 Senator Ballant will not be here this morning. I think you have to do something in St. August. I can't remember something that came up for the last minute. So how we're going to proceed this morning is to hear from Damien on his strike all. There was some talk about another issue that's going to be put on hold. So we're not going to talk about that in the confines of this conference committee at this point. But we want to hear what you have in terms of you preparing both ways or just in terms of a strike all? So I prepared it as a strike all. I also prepared, thank you for reminding me, summary of the changes. So this is your chi-chi. And I could prepare it as instances of amendment. So that's up to the committee. Did he do the dates that we did? I don't know, I said the dates. OK, I'm sorry, can you have something to say? I'm sorry, the date changes are not in there because the committee hasn't discussed them yet. So do we have them in my table? Are you prepared to discuss them this morning? The proposed date changes? Yeah, let me send out the date that maybe she can direct them off. Because that's the last issue that we would like to talk through. Talked through, but I thought we would at least get a copy of the conference committee report, and maybe could, what is your pleasure? Because I mean, I had expressed my preference of willing to defer to you folks to do a strike all. Do you want them to walk through a strike all? Would it be enough to just highlight the changes we're making? I don't need a walk. We had a walk through yesterday of the bill. And I think the reason we requested to have the strike all was for the benefit of the people who needed to read it, the people in the house who requested that they see the whole bill. As I said, I'm deferring to you. We're going to be working off of the shorthand. So I'm glad to have both. Thank you for preparing both of them. But no, no, no, we don't need to go through 57 pages. So for one last time, then, why not, Damien? We'll take the report of the committee of conference. And why don't you highlight the changes that were made? Essentially, as you know, we were very close last year. So we were working off. And we tried to incorporate the closeness in the Senate of the Proposal of Amendment. So we're working off the Senate Proposal of Amendment with three or four changes. So can you highlight on what page these changes are seen so we can look at them one last time? Yep. So they're all highlighted in your strike all? Oh, OK, great. The yellow? Unfortunately, I forgot to turn on color copies. So their highlights will be gray. That's good. We're all pretty gray. But no, you're not. Beautiful cylinder. So and you'll also notice that dates are highlighted here. So what I have done for the purposes of this preparation for the committee is just bump everything forward by year. Obviously, these dates could change further. I've just sent the House's dates proposal to faith. So when she gets back, she can print it out for everyone. So page two, these are just dates that were made to change. They're just bumped forward a year from last year's bill. Page five, it's just another date that needs to change. Page six, three more dates that need to change. Page eight gets us to the audit language. This is the new audit language. When you say needs to change, have you made the change in here? I have moved the dates forward by one year. So they could stay the way they are. But the House has a different proposal of the dates. So. Well, if I may. And so that really, when Representative Schein, I looked at the dates, it was taking into consideration that it's January. And when the dates were thought of a general assumption that May would be the passage date. And so taking into account that six months was part of our thinking of moving the dates. So you have different dates? Yes, your question is out. It's not just exactly a year. You're trying to be realistic. You're trying to be realistic. And to try to, so it's. It's more like nine months. Yeah, it's more like nine months rather than a year. Yeah. But we'll see a, we'll see a, apparently we'll see a. And the reason for nine months is that if the last bill has become long, most of the effect it would have been July 1st. Exactly. If we get the government to sign a rule of a ride. Yeah. It may be as early as a year. February, right, right. Well, it could, I mean, depending, if it's a very quick timeline, it could be as early as February 15th. And so that difference, right? I mean, again, if it's a quick timeline. And the goal is to get this up and running quicker if there's the same amount of lag. Right, so it was just a review. It was just a read, I mean, a reality check of the bill was written last, again, to reiterate the bill was written last year to past July 1 and all those, all the RFI, RFP language. So they've stepped through and just looked at those dates and we'll present them in a minute. And just to say, here's the new reality, do these work? Okay, yeah. And I remember there was one day where we had a difference where we gave, I guess, the ramp up an extra month and. I think you were saying yesterday that now you were thinking that that might not have even been enough. No, no, no, no. I, my concerns with the date. I did not have a concern with the fact that you add, the extra month that you added on was with respect to if the administration determines that a public plan is more feasible, they needed an extra month, what you proposed was the extra month for them to develop the plan and put it into writing. We don't have a problem with that. The month, the issue that we had that brought up what we'll see in this list was, was the timing of it. Okay, good. Not with that. Here's a piece of it. I appreciate you doing that, okay, let's go. Okay, so the audit language was on page eight. Page nine has the new notice provision added in. And there's also a date change in 573 there. And if you look at page 12, this is the change to the bonding leave provision. So it takes away the cap on two-parent bonding leave on page 12. Yep. All right. Then we go a while. Page 18. This is the language that the Senate proposed here going on to page 19, where the commissioner financial regulation can also consider the relative value of medical leave that's provided in a private benefit plan. Same language you saw yesterday? Same language you saw yesterday, all I did was insert it. So, or with the changes that, I guess I noticed there were no changes that the committee asked for. But with all of these inserts, if there were changes the committee asked for, I made those, the editors looked, everything over. And so this is good to go if it gets approved apart from the dates issue that's still up for discussion. Page 20, just date changes. Page, oh, thank you. Page 22, this is a technical correction on page 22. I caught this when I was looking over the bill for Senators Rockton in the fall. It's just a cross reference. There are two ways that an employee that opts into TDI can opt out. Before I only said discontinues medical leave coverage pursuant to one of the ways, it really should list both. So, that's all that that does. Just adds in a missing cross reference. Let's see. Page 26 and 27, just date changes. All the way up to page 36 and 37, more date changes. Page 38, this is new language around the notice provisions with the changes that the committee asked for yesterday. So, simplifying what the Department of Labor has to do to just preparing a model poster. And requiring that the employers provide written notice to each employee that there is in their employment on June 1st, that date might need to change, though, if the timeline changes. And then, on the bottom of the page and the top of the next page, more date changes. Let's see. Page 45, date changes or a date change. Same on page 46, one date change. Pages 48 and 49 are more date changes. Pages 50 and 51, more date changes. Page 52, this is just a technical change from last year's language. There was a change to this provision on confidentiality of tax records that passed the legislature last year. So, this is just moving our paragraph down by one. We had proposed that we become paragraph eight last year, but that was added by the legislature in the spring. Page 54, date changes. Page 55 is the Senate's proposed language on equivalency for the family and medical leave plan agreed to by the governor and the VSEA. And if I, just to see if I remember this clearly, this is to say that depending on the timing of the implementation of this, even if this is considered more generous, what the state employees agree to in a contract is held to that contract until the next contract cycle. We're not yet our intent is to protect the sanctity of the contract for the length of it, which is only two years, which given that this is gonna take time to ramp up and there may not be very much time in between the two, but this is to say that contract doesn't get reopened because of this. Correct. Okay, thank you. And then the remaining changes on pages 56 and 57 are date changes, and then we just have a signature block, there's a period missing in there, which I'll add, I don't know. Oh my God. Dane, where, what? Look at the A. Yes. Okay. Sorry, I missed this. Where is the audit provision? Do what we can. Yeah. Where is the audit provisions? They're early. They are on age eight. They were on age eight. Eight, yeah. Did they get the things you wanted here? Yeah. Not everything I wanted, but what we agreed to. And Kerry's not here today. She's always here. In spirit. And in our work. Okay, let's talk about dates. Let's talk about the proposing of this. Okay, so. Thank you. This is not all of the dates, but just. Here are the houses proposed. We can do the rest of the fill in. So if we were to simplify this, not only to confirm what I'm hearing. Yeah, I have a copy. Is that, if we were to assume that this bill should be signed or overridden by let's say, just for discussion purpose, let's say, April 1st, then all the days that were suggested for changes by day may move up three months. Is that the concept? Yes, but different dates. So if you look at the chart, we had the assumed date of passage for previous, for last year, and then the proposed date this year. So if the proposed date of passage is wrong, then everything else backs up. But we just use this for argument's sake, and then we can just move everything up or back, depending upon what you think the assumed date of passage is. But given the timeline and the urgency to pass something, this is where we started. Last year, we know what those were. And we didn't do every single date in the bill, but we got the major pieces, and then the other pieces can fill in around from it. But this, from the purposes of this. So we assumed that the date of passage would be by February 15th of this year, in terms of voting and timing and override if necessary. Yeah. So it was your thought that you would include that just in a paragraph with a conditional clause that would say if this is passed by X date, these new dates would take effect. I would look to Damian for the best way to do this. We didn't make any assumptions on that. That would be, that's challenging to draft. We usually just put in dates based on presumed. So in the spring, we will presume July 1 to give us some wiggle room. Or often we just say things take effect on July 1 because you don't know if it's gonna be silent June 4th or June 25th. Right. And we won't know that either. What we know. Once we get to the governor, once this legislative process is complete and it appears on his desk, he has a state certain that he has to. Five days. Five days. Yeah, not that I think, I mean, it could matter, but we don't have any obligation to override any time after we can do it at the last day of the session. That's true. There is no five day obligation. We can write the schedule. An override date can be at any time after the veto. Exactly. Right. And that makes us a little. We made the assumption that there was a sense of urgency to pass the bill and get, start helping Vermonters. So that's what we did. And yes, so this is, that's a no understanding our assumptions and then we can discuss what we wanna change. But that was the assumption that if there was an override necessary that that wouldn't be waiting until the last day of the session that that would be happening pretty soon after any veto that might occur. Is the trigger for all of these things primarily the assumed date of passage and the assumed date of passage last year and then everything will flow from that? Yes, yes. So that's, but then that makes it easy to change if we need to change that first date then the rest will flow by the same amount. The one thing we did do at the very end. So in this case, we talked about when the request for information goes out we use the same timeline in terms of distance between things happening, time between things happening. Responses due, that was six weeks before we said six weeks again. RFP out two weeks later, June 1st. Choosing the insurance company and that was where there was a concern about dates. We just did it a year out with the election year that would be August 15th under this scenario. So we don't have the election issue. And then we did delay the contributions begin and benefits begin because we felt that that actually had to happen in the following calendar year. And so, and doing it on a quarter which is what we had done before contributions beginning at the beginning of April. So it's the beginning of a new quarter and then benefits beginning six months later. We said January 1st and July 1st, 2021. So those were each quarters for those things to happen. So is, Damien, I know you say it's hard to draft but if we were to take the house's dates and put a not the standard clause in the end and say if it passes, if it gets enacted into law more than 15 days beyond a certain date, then all those dates will be adjusted by six weeks. By however long it takes to get the sign. Crazy things happen in this building. I understand. In terms of which could get that. Exactly, that's what makes me a little concerned about putting exact dates in at this moment. And instead, it would be great to have a clause that gave us the opportunity to advance it all by six weeks or by whatever. I might even take a, if we did something like that, I might even take a more aggressive approach. That's the default position we start at but you have the backup if it takes a while to get it. That's assuming it does veto it and we want to override for whatever reason they don't want to override till May. Then it's a little dangerous to, right, because you can't change it at that point. I guess, yeah, I mean, I think there's a way to do it. Yeah, I'm not sure. Because I think your point is a good one, which is if it's all graced and we do it and it all actually happens. Right, that's why you had to start an assumption. So that's, but at least it's aligned so that if you change that assumption, the rest will fall in line from that assumption. And again, this gets to the issue that if in fact the administration determines that by August 15th that there is no RFP that would be economically more feasible than the public plan and they drop the plan for private insurance, then we already have clause in there, I mean, the two month out clause that would change, right? It would just be whether it's a date certain or whether it's within 60 days after that determination. That has so much trigger. Then these last three lines or these last two lines have to change because of course implementation of a public plan would be completely different than implementation of a private plan. I don't know if that adds anything to this conversation at all, but that's just. No, it does. All right, I think it's a great idea. I mean, we're dealing with an aberration here. How often do you have a bill that could possibly be going into effect upon passage in February and has so many things that fall and so we might have to take advantage of getting it up more and faster. Exactly. We should be able to have our cake and eat it too and say if that doesn't happen, there's a way to let this be floating dates. No, that's right. If there's a way to concoct some notwithstanding language, I mean, there are other more, I mean complications. I mean, there's a budget adjustment bill that's coming through, I mean, last year the budget adjustment bill didn't pass till May or April, but usually a budget adjustment bill gets passed through by mid-February or whatever. And then there's the regular legislative process to change those dates before the end of the session as well. So if we can get a notwithstanding that is phrased in a way that... I need to do a little research to see if I can make a move. So I guess that begs the question then very quickly. So what happens to bills where in a circumstance, I mean again, this is a different circumstance. I don't remember seeing a bill that goes into effect in February 15th, but what happens to us in a situation where we pass a bill like this with a date to start things and that people don't, you know, I mean, something else happens along the way, or be it override, doesn't get scheduled, or you know, or... Something happens. You know, or something happens that the date is missed. Then, I mean, I guess it doesn't come across the transom often because we usually do things that are, I mean, the most complicated thing I can remember is that we've had to do, if we did a fix for this, and this went into effect on July 1, 2020, sometime I've had a bill that had to go into effect July 2nd, 2020, because you had to put that bill into place first before you could fix it. And, you know, so I've had that happen, but I don't remember anything like this. I know I've seen many bills that have become law that have had effective dates of passage outside the two norms, one effective upon passage or effective July 1st. This plenty of them will say, this bill shall become effective on September 1st. So you can set the date anywhere you want. I'm not sure why we couldn't say the RFI shall be due 90 days of passage or whatever you say. Right, we did it by number of days. Right, right. So Damien is trying to figure out whether he is able to do this. Right. Well, I guess that begs, I guess that at worst, so the bill that the Senate passed if it went into effect, 2020, would have taken effect, we would have started collecting in 2020, right? I mean, this whole process would have been from July. Triggered in July. It would have been July too. So if we ignore, let's just ignore that there's election day just for the safety. Some of us are still trying to do that. Really trying to ignore that. Which is trying to do our work? But let's just ignore the calendar, I guess, is it better we're putting it in the fact that there is an election day. There's several, there's at least two election days. If we do go to X number of days past passage, I think that may solve both of those problems and get us to, get us to a January one contribution start, which would be the only thing that from here, that was a set one year delay from what the Senate, from last year's bill, from the bill that we're working with. So, and that was working on a very tight timeframe. And the only thing about that, if we do it by day, then the timeframe is only made more rushed by the determination of when it becomes law. But in essence, we're trying to say, we're not really making it more rushed. When it became law, may it just comparable to what we thought it was last year. So, I think- Right, but we have that flex time and we have three months of flex time. Yeah, between August and June. You have three months and virtually every one of these except for contributions to begin, why did you explain to me? Maybe I just missed- That's six, it's six months. It's eight months on this one here. It's eight months from February. From April 2nd, you have- No, no, it's three months from the determination of choosing the company, which fell within a calendar quarter issue. Okay, so then- They're trying to- If you start the contributions- January 1st. So it's choosing- And then the benefits begin six months later. And the reason for the six months later is so that we can, as a state, collect the money that we need to, for our admin of it. And the first- Tax department- And the first premium. And the first premium. So that we need six months of collecting before we're able to- That was in there before in the bill, right? The 0.1% or whatever it was that we did for six months. I guess I'm- That has not changed. I guess I made it a little denser. You're substantively changing the lag time between- Between, for any of these things, from what we anticipated that the bill became law on May 15th. No, it's actually the same each time. It's the same distance between each of the activities. You're just trying to get things done sooner. Yes. But we're all ready to rock it. So I was- January. Oh, okay. So everyone is- Every one of them is equally- Right, right, right. So in essence, by having the extra time frame at the end of it, from the note of- If it's a private company, it gives labor an extra X amount of days in order to provide, you know, to start preparation on notifications. It gives everybody just a little- But again, the January one start time Matt just mirrors the one year delay. Everything else given the time that we have- No, that's nine months. That's nine months. Nothing has changed. It's the same amount of time between each of these activities. Yeah, yeah. Based upon a passage to the February 15th. I just think you're betting those specific dates may be a challenge given when it's actually not just past but when it actually becomes full. Sure. Right, well, and what we had before was a whole lot of the bill became effective on passage so that rulemaking could begin and the tax department and the Department of Labor could start doing the work that they needed to do administratively to get ready and DFR. So all the administrative pieces could get going but then the RFI went out. So we didn't change any of the time frames between activities. Yeah. Because there are 15 of the 20 sections that are enacted upon passage. Right, right. So Damien, did you have a chance in your busyness over there to figure out whether you're able to do this? You're still working. So- Just what you think you've, you know- What we can do is this is messy and not normal in Vermont. Other states do this. We can do something. So a lot of this takes effect on passage so that's no problem. The problem is the implementation is a certain number of days after. So what we would have to do is write into the law 90 days after the effective date of this section or 180 days after the effective date of this section. And then what that means is that when we go through a statutory review next year we'll be putting in an actual date to replace that. Right. So the actual law will look different when it gets into the read books than it does here. So I can probably do that. It's something we typically frown on but it's something we can do if necessary. The, I mean, there are a couple of different ways we can do it but this isn't really a conditional effective day because we're not conditioning it on the occurrence of another event. What it's conditioned on is whenever it gets passed assuming it does. So, you know, whether that's January 30th or May 2nd if you start setting everything out. So it's 90, 180, 160. So regardless of what is actually passed. In terms of drafting, well, obviously that's your area, but is, well, you have the old dates in here. If you were, the version you've given us, does it have everything in here just one year later, essentially? Yes, the version here has everything just one year later. So all of this is just July 1, 2020, April 15th, 2020. Couldn't we just say that notwithstanding the effective date or timetable of these provisions that they shall be advanced by the number of days that this bill gets into effect earlier than May 15th. And let the people who read the bill figure out do the calculation. 57 days, this goes up because of that. I think it's safer if you just go through and say. 90 days after this, or six days after that. Yeah, I think that's just safer. The big issue with that, though, that I'd like to point out is that we have a quarterly payment system here. Right. So if you're saying 90 days after effective and then you roll from there, or whatever it is, what you could end up with is a contributions beginning to be due for pay that started on April 17th, which is the middle of the quarter, which is not something that employers calculate or track right now for prices. I thought the contributions had the one real date, which was January 20th. Yeah, and so maybe those two have to be specific the beginning of the next calendar quarter or something like that, or the previous depending. I mean, because if it's the third of January instead of the first of January, then you could go back. But if it's March 28th, then you... One option would be to look at doing timing the RFI and RFP process based off of from the effective date, but then timing your contributions and everything else based off of a date starting. Yes, I think that's... Isn't that what we just said? What I was hearing, yeah. Yeah, so on. So I'm sorry, I was... You focused here doing research. I think we said the same thing, but yeah. You probably did better. So I need to figure out if this works a little bit. So I would probably need to draft it out. The... So while you're a comment about that quarterly thing, Damien, if it can't be January 1st and July 1st, it's then going to be April 1st and October 1st, in which case you might as well leave all the dates a year ahead and you don't have to do all this. The reason this is all changing is because we're making it happen three months faster. We're over. Right, but that's how we... To investigate possible problems. But otherwise, I don't know that you can have November 15th for Choose Insurance Company and Contributions start January 1st. I don't think that's possible. Yeah, I think there's potential for some issues. Right, so if it ends up not being January 1st and July 1st, then you could just leave all the dates a year out because it would have to be April 1st and October 1st. Yeah, keep in mind that it's contributions are due from the quarter beginning January 1st, so they actually won't be paid until March or April because it's just the way the taxes are works. Okay, what was the date for that? Is it April? Oh, yeah. Two weeks after January 1st. Yeah, so it's collected by the employer until then, so the money then comes to the state on April 15th, which then would pay for whatever. But yeah, employers need to be collecting and this will only give them six weeks notice. Right. With having been through this multiple years with drafting deadlines here, two large holidays there, where business is shut down and so forth, so that it really only gives them about four weeks. Right, yeah. So it's up to you. So one way we can draft it is to say, so I can draft the contribution and benefits timelines conditionally and I can draft the RFI, RFP deadlines with sort of a hybrid language so what I can say is you know, so we're looking at six weeks basically and I'll figure out the proper date, length, but I think it's 45 days or 46 days after passage. So 45 days after passage. Contributions and benefits would be date certain. But we would need to. Bear with me. So what we would say is the RFI shall go out 45 days after passage, but in no event later than July 1, 2020. Right, yes. The responses shall be due in additional 45 days later, but in no event later than August 15, 2020. And then what we would say is if the state chooses the insurance company by August 15, 2020, contributions shall begin to be due on January 1, and benefits shall be available on July 1, and if the state chooses the insurance company after August 15, but in no event later than November 15, contributions shall be due on April 1. In October 1, it's complicated, but it would kind of allow you to have the best of both worlds where we can say if things happen quickly and everything gets done by February, you can move ahead and get benefits to folks earlier. If things are not that quick, then you go back to the old schedule. Yeah, do you hear that? Yeah. I think that's actually made a difference. Yeah, yeah. So thank you, Damien. What I'm wondering is, is there a possibility to interpret that to say we can just go longer, it doesn't matter, because it says in no event later than? So in no event later than is meant to basically, so imagine, I'm not suggesting you do this, but imagine we were on late again, like we did two years ago, and this bill gets held up and goes out the door on June 15th, 45 days after that would be a long time. So the in no event later than basically caps it. So once you get within 45 days of that July one deadline, you're stuck with July one. Yeah, I get the late part. It's let's say that we actually get this all done by February 15th. And then the next thing says 45 days but in no event later than July 1st. Wouldn't there be an option to wait till July 1st? Yeah, that's my concern. Isn't that there? I think it's a valid point. It has to be worded in such a way that if you can do it at five years earlier than you should. You have to, right? So it shall be issued 45 days after passage. Right, yes. However, in no event shall the date that they are because it'll be later than July 1st. Okay, thank you. So yeah, it will be a shall followed by a shall. Yes. That works. It's similar to the family leave piece that we were talking about yesterday. Shall be entitled to 12 weeks but in no event shall it to parent couple go longer than 16. Okay. So it's that same sort of concept where there's two guardrails. We've been using that term a lot. I think of a new word. With our EVs. Yeah. Well, we apologize for having to make and do this but I think it's worthwhile doing that. Thank you for that. Yes, thank you for that. Yeah, it'll take me a little bit to work this up. Okay. And to work through the language, but I can do that. Thank you. We'd like to move expeditiously on this. When do you think you might be able to have something for us to look at? Great question. Hold on, I'm just writing things down. One or two hours just to go through. But in no event any longer than that. Yes. We are on the floor at one today, but I don't think we're gonna be on longer. Could you do 115? Let me check our floor. And Damian can get out this draft maybe. Yeah, you guys are on the floor at one too. We're on the floor at one too. Let me just check the calendar. We have nothing on the floor. Of consequence. No, nothing. We're just to have notice on the proposal too. That's it. Wow. So 115. Okay. Now please get to the conferees. If you get a draft on sooner, I'll send it out. Absolutely, I'll send it out. So we can look at it perhaps in advance of 150. Okay. Thank you, folks. Go ahead. Thank you, Damian. Welcome. Thank you, Joyce. Hearing through the great lie that the proposal that Damian was put together is not sufficient for the house. Is that correct? There is everything that we talked about this morning is sufficient. The one thing that we didn't get to starting last night that we didn't get to was the notion of employee qualification and accessibility to as many volunteers as possible. And the version that the Senate said over to you is unacceptable now? Well, it's the same as what we passed over to you. It's slightly acceptable. Right, no. And then we agreed, I think we agreed that the time frame that you put on it and the way that you measured the time and matching up with I believe workers' compensation just using quarters rather than months was the right choice. We're just hearing that it's having the $11,400 cap that we had passed and passed on to you is a pretty high burden for people. For a number, there's been several numbers talked about about how many people that would affect negatively where they would pay into the system and not financially qualify. And so we wanted to be able to consider a lower amount ranging from just the lower, we'll start with the lower amount that would mitigate that problem and we try to offer this to as many volunteers as we can. Acknowledging that not every program that we offer, I mean every program that we offer does have bars to it and there are people that do pay into things and do not see a direct benefit. But we think that if there's something that, a number that we can achieve that retains the work time qualification requirement, so the two out of the past four calendar quarters or whatever it is that you have is in the Senate version of the bill, tiding with a lower number would be a good improvement for us and would probably gain us positive vibes in the house just to make sure that we're achieving what we want to achieve. So much of this program is geared towards people on the lower that would have been a 90% replacement for people up to 27,000. We're acknowledging that people at that economic demographic have a real problem if they need to take time off. And so if we can try to lessen that for people who make even less than that and according to the work that we've done with JFO, we're making an assumption that there would be no change in the tax rate, there would be no change in what you're seeking to maintain which is that fairly static number. So we would ask that you consider that. So this is a change that is not only different from what the House of the Senate passed but is a significant change in terms of what we think should be the workforce attachment for people qualifying for this program of which we took testimony at one point. We haven't taken testimony on a lower number and there were also other alternatives to not qualify those people but to make sure that they got their money back that we haven't fully explored. So I think we need to, as a Senate group, we need to do some homework and regroup and we'll get back to you if you wanna have that discussion. I'm not sure, what timeframe are you looking at? Well, I will email you or work through our council to set up another time. That's fine. Are you still concerned with the finishing today? I would like to finish today. We have a serious wrinkle here. No, that's fine. And if there's, again, I think and we think that it's like I'm not, I appreciate that you have to work through the understanding of where we're coming from on it and we see it as a, we see it as continuing to connect the workforce needs. We're just lowering the bar for people. I think when we put that number in, we were anticipating that being in reference to seasonal workers. People who might work in a ski area that where they don't pay much than other benefits, whether it's ski lifts or whatever, that was kind of much of the thinking that went into that and not necessarily what we've heard through. So you didn't want seasonal people to qualify? No, they would qualify. They qualify if they make more than the minimum wage for the amount of time that they have to work. That's where the two quarters comes in, right? And so, but there are according to the information that I came forward through JFO, through a walkthrough that we had that showed that there are a substantial number of managers who, while the amount of money that they're paying into the program, I think is less, it's minimal. And if we do end up with a minimum wage increase at all, would that number would be absorbed relatively easily by individuals, but that's still people who don't, there are Vermonters who do not, I mean, to me the number, if it's true that 60,000 Vermonters do not make $11,400 a year, there's a larger problem at work. And that's a huge problem, it's a significant problem. Well, I think we need a little bit more information about who those people are and if that's one or two jobs. Well, and that's fair, and I think we've asked and it's really hard given the lack of data that our Department of Labor is able to tap into, I think that if, what we heard what the initial walkthrough was that the Department of Labor came through with a particular number because they count jobs, not people. So there may be a person with two jobs that. We know there are a lot of people with two jobs. Right, and then the notion of what showed up in the tax numbers is probably a little bit more accurate to that number. And please feel free to meet with Joyce with the numbers that she prepared for us or she may have, otherwise, just, but I just wanna be, I think I wanna be clear on that just the simplicity I think of what we're seeking is to keep that workforce requirement that you would have had to work all of the time that we have put into this so that it's not just someone who can work for a week and then qualify but that they still have to show or have shown through their SS num and number and through the same work we already have in the bill that they are qualified to receive it through that work time. But that by lowering the bar on the financial thing it takes into account that, I mean, my brother lives in Massachusetts so there's not a direct correlation but he is down syndrome, he receives SSDI, that's not income that would be counted on this, this would be employment, but he is employed, he can only work seven or eight hours a week. Should he have the opportunity, if he were living in Vermont, should he have the opportunity to tap into that service? That's what we're talking about. Now, that's one small example that doesn't really apply but we could be talking about students at a college that have a work study program where they're paid $7.25 an hour because that's what work study can pay where they're given $1,500 a year in work study for $3,000 a year. Okay, so this is quite different from the conversations we've had before over what we were trying to achieve in addressing this problem and how we're trying to broaden the program as opposed to making sure people don't put money in and not be eligible. It's a whole different thing. We had an agreement in terms of what the, and we picked up on what the house said, we agreed to it and now we want to reopen it. That's basically it. No, this was one issue that's been in the ether. And this is something that, I mean, I think we agree we are on the same page with everything else that's been put forward. Well, part of what was put forward before was also part of a package designed to make these people hold and I'm not sure even though we have agreed to at this point is still acceptable to the Senate given what's being proposed now. So let us get back in touch with you and we'll see where we go from there. Okay, do you have one final comment? Well, I think just thinking of the reference that you just made around making folks whole and you've referenced the rebate before, but that's not been a topic of conversation that we've had a refund. It would be a refund. Yeah. And so in terms of that, that's to me and to other conversations that we've had that is a big policy change to have a mechanism for refunds in a program that is in my mind a much bigger policy change than lowering the income bar to include more folks because to me it's a very different program to have a refund in terms of, and you can hear from Joyce and she's sitting right here, but the cost of creating a refund, the cost of administering that would most likely be more expensive than something else. And so if our desire is to support those folks that are making under $11,000, it's a simpler mechanism and fits in within our structure, I think better to lower that $11,000 to something else. Well, I don't disagree with that if we had the time to look into what the refund mechanism would be. We had, when we dealt with this bill, I remember originally, Helen Head coming to me and said, the Department of Employment and Training is coming in, so they need $10 million or $14 million in music. And through my cross-examination, then we got them down to 800,000. So they may say initially that it's gonna cost this much money to process 300 refunds and there may be another way to do it. I was hoping we can get through this process quickly, but we should do our due diligence to see which is the best way to get at this problem and we should be clear as what we're trying to do. Are we trying to expand the program to people of less connection to the workforce? There's always a work requirement in mostly all of our programs, whether it's UI and health insurance, I'm sure we can ask Damien to do research, but that there's waiting periods for everything. For everything. Health care, too. We made one decision at what level that should be and now we're out of the blue, we're hearing another one, so. No, I hear that and I appreciate that and I would just ask, while you take your time, we're available, if you need to spend time thinking about it with getting numbers from Joint Fiscal Office, she has them, Joyce has them, and I don't wanna keep going on and on about them, but I mean the last thing I will say is that anyone who has worked at this income level, the benefit remains the same. It remains 90% of the average weekly wage that they would have for the year, so we're not asking to pay these people out at the $73,000 or the $964 level at all. It would remain. We're just asking to lower the income threshold. So we have the same time threshold, time work threshold is exactly the same. You're asking us to consider a fairly major lowering of the income threshold. Right. People who are already paying in, so more for monitors would be eligible to take the benefit and it would not cost the program anymore, it would not change the cost of the program. And the folks that are paid, they're already, again, this is the issue that has come up. I mean, the Senate is aware of this issue in terms of saying there are people who are paying into the program and are unable to see a benefit from it. And this is just a request to consider that as not a broadening of the program, but as a lowering of the bar to that program at the lowest level and I'll leave it from our side, I'll leave it at that. And we can determine what time we meet next. And I would just say that my understanding is the average amount of pay in for people at this $11,000 rate is gonna be about $18. And the highest would be something like $24. Yet in good faith, we try to address that problem in a certain way. I think what's coming back is a fundamental change of the provision of the law of the bill that both the Senate and the House have already agreed to put the attachment to the way the force would be in order to qualify for the program. So yes, we will be back in touch. We'll take it from there. Just, may I just ask one last question? Because I can't remember how we established the income threshold. How did we establish the income threshold at $11,000 to $11,000? Well, you followed our lead on that. And to be frank, the income levels were set and the time thresholds were meant to match state programs that already exist. The income level came up in conversation because people became as what happens at the end of a bill process, it stops being a good thing and people start thinking that it's gonna be abused by everybody else and in terms of double dipping or doing things that and so there was an income level that was a compromised position in the House in terms of where we would go with that in order to pass it. People felt comfortable that minimum wage, minimum wage income level was sufficient and I think for those of us who make well more than the minimum wage, it's easy to say, well, absolutely and that's a reasonable bar because we do have bars and we do have levels that people have to achieve. We do exclude people. So it's not like it's a purity factor per se but it came towards my memories that it came towards the end of the process where and I don't remember if it came from my committee or your committee but it came at a time when the nuts and bolts were being worked out and it was put into place to me to with the assumption that there would be abuse of which there's no proof of nationwide or in any other programs that this happens at a level that people are concerned about but this is a natural progress of a bill that starts being about what it was about which was quite frankly a very women's centric issue of who's gonna care for the family, who can take time off and it kind of evolved into just like a nuts and bolts conversation which gets kind of distanced from what the original intent of the bill was and so this is, so the number came up with the idea that service workers or anyone who works minimum wage if they work for two out of the four quarters and make this much money. The time I'm him too I just couldn't because the house was the determined. No, it was definitely a thing that came up based on a lot of distrust that the program would be treated with respect by the individuals, the people who take advantage of it. I don't see it that way but that's the way it passed through the house and you're right so and I apologize if this seems like it's out of the blue. That wasn't our intent, this was just something that's been in the ether and we perhaps should have discussed it this morning but I didn't so. I mean I want to be clear that it's with more time and more study maybe both sides would revisit the threshold number but this is maybe there's a better number but this is something that had been agreed to as proposed by the house and the Senate agreed to and have it come up at this point even though there was and I feel in some ways responsible because I made a good effort to address the concern that was raised but to then go in to change eligibility for the program is a beast of a different nature. So we need to talk about it and I will be in touch with you or the same process we've been in, we're available starting any time so when you're ready when you're ready to meet we'll be ready to meet. Thank you.