 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this Tuesday morning before floor to consider amendments to S 15. And I think what I'd like to do is run through all three amendments and, and then we can take our votes on them. After we've heard all three of them. So I think first what I'll do is have representative Townsend, who is here visiting from the Appropriations Committee share with us the Appropriations Committee amendment. And you should all be able to find that on our committee page. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you very much for the record representative made a Townsend from South Burlington on behalf of house appropriations. In addition to the text of our amendment, which is on your web page, there is also the text of the most recent fiscal note, as recent as yesterday, it is posted on your web page. So our amendment to S 15. As the bill came to us, we saw that it incurs costs to the Office of the Secretary of State, both one time costs in the near term, and then recurring costs, virtually in perpetuity. Yet there was no appropriation within the bill to address to address any of these costs. From our perspective, that is a problem. And it is because of that that we offer our amendment, and the amendment deals solely with one time costs in the near term. Only the costs, which are addressed in the fiscal note, which need to be, which need to be taken care of in fiscal year 22 so as to have a state of readiness, when we reach the beginning of the general election cycle in calendar year. 2022, which would be into FY 23. So our amendment, you will see it is in the amount of an appropriation in the amount of $800,000. And it's in three components. The second and third components basically speak for themselves, but component number one the $400,000 in general fund dollars merit a bit of context. The context goes back to early January, when the joint fiscal committee authorized $2 million in CRF money to the Secretary of State's office to assist towns to assist with the mailings for town and annual meetings. The cost of $2 million CRF dollars. As time went on it became clear that the full amount would not be needed for reimbursement regarding these costs, and the Secretary of State's office has already returned 1 million of that 2 million to the CRF fund for other use. And at this point, there's approximately a half million remaining unspoken for with regard to reimbursements to localities with just a handful of meetings yet out there not having taken place. That being the case, the $400,000 which shows in component one for meeting the $800,000 lead in FY 22. This involves taking 400,000 of the remaining CRF dollars which the Secretary of State's office has from that original 2 million CRF authorization. That $400,000 is taken out for CRF eligible expenses and swapped with general fund dollars, which would then go into the Secretary of State's coffers to fill the hole left when the CRF 400,000 was taken out this kind of swap. Is nothing new we've, we've needed to do this over the last several months, one way or the next to enable the most effective use of, of dollars throughout the budget. The 400,000 in component one for the 800,000 does show as general funds dollars, but it is attained by having swapped out $400,000 of CRF dollars understanding that CRF dollars are not eligible to be used for election matters in this in the context of this proposal. So you've got $400,000 or we have in the proposal $400,000 general fund, general fund, and then component two is that the second 400,000 to reach 800,000 total would come from the Secretary of State's service fund, or the Health America vote act funds to the extent possible. Beyond that possible extent, the funds would come from other federal dollars, which might be made available moving forward to the Secretary of State's office, and then component three to to protect the Secretary of State's office and to protect the work, which this bill would do to the extent of them to the extent that to the extent that the related one time elections costs cannot be funded or absorbed as outlined in components one and two, then the Secretary of State's office would include any remaining unmet costs in their FY 22 budget adjustment act proposal in January. So that is the outline of the $800,000 and how we managed package it how we managed to create it. In the fiscal note you will see that there's an explanation of what the $800,000 are needed for. It is, in essence, $300,000 for secure drop boxes, 150 units at 2000 each $100,000 for mechanized letter openers 100 units at $1000 each $100,000 for software upgrade this is to ensure that our elections management system is right up to its best performance measure and $300,000 for voter education primarily for media buys. This package of expenses is based in the experience it's informed by the experience, which we have from the 2020 election cycle. So there's solid data behind these these costs. That in essence touches on our amendment. I underscore we do not in our amendment reach to the ongoing recurring costs, which will come into play as we discuss budget matters in January. We're also in F 15 as F 15, excuse me, as 15 as it came to us there was reference to an assistant elections director. I want to underscore that when the house was working initially on the FY 22 budget. At that point, never having seen as 15 at that point in time, nonetheless understood the burden being born by our elections division at Secretary of State's office and the house had already built into the budget and the Senate maintains it in the budget in their version. An additional position and assistant elections director so that piece is already covered. The vote on our amendment and committee was 1010 favorable and our vote on the bill as 15 as amended with our, our proposed amendment was 830 favorable. And so any questions that you might have, I'm happy to answer. Thank you very much. Representative Townsend questions from committee members on the appropriations committee amendment. Well, you must have done such a bang up job that nobody has any questions for you. Oh, representative Higley has a question. Thank you madam chair. Thank you representative Townsend just a question so the ongoing costs that you've referred to which it was no dollar amount. There is the printing and mailing out of the ballots is that correct. And then the fiscal note you will see a figure listed of $2,043,000 for the entire package it's in it's it's there. In the fiscal note. And that'll again come from a host of areas and possibly some of the general fund money as well. At the same time it's impossible for me to answer that question with the near speculation. This, this will need to be part of what we discuss in appropriations moving forward with the FY 23 budget cycle. You will see you will see also in the fiscal note that at JFO there is a suggestion as to a path forward with regard to the recurring costs, but again, that's simply a suggestion. It's within the realm of possibilities. Okay thanks. Thank you Madam chair. Thank you madam chair and good morning again madam. Very thorough explanation as always, so I wasn't really keeping track of the math so of this 800,000 is all of this one time monies is that the expectation. Yes. The whole thing. So one time is f 15 didn't go anywhere at all, would we be expending this money, do you think. I understand it. The 800,000 one time, as well as the recurring costs are based in the requirements upon the Secretary of State's office in s 15. And I do see on the screen here that there is representation from the Secretary of State's office and I have no idea if perhaps they could shed more light on that. I have a follow up question there madam chair, maybe to Chris or for will. Is this 800,000 this exclusively. I guess allocated to the language for s 15. Yes. Very good. Thank you. I can give you more detail replic there but if that's sufficient that's it, it would all only be spent if this bill passes. Thank you. All right committee any other questions for representative Townsend or from the Secretary of State's office perspective on the appropriation. All right, thank you so much representative Townsend we will see you on the floor we have a few other pieces of business to conduct here this morning so you're welcome to hang around but I imagine you also have other places you could be this morning. Thank you very much for having me. Next I'd like to go to representative McCarthy for an overview of the amendment that he is putting forward and if you can just help the committee understand the context here since you and I have talked quite a bit about what's contained in here. Thank you madam chair so I'm sure that many of us have received emails since we passed s 15 out of committee. There were a couple of issues that came up that we wanted to take the opportunity to address so I appreciate our chair, working with me and other members of the body and some town clerks and the secretary states office to present two instances of amendment here, which I'm offering so the first instance allows ballot drop boxes to stay open on election day so recall that in section 11 of s 15. This is noted out says that those secure ballot drop boxes have to close end of business the day before election day. And we heard from a number of town clerks, and I had many emails forwarded to me by other members of the body. Why, why will we do that we kept ours open on election day and, and so this provides the item number two, the notwithstanding language, and I really want to thank director sending for helping with this. So that a board of civil authority can choose to keep the secure ballot drop box open on election day. So that's what instance one does. Do you want me to stop there madam chair case anybody has any questions. I'm not seeing anybody diving in. Right ahead. Great. And then the second instance of amendment has to do with some concerns that we heard from a couple of clerks, including representative Piala from London Dairy who was concerned that the reasonable effort that we were doing clerks to make to to find contact information other than the mailing address in that five day window before election day to notify a voter and let them know that they could cure a defective ballot. She wanted to tighten up that language and really, and so we heard from clerks that they were worried that, you know, one voter might be treated differently than another voter that that we shouldn't just make it any old contact info that we should really clarify. Working with the Secretary of State's office and the clerks we came up with this language that really specifies that we're requiring clerks to make a reasonable effort to contact voters in that five day window where a postcard probably wouldn't get to them in time. They only have to achieve that standard. Look at information that's in the voter checklist or on the online management system and a director setting talked a lot with me about how we already have a lot of voters who have their phone and email on the my voter page on the online management system, and that part of the media buy that we were just talking about in the in the outreach campaign before the next general election will include encouraging folks to update their information that they have on file so we're tightening up this language a little bit and hopefully providing some clarity. That's it. Questions from committee members representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike I'm just looking to make sure I understand what I'm reading here and part B, the second instance of amendment. So are you are you saying that within that five day window, the clerks are or are not required to try to contact the voter. So that remains the same. The change from our original language is what resource they have to look at in order to find alternative contact information like a phone or email. So this language says that they'll provide notice to the voter as soon as possible using any contact information for the voter other than the mailing address right because postcards not going to work in that type of timeframe. That is contained in the voter checklist. And so that means the voter checklist online management system my voter page, so they don't have to scour the earth to try to find a phone and email in order to make that reasonable effort. They just need to at least look at what's on file. Okay, thanks Mike I follow up question for I guess will that be all right madam chair. Absolutely. Is my memory fading here or is it current statue that that five day window, they're not. What is it about the five day window right now. There's really nothing yet in the five day window right now you can request a ballot and request a ballot be mailed to you, all the way up to the day before the election. But what we've talked about a lot of times rep. Leclerc is through guidance and experience, the clerks generally will try to tell those voters this isn't going to make it to you on time, you're not going to be able to get it back to me. Why don't you come down and vote in the office or election day. I've always been clear with them though if they can't. If they get a valid request by that deadline and they can't reach the voter they should mail it out. So they meet their responsibility. Okay, so there's really nothing in statute will it's kind of like a best practices type of discussion. Okay, very good. Thank you. Yeah, follow up on that madam chair. So just to be clear that right now you can't cure a defective ballot at all. So this whole notification scheme is part of our new ballot curing policy that's in the rest of S 15. That's right. Any other questions for rep McCarthy on this amendment. All right, excellent so representative to thank you for being with us. Go ahead and introduce the committee to your amendment. Madam chair and thank you house government ups committee for having me in today. Thank you for looking at this amendment. If anyone doesn't have it it's on 20 page 2257 of today's House calendar. My amendment is simple. A couple months ago I came in and presented a very similar amendment to a bill for town meeting day this year. Basically what my amendment will be doing will be requiring town clerks to mail out ballots for town meeting day. That's for those that are voting via the floor so if you vote via Australian ballot. This amendment will require a town to send out ballots, not less than 20 days before the election or as soon as they are possible, or as soon as they're available excuse me. The reason I, I'm really passionate about this I think that mail in voting last year was a success across the state and I think. The next two town meeting day will also get better voter engagement there you know there's a lot of talk around the country about voter suppression. In America and keeping in the spirit of this bill I kind of want to push this to town meeting day because I feel like those are the elections that have the lowest turnouts. Historically when we when we go to the polls in March 15 to 20% I think statewide I don't have the exact numbers on me but those are for me those are really concerning when we're voting on really important topics like. School budgets and school boards that to me there's nothing more important than my child's education. And I would love a more representative government of people coming out to vote for these things so that's why I'm adding this in. I know there's going to be a matter of question right now the question of expense for this and to that matter I feel like that right now this will be on the expense of the town. I think this is something that we should look at big picture going forward, how the state can can finance this because I think as we look at how are our elections will be going forward I think the mail in balloting is a great way to get people engaged. People won't have to typically drive to or make a phone call or do anything. They just get the ballot and they vote and I think that was a very successful thing and I think a lot of people that typically didn't vote, ended up voting in 2020 and I think that if we give them that option with our town meeting. And, and special meetings I forgot to mention that it also applies to special meetings. Special minutes will meetings or elections. So, I think that'll just get better engagement and I realized when I came in in January, it was kind of too late we, we, you know, we're less than two months away from town meeting day and it was it was kind of a tall. It was a tall order but I think if we look at 2022 maybe even 2023. I would be willing to look at that I think that just, it's something to me that's really important to get better voter engagement across the state. So, thank you. Thank you representative any questions from committee members for the sponsor of this amendment representative Higley. Yeah, I'm just saying, representative to. I just want to be clear that the folks that currently have a floor town meeting. This this wouldn't affect am I correct. You are correct this would only be those that vote the Australian ballot. Okay, thank you. Representative Marwicki. Thank you and good morning thanks for for bringing us to our attention. Just as a some sort of guide to what kind of costs. This would, this would entail, not sure how many people live in the town that you're in but do you know what the estimated costs for your town would be. You know I don't have that answer to how much with the estimated cost I did speak with one of our town, I represent to the towns I represent the McCarthy and I represent the same district and one of our town clerks and she expressed that it wasn't as it wasn't that hard of a built order and she could actually use a male house or some some sort of private company that could do this and it would be fairly cheap but I would I mean that's something that I think for 2020 2022 is something I think I will probably be bringing legislative legislation where we look into the cost and have a real conversation about that going forward. So I don't I don't have the exact costs on that thank you representative Marwicki for the question though representative McCarthy. Thanks for bringing this because I think we really are wanting to move in this direction obviously of having more participation. I was wondering if you talk to the city clerk about some of the logistical concerns that she had, especially back in January and that are still kind of out, you know, out there in terms of questions of that male house it's not just about cost but also about the timeline and if there might be some other considerations that we need to think about in order to make it more practical for more towns to do this for the next town meeting day. Absolutely I haven't I haven't reached out to her. I was really busy trying to pin this in with Mother's Day and all the other stuff going on this weekend so I do. I do apologize to her and do that I reached out to her but you're absolutely right and that's what I you know one of my reasons of bringing this forward is to start this conversation because even if I know that it could fail. These are the kind of conversations about going forward. Do we give ourselves enough time to have ballots ready before town meeting day, because that is one of the biggest orders you know 20 days to get everything in, or 20 days before the election that mail everything out and and have everyone ready it's a tall, it's a tall order for our town clerk so you know that I would be willing if if the if the committee would be willing I would be willing to push this out on a date that's in 2022, because I just, I think that this is a very important. It's a very important process that I think we should adopt but maybe we're not ready for it but I would like to see the state figure out where, where we, how we can be prepared for it in the future. So thank you for that question. Thank you. I would love. Do you know if the town clerk's association has thoughts on this amendment. First of all, I have not talked to the town clerk's association. Um, and then my other question so I know that you know as we were in deliberation I guess it's not really a question. We also talked about the primaries being another space to sort of explore this and I wonder if this is a place to aim towards but not set a specific date in in this moment so that we can really get those logistics in place to make sure that it is equitable and you know because I so I worry I worry that if some towns are required to do it and we're not offering funding like there's just so many pieces here that we don't have answers to that I wonder if if if it is a an aspiration to move towards and we may not be ready yet. Yeah, and, and if I may answer that yeah I I'm personally against unfunded mandates it's something that I mean I serve on house education. And that's one of our biggest concerns is when we're like hey schools need to do this and, and we don't fund it it's like okay then why would we want to do that so that would be something that I would definitely want to look at it for you know future elections I like I said I understand this is a very tall order for a lot of town clerks across the state. Representative Hooper. Thank you madam chair. Thank you representative to but I have a question for will. In your experience do you have any opinion on town by town cost or actually capacity when it comes to individual vendors printing this number of small batch. Do you have any opinion for towns across the state, whether or not that would be plausible it within the timeframe. I don't have. It's really hard to pinpoint cost due to the variable circumstances across municipalities. What I can tell you is currently we're at right about at $400,000 of reimbursement sought for this year's annual meetings to our office from those CRF funds. And I do know that a lot of the municipalities I just want to point out to the committee to make sure you recognize this is written to apply to school districts, as well as towns and cities since it refers to municipal bodies and municipalities. There was some, there was some difficulty in finding mailing services, generally though everybody was able to scrap it together that I'm aware of from various mailing services in the state. Although it was a lot of people doing ballot printing and mailing for the first time is my impression. I think that before making this move if, if we ever were to move in this direction to mandate towns and school districts to mail out ballots, we would need to make adjustments to the local election timeline to accommodate it. And if I may follow up what, what would the difference in cost attribution be for school district elections as opposed to municipal elections funding stream wise, if any. I don't it's mainly dependent on the number of voters you have. So if you're talking big union districts with a lot of voters included it's going to be higher costs. Thank you. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. A back of the envelope estimate for the city of Barry would be around 5000 to cover postage printing envelopes, etc. And ours is 100% Australian ballot vote. I hope when those discussions about timeline arise, somebody would ask the question, not asked for over 100 years. Why are we voting in March, it's the weather is not particularly advantageous. And as my good friend from Barry town has already discovered voting in May people are a lot happier than they are in March. Thank you. Representative the Hovsky. I think that there is a lot of great information here and people certainly know that I'm supportive of making voting as accessible as as we can I would certainly encourage if this is a path we go down to connect with the towns that did in fact do universal mail balloting right out of the gate, Essex did their school budget and their town meeting by universal mail balloting back in 2020 and I think there's lots of good information to be gathered about what works and what didn't work and how to adjust the timeline but for me it feels like we just don't have the information yet, but I certainly would, you know I'm supportive of exploring this avenue. Chris Winters. Madam Chair, I just wanted to say quickly that we really appreciate representative to propose the amendment and his support of expanding vote by mail we had a similar conversation on the Senate side when Senator parent proposed a very similar amendment. I'm sure the committee is aware but I'll just point out that there was an amendment on the Senate side to modify our reporting requirements. So we very much agree with what Senator to admit I'm sorry representative to for many of you have said this morning which we all want to see more participation in our elections we all want to see this expanded to the primary and town and annual meetings, but there are a lot of logistics and there are a lot of financial issues to consider. So in the amendment on the Senate side added adding to our report requirements was for us to study issues related to implementing universal vote by mail for municipal and primary elections, and we very much intend to talk to all the stakeholders to see how we could possibly do this for primaries and local elections, and that report is due back on or before January 30 of 2023. And the reason for the kind of long timeline is that we're going to have our hands full in the in the next year. So any amendment that happened next year to expand to another election really wouldn't be in time for the 2022 elections in time for us to implement it. So, therefore the longer timeline and by January 30 of 2023 you'll have a report back from us that makes some recommendations on implementing vote by mail for municipal and primary elections. Thank you. And just to quickly follow up on that with Chris he's right with that timeline why it makes sense for January 2023 we couldn't, we couldn't make the changes early next session to apply to annual meeting next year. And I just want to remind the committee that the bill does as currently written in as past authorized towns to do this. And so towns next year hopefully another substantial chunk of them will choose to do so, and it'll give us another set of data and experience to build on in that report. Thanks well representative Leclerc. Thank you madam chair so that my question is actually for will. So, is there anything in. Is it s 15 does it just apply to the general election, or isn't there language in there that the local municipal bodies could elect to do this with town meeting currently well if s 15 was to pass. Right, both of those only mandated for the general election but authorizes them to vote to do it in their local elections. Very good. Thank you. It authorizes the municipalities who already have adopted Australian ballot. So if your school district or your town does their annual meeting in person. Your legislative body can't decide to switch to Australian ballot and mail ballots but if you already have a an Australian ballot budget adoption and annual meeting you can this authorizes municipalities to go forward representative to Thank you madam chair and just follow up that's the section that I, I changed. I believe it's section three in the bill, and that's where I change it from basically a shout to a man or a mate to a shell. So, thank you, and thank you for having me today I really appreciate it. Thanks for being here representative to have any other questions folks for either the secretary states office or the sponsor of this amendment. We do have a couple other pieces of business before us that we need to try to finish before we go to the floor at 10 so I'd like to move now to to do some voting on these three amendments to s 15 so we have the appropriations committee amendment. Anybody want to make a motion. I'll move it madam chair. Excellent. We've got a couple of voices in there. Thank you. Representative Colston when you are ready. I shall call the roll. Yeah. Mariki. Yes. The Claire. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. The house key. Yes. Yes. Hickley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. The vote is 11 00 passes. All right. Now we just need a motion on the McCarthy amendment. I'll move that we find my amendment favorable. Second. Or first. Representative Colston when you're ready. I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. Yes. Mariki. Yes. The Claire. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. The house key. Yes. The faith. Yes. Hickley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. The house key. Yes. The house key. Yes. The house key. Yes. The house key. Yes. The house key. Yes. The house key. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Covalent Hanzes. Yes. The vote is 11 00 passes. All right. And on to the two amendment. I'll be the Grinch. Move that we find it unfavorable. Okay. So a yes means no. Representative McCarthy, or sorry, Marwikki. Thank you, Madam Chair. My concerns here, this is a good idea that I'm not sure is ready for primetime yet. I think there's some good ideas, but there needs to be some more flesh put on this. And I'm concerned that for some towns it's gonna be a surprise, especially since it's when we're at town meeting, as soon as a box of pencils gets added to the budget, we know about it. So that's one of the concerns I have with this. And I'm just wondering if there's a way, a middle way we can find to put this in the parking lot for future to make sure that the idea gets the time and attention it deserves, but I'm concerned right now it's just not ready for primetime. Yeah, I agree. And I think Director Sending made a really good point that when, because we're authorizing this for the municipalities and school districts who already do Australian ballot, we hopefully will have more experience and more information about how to do this. And I'm concerned in particular about the timeline because local election ballots are only required to be printed 20 days ahead of time. And it's really difficult. I mean, that timeline for municipalities and school districts, I know that the boards are frequently quite stressed to try to get everything put in order to meet that 20 day timeline and to be a really well-functioning vote by mail system, I would think we would need more than 20 days. Rep Bihowski. I just wanted to, and I don't think, I don't know that this needs to be added in the bill with the budgeting pieces, the piece that feels really impactful, particularly for some of our smaller towns as Representative Merwicky points out, a box of pencils can really be problematic. And in some instances, it sounds like we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so, and I recognize the smaller towns would have a smaller budgetary need because they have less ballots, but I do really wanna start to get a handle on what would this cost and looking at how we, as Representative Tuve pointed out, how we might build a funding stream in so that the towns don't have to bear this cost. So I don't know if that needs to be added specifically into the report or if I can just say it and the Secretary of State's office will make sure that they look at those pieces. I would guess that they will because they're pretty good at covering all their bases. And in particular, it's worth noting that if this requirement were to fall on our school districts and our towns, that's all coming out of our property taxes. So I'd prefer not to do it in this way until we have figured out a different funding stream Representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. I share a lot of the same concerns that everybody else does as far as timing and cost, but I'm gonna support this because I do think it's a very worthy conversation to have. As the presenter had indicated, we have very low turnout on our general, not on our general, but our town meeting day votes in our school boards. And I don't know about most of you, but those affect me rather significantly and on an ongoing basis. And I would very much like to have as much turnout as we can possibly have. I do think that this is the appropriate vehicle for this to be attached to so that we can have those robust discussions, whether it be about the funding or the timing, because those are all very valid questions to have. But if we don't start having it now, when are we going to? So I am gonna end up supporting this, recognizing that again, the presenter of the amendment was amenable to pushing out an effective date and having more subsequent conversations about the funding and timelines. I see no other hands. And so I'll remind folks that the motion on the table is to find this amendment unfavorable. So a yes vote means no to the amendment, just so we're all clear. Rep Colston, when you are ready. I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. I vote yes to find this amendment unfavorable. Leclerc. No. Marike. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. Pihotski. Yes. Lefebvre. No. Hinkley. No. McCarthy. Yes. Copeland-Hanses. Yes. The vote is eight three zero and we find the amendment unfavorable. Thank you for being with us this morning, Representative Toof. We've got two other pieces of business that we need to try to transact here before we go to the floor. So I'm gonna invite Becky Wasserman to give us just a sort of 30,000 foot view of the differences between the Senate passed version of 449 and what the House passed. And just for those following along at home, this is an act relating to membership and duties of the Pension Investment Committee Commission and the creation of a pension benefits design and funding task force. Welcome, Becky. Hi, good morning, everyone. Becky Wasserman, Legislative Council. So I did prepare a side-by-side which I think will be helpful as I go through this and I'll try to do it quick. I know you're short on time. So that is posted on your website. So the, as you recall, this bill is primarily doing two things. It is changing the membership and duties of the Vermont Pension Investment Commission and it is also creating a task force to look at pension benefit design and funding for the State Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System. So the main changes that they did was in the past of the Senate was mainly changing the section on the Pension Investment Commission, making some changes to the membership and duties of the task force. And then they also added in a new committee, Legislative Pension Oversight Committee. So those are where the main changes are and then there were a couple of sections where there were no changes or very minor ones. So I can just highlight, starting at the beginning of the bill in section one where there were some changes. And if it's easier, I can use the side-by-side if that, for now, just to go through. I think that would probably be most sufficient. Great. So the first change here is in the definition section for the commission. As you recall, there was an amendment on the House floor to amend the definition of independent to say that if somebody's spouse, parent, or child is a beneficiary of the plan that that individual would have a material or direct interest in the plan. So they removed that relationship linkage. So it's just, if an individual has, is a beneficiary of the plan then they have that material and direct interest but not through that relationship. The other main changes were amending the number of members on the commission. So their version has nine members and they've removed the commissioner of financial regulation. They've also amended how the, an alternate's term limits count towards the total terms that a person can serve. So as you recall, the total term limits are four year terms for three terms. And if you serve as an alternate that counted towards that 12 years, they have said that one of those alternate terms would not count towards that 12 year cap. In terms of the chair of the committee they also made a couple of changes. So your version had an interim chair being appointed that had to be either financial expert or independent. And they have changed that to being both. So an interim chair would need to be financial expert and independent. The actual chair of the committee in your version did not have any of the independence or financial expert requirements. So they added that in for the chair as well. And finally, they removed the chair's 20 year term limit. I think the idea was that the consultant that's being hired is going to be looking at what the appropriate term limit was. So that would be something that could be updated after that report comes out. Any questions? Okay. So in section two, there was a minor change just removing the reference to the, this is a section that deals with the transition of member terms. So since the commissioner of financial regulation was removed from the committee, the reference to that commissioner's transition was also removed in this section. Section three of the bill deals with some reports that the commission had to prepare for FY 22. One of those, as I just mentioned, was hiring a consultant to do an assessment of how to get the commission to be a standalone entity. That was the word used in your version of the bill. They just replaced standalone entity with independent entity. So minor change there. There were no changes to sections four through nine of the bill. And section 10 of the bill is the pension task force. So the main changes here were amending the membership of that task force. So they reduced the house and Senate members from three to two each. They removed the commissioner's financial regulation and human services and the director of retirement division, but they included the secretary of administration. The powers and duties of the task force were also amended. I don't know if you want me to go through all of these. I've listed what the changes were in the chart. I don't think it's necessary to go through in detail. I appreciate the side by side though. That is so very helpful. So I think one of the main ones I would highlight is just the first one in your bill. There was language about looking at the setting setting as pension stabilization target for the employee system and the teacher system and reducing the ADAC and the unfunded liability by the amount of the increases that were in the actuarial valuation reports for those two systems between FY 21 and FY 22. So this change is actually slightly looking at the slightly differently by recommending strategies to lower the ADAC and unfunded liabilities with those reports in mind. So I think the idea was that it was a little clearer with respect to what exactly the task force would be looking at there. And then I've highlighted all the other changes that they made with respect to what the committee would be, what the task force would be reviewing. There were also some minor changes in subsection E that the task force would have the fiscal assistance from JFO and the state treasurer, committee support services from ledge operations and that ledge council and JFO would be authorized to do the contracting to hire an outside actuarial benefit and legal expert. And then finally, in terms of the reporting requirement, Senate GovOps changed it such that there would be an interim report that was due October 15th in a final report due by December 2nd. And then, so moving on, they added in section 11 a new committee, as I mentioned, it's the Joint Legislative Pension Oversight Committee. So this is a legislative committee. It has three House and three Senate members and they are tasked with working with and providing assistance to other legislative committees that deal with matters relating to retirement and OPEB. So this committee would look at issues of public policy relating to retirement benefits and health benefit design innovations, changes to any statutory provisions that relate to the retirement systems. And they would also review the annual appropriations for the retirement systems. So this is an advisory committee. They don't have the authority to act on any of these issues. So they would just operate in the same way that other oversight committees in the legislature operate. So the language also sets up how often they can meet. They have assistance from ledge council, ledge operations and JFO. And then finally, it also requires that VPIC and the Retirement Board submit some reports to this committee every year. And then sections 12 and 13 are just renumbering of sections in your version of the bill to account for this new oversight committee section. So that was a very quick. Great, that was an excellent jog through. And I know that committee members may want to dig a little deeper into the details of this, but given that we're bumping up against floor time, just do folks have any questions for Becky on what she just reviewed with us? Is there any part of this that you feel you need a deeper understanding of at this moment? Okay, I'm not seeing any hands. And while there's parts of this that I think are interesting and indeed the oversight committee is a really great idea that frankly, we didn't have time to incorporate into the bill on our side. So I'm thankful that the Senate did that. But I do feel like there are some parts of this that are a market departure from what we did on the house side. And so I'm gonna make a motion that we not concur and that we ask the speaker to appoint a committee of conference so that we can work these details out with our Senate counterparts. Do you need a second, Madam Chair? Sure. I'll second that. Representative Colston, are you ready to call the roll on that? I am. Give me one second. Can you clarify for process that this is another yes means no vote? Yes means you do not concur and you support going to a committee of conference. So yes means no concur. Representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Your quick run through there, can you point out a little bit more what you think is egregious that we're voting to not concur on? Well, I certainly didn't use the term egregious. I did. Significant departure. I think that the makeup of the pension benefit design and funding task force was quite different on our side. And I think we should seek to understand a little more about why the Senate did what they did. But I believe that is a big departure. And I would also like to understand a little bit more about the powers and duties section and Representative Gannon as the primary reporter of this might have other thoughts. Do you want me to trip in, chime in? Sure. Yeah, no, I mean, I think, you know, well, I appreciate the hard work that the Senate did with respect to these proposed amendments. I do think we need to take a look at the oversight commission. And I think because time is running so short that a committee of a conference is the best way to look at the changes that were proposed and resolve this so that we can hopefully pass a bill and move it on to the governor before the end of the session. Thank you. There are some things that the Senate did that I think move us significantly in the difference in a direction of acceptance by the people that are impacted by this. So I kind of favor this. Thank you. Representative Anthony. I rep Pooper and Gannon sort of got my thunder. I'm so worried that this is not gonna get a signature promptly by going to conference. That's my worry. And I really think this time is of the essence and that frankly trumps the departures understanding that this bound to be a different process, different view on the Senate side. So I'm hung up, I'm stuck. I wanna see this happen. And I'm not sure that these are what's proposed or deal breakers for me. But I understand the animus since we were pretty clear about what we wanted in both the task force and the oversight board. But I'm still on the fence. Thanks. Well, we are at that time of session where we need to begin to count legislative days. And if we were to delay action on this and try to craft a counter proposal that would need to go through the normal process on the house floor of further proposal of amendment. And there are fewer legislative days involved in both creating and acting on a committee of conference report because acting on the committee of conference report is a one and done vote. And it doesn't require the second and third and day's notice. So, or actually does require notice. Representative Daman. Madam chair, that's a very good point. I mean, the emotional efficient way to get this bill passed and signed is to go to a conference committee and not try to have this committee work on a proposal of further amendment, which could take days whereas we could resolve this on the floor today to get it to a committee of conference. Maybe I wasn't being clear. I was gonna favor concurrence and then it would be done. As was, as am I. I don't think there's anything in this revision that is so objectionable that we can don't move it forward based on the Senate's proposal. Any other committee discussion? All right, Representative Colston. I shall begin the roll call. You have a motion on the floor to not concur. So yes means no, thank you to the Senate version of the bill. And just to clarify, Madam chair, who made the motion? I did. Thank you. Gannon. Yes. Marike. Yes. Like Claire. Yes. Cooper. Is that where he said he? Cooper. No. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Anthony. No. Pihotski. No. The fave. Yes. Hickley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Copeland-Hondes. Yes. The vote is eight, three, zero in support of a committee of conference. All right, thank you so much, Becky for being with us. And last but not least, and we are running short on time, Tucker Anderson is going to explain to us the small amendment that the Senate made to H-177. Good morning, everyone. The Senate amendment to H-177, which was the city of Montpelier Charter Amendment, makes an amendment in the first section to ensure that citizens of the United States can vote in city elections. As the Charter Amendments were put together and passed the House, the Charter Amendments proposed to allow anyone who is a legal resident of the United States to vote in city elections, but that was defined as non-citizens who reside in the United States on a permanent or indefinite basis in compliance with U.S. immigration laws. It did not include United States citizens. I noted this in the Senate. They corrected that to ensure that U.S. citizens can vote in city elections and ask what you have in front of you. Representative Gannon. I move to concur with the Senate proposal of amendment. That makes a lot of sense to me. Any questions from committee members? Seems like that was a good catch and conforms the bill to what we intended it to be. Representative Colston, when you're ready. I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. Yes. Mariki. Yes. Leclerc. No. Hooper. Yes. Colston, yes. Anthony. Yes. Bihovsky. Yes. Lefave. No. Higley. No. McCarthy. Yes. Copeland-Hanses. Yes. The vote is 8-3-0 in support of the committee of conference. No. Concur. Concur. I'm sorry, concur. Thank you. I like the first comment better. Low paperwork here. All right. Thank you, Tucker, for joining us this morning and nice work committee. We are gonna head now to the floor since we may be through announcements.