 This is a Monday afternoon meeting of house appropriations. We are a bit late because we've been having some trouble connecting to YouTube. And if we go down, the meeting will stop and we will regroup until we can get the, the connections all to work. But we need to jump right into our agenda. We are discussing today. We will have some discussions on the pay act and, and any other changes that need to come before us regarding the quarter budget as it was passed over, passed back from the Senate. But first over the weekend, I did have a request from a member to speak to the appropriations committee and I granted that request. And so I see that representative Browning is it has been connected. And we have a pretty tight timeframe Cynthia and I know that you have some scenarios that you would like to put forth in front of the committee and if you could do that in about a 10 minute timeframe for our consideration. That would be helpful for me so representative Browning I don't see you. Are you by voice or do we get to I'm here. I'm here by voice. So, welcome and you made a request and so the floor is yours. Thank you. So woman call I really appreciate this opportunity and I will not take too much of your time. I feel very strongly based on my understanding of current economic conditions and possible scenarios for the future that we need to be very careful about we how we make commitments with spending for the foreseeable future. I feel very strongly that we should ask the administration and the state employees union to return and renegotiate contract. I don't see how we can make a two year commitment increases in compensation at the level that they are at from before we entered this uncharted territory. So what we're facing to do with the value and the efforts of the state employees, of course they deserve the raises. I think that the current contract doesn't reflect the new world that we're in. We are in a situation where appropriations faces such uncertainty that they cannot do a full year's budget, we're having to do a first quarter budget. We're facing that uncertainty, we would make a commitment increases and costs across two years seems to me to be reckless. I feel that making that commitment may mean that there will be state employee layoffs in the future, or cuts for services, or increases in debt. I just don't feel that we can afford to make that commitment. The parties return and renegotiate more modest compensation increases by the time we reconvene in August we'll know that we have the revenue to cover them. I'm very concerned that the recovery from this economic recession, maybe unusual, because it isn't just the economy is due to the public health situation. That is, by definition, very unpredictable and unknown. The best course of action is to be careful and conservative. I'm very concerned that we might allocate this revenue, the compensation increases, and then need it to be sure that for monsters have food, shelter, and healthcare. So I'm in this unimaginable position of asking you to reconsider a decision that the majority already made. And I understand the difficulty of making that argument, but I just really feel that the state of the economy and the question about revenue going forward does not justify making commitments to increase in spending, but you do not now know whether you will have revenue to cover. So I won't belabor the point anymore. But just to say again, it is not a question of whether employees deserve it. It is not a question of whether allocating money to their incomes might boost the economy because allocating money to any form of spending boost the economy. And I would urge you to reconsider. I personally would like it if we could delay it and then come back to it in August. But my understanding is that we can't do it if we vote on the pay act now, we're asking them to go back and renegotiate. I would like to ask the committee that reconsider what you discussed and rejected last week, because I don't see how you can make a commitment to across two years to spend money that you don't know that you're going to have under the uncertain conditions that we face. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say these words to you. I'd be happy to answer questions. But if you just need to go on the next, the next witness that will be fine with me. And I think the chair again for this opportunity. Thank you, thank you, Cynthia. I don't think I will do questions at this time because it typically when legislators come into to weigh in on a budget area when we have a legislative period we listen and we usually don't go into a question and answer period. But I think the committee is very, very in tune to your concerns have heard those concerns and understands the, the difficulties within the whole landscape of negotiated contracts versus, you know, the landscape that we're finding ourselves in and so it's a discussion that that we've had within as well. So, so thank you for reaching out and thank you for weighing in. What I would like to do though is to move the committee and to continue with this discussion of of the pay act over the weekend. We spent some time last week on this there are a couple of amendments that we voted on. There was a lot of conversation and so I worked with Ledge Council. I believe that all of you should have a draft, not a draft, an overview sheet of different scenarios. You know, fully funding the pay act we know what that is what what what X or Y or Z would mean and there's a couple of scenarios. Betsy Ann will walk through us walk through with us, but I wanted to make sure that committee members could get questions answered. We could move forward so Betsy and do you want to go over the memo you prepared. Thank you. Hi everyone. Good afternoon. That's the Anne Rask legislative council. I'll just check in first with Teresa Teresa do members of the committee have the memo that I sent to you. No, no we do not. I just got it. So I'm going to forward that to everybody. I apologize. Same. I just sent it right before the meeting so not a lot of time to get it out. Good to go. And we apologize Betsy Ann the week but I know legislative council and the joint fiscal offices finding themselves working all weekend to including Sunday night so I just want to thank you. It's a time to hear Madam chair. You know, I do. I sent it to the committee and now I'm going to screen share. Thank you. And if you could just do the quick highlights through this. Sure. We don't need a word by word if that's possible. Okay. Is it at all possible to just pass over screen sharing to me to make me host. Do you do that. Absolutely. I'm happy to do that. There you go. Thanks. I don't know if it'll let me actually. I'm sorry. I'm not coming up. So I apologize Teresa for that technical glitch. I'll pass it back to you for some reason. It's not showing up for me. I apologize. I'll just direct you as I go. Okay. Just to stop. You have to stop screen share though. Okay. It's all right. Here we go. Terrific. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just curious too, because legislators have been asking for further information about alternative funding potential for the collective bargaining agreements. You just want to scroll down a little bit, Teresa. In the second paragraph there on the first page, just as a reminder of what the current. CBAs provide. It's in FY 21, which includes a total of 4.5. And then in FY 22, the 1.9% step increase and 2.25 across the board increase for a total of 4.15. Also included in the pay at, or in the collective bargaining agreements are some non salary provisions. Those are tuition reimbursement, child and elder care and participation in the governor's family medical leave plan. If it's implemented. Or an additional 0.25% across the board increase, if not implemented. So since the time we last discussed this. I've. Legislators been asking questions about what would happen if the general assembly funded some. Or. Only parts or not funded the collective bargaining agreements at this point. And what the implications would be of doing so. So I put this memo together to try to. Give you the implications as I understand them, but I would just note, this is my understanding based on the law. And the discussions that we've had to date. But if you do want to pursue one of these alternative funding mechanisms, I would recommend that you take testimony from the parties to the bargaining agreements to confirm how the enacted law would be executed and, and its implications for certain. And then at what it would mean for the parties in practice. So if you want to move on to the second page. Thanks, Teresa. Start out with two general rules. That are essentially directing what the implications are of these alternative funding. Options are. The first is a statutory obligation on the state's part, the executive and judicial branches to support the current CBA provisions. And that's because. Pursuant to statute. Now that the parties have ratified the CBAs, the governor is statutorily obligated to request sufficient funds from the general assembly. According to this language, that agreements shall after ratification by the appropriate unit, unit memberships be submitted to the governor who shall request sufficient funds from the general assembly to implement the agreement. Same is true for the executive director, the executive director, department of state's attorneys and sheriffs for the state's attorneys employees and for the court administrator for judiciary employees, the. Second rule of thumb is, renegotiating if a collective bargaining agreement is not fully funded. So absent the general assembly fully funding the CBAs, the parties have to renegotiate them. That's provided in law. And those statutes, new commissions have to be reported on a certain lieutenant and those statutes that are cited there, which both of them provide that if the General Assembly appropriates a different amount of funds, the terms of the agreement affected by that appropriation shall be renegotiated based on the amount of funds actually appropriated. So we've got the current CBA provisions, therefore a full two-year period. It begins on July 1st of this year, the start of FY21 and runs through the end of FY22, June 30th, 2022. They begin by providing that $1,400 one-time payment in the steps to employees that are employed on July 1 and the calculation of any step increase available to eligible employees. But this is a legislative policy decision as to whether to fully fund them because the General Assembly holds the constitutional appropriation power. So it's up to you to decide whether it is appropriate to fully fund the collective bargaining agreements. It's just that if you don't fully fund them, the statute requires the parties to renegotiate. So then the memo just runs through the list of the possible alternative funding options that might be out there. And there might be other options that I just haven't thought of and some of these options, other options might include some combination of the ones that are listed here. So one of the options is to only fund the CBA's FY21 provisions. For example, the General Assembly could say that it is fully funding the provisions that apply to FY21, but does not address what would happen in FY22. If that were to happen, at least the FY21 provisions would be funded, but the parties would still have to renegotiate because the CBAs are for that full two-year period. Under this 1A here, and I'm at the top of page three, thanks. Without addressing the FY22, what should happen with FY22? If there's no legislative guidance as to what the General Assembly will do for FY22, the governor, the executive director of the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs and the court administrator still have their statutory obligation to support the existing CBA terms. So as I understand it, the parties would likely negotiate a wait and see provision to see what action the legislature will take for FY22. And the renegotiation may be a placeholder to agree to continue to request the current FY22 provisions. Under option 1B here, if the General Assembly fully funds FY21 and then gives legislative direction as to what it wants to see for FY22, you could state that explicitly in the legislation. And then that way the parties could renegotiate the FY22 provisions based on that legislative direction. I just provided some caution here that if you decide now what to do for FY22, but then later that will cause the parties to renegotiate based on that legislative directive. But if the General Assembly later amends that directive for FY22, it will cause an administrative burden because the parties will then have to renegotiate against under that revised directive, just a caution there. A second option that's been addressed or discussed is waiting until after July 1, 2020 to make any CBA funding decisions. First, this will require the parties to renegotiate because the CBAs do begin on July 1 of this year. So that's gonna include a renegotiation based on step increases that were supposed to start at the beginning of FY21, as well as that one-time payment. So renegotiation, as I understand it, is an administrative burden going through that process. But if you decide later and say the fall to fully fund the CBAs so that the benefits are applied retroactively, there might have to be renegotiations based on that decision. And then that will also cause a separate administrative burden because the state will have to contend with any CBA employees who left state government to track them down so they could get the one-time payment, calculate any step increases they would have been eligible for, et cetera. So as I understand it, that would be an administrative burden for multiple reasons for waiting to make decisions on the CBAs. Option number three is less than full funding the CBAs. So first, if the legislature is clear about what it refuses to fund, for example, you could state that explicitly and the parties will renegotiate based on that legislative directive. For example, if you say, we do not agree with the $1,400 one-time payment, renegotiate, we will consider something that's less, for example. That would be a directive, that would be guidance that the parties could take back to renegotiate with. Another option for less than full funding is just to say, we're only going to appropriate X amount money, even though the CBAs call for Y. Without expressing any provisions that the legislature doesn't agree with, then the parties would have some more flexibility to renegotiate based on the amount actually appropriated. Option number four is essentially the legislature rejecting the current terms of the CBA. Say we are not funding the CBAs as currently presented, we're appropriating zero for them, but that you could say you're willing to reconsider renegotiated CBAs. The parties will then renegotiate and resubmit revised renegotiated CBA. If you're able to give guidance on what provisions you don't agree with, they would at least have that information to go back and renegotiate based on that info. Number five is something I think we talked about last time we met, right now fully funding both fiscal years of the CBAs and then later enacting legislation to reduce or eliminate the benefits that would have been provided. This would require renegotiating what was agreed to and relied upon. There's at least potentially a contracts clause issue here because there could be an argument that employees were in substantial reliance on getting those increases. Although courts have upheld alleged contract clause violations, there is deference provided to the state, even if there's a substantial interference with the contract, if the legislation is drawn in a reasonable way that advances a significant and legitimate public interest. But I would think that there's a possibility that there would be litigation over that. It's at least possible. And then finally, the last option potentially is eating the pay act has been called, which is saying, we'll fund the CBA through the existing budgets and you'll have to find the savings elsewhere. Parties wouldn't have to renegotiate, but it's probably likely to result in cuts to programs or layoffs or both. And then the legislature should consider whether it should use its policy making authority to decide what those cuts should be. So I would just reiterate those. That's my understanding of the implications to date, but you should definitely take testimony from the parties themselves to confirm this information. And if you do pursue one of these options and how it would affect them in practice. I apologize, I was muted. Thank you, Betsy Ann. And so I think that this clarifies a lot of the questions that we had at the end of last week when we were talking about different scenarios and we did take a couple of votes. So there's five very clear scenarios here. Note six, if you were eating the pay act that could be considered that are out there and whether they're viable or not, our committee will, through discussion, determine where we end up with the pay act. So are there any questions for Betsy Ann? I think they're pretty self-explanatory or thoughts that members have to marry. Your hand is up. Well, I really like to thank Betsy Ann for laying out so clearly what our options are. There've been lots of conversations about what if this and that, and so it's lovely to see it spelled out so clearly. So I'd like to make a proposal, but let me just do a little prelude to that. And I've been thinking about this a lot. Seems every day we sit down together in committee, it's another, what I feel is a gut punch to the really hard decisions that we have to make. We're at very best maybe with, keep your fingers crossed halfway through this health crisis that we're all seeing and feeling very personally from having lost a colleague on our committee to it. We all feel the disruption and the loss in our daily lives and in our friends and families. Last week we passed a budget of budgets of almost a billion dollars. Yet, I think every one of us felt that it wasn't even close to what was necessary to make a difference in the lives of our communities, the small businesses that are our lifeblood, our healthcare system, people who rely for their survival on the actions that we take. We've just barely begun to address what those needs are. And my realization today is that we need to ask the state employees to step up yet again to help us with the problems that we're facing. And I'm going to make a proposal that I do with great reluctance and I have to kind of state some of my bona fides. My, I come from a family of public service where virtually everyone in our family has worked in government in one way or another and I deeply honor that. My father-in-law was for his entire career a member of the IBEW and rose to some ranks in there because he believed in serving and standing with those people who were so beneficial to him in his career. So having said all of that, I'd like to propose that we take Route 1 that was described in Betsy Ann's proposal and her memo rather, which is that we fund the pay act for the first year and remain silent for the second year. And I suggest this because we have some insight into what this coming year is going to be like a period, but we have no idea what FY22 is going to bring. And rather than make false promises and reneg on them later, I think we have to ask our partners to make a sacrifice and wait and see what the year is going to bring. And I personally hope that we'll be able to fully fund it in the second year, but I don't think we can make that commitment at this point. And so, as I said, my suggestion is that we go with the first item in the memo from Betsy Ann. Thanks for listening to my little speech. Thank you, Mary. There are the six scenarios that we have already walked through. Thank you, Mary, for that offering up on the table. We have a question from Dave. Yes. Thank you, Betsy Ann. Can you tell me if we rejected the contract in whole, the proposal in whole, does that mean the state of Vermont has to live by the conditions of the existing contract? And would that mean whatever raises it called for in the last year would have to be granted in FY 21 the coming year? No, to the last part, let me walk through the steps of what would happen. If the General Assembly rejected the current collective bargaining agreements in total, that would cause the parties to have to renegotiate. And then they would come back and propose and revised collective bargaining agreement. There is a provision in law, 3DSA 982G that provides when the parties are unable to arrive in agreement and there's not an existing agreement in effect, the existing contract shall remain in force until a new contract is ratified. But that could only apply to the non-financial portions of the last contract. For example, any grievance processes or example, because the General Assembly holds the appropriation power and the General Assembly only allowed compensation increases in the last CBA for fiscal years 19 and 20. So the parties would have to renegotiate at zero, they have to deal with zero and there would be essentially a freeze on any compensation increases until the General Assembly allowed any compensation increases. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I know there have been a lot of questions around the table and elsewhere exactly how the path forward would be. Chip, I think your hand is up and then back to Mary. So first, I wanna support Mary in a couple of ways. The first one is to thank Betsy and for this memo. It's very helpful. I do want people who are listening, not any of the people that are on the screen here, but the people who are listening just realize that these scenarios here are not proposals by our Wedge Council. There are simply responses to questions that have been asked and stuff. I just wanna make that sure that's clear outside of this room. And I will also say that my bona fides are not nearly as strong in this area as Mary's, both her families and her own personal experience and history over the course of her time in the legislature. But I will say that my reaction is to very much not want to step in between negotiated, the negotiations that have happened between the administration and the unions. But I'm afraid that like Mary pointed out, it feels in this instance that we really do need to do that, that to say that we don't understand clearly at all enough what FY22 looks like, and that as much as it bothers me to sort of step in there, I think it's the right thing to do to say that we believe we can move ahead with what's been negotiated for FY21 and the actual savings that were negotiated in there by the $1,400 payment, but that it's probably in everyone's best interest that we don't go ahead. As Mary pointed out to say, if we were to simply agree to it and then have to renege in FY22, that would feel even worse. So I support your proposal to do this. I was gonna ask Betsy Ann to sort of help us understand the sort of the dangers of doing that, but I think she's been clear already. And so with that, I'll just finish by saying again, as much as I sort of hate to have to do it, I do support this proposal. Thank you, Chip, bring up an important distinction for anyone listening that these were simply scenarios. Many of them brought up last week and I asked Betsy Ann to have them prepared. They're scenario not proposals by legislative council. So thank you for that. I do have Peter and then Bob. Dave, is your hand back up? Peter, Bob, and then Martin. Thank you. And Betsy Ann, thank you for coming in. So Betsy Ann, I just, I wanna ask a question just so that I understand what might happen if come September. Our revenue picture doesn't improve. It's dire, maybe it's worse because of COVID coming back and we decide to not fund the second year. What happens? How do we ensure, obviously we're breaking a contract by doing that. And by the way, I support this proposal that Mary's put on the table, but I wanna understand what happens if we do that. Thanks. So to confirm, are you saying, are you going under the terms of Rep Hooper's proposal to fund FY 21, but ultimately to not fund FY 22? Until September when the revenue picture is clear. Correct. All right, okay. So essentially what are the implications for FY 22 under Rep Hooper's proposal? And for the agreement itself. So as I understand it will require renegotiation then the parties until there's a legislative directive for FY 22, as I understand it would be waiting and seeing what the legislature does. And then as I understand it without any legislative direction now about what FY 22 will be, the parties will likely continue to recommend the current FY 22 funding. If the general assembly ultimately decides that we cannot give compensation increases in FY 22, the parties will have to renegotiate based on that zero appropriation for FY 22. So that there won't be compensation increases in FY 22. And I'll just note in regard to the contractual issues is that the contract is dependent upon the legislative appropriation because it is ultimately the general assembly policy making decision as the entity that holds the constitutional appropriation power to determine whether to give these increases. So if ultimately the general assembly says no, we are not funding FY 22 increases, the parties will just have to go back and renegotiate based on there being no increases in FY 22. Okay, so you confirmed what I thought. And then the other part of my question, which I didn't obviously state very well, actually I didn't state it at all, is we're not in danger of unfair labor practices due to a breach of contract here? No, I don't not believe so the general, because the general assembly holds that appropriation power and the statute even acknowledges that and contemplates that by saying if the general assembly fail or does not fully fund the contract, the parties have to renegotiate based on the amounts actually appropriated. And in this case, FY 22 would be zero. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Betsy, Bob and then Marty and Kimberly. Okay, I will be very brief, but I guess I'm confused because we are going to wait until late August or September to do the last three quarters of the budget for the reason being, well, we don't even know what that's gonna look like. And I think it's just as risky in 2021 as it is in 2022. But the worst of my issue is if we let this go and slide into 2022, we'll be buying them both. And I just don't think at this time in history, it's, I don't believe I've got a constituent that would support that knowing how much it costs. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. And so the legislature could also decide when to weigh in on fiscal year. I just wanted to follow up on this Betsy Ann before I moved on to Marty and Kimberly. The legislature and the Appropriations Committee could decide when to address the FY 22. It would not necessarily be in the fall. It could be in January when we come back to do the FY 22 budget. I'm working backwards now or it could be in budget adjustment or it could be in the fall. But there's three areas along the way that am I correct in saying that? Yes, you wouldn't have to decide in the year 2020 what to do in FY 22. It could be at the beginning of next year, for example. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Marty and Kimberly. My main concern is I am very uncertain about FY 21. I understand Mary's proposal to fund FY 21 and hold off on FY 22, even though that's obviously not a good solution either. But I'm very concerned about having sufficient funds in FY 21 to even fund the FY 21 portions. So I unfortunately am or I am in the position where I believe it's very risky and very reckless to propose adjustments for both FY 21 and FY 22 at this point. We could perhaps consider waiting until after July 20, July 1 to make any kind of a decision which is one of the options number two. Or frankly, I feel much more comfortable with option number four of simply not appropriating anything and asking the two parties to come up with another proposal that we can review. Because I feel very uncertain about income for FY 21 and also income for FY 22. And I don't think it would be wise on our part to promise increases that we, I fear we'll not be able to manage it all. And I believe in the current environment it is not prudent to suggest compensation increases when we have such a high degree of unemployment and disruption in our general economy. So I am not favor of funding either FY 21 or FY 22 at this point. Thank you, Marty. Kimberly. Yes, thank you. So I'll be honest, I am struggling with this because I believe that a contract is a contract and we live in a country of rule of law. And those are pretty fundamental values. At the same time, I appreciate the realities that might face us in fiscal year 22. And so what I'm trying to do, I'm sorry, if you've already covered this as I'm trying to read the memo and digest this all very quickly and it's not easily accessible. The linkage between fiscal year and fiscal year, fiscal year 21 and fiscal year 22 is really, it seems to me the crux of the matter. So if I in my own mind divide those up and I look at fiscal year 21, can you please confirm Betsy Ann? Am I hearing for fiscal year 21 that both the terms and the dollar amounts are as negotiated and agreed to by all parties? That is correct. The CBA provisions that you have right now are agreed to by the parties. That means the executive branch, the judicial branch and the Department of State's attorneys and their respective bargaining units as well as the state and the troopers association for our troopers. Okay, thank you. So then, so that piece and again, I think what we're getting into is the delinking because when people make an agreement, they make it on the sum of the parts. They make it on the whole. And I appreciate representative conquest point, which is we make an agreement that we might have to come back and revisit that's potentially worse. And we're all familiar with on this committee, all the holes that we'll be facing. So thank you. It's really the fiscal year 21 piece that I'm frankly gonna focus on at this point. And I will be there to revisit fiscal year 22 another day. Thank you, Kimberly. I have made this hand up. Yeah, thank you. I'm looking at the fiscal provisions here for FY21. And Betsy, please tell me if I'm correct or incorrect. That it's a 1.9%. 1.9% step increase and the 1400 one-time payment. Yes? That, yes. Is that what it amounts to in terms of dollars for 21? Yes, plus the cost of those non-salary provisions, the tuition reimbursement and the child and elder care. Right, right. And the 1.9% step increase as an average, not every employee gets a step increase and it depends on where you are in your state service and that drives when you get a step increase and what the amount is. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have to say, even though the words are hard to bring out of my mouth, I can't tell you how hard they are. I really do, I support Mary's proposal. I support the full contract, but Mary made very rational, I think not reckless at all presentation in terms of rationale. And it's true that FY22 is a vast unknown for us at this point in time. FY21 is scary enough, but it's not entirely unknown. And I would hope that at least we could support what the parties had negotiated for FY21 and take the wait and see approach for FY22. If indeed it is totally outside the scope of today's reality to approve both. Mary, thank you for bringing forward your proposal. As painful as it is, at least to me. Thank you, Mayda. I have Linda and then Kimberly. I am in favor of Mary's proposal because if you look back when this contract negotiated we were in the state of Vermont was in a great financial position. It was something that we could do for our employees especially in light of the issue that FY22 would come to an increase of 4.15% increase for the employees in 22. But we are in a totally unknown unanticipated situation right now. And I think I feel that our employees deserve some recognition in having to deal with what is going on during this pandemic. And to me that recognition is what has been contracted for FY21. But I also feel that it is really incumbent upon those employees for the state of Vermont to take a look at the position that we are in in trying to deal with not only the 8,000 employees of the state of Vermont. But however many 100,000 employees for the entire state of Vermont that work and live in the entire state of Vermont. And I think that if we agree to go with Mary's position we will have to renegotiate. But I also think that we can renegotiate from position of asking our state employees to help us take care of all of the other employees throughout the state of Vermont and the families throughout the state of Vermont. So for me, I will go with Mary's proposal. Thank you Linda. Committee members, I asked Teresa to schedule in Commissioner Vestigi so that we could hear from the Department of Human Resources. And Commissioner, I see your name. Are you joining us just through voice or there you are, welcome. I would like, would you like to weigh in on this discussion at this time? I think you've been here since near the beginning of our discussion. Yeah, I have, unless there's any specific questions I think that, you know, Betsy's, I didn't fully read Betsy's memo but it seemed like the information there she presented it was accurate. Are there any specific questions? Any committee members would like to ask the commissioner? Yeah, I have one, Katie. Kimberly, go ahead. Yes, hello, commissioner. How are you? I'm just curious, has there in the past, I'm newer to this than some members of the committee. Has there been this, again, this is my own word, a delinkage before in terms of year one and year two in the past? I don't have the history on that. I'm not aware of a delinkage before in the past. I don't have any of my staff members on but I haven't heard that there has been. I suspect that Representative Hooper might remember or Representative Yacobarony but I don't recall a delinkage from year one and year two. Thank you. It's looks like another Howard's as well. I don't know if he has any. Excuse me, commissioner. Somebody has on two devices because we can hear. Well, let me check it. That's me. Okay. I don't think so. But I'll double check and hear it. It's just going to keep looping around. That's not me. Steve, is that you? Do you have an extra device going with the YouTube on? No, I don't. No, Steve, Howard. Oh, I'm sorry. It's as though he's not hearing us. Steve, can you hear us? He's on mute though. No, he's not hearing us. Okay. Wait. He jumped off. I think he's having issues. Let's continue and see if we can still hear the repeating. Let's see. Who was just asking Commissioner Festigio where did we leave off? Linda? Linda. Yeah, Beth, tell me who the negotiate. Just tell me who the negotiators are. Who sits down across the table? The chief negotiators for the state would be John Burrard, who's our director of labor relations. Okay. And then we hired Joe McHale as outside counsel on their chief co-negotiators on behalf of the state and for the VSEA, the chief negotiator is Gary Holdley. Who? Gary Holdley. Okay. Linda, do you have additional questions? No, that's all. I just wanted to know who the negotiator is worth. Thank you very much. Right. And you can remember at the time, obviously, this contract was negotiated in the fall. Right. Steve, I think that you have on a second device because each time that you've come on, we hear the looping of even if you mute, I think we're getting it. You have on a second device like an iPhone or an iPad? No, okay. Let's keep going. Bob, you have a question for the commissioner or comment? Yes, very quickly. So I don't know a lot about negotiations, but my understanding has always been, I actually wasn't a good negotiator, a very poor one at one point. But my understanding is both parties have a position and they keep working the position so they meet in the middle. Well, that's the whole idea of the term negotiating, I think. Is that so, ma'am? Yes. So if we met in the middle on this, where did we begin? Oh, I don't think we're gonna go. Thank you, I rest my case. But I understand your point, Bob. I think we have to stay with where we are now to make a determination of what our decisions will be. But I understand your point, Bob. Thank you. I do see that we have Steve Howard and it's very unusual for appropriations to bring in entities outside of state government. Typically we hear from the commissioners, the secretaries and executive directors of programs. I have asked Steve Howard to join us today because with a SBCN to write up scenarios, I wanted to be sure that whatever direction the committee ultimately goes, that since this would be possibly a change from what is on the table at this point, I did feel that they needed to weigh in. And so I did make this exception and it's one that we do not make often. So Steve, welcome. And if you would like to address the committee and share your thoughts at this time, I don't know if we have good sound for you though. Can you? Madam chair, can you hear me? I can, but every time you come on a looping. I can hear about four different voices at the moment. Yeah, and it's always just in my head. It's always when you come on though that we're getting this loop. Yeah, I don't have, nothing else is on. Do you have the internet going on your computer at this point? Do you have the internet like a browser open with a YouTube channel or a radio station going? No. Something is going somewhere in the background. Let me try again. I hear about four different voices at the moment. You're looping, so there is a YouTube somewhere that's running. Okay, so we'll have him come back on. And Diane, I saw your hand. Did you have a comment you want to make? No, I was just like, if he just double clicks on his home if he's on there and exits a lot of those, he'll be fine. When he comes back on, if it's still looping, Diane, I'll make sure you give him that instruction. Thank you. Are there any other comments for Commissioner Festigy while she is still here? Okay, then we'll wait for Steve Howard to return, representing the VSEA. And I hope the committee understands my thought process because this is a very different conversation than we would typically be having at this time. Whoops, Beth is back coming in too. So people are popping on and popping off. So while we're waiting for Steve Howard to come back on, are there any other questions on the six scenarios for the Slative Council? Okay, here is Steve. Let's see, I'm looking around my screen, Steve. Madam Sheriff, he's still having the problem. We could have him call in with his phone instead. He's still having it. Let's see if you are still looping. You want to talk to her? Can you say, just say something so we understand. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Perfect, whatever went off is off. Thank you. I've never had all the voices in my head be live at once. Yeah, I bet that's a nightmare. So welcome, Steve. We appreciate you coming on. And I explained earlier that it's an unusual circumstance that we hear from outside of our state government and executive directors, but I felt it was important if we're considering or contemplating any change at this point that we allowed the union to come to the table as we have the administration. And so is there anything that you, I don't know at what point you popped onto our conversation, but are there any comments you would like to make to the committee at this time? Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Steve Howard, I'm the executive director of the VSEA. I think I'm not sure I can't speak with any authority in terms of having been able to talk with our members or even our unit chairs who led the negotiation to this compromise. So what I say, I have to qualify with that. It will really be their decision or their thought that really matters on how they view this. The one thing I can say is the VSEA members are extremely grateful for, as I understand it, I just learned about this less than a half an hour ago. So if I understand it correctly, the proposal is to fund in the Q1 bill, the expenditures related to the pay act that would be relevant in the year one of the contract. And that at some later date, which I'm not sure of, the legislature would make a decision on year two. I don't know if our legal department, who I haven't spoken to yet, how they view that. One could look at it as the contract hasn't, has been at least partially funded, but not fully funded. And that at some point, the decision about whether it's fully funded or not, that's decision has sort of pushed down the road. And I hope I understand that correctly. I didn't get a chance to hear Betsy Ann's presentation. So we're extremely grateful for support for that. I would say that I just think it would be, I would be remiss if I didn't say that, the members of the VSEA would prefer that both years be fully funded. I think that's clear, but I don't know that they are opposed to, at least making sure that one year is fully funded. And that we live to fight another day on the second year. I do think it's really important for the state workforce who have been working tirelessly to get this state through this crisis, that the administration and the legislature send a message that you understand how hard they've been working. Whether it's helping unemployed folks or helping in the prisons or in the state hospitals, this $1,400 will make a significant difference in their lives. So I think I can say that we're grateful for year one and support funding year one. We'd prefer that you would do both years, but I don't know how they feel about the delay in that decision. All I can say is it's important that year one at least be funded. Thank you, Steve. So to members, I'm looking around the table, are there questions for legislative council at this time or for Beth or for the union, for the administration or for the union? Okay, then I would ask, the path forward at this point, if members would like to be done on Friday, if we move a bill, a separate bill, the path forward would be a second reading, third reading, go over to the Senate. And I really think that we are looking for a Friday, not adjournment, but a Friday break until we return back in August. We're hoping all the CRF bills will be completed on the Senate side and back over to the house with or without amendment. And so our option at this point would be to, any amendment that this committee proposes, and we do have another amendment that Peter would like to put on the table regarding higher education would go on the quarter one bill. The quarter one bill did have the pay act in it as a placeholder on the house side. The strenet, the strenet, the Senate ran into some difficulties perhaps and they took the pay act out on the Senate side and passed the quarter one bill back. We have gone through all of the changes and there have been several, but our committee took a straw poll on all of those other changes and the only thing that I know of to date is for the committee to come back with a change, to consider a change in the education piece that Peter would put on the table. And so I would like to know first from the committee if you agree with the route to take the pay act, however we choose to put it out and add it to the quarter one bill where we had our placeholder, it seems like several months ago, but I think it was only a couple of weeks ago or maybe a week ago. And to prepare an amendment in this committee that has our proposal for the pay act as well as a possible change in higher education language. I just need a straw poll, either hands, virtual hands or your flesh hand if using the pay act is the vehicle that you would all agree with. You said using the pay act, but you didn't do one. Quarter one bill, using the quarter one bill. Quarter one bill. Thank you, using the quarter one bill. Quarter one bill for the pay act? Yes, where we had a placeholder for the pay act, Marty, when we passed the pay act over to the Senate, we had put in- Yes, we did. Yes, and the Senate stripped it out. And so our option now is that we could put the pay act in an amendment to the quarter one bill as well as the one other change that Peter's going to bring to the table and that we would concur with further amendment. And Kitty, excuse me for jumping in. I would have to go back to the Senate again. It would have to go back to the Senate again, but the pay act would also have to go back to the Senate, but it would take more days because it would be a separate bill. Kitty. Yes, ma'am. I beg your pardon for jumping in, but just to be clear, when you say the pay act, you're referring to my suggestion that we fund just the first year of it, not the pay act as it was presented to us by GovOps. Absolutely. What we decided with the pay act in this committee, our proposal, our amendment, would you have put a proposal on the table? That would be the amendment to move in the quarter one bill where we had a placeholder when it left the house. Is that clear or am I using too many words? So what I wanted to know from committee members, whatever the proposal is that we ultimately vote on in here would become an amendment to the quarter one bill reflecting our committee's decision on the pay act. So if you agree with using the quarter one bill as the vehicle. Okay, and I see plenty of hands. Okay, thank you. All right, so we have heard from the union we've heard from Commissioner Festigy of the Department of Human Resources. We've also heard from legislative council. We've also heard from the legislature today that had concerns that we have been discussing. We have the six scenarios in front of us and actually there's a seventh, there is an as is and Mary has put on the table to fully fund fiscal year 21 and to put fiscal year 22 on hold. I believe Betsy Ann, you had worked, we'd prepared some language. Can we put that language up and do a quick walkthrough at this time? And Bob, you have a hand up while Betsy Ann's getting the language up. Bob, you are muted. I hate that little button. Have we heard how much the first year will cost? Betsy Ann will walk through that last minute. I needed a collective figure. She can walk all over the place if she doesn't collect the figure. She will do that. And last week we also heard when we took testimony on the pay act, the year one and year two costs and the associated policy with it. So this committee has heard it and Betsy Ann will highlight that again for us. Thanks. So Betsy Ann, the draft you sent me earlier, it's ready to go or would you like to try to run it or? So I think, Teresa, I think it's the 1242. Sending you some edits. So, okay, so let's... Have this Betsy Ann looks like she's trying to get ready. Hey, Teresa, thanks. Is it, I don't see it yet, post it online. I did not post it yet. Okay. Then could, would you be able to help me with it or? Yes, I can screen share. I'm ready to go. Thank you, thank you. So I did, I put together this language with direction to have language to have that option one A, which is the full funding of FY 21 and the wait until later to determine FY 22. So right now I have this language set up as a strike all amendment to the pay act bill H964, but you could just take this language if you wanted to and incorporate it into Q1 as you were just discussing Madam Chair. So it starts out with section one language, which approves the FY 21 increases and then says FY 22 would be considered at a later date. Subsection A1 is saying that the provisions of the FY 21 CBA provisions would be funded. And there at the bottom of page one is the description of them, the 1.9% if step increase in the $1,400 one time payment. And then if we move on to the top of page two, this language just it usually is filtered out into different places in a standard pay act bill, but this allows the three branches to extend the CBA provisions to their employees not covered by CBA. And this is in accordance with the proposal that house gov ops had to allow an FY 21 non CBA employees to get the CBA increases. And so for example, in the executive branch, it could apply to Department of Human Resources employees who are prohibited from being in a bargaining unit. There's also classified confidential employees who aren't covered by CBA. It would also include judicial branch employees who aren't covered by CBA, but the proposal on the house gov ops bill was to extend those provisions to some of their employees, except the highest paid and then similarly to allow the legislative branch to extend the CBA provisions. So legislative employees, since legislative employees are not covered by CBA, as I understand at the appropriation for the legislative branch would just be for increases for legislative staff except the top two highest paid ones to get the increases, although our seasonal staff would not get the $1,400 one time payment at the beginning of the next fiscal year. There in subsection C of section one is the language that says the general assembly will consider any compensation increases for fiscal year 22 at a later date period. So here in- Betsy and before you continue to section two, I have a question on section one from Peter. Okay. Okay, there we go. Thank you. Thank you Betsy and so the question I have is you've got a will in there in sub C in section one, general assembly will. I typically don't see wills in verbs and statutes either shall or may. Why'd you put the will? You can change it if you would like to. Shall seem to stringent, I guess, when I was drafting it because this general assembly you can't control what you will do at a later date. You might change your mind. You can change it to a may if you would like to. I think we need to use one or the other and I concur with your comment regarding the shall. I would like to change it over to a may. Okay, I can make that note. I think we need to find out what everybody else thinks. Thank you. All right. Other members agree with Peter. I don't know. You've got a good point, Peter. I don't know. I actually prefer that it be left as a will because it doesn't bind us. It simply says that we will not let this get off the radar and that it will be taken up. I would prefer to leave it. Will is stronger than a may. Yes. Yes. Oh, let's have a vote on it. I think we'll do that right now, Bob. Let's, I'm trying to get everyone's picture back up here. Let's come back to that after I've gone through the language and then we can do our work as a committee. Okay, so will versus may. Okay. Section two goes into the appropriations. Again, these are just the appropriations to cover the CBA's FY 21 provisions and then the increases for employees not covered by CBA and FY 21 only. So it starts out with the general fund where this is for the executive branch first, this subdivision one at the bottom that Teresa is pointing to from the general fund. 11,553,795. I'll move on to page three for the T fund. 3,911,750 from other funds. This might be from special fund or federal or other sources. 12,809,440. And then there's language about being able to transfer money. I just stopped there for one minute just for the question came up earlier about what the totals were, which you just went over on the bottom of page two line number 20 that 11,553,795 that's approximately, it's approximately 6 million, I think 6.2 from the one time payment that goes out and the additional is the money for the steps. Is that correct that's the end? So the 11 is two pieces of general fund, the steps, the general fund portion of the steps and the general fund portion of the one time payment. Yes. Just to talk to someone who'd ask that question. Let's keep going down and then. Subsection B is in regard to funding the judicial branch compensation increases for their CBA and non-CBA employees and FY 21 only. The amount is 872,330. And then finally the legislative branch for compensation increases and FY 21 is 241,000. I didn't have my calculator out, Representative Helm. Well, can you do that? Yes, hold on. I can't count, so I'll just have you count. Okay, hold on. Sorry, I should have asked for the calculator as we went along. I apologize for the delay. Okay, 11. Yes. You're good. Quit that. I'm sorry, Maria or Teresa, do you happen? Yeah, this is Maria. I have the numbers. Thank you very much. Yeah, okay, so the totals, we're looking for the totals for FY 21, for the three branches of government. For all three branches, right? Yes, okay, for all three out of together for FY 21, the general fund is 12,667125. The Tee fund is 3,911,750. And the other is 12,809,440 for a total 29,388,315. And did that include the judicial branch? That's the executive judicial and legislature. Yes, okay. There's your total, Bob. Thank you, Maria. Thank you, Maria. You're welcome. Let's move on to section three, Betsy and Priya. Okay, thank you. So section three and four are what we discussed before. It would be allowing legislators to be put on the same level as other constitutional officers in regard to any compensation increases. As we've discussed before, what your legislative pay statute say right now is that legislators get a compensation increase consistent with the CBA COLA. The COLA is also known as the across-the-board increase. That's unlike the other constitutional officers who in regular pay act years get not only the COLA, but also the step equivalent. And so as we've discussed that results every time in the constitutional officers getting ahead of legislative pay, this language would say beginning in July 1, 2021, legislative pay gets adjusted consistent with the compensation increases provided to other constitutional officers. Let me review a couple of things. First, just to confirm in the CBAs, in the FY21 provisions, there is no COLA. So even if you didn't amend your statute, legislators would not get a compensation increase in FY21 because there is no COLA. This proposal would not fund FY22 at this point. So it's to be determined as to whether you will fund a COLA and FY22. If you do fund the COLA and FY22 and your legislative pay statutes do not get amended, then legislators would be eligible for the COLA unless you said otherwise. But this instead would say legislators get increases consistent with other constitutional officers. There are no increases provided for constitutional officers in this draft. You could determine whether to provide compensation increases to constitutional officers at a later date, perhaps when you consider any funding of the FY22 CBA provisions. And so at this point in the draft we have in front of us, there is no increase in fiscal year 21. That is correct. That's an important note to take and the conversation would join the other conversation that we've put on hold until we address the fiscal 22, the fiscal 22 issues. Correct. Thank you. Legislative pay statutes for the speaker and pro tem and now in section four, here's the one for all of the other legislators and it's the same language. That beginning on July 1, 2021 and annually thereafter on January 1, the compensation gets adjusted consistent with the compensation increases provided to other constitutional officers. The same provision is with the speaker and pro tem that would be no increase for legislators in 21 and it would be the same conversation when we address the fiscal year 22. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. And then finally, the effective dates. This act would take effect on July 1, except that sections three and four, which is the legislators statutes we just reviewed would take effect on July 1, 2021. Thank you, Betsy Ann. So, Teresa, can you bring us back to, there you go. Looks like Hollywood squares. Peter, you have your hand up. So, I don't want to, going back to that section, which is enough, I don't want to do the shall. It's a little too hard. It needs to be re-looked at. So is that the reason why you put will in there to make sure that it is actually re-looked at versus shall, which is, we cannot find, and may is a nice word, but it's not hard enough. Is that an accurate statement, Betsy Ann? Yes, it pretty much describes it. I mean, it's a will consider. You can't force yourselves to will consider there, just like you can't shall, but it was just essentially a statement that you will think about it later about whether to have any increases for FY 22. Okay, thank you. Peter, you're recommending leave it as it is. Yeah, yes, I am. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Betsy Ann at this time? Are there any questions amongst the committee at this time, or is the committee ready to take a position? Representative Lamfer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I didn't want you to think my silence, which is actually probably pretty rare as not wanting to have this discussion. It's very difficult for me as well on both sides. I will be in favor of Mary's proposal and this proposal because I believe it does thread the very delicate balance between the most fiscal place that we could be and dealing with the unknown in the future, but, and I'll get emotional like Mita. I know what it's like to be a manager of a department of many, many people who work extraordinarily hard that on your ask, we are asking them to please do this. Sometimes that their work that is very difficult and is at odds of whether or not it's going to succeed and they rally, they rally because we asked them just like we don't, you know, like whether you're in the military or other branches or the place you take care of each other and you see things through. And I'm very, very proud of the work that everybody's done. And I just want to say that I will be here to support their work in the next budget as well as this one. So thank you. Thank you, Diane, Marty and then Dave. I just have to reiterate to the committee that I fully support our state workforce. I appreciate what they have done. I think during this time, many of them have had to work in a very inconvenient manner by working at home. But I think that we have already compensated those persons who have been in the direct line of danger from the coronavirus. People in, we've already given hazardous pay to people in corrections, to people in the health department, people who had that frontline exposure. I just simply am very, very worried about our financial position. I think FY21 is going to be extremely difficult. I fear that we will not have the money to support this pay act. And I just cannot support this position at all. I don't think it's responsible on our part. I think we are setting ourselves up for having to make some drastic changes later on that I think are worse than not having put forward this pay act. I cannot accept it. Thank you, Marty. And Dave, your hand was up and now it's lowered. Did you have a comment, Dave? Well, I didn't want to be silent the last one. I appreciate what everyone has said and respect all the opinions. If this proposal had granted legislators an increase, I wouldn't support it. But it doesn't do that. If this proposal had granted the highest paid exempt political employees an increase, I wouldn't support it. But it doesn't do that. What it does do for me, it helps me to continue to recognize the frontline workers, the essential workers, the people who plow our roads, who patrol our highways, who protect our public health and so many more who do really amazing work. It helps them in this year. And I'm comfortable, not comfortable, but I'm of the opinion that that's important to do. And as Mary's proposal says, I'll look at the next year and see what happens then. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Are there any other comments from the committee members? So just a technical question, Madam Chair. Get my voice back here. So I've got we're just we're going to first vote on the amendment, right? Just amendment, right? And then we're going to we're not voting on 964. So I'm going to put that away. Yeah, we're just voting on the amendment. And then we'll vote whether or not we include it in the quarter budget. OK, thank you. No, no, I we've taken a straw vote already with agreement that this will go on the quarter budget. So this would be an amendment to 961. On 961 and my my the quarter budget is already on the floor. And so this would be a committee amendment. I just want to make sure from Betsy Ann and Teresa, would this be a committee amendment or do we sign on by members? So the so Q one is already on the floor, you say. OK, so then this is out. You no longer have possession of it. So it would be an amendment from individual members. OK, and so Mary had put this forth. So I'm assuming, Mary, that you would be a sign on the lead, the coast, the lead sponsor. Are there any other members that would like to sign on to this amendment at this time? Mary, I am going to join you, Linda. Don't say like to or willing to. OK, I'm willing to. So we have Kimberley, Chip, Dave, Linda. And Maida, Diane. Is there anyone else who would like to sign on to this amendment? OK, thank you. Betsy, and you just want to write we say those again so that we have it. Yes, thank you. I have rep Hooper as lead sponsor. And then reps Myers, Townsend, Toll, Jessup, Conquest, Yacobone and Lanford. OK, is there any particular order? Well, Mary can be the lead sponsor and alphabetical always works for me. OK. OK, and so. There is Mary's proposal on the table that would amend age nine sixty one. Any final thoughts or comments? If not, I would entertain a motion representative Lanford. Yeah, so listen carefully, Teresa, make sure I've got this right. Would it be just I I'd like to move to amend nine six H nine sixty one as proposed by representative Mary Hooper and all. Yes, that's correct. OK, Mary Hooper, Biz, we have. Mary seconded. Is there a second? The motion's been made. Is there a second? My second. The motion's been made and seconded. Are there any final comments or questions for. Many members, if not. The clerk shall call the. Thank you, Madam Chair, representative Conquest. Yes, representative Fagan. Yes, representative Feltas. No, representative Helm. No, representative Hooper. Yes, representative Jessup. Yes, representative Lanford. Yes, representative Myers. Yes, representative Townsend. Yes, representative Yacoboni. Yes, representative Tolle. Yes, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, nine, two, zero. Thank you, Diane. And Mary, this is the section of the budget. And so you over that on the floor and I will add it to general. When I do the change. So thank you for tonight. I know this was very difficult. Yeah, it was tough. I'm sorry, we've come to an agreement. Not perfect, but it, you know, it's a step forward in these certain times where, you know, our what's happening in the future is totally unpredictable reasons. Well, very much, Peter, so yes. So moving to another topic, if you don't mind, thank you. Just hold on to the second Peter Betsy. And you're not going to do this piece to the amendment, but we're going to add an education piece, perhaps if the if the committee supports it. So who would you, how do you blend those two? Who's the lead counsel person? Oh, DeMarie, lead counsel and DeMarie. Yes, correct. Would you connect with him, Peter, and make sure that he and Betsy and work something out if this is moved? Certainly. Thank you. OK, Peter, go ahead. Thank you. So this is a probably a little easier, at least on the House side amendment to discuss as everyone knows the this is in regards to the study on on public higher education here in Vermont. And I sent each of you the draft that Kate Webb and committee worked on for quite some time following a Zoom meeting with the Senate Education Chair. The sub A up there in H 961, it speaks to there is created in the way that our language left the House and Theresa, you have this. So that's so I sent this to you. I think it was Friday or Thursday. Perfect. So you can see upper left and I'm not going to read it. That's what left the House. The Senate pulled the entire study out, made some significant changes in that it didn't speak to the future of higher education. It spoke to the future of the Vermont State College system. We just did not feel that defending the House's side, that that was good enough. So I pushed back. I was at least able to get the the UVM UVM piece back into the bill. And that's the way it was left. Kate and the House Education Committee, excuse me, continued to work after I left the meeting and they came up with the the language at the bottom. This is possible language. I like this language. It speaks to the future of public higher education and assisting the Vermont State Colleges. So what I would like to do is propose the language that our House Education Committee put forward as the the head language for the study piece. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. It gives more focus on all of public higher education in the Vermont and it is not such a narrow focus on the state colleges. The state colleges is definitely where our focus is. But what this allows is to take more consideration about the number of kids attending institutions, heads and beds, kids in seats, the types of programs they're looking for. And it's a bit more comprehensive. I have three hands up and I've got to get. I have a representative Delta and Peter. I'm going to go first. Yes, thank you. Marty and then Bob. And this is the language that Peter, can you please clarify the timing of when this occurred because I'm reading what the Senate approved on Thursday before third reading. And it's obviously different than what you're talking about. And it's a different number of members and it's a different amount of money. And there's no other Senate journal for me to find out what they have done since. So, Marty, what occurred and thank you for telling me exactly. Let me make sure I'm I'm on it on Thursday prior to Thursday evening, prior to third reading on Friday in the Senate, the House Education Committee met with the chair of the Senate Education Committee. I was part of that meeting. The the we attempted to push back on the chair of Senate Ed and he was not budging at all. He actually wanted UVM stripped out of the study other than the fact that the president and a board of trustee member would be still seated at the table. That was the only that was the only aspect in which UVM was going to participate. In other words, it would not have been the future of public higher education in the state of Vermont. It would have literally been the future of the Vermont State Colleges with the president of UVM helping at the table. I was able to get while I'm listening to him and realizing that I'm not going to get anywhere as far as pushing back any more than I had. And I took back quite a bit. I realized that what I really wanted to do was at least get something in there that that indicated UVM would have more than just a seat at the table, that how they how they prepared our students for the future needed to be needed to be included. So I was able to strike a couple of words, change a couple of words. And I used his language to indicate what I've just said. They they included the language that we agreed to. Jim Demeray did it. It was approved at third reading. After third reading sometime on Friday, the chair of House Ed sent me this note, which I've sent to you. I told her that if I had an opportunity because we were going to amend the budget again, and I wasn't sure we were going to, that I would bring it up. So that's the reason why I'm bringing it up now. The other pieces of the of the higher Ed study that are in the budget will remain. It's got a slim down by a little bit membership, but it still has, importantly, it has a consultant involved such that and Nebby is is going to assist in really steering it and and running it. So the steering committee remains, Nebby remains. The consultant remains. Their charge is changed a little bit, but not as much as it was in the Senate's version. I think that we're I think we're going to get a good indication of what the future of higher education should look like. At the same time, what is Vermont State College's piece in that from this study? So it's not the exact language that left the House. The Senate did on some separate language. And this is which the House also had input in. There was a workgroup. And this was an additional change that was offered after, but the bill was already going to the Senate floor. So it did not make it in. That makes sense, Marty. So that's why the language doesn't look the same as the Senate in the House, as there was a work group that worked on language. But this was an additional change in them that missed the Senate floor. Well, I guess it makes sense. I'm just annoyed because the Senate Journal is not up to date on the website because the Senate Journal does not show that at all. OK, that's not your fault. That's not anybody else's fault. Thank you. Thank you, Marty. I just went on to the website. The official as Senate proposal is up. So I have sent it to the committee members, so they'll have it. And I put it in the one drive. Thank you, Theresa. I have Bob and then I have Chip. All I wanted to say is I think we should support Peter's proposal whatever time that you're ready. Thank you, Bob. Chip. I'd agree with Bob. I think we support this language. My only question is. Is there it's a timing question. So if we send the the Q one budget back, we'll have two amendments on it. If the if they are willing to accept the pay act language, is this is this particular amendment likely to cause a little more consternation in that they did agree to, you know, some changes earlier and will this delay things like. I think the work group has continued to meet, Chip, and that there's an agreement with this language. Perfect. And I like the language a lot. Great. OK, thank you. Marty, is your hand up from before or do you have a. No, no, no, sorry. And so if we could bring the language back up, this would be an amendment on the House Bill nine sixty one. I Peter, I think you're bringing this proposal forth in this amendment. So bottom, it's possible language letter A. Kitty, Kitty, they're all letter A. So just say the one at the bottom because they're one at the bottom. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. The and Peter, would you be the lead sponsor of that language? I will. And I also would like to sign on. Are there any other members that would like to sign on because we don't have possession of the bill? So this is longer. This wouldn't be a committee position. So, Peter, if you would collect these names and make sure to get them to Representative Daymaray and Betsy, and I asked you to combine. We'll do them as two amendments. OK, thank you. So, Kitty, because I'm looking at the actual the actual three language pieces, I have no idea who said I will tell you. So it would be. Oh, Jessup. Yakavoni. Conquest. Townsend. I will, Marty. And Feltas and Myers. Yes. And Hooper and Lanford. Everybody. OK. Oh, I don't know about you. Don't feel pressured, Bob. You're muted, Bob. I'm sorry. I was someplace else. What was this on? This is the amendment that Peter is bringing for each. Yeah, I just made. I just made a statement that I thought we ought to support it. So I guess, yeah, well, thank you. All committee purchase. OK, so I'm going to ask. We do not have a copy in front of us with a draft number in front of us. But we will get that for the clerk. But I think we have the exact language. And so is the committee is a committee OK to take a vote on this language now? And and Peter will have the draft get the draft number to to Diane. Are you OK to take a vote on this? So the amendment before us by all 11 members of the committee is to substitute section A with the new language as proposed and presented by Representative Fagan on the quarter one bill H 961 as a separate amendment. Any questions from anyone? If not, Diane, I would entertain a motion. I'd like to make one. So I'd like to move that we amend H 961 as proposed by Representative Peter Fagan and all. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Peter. So the motion has been made and seconded to. Each nine sixty one with the amendment proposed by Representative Fagan at all regarding higher education. Any final comments or questions or concerns? Getting to you, I need a piece of paper. Here we go. The first of all, the role. Thank you. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes, Representative Helm. Yes, Representative Cooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanper. Yes, Representative Myers. Yes, Representative Tranzen. Yes, Representative Yakovone. Yes, Representative toll. Yes. Great. Thank you. That would be an 11-0. Thank you. And Peter. Drafting it right now. You're drafting it right now. So when I do my opening remarks, there will be, neither of these amendments will be in the opening remarks because they won't have been amended on the floor yet. And so Peter, you will speak to the higher ed amendment and Mary, you will speak to the human resources amendment. I think that's a good question. Are there any questions? I think that. So with regard to the pay act, I can speak very broadly to it, but I am assuming that. As we did with the CRS bills, the committee that has the substantive knowledge will. Do the. The background. We'll do, you know, the division piece that, that we talked about. And would you please touch base with. Representative Gannon and Copeland Hansis. Yeah. They're prepared. Yeah. Like this will be on the floor. Wednesday will be on the floor with this bill. Okay. Wednesday or Tuesday. I think it's Wednesday, but let me just check for sure. I think it's Wednesday, but. I think it's Wednesday. Okay. Not on notice for tomorrow. Okay. And everybody has checked with all of their pieces. With. I know Diane, you're connecting with gov ops on the treasurer's pieces. Those three and all the other ones. Everybody. Committee of jurisdiction. Right. I think it's. I think that we've come full circle. I think we are done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any. Yes, Dave. I'm sorry, Katie. I wanted to be helpful to Mary. You will likely have to ask for a rules. Suspension to yield to members who are not on our committee. Just FYI. Didn't know if you knew that. No, I didn't know that, but I recall that you did that so very nicely when you did yours. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for the heads up. Well, you're welcome. Thanks to Alice. Peter would need to do the same. I'd like to weigh in. Excuse me, Chip. I'm sorry. I was just saying, we all do, right? So for the egg bill tomorrow, we'll have to. I don't need to do that. No. We had. We. The egg bill is our bill. Right. It's because it was our bill. Thank you, Chip. Thank you, Dave. So I think Teresa. Ready to go off live. Just for tomorrow. I don't think we need to meet tomorrow before the house floor. Do we? I don't think we have any. Unfinished business at this time. We did get a bill. I don't know if we're supposed to. Oh yeah. Yeah, I don't think we're going to take that up tomorrow though. Okay. Okay. Marty. We need to vote on the quarter one budget. No, it's on the floor. It's a, it's come over from the Senate and we're going to concur. Further. I don't think we have any unfinished business at this time. We did get a bill. I don't know if we're supposed. I don't think we have any unfinished business at this time. I don't think we have any further proposal of amendment. We don't. Committee. It's just on the floor. And it's an either. Up or down vote or with further amendment. So we're going to vote on the amendments to the budget. Yep. They will be debated separately on the floor. And then ultimately either end up in the quarter one bill or not and then we will vote on the quarter one bill as amended. Twice. All right. As a body as a full body. As a full body. Yes. As a full body on the floor. The bill will not be committed to us. Lisa. Well, I, I think I represented felt this was asking usually the committee. I think it was a question of whether or not. The committee decides. Whether they're going to support. The Senate. Oh, oh, I was asking. You are right. You are right. Thank you, Teresa. And now I get now, I, now I'm sorry. It's because. I was in the bill and on the floor. But the committee now has to take a position on. The entire bill as, as further amended by house appropriations. We are ready for that vote, Marty. Thank you. We needed to take a position on it in order to move it on the floor. You were right. And so I was wondering, would you like to entertain them? Would you like me to make a motion? Yes, I would entertain a motion. Representative. So I'm going to write this as I'm saying, move. Move to vote favorably. H nine 61. As past. The Senate. As amended by the Senate. As amended. And further amended. Well, we haven't further amended it. Yeah. Until we vote on the floor, right? I mean, Oh, that's true. We further amended it. Yeah. I think what you want to do is you just want to take a position on the Senate proposal of amendment. You've already taken your positions on the. Offer on the floor. So it's. It's just a proposal of amendment. Thank you. Right. And then we'll do the official amendments on the floor. We've taken positions on our amendment, but they're not on the train car yet. Right. They'll get attached on the floor. So now we need to take a position on. H nine 61. As. As amended. Is there a second? Is there a second, please? Second. Peter. So the motion has been made in seconded. And then we will attach our two to amend. Answer questions. If not the clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Cooper. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Cooper. Yes. Representative. Yes. Representative Lantner. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Sorry. Sorry. Yes. Representative Yacoboni. Yes. Representative toll. Yes. That is an 11 zero. Thank you. That was a hiccup. We did not need on the floor, Marty. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. So I think now that our, our work is complete. And we have the rest of this hot day to enjoy unless. Somebody has some other business. To bring up. Okay. I think Theresa. Procedure. Steve wanted to make sure that Betsy Ann and Jim DeMaris. And representative Fagan. And Hooper. Work with JFO to make sure that the amendments will fold into the quarter one budget. You know, flow a little better. So when they're done, if they could be sent over. To Maria and Steve. To make sure those get done properly. Can I get a copy too, Teresa? Well, as soon as I get them. Okay. When you get them. Yeah. Thanks. So I don't think we need to meet tomorrow. We'll see everybody on the floor is floor at 10 o'clock. I believe. I'll see you all on the floor at 10 o'clock and. Teresa will send out a notice. Next. Next day that we need to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think we should get it to 10 o'clock and. Teresa will send out a notice on the next, next state that we need to. Thank you.