 So, just pick up where you left off. And I think Senator Plena said you got up to page 14. Is that what he said. Yes, so that's section four. Okay. So it's page 15 in the as introduced version. Okay, great. Okay, so Becky Wasserman legislative council. So I will continue from section four in H449. Yesterday we went through the changes to the Vermont pension investment committee. Now the commission that changed the membership and the duties of that, that committee. And the next few sections are dealing with current law in statute. That. There are some references to the committee response, the commission's responsibilities in the state employee retirement system board language, the teachers language and the municipal language that had to be changed to sort of update the cross references with respect to the new requirements of the commission and new responsibilities. So I will just highlight that they're going to be very repetitive, but it just had to be changed several times so section four starting with the retirement board for the state employees retirement system. So this is a new requirement that the actuarial the experience study the actuarial investigation will be done at least once in every three year period rather than a five year period. So you'll see this change being made in all three statutory sections. So this first section is three vsa 471. And that's with respect to the state employees retirement board. So this is in line in the as introduced version it's it's line 21 on page 15. Section five is also dealing with the state employees retirement system. And yesterday that this the state employees retirement system language had some language in there to the standards of conduct that would be adopted by the treasurer for VPIC. And that language is now moved in to section. Section two of the bill that VPIC will be adopting their own standards of conduct for for their own commission. So section five is is deleting the references to the treasure adopting those rule standards of conduct for members of VPIC. And then the treasurer will be only doing this for members of the the board of trustees for the state employees retirement system. Are there any questions on that. No, okay. I'm just going to kind of be repeating that those same concepts three two more times so section six is making the change from the five year to the three year period for the actuarial investigation in the teachers retirement system board language. You'll see that on page 17 line 20. And then section seven is still in the teachers system. Again deleting the references to the treasure adopting standards of conduct for the for VPIC. So the treasure would only be doing this. And adopting these rules with respect to the board of trustees for the state retirement teachers retirement system. Section eight of the bill is again in the municipal system. Changing that length of that actuarial investigation from a five year period to a three year period. And then section nine is again just actually this section did not have any references to VPIC standards of conduct but I did change all the references to it being a committee to a commission in this section of law. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, this is not. Well, it's a technical question but has nothing to do with anything else pretty much. I'm sorry, I'm on the line 16. What is an obligor. I'm sorry, I'm not sure we're on the same. Oh, and or of any. It's current law. I'm just, oh yeah. So somebody who has, who has loaned, I think it's somebody who loans money to the, to the board. Okay. Thank you. It's that body to whom you are obligated. Is that what I don't see it. Are you are in any manner and it's current law. It's current law. Forgive me for asking I shouldn't have asked the question. I don't want us to get sidetracked into something that isn't I apologize. I see it's just fine. Okay. Thank you, Becky. Thank you. Section 10 is setting up the task force. The pension benefits design and funding pass force and this is specifically for the state employees retirement system and the state teachers retirement system. Subsection eight a creates this task force and they're looking at reviewing and reporting on the benefits design and funding of retirement and retiree health benefits for the state employees system that teacher system. The membership of the board consists of three members from the house, not from the same political party who are appointed by the speaker of the house. There's three members from the Senate, not all from the same party who are appointed by the committee on committees. The director of the retirement division is on the board from the office of the state treasure. There's the commissioner of financial regulation. Oh, sorry, I saw a question. Can I ask a chair of question. Yes. Um, Becky, in your long experience in legislative council, when we have wanted an array of political parties represented or perspectives, have we done anything different than say, not of the same political party. That is our standard template for, for referencing not of the same different political political parties. Okay, I think because this is such a topic of interest. If there's a way to ask others in Ledge Council, like have we ever worded. We've never seen anything other than that worded but let's this that's a that's not a question of the drafting that's a question of, of the content. So we, a Wednesday conversation. If somebody, if anybody has any other remembrance that we do it in any other way I've never seen it any other way. I would confirm that that is what our template is for committees. That being said, if, if you're trying to get at something specific, we can of course change the language to be more specific to whatever it is, the policy decision that the right. It wants to achieve, but that this is the standard language that I would just like for some kind of historical precedent in Ledge Council in case one exists, it was the drafting kind of question but I'll leave it alone for now. But. So, we're not going to talk about whether they should. There's going to be a conversation about this I can guarantee you, but this is the drafting. This is the way the drafting is done. There will be conversation about whether this is the right policy or not but that's not a question for Becky. Okay. You want to go on. Sure. So I think I got through the commissioners of financial regulation and human resources. There's also three members who will be appointed by the president of the Vermont NEA two members appointed by the president of the VSE a and one member of the Vermont troopers association who's appointed by the president of that association. The members from the house and the Senate, there's a restriction that they shall not be direct or indirect beneficiaries of either system, the state employees or teachers retirement system. And then the members appointed by the NEA, the VSE a and the troopers association. And then sub division to be, they shall not be currently serving as a legislator or the spouse or partner of an individual currently serving as a legislator. And then subdivision C says that if for those members that can point to designee upon designation and approval. These shall be the only representative of the designator to participate in the task force proceeding so essentially you can only appoint one person to take your place throughout the period of time that the task force is meeting. Subsection C. This is where the powers and the duties of the task force are set out. So the task force is making recommendations about benefit provisions and appropriate funding sources along with other recommendations that are it deans are appropriate. They have to be consistent with actuarial and governmental accounting standards as well as demographic and workforce trends and the long term sustainability of the benefit program programs. And so there's a list of some of the things that the committee, the task force needs to consider. First, it will be setting a pension stabilization target number for both the state employees and the teachers retirement system. And that number will be reducing the actuarial accrued liability based on the actuarial value of assets by some that's equivalent to the amount of the increase from fiscal year to fiscal 21 to 22. So this is trying to get out is trying to reduce the amount of that number by the same amount that it increased her the actuarial valuation and review that was reported on June 30 of 2020. And for both, both the state employee and the teachers system. And then same with the ADEC. It's that number should reduce the actuarial determined employer contribution by an amount that's equal to what the amount increase from fiscal year 21 to 22, as reported for both of those systems. I don't remember what that number is off the top of my head but I can get I can look it up and send it to you if the committee would like that. Okay. So the committee, the task force is also looking at a five year review of benefit expenditure levels as well as employer and employee contribution levels and growth rates on a three five and 10 year projection of these levels and rates. And then based on benefit and funding benchmarks. The, it will look at the proposed proposed new benefits structures with the objective of adequate benefits within the established cost containment benchmarks. This would include an evaluation of a shared risk model for employer contributions and cost of living adjustments. It will look at an estimate of the cost of current and any proposed benefit structures on a vegetarian pays you go in full actuarial accrual basis. The committee, sorry, the task force will then evaluate the intermediate and long term economic impacts to the state and local economies and their potential impact on retiree spending. It will evaluate any cross subsidization between groups within the state employees system and a dust contribution amounts to eliminate that any cross subsidization. The task force will evaluate alternative plan design such as hybrid or defined contribution plan options or a combination of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. It will examine permanent and temporary revenue streams to fund both systems and this would include a review of whether all are part of retirement income should be tax exempt. The task force will look at a plan for pre funding OPEB benefits with an evaluate an evaluation of using federal funds to the extent that that might be permitted. And then finally a plan to lower OPEB health care costs, including looking at health benefit design innovation state regulatory methods and alternative methods of providing pooled health care benefits. Sub division to says that the task force is not going to be making recommendations on adjusting this assumed rates of return. Subsection D is stakeholder input. So the task force before they make any recommendations is going to solicit input including through public hearings from affected stakeholders and that includes those impacted by issues at the equities. It will also consult with representatives designated by the Supreme Court group team members of the state employees retirement system and members of the same place system who are employees of DOC. Subsection E is assistance. So the task force has administrative technical and legal assistance from the office of the state treasurer. There's fiscal assistance from the joint fiscal office and committee support services from the office of legislative operations. The task force is appropriated in subdivision to $200,000 to contract for advisory services from an independent benefits expert and legal as expert if necessary. Subsection F would come from general funds. Subsection F leave time. So public employee members of the task force shall be granted reasonable leave time by their employees, players to attend the task force meetings. Subsection G is a reporting requirement by September 1 of this year the task force would submit a written report to the governor and the two government operations committees with findings and recommendations for legislative action. It would also be submitting a copy of this report to the boards of the state employees retirement system and the teacher system for their consideration so they can comment to the legislature. Subsection H in terms of meetings. The six legislative members appointed to the committee will appoint both a house and senate member as co chairs for the committee, and those co chairs would call the first meeting of the task force by June 15 of this year. A majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum. And then the committee would cease to exist by June 30 of 2022. The legislative members in subsection I would be eligible to receive prudium compensation reimbursement of expenses, and that comes from the legislative budget budget. The other members of the task force who are not state employees shall receive reimbursement and compensation, and that comes from money appropriated to the state treasure. And for both of those, that compensation is limited to not more than 15 meetings. Section 11 what is a way for our office to not have to go through all statute right now to make the change from Vermont pension investment committee to commission so this allows ledge council during the stat rev process to to go through all the cross references and statute to clean up that language and replace committee with commission. I see that coming in a new technical bill next year. Detuned. And then section 12 is the effective eight so it takes effect on passage. Any questions for Becky about the drafting of it. That was a nice work. Yeah, work was up. Anyway, we're appreciative. So committee. I have, I went through this and have a number of questions that I think are beyond. There are more why questions, but just for example, if the report is due on September 21, why does the committee continue to the task force continue to exist for another seven months or nine months. I mean just stuff like that that I think is technical it isn't substantive around the policies. It's just so can we have, we have Sarah and john here so those are good time to ask those questions. Yeah that's I was just going to ask committee if that was okay to just ask those kinds of questions I don't want to know why did you choose this policy over this policy, because I think that's something we need to. We need to hear testimony on and dig into ourselves but if it is it okay for us and do other people have those kinds of questions that might be pretty technical but beyond Becky's answer for why something like that was done. Is that okay committee. Yeah. Okay, so Sarah or john do you have a response to that particular one. I'm not sure that I have a strong response to it I guess I would say that we may need members of the task force to continue to participate in conversations. The legislative session starts. Not that they would meet but that we might want to call them to to testify representative Gannon you you may have another thought on why that's there. Madam chair, I represent a couple and I think you're, you're correct. That's why the language is there so if there's a need for them to testify before the legislature they'll have the opportunity to do so. I've seen that language in other summer study, summer study bills. Okay, okay, I just, I'd never seen that before but. Okay, thank you. Yeah, did you have a technical question. I think so. I think it makes total sense that they given that it will be live as an issue, all during next session. It makes total sense that the commit that the group of people who are most who have invested the most in in it, be there, either to meet and resolve with a further recommendation I think it makes sense for them to still exist, because they may have further work to do. Yeah, no I just wondered I just was curious. I would just be curious. With the draft that pressure peers or the kind of proposal treasure peers released as the session started, and then the draft that you all started looking at I believe in March. What were some really important differences to you that had felt, you know, like that was what you wanted to have counter proposals around. Are you are you talking specifically about the, the pension, the benefits package that was presented because we're, we're not going to get into the benefits package. Right, I guess I'm just curious, you know, like this committee does its public process you know was there anything that you felt was was critical about what you put forth in the study. You know that you sort of didn't see originally in the treasures proposal. So you're asking if there's anything that we put in the duties of the task force that was responsive to some of those issues that were identified between the treasures proposal and the House proposal. I guess what I'm getting at is we heard from some folks that it felt prescriptive. So I'm just wondering if you could respond to that how do you think there are ways that that you know you were you do want there to be some prescriptive nature of this discussion and what's important to you about that. Yeah, I mean I think it felt important to us as we were having conversations in committee and also looking at how interim study committees on other topics have, have either succeeded or failed. It felt important to us to to direct to the task force on a couple of issues to focus on and or not focus on in the case of adjusting the rate of return. And so that's why it looks fairly directive because otherwise it is a vast challenge and and it could be difficult to know where to begin. And what what made you sort of feel like the governance change the overall governance changes make a really big difference to what happens moving forward. So the, I think the transparency and the stress testing is very important to us, and we believe will will help make improvements going forward, as well as the creation of spots within the commission that will that will be occupied by independent financial experts, because we know that it's important for beneficiaries of the system to have, you know, a seat at that table with that investment committee, but we also know that, you know that that there are, there are certain skill sets that are resident within people who are financial experts that that you also want to have at that table, so that there can be a dialogue and a full understanding and also we you know frankly a critical I about advice that may be coming from from someone advising the investment committee. So, yeah, Sarah call more. Thank you madam chair. So I'm just looking at the dates again, and I'm sure you guys took a look at what you wanted to lay out in terms of a process. They start on June 15. They have to have a report done by September 1. And if I did my math that leaves them 77 days to come up with a report, and they're limited to 15 meetings. It seems like there's a lot of compression. If they are going to take advantage of the 15 meeting situation, they're going to be meeting quite often on during those 77 days, right. Well, I guess what I'm, what I'm asking is, would it make more sense to make the report do a little later, or was there a specific reason that September 1 was changing. Yeah, yeah, I appreciate the question because this was a source of tension within the committee there were, there were some voices at the table who were saying. You know, our retirement system is, is, you know, bleeding money every single month we don't want to delay. On the other hand, any changes that would require legislation wouldn't be able to be made until January anyway so then, you know then the question becomes well why not, why not give the task force until December to finish its work. The other reality is that we, we would expect that that there will be members of the government operations committee, possibly on both sides who who may need to sit on this task force, and we have another very important once in a decade project coming up this fall which is on the house side a little more intense, because we need to get feedback from the boards of civil authority with respect to redistricting. So we're already going to have as a house committee, a fair number of late fall early winter meetings that we will need to have around the state, hopefully by zoom, but probably also in person. And, and so, you know, it, it became clear that it's going to be a very, very busy November and December. So it became clear and remembering that the census Bureau won't release their data until the end of September. I believe that's true. September 30th I think that was the official announcement. Yes, I think that I heard since then that they think they might be able to beat that timeline. All right. Well, as I said I'm sure you took all this into consideration when you came up with the timelines that was just curious. I'm happy to answer the question. And I have a, I have a couple kind of technical that I would consider technical on the, the visits the VP, not on the task force but on the VP. The, if the chair is, first of all, there's a chair that's appointed by the other members. It's a separate, it's not one of their members it's a separate person that comes on, and then there's a vice chair that is elected by the members. But if the, and there's no qualifications, I don't think for the chair, but if the chair is unable to do their responsibilities. I would point an interim chair who shall be a financial expert or independent, not the vice chair. And I just, I was just curious about that. It seemed like an odd thing that you have a vice chair, but the vice chair doesn't do anything because if the chair can't do it, there has to be an interim. I see, I see the conundrum that you have uncovered and I would welcome representative Gannon to share any thoughts that he might have. I think that that's a good comments, Senator White. I mean, we want to, you know, if the chair can't perform his duties. There's a chair, an interim chair appointed and so it can and has to be an independent and financial expert, and the vice chair doesn't isn't required to be a financial expert I think that could be something that could be fixed. But, but so that it isn't the expectation that the vice chair would take over that there would be an interim chair from outside, appointed just as the original chair was appointed from the outside of the board right is that I'm just checking on that. So the vice chair really doesn't do anything. Yeah, I'll give you the page number but just popping in that the language says the members of the commission will appoint the vice chair but in the instance that the chair can't serve. They, they can appoint an interim chair. Sorry. Where are. Where. Sorry, I'm just I'm finding it out just give me one moment. Yeah. So the chair isn't required to have. Okay, it's. Well, as introduced version it's on page six, it's under member terms subdivision to. So member terms are subsection C. Yeah, in section 522. Yeah, and. So, may, may I ask a question? Or are we going to, but there are lots of questions about the chair. You have basically a quite long terms I mean it's very unusual to. I see for a board to go beyond ability to serve up to 10 years. So you have people able to serve for 12. And the chair is able to serve for 20 years. I mean, most people say doing a job for 10 years, and then they should move on. What gave you the notion that somebody could serve up to 20 years. I mean they are pretty worn out after 20 years. I mean, usually as, as leadership is often done and sort of thought about in 10 year chunks. Right. And, and I can certainly let representative again and jump in on this because he's quite familiar with where this came from. So, first of all, under the current big statute, there are no tournaments at all. Right. People serve as long as they want to. As long as they're reappointed. And so we do have at least two members who have served since 2005. The concept with respect to the chair serving 20 years is, first of all, unlike the other members of the pic. The chair is elected by the members of the pic. So, you know, we thought that he could have a longer term than the members themselves. And I will say that this was a recommendation from broke the treasurer and the chair of the pic. Thanks. Sarah. When you were thinking about the independent commission, did you talk with Chris or others about how this compares to governance bodies around the country, do they have advisory boards, you know what, what are some best practices that you think are really important in the bill. And what did you sort of decide it's interesting that we can't make that happen right now. So, there are two models, multiple models of how pension boards are set up. But the model that we follow is having separate pension boards that deal with the administrative issues with the pensions and then have a separate basically investment committee. That is a fairly common model. That's out there that other states follow. I think what we focused on a committee is the importance of the independence of that committee. A balance of all the different stakeholders which is consistent with the research at a Boston College Center for retirement research. So we did look at that. I mean, I think we were just focused primarily in committee on ensuring that there wasn't the VP did not become politicized. And that it was more independent from the Treasurer's office. And we heard testimony from both the treasurer and the chair of VP. That that was very important to them. So I think that that was the driving force for that change. Because it was it was interesting to hear Tom mentioned that that that they were in the process of moving that direction anyway. Yes, they are they have an RFP out for a study that's contemplated in the bill. So they're already moving forward with looking at a new governance structure that would be much more independent from the Treasurer's office. And I really do think it's important because if you look at other states and how they have set rates return, Vermont's not alone in having set its assumed rate return higher than probably was it should have been. And so what we're trying to do is ensure that VP in setting that assumed rate of return is looking at the markets, and at the, you know, independent investment data that's out there to set that return, rather than being concerned about, Oh, if we set the return here, we're down here it's going to impact the ADAC payment. And that's not something we're very concerned about because if you look at the past history of our assumed rate return. We have missed it on a number of occasions and you can look at other states and see the same thing. And you have to wonder if politics enters into the decision of how to set the assumed rate return, because it lowers budgetary pressure, because you reduce the amount of the ADAC in a given year. It hits you in the back end because in the next year, your unfunded liability goes up if you don't make your assumed rate of return. So, I have just a really did that I'm sorry did that answer your question center. Is that my question. Well, it was you had asked a question about. Okay, so I have a question. This is really picky. This is really picky. I wonder sections, you've always talked about an independent VPEC, but in section three, where it calls it a standalone entity instead of, is there a difference between an independent entity and a standalone entity. Sorry, where are you, Jeanette. Well I'm on section three. Page for. Well, I think I'm looking at a different page than you are. So just forward to section three. Okay, I'm trying because I'm looking at the draft before, because I printed that out and it's on page 13 on my draft. Page 14. Okay. And I just wondered, I know that's really, really picky. But I just wondered if there is a difference here. You know what VPEC and the Treasurer's Officer are working through right now is in a memorandum of understanding that would make the pick more of a standalone entity with its own employees that aren't in the Treasurer's Office. So Tom Goloka referenced that there were three employees that work for, for VPEC Eric Henry who's the Chief Investment Officer, and two others. I think they would move into VPEC as a standalone organization. And I think you should talk to Tom Goloka about that. Next week. I can't hear you Madam Chair. Sorry. I promise you can't hear me because I was on mute. And I'm in mute because I've got a lot of noise out here. But so about, we'll talk about whether, why the two different terms. Okay. Any other questions right now. Yeah, Senator Rom. Talk to other members of the, of the current former VPEC, or do you feel like they really spoke with one voice through Tom. Tom presented our, our governance structure to the VPEC board, and they voted unanimously to accept it with a couple of exceptions. They did not discuss or vote on term limits. And one other, oh, whether a legislator should be on VPEC or not. They did not vote on those two issues, but they voted on the rest of the governor's structure. They made some recommendations for modifications that were in a memo that you can find on our page. And we made those changes in this draft of the bill, or I should say this bill. And those two issues are policy issues. Right. The term limits. Whether there should be term limits or not. Right. Senator Clarkson, did you start to say something? No, I just, I just wanted to clarify, did they not vote on those because they disagreed or they felt that they were going to leave them to us to make those decisions. I think those, given that a current member of the legislature sits on VPEC. I think that was a controversial issue. I think also with respect to term limits, given the fact that there are a couple of members of VPEC who have been there since 2005 was, was why they avoided taking a stand on term limits. Yeah, thank you. You had mentioned that. Term limits are so standard now. Any other. They are, I just hope they don't get imposed on the legislature because that's a really. I think dangerous. No, I've seen it in Maine and I've seen how it is just a shell game. But anyway. No, I'm sure we'll have more once we. Oh, yeah. Oh, I know we'll have more but I, I wanted us to talk not about the policy questions here. But just about if we had technical kind of questions for that. Well, I have a technical question just given the timing and how we're going to make this all happen and how, because you don't actually call out three employees and you don't actually fund them in this bill. So, I mean, I, this is, that's, this is really granular but one that has to be done. If we're going to proceed with it and if it's going to make its way either through the budget or as an independent bill, however, so I take it that that is work that we could do to add on and flush it out a little bit further. I didn't understand your question at all. Call out three employees. This bill implies that the, that there'll be three employees that will be part of this. I mean, they're currently, I guess was your thought that they were already paid for and they were already in the budget and they would just be moving. Okay. And there's a report back to the legislature on January 15, 2022 with respect to their recommendations with respect to their change into a standalone independent commission, which is when we could tackle the issue of we funded this, but I will say that the pick in some of the treasurer's office functions have been funded through the retirement plans. I mean, their costs are, are borne by their retirement plans. So, as they move to an independent office. Okay, well, we can chat about that, I guess. Tom DeLocker can provide you with information on that and what other states have done and Chris Roop can can provide that information to, for example, two states that have similar models are Massachusetts in Wisconsin. Anything else this afternoon that we should look at so I, I would suggest that if you have on either the on either section. And again, we're, I'm going to try to be very. Very sorry I've been trying to keep myself unmuted but then there was a lot of noise here so I'm going to try to be very careful about keeping the two, the two main themes here divided so that we don't start wandering around in both of them because I think, because I think they're two distinct areas here to deal with one is governance and one is the task force. So as you go through this and I know you're going to spend all weekend reading this and trying to figure it out and angsting about it so as you go through it though, and come up with any questions like I have a list of questions. I think to have you send them to me so that we can get them posted so that when Steve and Jeff, and the treasure and who I've tried to suggest that we have come in. So we have many pieces of paper on Tuesday, on Tuesday. So we look at the governance issue and we have Tom go like the treasure on galanka the treasure, the people that are going to the, you, the three unions, the the CT because the members is going to be part of the VPEC. The people that are involved. The Treasurer's Office that have them come in but if they can have some sense ahead of time of what some of our policy questions will be that will be wrestling with. I think that would be helpful to them so that they can look at those questions. I don't know if that makes sense to anybody else or not but if I were coming in to testify, I would, and I were Jeff Ganon, Jeff Fannin, as opposed to john Ganon. I would like to be able to know what some of the concerns were beforehand, not, and Senator Clarkson, we're not going to limit it to those, but just give them a sense ahead of time, if we can. I don't know if that makes any sense to anybody else. So if nobody else wants to send questions to me that's fine I'll just post mine. We'll work on it you've given us homework will work. We'll get and when do you want them to you buy 530 today. Do we have a study hall now do you promise the phone won't ring. I can do 530 if they're going to. No, just sometime and, and then if they don't get. If you don't get them to me that's fine you can ask them when we're just sometimes just sometime doesn't work, give us a gift do you want them by Sunday night do you want at lunch. We're meeting Tuesday afternoon I'd like them by Monday afternoon. Okay. Right. Does that work. I'm going to ask you governance questions to you by Monday afternoon and benefit the task works questions by Tuesday. Okay. Perfect. Anything else. All right. Thank you. Thanks for spending Friday afternoon with us.