 Good morning, you are back with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting at this moment to take a look at draft 1.3 after Legislative Council had an opportunity to incorporate some of the changes that we decided upon earlier today. This is intended to be our final walkthrough of the bill and before we move the bill out and before we get started on the walkthrough, I wanted to just extend a sincere thank you to the members of the committee for all of your hard work and respectful dialogue, respectful differences of opinion, helpful suggestions. This has been a very intense process, this bill that we're working on is one that impacts a lot of our neighbors and a lot of our very important community members. And so I very much appreciate the respect and collegiality that you all have brought to this conversation and I think it bodes well for the working of the committee that we have been able to have differences of opinion and work around them and work through them. So thank you in advance for your great work on this and if folks are ready, I think you can find the draft 1.3 up on our committee page. You may need to hit refresh because it is very fresh. So, Becky, if you can just remind us what the timestamp on the document is so that we all know that we have the correct draft. Sure. So it should be today's date April 14th and the timestamp is 1054 a.m. Okay, we're looking for April 14th. It'll be there momentarily. I think I'm just going to have us pause for a moment and wait because if there are folks who are following on YouTube, I want to make sure that people have the opportunity to have the latest draft in front of them as we go on this final walkthrough since I gather there have been a fair number of folks following on the outside. In this moment of pause, I'm reminded about how vastly different our work life is in the legislature now than it used to be. It used to be we would have long causes like this in committee because we needed to wait to go down the hall to the copier machine and make 11 or more copies of a 30 page bill. And so in many ways, I feel like our work processes are so much more efficient now that we can transmit these things electronically. Okay, I am seeing draft 1.3 with April 14th 1054 time stamp. Is everyone seeing that now? All right. Becky, take it away. So Becky Wasserman legislative council. This is draft 1.3. I highlighted all the changes in yellow and one of the changes you'll see throughout is the change from VPIC being a committee to commission. So that will show up kind of globally throughout the document. So on the first page, a lot of the changes here are referencing that change a change is the purpose of the bill to also reflect that the title of the committee is being amended and that the title of the the chapter is amended to the Vermont pension and then investment commission and the reference to committee throughout will be changed to commission on page two. I already see a mistake, which will be fixed by the editor. So I will sorry, I was rushing rushing to get this done. But in the definition of independent, I have clarified on page two line six that it is not an individual has a direct or indirect material interest in the plan. If that individual is a beneficiary of the plan and I've removed in reference to the individual's spouse, parent, child, sibling or in-law being a beneficiary of the plan. There was also a word repeated on line nine consultant was in there twice. So I removed that and there was a reference to just the individual being an owner. So I clarified that to be owner of a publicly traded company because that is what is referenced in the next subdivision. So those are just some clarifying changes. Subdivision C is not a not a complete sentence. So I'm going to read to you what I meant to write. And this will be changed by the editors. So it should say an individual shall be considered independent pursuant to the subdivision three. If the individual spouse, parent, child, sibling or in-law is a beneficiary of any of the plans, if the individual files an annual disclosure report to the commission. Our folks feeling about that was one of the decision points that we made this morning. OK, moving on to page three, the again, there's changes from committee to commission. And in subsection a, the commission is now an independent commission. Top of page four. So this is reflecting some of the changes that were discussed yesterday in terms of the membership. So the municipal and school employer members, it now reflects that these are one member representing a municipal employer and one member representing a school employer. And then the next changes here are just with respect to changing the name to commission. On page five, there is language relating to member terms. So I have added an alternate here to all of the term requirements. So all members and alternates of the commission shall serve staggered for your terms. A member or alternate appointed to fill a vacancy shall not be deemed to have served a term for the purpose of the subsection. And then there's some new language that says members and alternates of the commission shall be eligible for reappointment and shall serve not more than three years. Provided, however, that any term served as an alternate shall not be used to calculate a member's total term limit. All right. Committee's feeling peaceful with that, reflecting what we discussed earlier. OK. OK. And then members and alternates of the commission may only be removed for cause pursuant to rules adopted adopted by the commission. The next changes in subdivision two are just the changes from committee to commission. The top of page six, just clarifying here that both members and alternates shall serve there's until their successors are appointed. So the previously language just referenced members. The next substantive change is online 18. So five concurring votes are necessary for a decision of the commission at any meeting. Except that any decision of the commission relating to setting actuarial assumptions pursuant to section 523 be one of the title shall require six concurring votes. So that is the supermajority requirement for that particular task. Peaceful with that, folks. Good. Page seven are all all technical changes from committee to commission. As as is page eight. So page nine, we're getting to the powers and duties of the commission. So with respect in subdivision two line 17, the asset allocation study. The study is submitted to the House and Senate committee on government committees on government operations, not to the entire general assembly. And then I have changed the language to say that it's shall be made publicly available rather than referencing a particular website. Perfect. The next substantive change is on page 12 with respect to the annual reporting requirements of the commission, and I think I went over this before the break, but the commission shall send to each participant or beneficiary of each plan or written or electronic copy of the reports in the format authorized by the participant or beneficiary. The report shall be consolidated with any other reports required to be sent by the commission to the participants or beneficiaries of each plan. That looks great. And that's very responsive to several suggestions that we heard from around the table. Representative Anthony, just an observation, I had thought and I know it came up as a comment that the communications with beneficiaries and members oftentimes comes from the Department of Human Resources. And so the language you just read, Becky, limits the bundling of only documents coming from the commission. I'm just wondering if you might, if that might be better, not specifying mailings from the commission, but rather other communications with the members and beneficiaries because it's not only the commission that communicates with them. A minor change. I don't think it changes the intent of bundling. That might be a more substantive question because I for somebody at DHR because I don't know how often information is provided to beneficiaries of the plans. So this is really just getting at like any annual reporting requirements but if there is if there are more frequent mailings, then I think there could be some sort of some logistical problems with limiting it to to one time a year. So I think you could look into that. I just I just don't know if that would create any any administrative difficulties. I just heard from some friends who are beneficiary that they do get a mail in once a year. But I don't want to upset our progress here on that niggling a point. Representative Cooper. Thank you, Madam Chair, you caught me just as I was going to lower my hand. But I think, Peter, what you're talking about comes from the Treasurer's Office, the retirement division doesn't come out of human resources. And that might be one of those things that wires get crossed on to some degree. I apologize, you're right. I forgot that it's actually the retirement division, not HR. Thank you. Peaceful with this for now, folks, understanding that we can always change it if it becomes clear in the future where where we might bundle these mailings. Madam Chair, if I may, can I just want to raise the flag that this could be a significant expense if a whole bunch of the people elect to go written most of the communication I think that people get from the retirement office now is electronic, almost mandated. So the expense might be an issue that you want to consider here at some point. I think it was Replify who suggested it's it's good to have that as an option for people to still receive. Their information and writing. So I guess I would recommend leaving this here until we hear otherwise from either the Office of Retirement or the commission. So section two, I'm noticing that the title needs to be changed to commission, so I will make sure that is done. But otherwise, there are no substantive changes here. So section three, subsection A, the written policies that the commission is developing, I've changed this to that the halt that should be made publicly available. And I've removed any reference to a website. In terms of the consultant that's being hired to review the operations of the commission, they will now be looking at the compensation of the commission chair and commission employees. There were no changes in section four. Section five, I just changed the references from committee to commission. No changes in section six. Section seven, so we're on page 16. Now there are changes from commission to committee. And this section, just as a reminder, is the relates to the teacher's retirement board. And there is a discussion about the standards of conduct referencing the committee, the commission standards of conduct. So on page 17. I have removed the reference on line seven to members of the committee. To just clarify that this is just talking about the that individual retirement board. Because the standards of conduct for the commission are now in the commission's statutory section. Section eight is the municipal employees retirement board language. There were no changes there. And section nine is the municipal employees statutory section as well. And I just changed references to from committee to commission. And actually in this section, there were no specific references to the standards of conduct of the committee. So I did not have to make those references. I'm just looking for any questions. OK, section 10 is the task force language. So page 19 just reviewing these changes that I think were discussed already from yesterday. But there are three members now who are appointed by the N.E.A. and one member of the Vermont Troopers Association who shall be appointed by the N.E.A. member of the Vermont Troopers Association who shall be appointed by the president of the Troopers Association. On page 20, there's some new language that we discussed as well about designate member designees. So a member is only allowed to point to one designee that will serve as the representative who participates in task force proceedings. Um, the I've just kept highlighted all of the powers and duties of the the commission because I just wasn't sure if anything was still sort of up for discussion, but we went through through all of these before. The only place where I made a change was the just find it here. Oh, on page 22, subdivision G, examining the permanent and temporary revenue streams to fund the Vermont State Employees Retirement System and Teachers Retirement System, including a review of whether all or part of retirement income should be tax exempt. Representative Cooper. Thank you, Madam Chair, since we just went over. Where is it? It's item C. I'd call your attention to the email that just came in from the treasure where she once again kind of declines to have her director of retirement on the commission and some other points. So let's take a moment to have a committee discussion about that, acknowledging that that that request has come into our inboxes. I I sort of disagree. I guess I'll just throw that out there to begin with. The director of retirement has knowledge about the functioning of the retirement system and the benefit structures of the retirement system and is a critical. Contributant to the process of a task force understanding how the retirement system works, particularly given that employees in the teacher's system may not be at all aware of what the retirement benefit structure is for the various groups in the state employees system and vice versa. I think it's important to have the director of retirement at the table. Representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have to say, I totally agree with you. I think it's extremely important to have that person involved too. So there's no question about what the current benefit package looks like and the eligibility for versus any perspective proposed changes going forward. So I I think it's very important this person has a participating role here. Committee discussion. Agree. All right. Can I just do a straw poll here? Are we peaceful with saying that we would like to have the. Inclusion of the director of retirement. All right. I'm seeing a majority of thumbs up. Thank you. Thank you, Rep. Lefebvre. I think you can jump back into it. Sure. So as I mentioned, I kept everything highlighted in terms of the tasks, but the only one that was changed was that reference to reviewing the tax exempt status of the retirement income. Subsection D, stakeholder input. So there is input being sought from including through public hearings from affected stakeholders, including those impacted by issues of inequities. And the task force is being asked to consult with representatives designated by the Supreme Court acting in its constitutional role as the administrator of the judicial branch group D members of the state employees, retirement system and members of the state employees, retirement system who are employees of the Department of Corrections. On page 23, I've made a change by adding a new subsection F. This allows for leave time for public employees, members of the task force that they shall be granted reasonable leave time by their employer employers to attend task force meetings. Subsection H just highlighted again was the. The date for calling the meeting of June 15th, 2021. And then on page page 24, I've changed the number of meetings and subsection I that members can get reimbursement and compensation for to 15. And that's in both subdivisions one and two. And then section 11 is just a language that says that ledge counsel during the stat rev process that we go through over the summer shall replace Vermont Pension Investment Committee with Vermont Pension Investment Commission throughout the statutes as needed for consistency with sections one through nine of this act, as long as these revisions have no other effect on the meaning of the statutes. Excellent. All right. Final committee discussion, anything that you thought was going to be in this draft that that you missed or. All of the above a representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair, not specifically to that, but something caused me to remember a conversation I had last week about health care and the possibility of changing the official retirement date of people to putting them in jeopardy of losing that I asked to treasure her opinion on it, it sent her scaring for other information and she hasn't gotten back yet. I wonder if the language we have included covers the commission taking things like that into consideration. I mean, the point was if you in the old version have people working till sixty seven, they decide they don't want to, they don't hit a normal retirement date because of the plan change. They may or may not the decision is still out. The eligible to continue with health care. I'm not concerned that the commission wouldn't be able to take that into consideration. OK, seems to me that the, you know, whatever that the task force comes up with would have to come back to us anyway. So it'll end up back on our lap if the task force hasn't considered that. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we had the conversation. Right. Other committee discussion. Raffi Hopsey, thank you. It's not specifically about changes to be made to the bill. I just want to say that I sort of continue to have significant unmet concerns with the bill and the process that we've taken to get here. It feels like the bill has sort of repeatedly been offered to us very quickly with little time to take it in and very little time offered to explore avenues for changes. And there are still witnesses that I had hoped to hear from that haven't been called. There is still questions that I have that really haven't been answered. And so this just this feels like it sets this up to have people cry that it is unfair and it is unbalanced and hasn't fully been vetted. And I really want this committee to be a collaborative process, a place where people feel like their voices can truly be heard. And it doesn't feel like we're beginning on that foot. And so I just I just wanted to voice my concerns. And I really do hope that as the bill continues on its journey, it is improved and that the concerns are addressed to really create a just and collaborative path forward. I have a real commitment to that. And so I hope that we we as a larger body can get it to that space. Other committee discussion, Representative Marwicky, could see you leaning in. Well, thank you, madam's madam chair. And I want to share appreciation for your work here. You have been assigned a huge task. And I appreciate how much leeway you've given right along this whole process. Most especially, I think you have made exceptional accommodations for certain members of the committee to have lots of time here. And I want to. Share that appreciation, because I know you have been receiving. If we've been receiving pressure, I think what you've been getting is exponentially more than that. And under that, I think you've comported yourself admirably in a very civil way, even when things have not always gone that way with you. And I want to share my appreciation here and for the whole committee, too. It's been a very civil process. It's been a long process. And I don't doubt that we can always get to a point where we think, well, we could have done something more, but it's it's it's time to vote. And I'm going to move that we approve this bill. All right, can I ask you to refine your motion with a motion to approve draft one point three with the timestamp of today's date at 1054? I can do that. I'm scrolling back up to the top of the bill right now, though. So I move that we approve draft one point three at 1054. And and I can't remember the number of the bill right now, but well, it's a draft. It's a draft request number. That's why it's hard to remember on the subject of executive branch retirement systems. Yes. Committee bill. Yeah. Representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll address this to the motion, I guess. I agree with the civility. I agree with the opportunity. I agree with just about everything that Tanya said. This bill has moved a decent amount in my opinion. It has not moved enough in the issues that I find important. And it has not recognized the voices that I heard from Vermonters on those two public hearings adequately. To look on it favorably. And I'm sorry to say that. Thank you, Representative Lefebvre. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I get help before we do the vote? Looking at the total number of participants and how many we consider management versus participants just to have those numbers solidly on the record right now. Because I think I am confusing some things and I appreciate a little bit of help. So that is a matter of how you define. And that really gets to the heart, I think, of some of the disagreement or misunderstanding about what balance looks like on the task force. Because I don't consider legislative members of a task force to be management. I consider them to be members of the legislative body to whom these statutory changes need to be presented. And so we at this point have three appointees to the task force from the teachers retirement system, three appointees who are members in the state employee system, three House, three Senate and those two administrative appointees and the director of retirement. One second, please. I'm doing that. So the emails that I have been getting saying that it's not equal would be that they were feeling that we have three more participants on, quote, management side than the participants do being represented. Is that what I'm hearing? I am not quite sure how to defend the viewpoint of people who are sending you emails. They're probably similar to mine. But I don't know how to answer that. OK. My concern is, is if we're doing this task force and we're taking the time because we're answering the the the ask for more participation and people are feeling like it's not equal because there are three people or three more that people maybe would consider management versus a participant. If that's where we're having some of this friction, I would just appreciate that clarification versus something else that I might be missing. Thank you. Representative Yanan. Let me try to answer Representative Lefebvre's question. There are six union members on this task force. There are also six legislators. I don't consider myself part of management. I think I represent all in Vermonters, including state employees and teachers. Those that is my duty here. So real members of management, I think, would be considered the commissioner for financial regulation, the commissioner for financial resources. Those are the two positions that are in the administration that are currently on the task force. As I think you've heard, the director of the retirement division from the treasurer's office is responsible for administering the pension system. And their role on it is to provide the expertise. I think that the task force needs to to totally understand the benefit structure of both the teachers and the state pensions. So, yes, I've received, I don't know, hundreds of emails in the past two days all saying that the balance is somehow wrong. But I'll be honest, I am starting to feel insulted by those comments because it seems to lump us with management as potentially enemies of labor. And I totally agree with, disagree with that. Thank you. Madam chair, may I ask one more question? And I apologize. So I thought we just said that we wanted judiciary represented here and the troopers. So where did they go? Are they included with the, could you help me with that please? Yep, the draft that we have in front of us specifies that one member of the task force be appointed by the president of the Vermont Troopers Association. And then among the stakeholder input, we are, we've got a specific phrase that asks them to hear from members of the judiciary. So that is the, that is not necessarily giving them a seat on the task force, but requiring that the task force here, here are their perspectives and take stakeholder input from the judiciary. So one of the VSEA members needs to be appointed from the troopers association, not in addition to the three members. There's two who will be appointed by the president of the VSEA and one appointed by the president of the troopers association. So that's a total of three seats at the table in the broad category of state employee plan members, two from the whole VSEA and one from the troopers. Okay, my apologies. That's where I was messed up. I thought they were my apologies. Okay, no worries. Thank you. Representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that part of the devil in the detail here is that we continue to look at this as labor and management and it's not, it's beneficiary and plan sponsor sort of thing. I mean, when you talk about who has ultimate control over what happens with the retirement plan, you're looking at the people right here in front of you now. It is the legislature. It is not the commissioner of this, that or the other thing. They just happened to work for the governor. I think that is the line because quite frankly, although I give great deference to the chair, I doubt that somebody is gonna be appointed that is completely 180 degrees opposite from the position that leadership has taken on this. I would hope that that is a consideration. And lastly, in deference to what the treasurer has said about the director of retirement, might we consider making that a member of the commission without a vote, which would somewhat insulate that individual from, it wouldn't surprise me if she would abstain from all votes anyway, but that might be a good compromise for the treasurer's position. This is actually an employee of hers. Is there any reason why legislative council question, I guess, is there any reason why someone who's a sitting member of the task force couldn't simply abstain from a vote? Not that I can think of immediately. I mean, the only situation that could come up as if the committee is not able to have a majority to have a majority to make it take an action, but there are a lot of members on this committee. So I think if one of them is abstaining from a vote, then that probably wouldn't be a problem. Maybe I might need to think for another minute about whether there are any other reasons why that would create a problem in this situation. If I may, Madam Chair, it's only because I think treasurer is trying to insulate her staff from being a part of anything that comes out and drawing negative fire because of it. I have not talked to her about it, but that would, I think, be the reason. Other committee discussion on that? Rep McCarthy. I think we've done a really great job working together, even though we don't all agree on some of the finer details of putting together a group of people who bring a diverse set of both skills and experience, which I think we need in this particular case of having the director of the retirement division there. So I feel like we should keep that language the way it is strongly. I also wanna say that I feel very strongly that we have a balanced task force and that we've done an extraordinary amount to listen to the concerns that folks have had over the past few months as we've taken up this very difficult task and that our work is going to go beyond this task force. We'll be back next year considering the recommendations. I really want, I think it's time that we move this language forward. And I think I stay grounded in a desire to continue to listen, to make sure that we set our pension systems on a sustainable path so that folks who are working in our public sector who are counting on this money being there for them so that they can have a secure retirement, that they can count on it and they feel confident in it. And I think some of the posturing in the emails that we're getting that have misinformation or are based on misinformation, I wanna stay sympathetic and understand why the emotions are so high. It's because people are talking about their ability to survive with dignity and retirement. And I stay rooted in that. And so I wanna move this bill forward so that we can get this work done. Thanks. Representative Anthony. I share everything that my good friend from St. Albans said. And I'm sure that the director of retirement could, would, may always abstain. I just think that puts her, I agree with Rap Hooper that does put her in an awkward position. And I'm not sure she's there for a resource why it would make any difference whether she were a voting member or not. So I'm sorry, I never thought of that. I feel badly and I'm sorry that the treasurer waited until the 11th hour to sound the worry alarm. I can't excuse that, but here we are. And I just think that that observation resonates with me. I could go either way. I don't think it'll hold up the bill. And I don't disagree with anything that either any of my colleagues have said so far about balance. I don't think it changes anything, frankly, other than making the treasurer a little bit more comfortable. Thank you. How are we feeling folks? We have a motion on the floor here to move throughout 1.3 with a timestamp of today's date and 1054. Are we ready to vote? All right, Representative Colston, take it away. I shall call the roll. Gannon. Yes. Marike. Yes. McClare. Yes. Cooper. No. Colston. Yes. Anthony. We need you to unmute. Anthony. Yes. Thank you. Mihovsky. No. Lefebvre. Yes. Higley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Copeland-Hanses. Yes. Nine yeses. Two noes. Thank you, committee, for your great work and attention to this complicated and an intense topic. I very much appreciate the respectful way we have come together and hashed through all of these issues. I'm going to ask, it won't surprise anyone, that I'm going to ask Representative Gannon to report this on the floor, but I'd also like to ask if Representative LeClare would be willing to be a collaborator on that. I'll do whatever I can to make them representative for Wilmington look good. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you to Becky Wasserman for your hard work on this. This is, I feel like we've been at this for a year and a half already, even though it's only been a few weeks. COVID time. COVID time, yep. I will be sending, I will be sending the edited version to you when that's ready so that we can get it introduced. Yep. So let's make sure that we get that edited version that has those couple of fixes that weren't caught before we sat down to look at the final substance of the bill. So I will leave Rep Colston and Rep Gannon to collaborate on how this gets delivered. And thank you all. Have a good lunch break and I will see you on the floor.