committee determines that the treasurer's recommendations should go forward that's fine they can be modified. I don't think that's something that you should have to go to somebody else to get if that answered the question. Yeah I mean your hand was up so I thought maybe you wanted to weigh in whether the committee should write their own standards of conduct. Generally speaking I think you're harder on yourself than somebody else might be but that's. All right, everybody's peaceful with this language. Nobody's screaming, nobody's diving for their little hand raised function so keep moving. The subsection is contracting authority so contracts approved by the committee, maybe executed by the chair or the vice chair and the chair's absence. Subsection F is an asset and liability study that's done every three years beginning July 1 of 2022. So based on the most recent actuarial value valuations of the plan, the committee shall study the assets and liabilities of each plan over a 20 year period. That study looks at projecting the expected path of the key indicators of each plan so financial health based on all current and actuarial investment assumptions current contribution and benefit policies and that includes the plans to get funded ratio actuarial required contributions by source payout ratio and related liquidity obligations and then also projects the effect on the plans financial health resulting from possible material deviations from the plan assumptions and possible material deviations from key plan actuarial assumptions and that looks at retiree longevity potential benefit increases and inflation. So, subsection G changes to actuarial rate of return so any changes to that rate are made solely by the committee. Subsection H annual reports. So beginning January 15 of next year. The committee sets, submits to the House and Senate Committee on government operations. A few reports. The first is a report on the performance of each plan versus its demographic investment and other actuarial assumptions over 357 and 10 year period. And the funding ratio of each plan to each plan beneficiary at the end of the fiscal year. Also a report on the status of the funding and investment performance of each plan and any relevant information from the asset liability and scenario testing completed during the prior fiscal year. And then I believe this was discussed earlier about sending a written copy of the report to each participant and beneficiaries and the change that would be made would be to make it a written or electronic copy. And this written down and to consolidate it with any other reports that are going out to to members and beneficiaries. So in terms of section to the transitioning of the member terms. So beginning July 1 of this year, the, there are three, there are new member seats that will be appointed. So these are the commissioner financial regulation, the member representing a municipal employer and the member representing a school employer. So the municipal employer member representing municipal employer would serve an initial term of one year. And then the member representing the school employer would serve an initial term of two years. And then it would start the four year staggered term after that. And then the current members and alternate serving on the committee. That as of the date that this bill is enacted. They serve until the year prior to the expiration of their current term or the later of June 30 2023. And then this is the language that I think is still held for discussion of whether those members and alternative alternates may be reappointed if they meet the eligibility and term requirements. And the staggering of the terms was done so that we will be it just staggers from 2025 through 2027. The terms where new members are appointed so that not everybody is coming on board at the same time. Questions comments committee discussion. We're aiming to give some direction to legislative council if there's anything. We decided as a committee that we would like to change about this so that we can be looking at as close to a final draft as possible in the morning representative Piggly. Thank you Madam chair with this section go towards answering maybe a little bit of the other question that's still unanswered in regards to a question for everybody. I mean is it going to be difficult to look at the ones that are currently serving and and work them into this. The staggered proposal easily and and maybe that might help us determine that we should we should start it all at a, at a starting point, but just just a thought. Just as address the currently serving members and alternates those those expiration the expiration of those terms span from this year I believe until 2024. So it has a certain number of the current members being reappointed starting this year. But no later than 2023 depending on when their current term is expiring so some of the current members will still be on the board until at least June 30 2023. Thank you. But it does. So this language to go to your other question says that does cap. Any reappointments at that 12 year term limit so it does not answer. I guess it, this is still an open question of whether you want to allow for a longer periods of term limits for current members or just to say 12 is the most that you can serve on the board including past service. Thank you. The decision point. Rep Hooper. Thank you madam chair. Becky I'm looking at what I put into chat which has the expiration of terms in it was that what you were looking at. Which. Yes, from the VPIC website. Yeah. You know this moves one section of terms back and all of a sudden we've got the teachers to state employees. I don't really see the reason for this June 30 2023. Date, because it looks like the way the terms are spread out now. They're pretty well spread out. I think it's not a matter of spreading out the terms that's a matter of it's really a policy decision on the committee of getting new members on the committee over a period of time. But you know that's, I think a question for the committee of letting the current members serve out their full terms which would go until 2024. But this current this language as drafted has everyone, all the current members and alternates ending their current terms one year early. Yeah, I see that. And so actually that would only impact that guys the governor's appointee and the state employees appointees. That would impact everybody because the current municipal employee representative is expiring June 30 2022 so they would be reappointed June 30 of this year. The state teachers representative is expiring June 30 2023. So it moves that that representative back to June 30 2022. And the two governors appointees would be reappointed on in 2021 because their current terms are both expiring in 2022. So it impacts everyone equally in the sense that they're all having it lessened by one year. And my only comment I guess would be that cuts into the institutional memory, whether that has value or not. This is a lot of the people that you're moving, depending on other changes would not be eligible for reappointment. Thanks. Other committee discussion. Okay. It is now 430. And we have few pages left to go. So I am. I think I'm going to make the executive decision that 430 is is a long enough day at this point, and we will start out fresh on section three, page 12, is that where we are? Yes. So if we can start out there first thing in the morning. Again, you know, it's, it is my intention that we are going to vote this bill out of committee. So we want to make whatever changes, suggestions, recommendations, and, and we will straw pull those as a committee tomorrow. So I think that would be helpful for for, for the ease of working through this if you know you have an idea that is more complicated than a word here or a word there. It would be helpful for you to convey those ideas to legislative council before we're sitting in committee tomorrow morning because drafting on the fly is never very comfortable. Major redrafting. And so my hope is that we can resume tomorrow morning on section three go through to the end of the bill and then take a pause if there's anything that we need to do that substantial redrafting and come back to the beginning of the bill right after that so that we can close off sections as we go tomorrow. When we start fresh at the top of the bill representative Anthony. Thank you madam chair I just, it may be useful I can't get clear whether my pardon the phrase in transigence about the reset is is going to fly and so you might want to just settle that right now so Becky can draft it before we reappear tomorrow morning. I'm not sure where we are with that. I believe we were waiting for a little more clarity on what exactly that means. Okay. Fair enough. I just think institutional memory is going to be important, almost no matter, but you're right. And I respect Mark's interest in seeing who who's been there a long time and I think that's important to know. Thanks. If I do receive suggested changes should I incorporate those right now or will they just be discussed and then I can just have language ready just in case. Let's flag those for decision points and, and we can flip to to a particular piece of language if that's something that someone would like to suggest for inclusion. Thanks. Thank you. Well, this is a question for for Becky. So on page 11 that number two in regards to that written copy was in regards to. If you want to make sure did or if you want some help with that or, you know, something to the effect of, you know, it would be put out in a email blast or their information or something. I don't know just what the wording would be but. Yeah, I think I think we have some other examples where reports are electronically submitted. And also we have some language that I can use as precedent for making sure that any reports that are sent to participants or beneficiaries would be consolidated into into one report so that every so that if they do request a written report it's not. It's not, you know, multiple reports being sent out to thousands of people. All right, thanks. Representative Cooper. Madam chair if it would help and I want to be clear I know what Mark is asking I could send an email out to the feedback members and alternates and ask them how long they've been on. And then distribute it to the committee. Are we getting a radio in the background. Okay, that's better. That would be fine. That would be fine with me and it was Rob as well was looking for that information to I think so. We have asked for that to be presented from the retirement office at the Treasurer's office as well so that's okay. Whoever can get it to us first would be nice to have it by email so people can look it over. Okay. All right, any other questions from committee members. All right. Thank you for your great work today committee thank you Becky for taking us through and and helping us understand the, the near final changes to the bill. And we will be back at it at 9am tomorrow.