 Good morning. You're with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting here this morning to take a look at just focused on the duties of the task force that will convene this summer. And we did a little bit of work with Chris Rook from the Joint Fiscal Office yesterday to help wrap our brains around a potential goal or focus target of what the task force should be looking to solve to. And so I wanted us to just have a chance to focus solely on on what those duties look like right now. Our legislative counsel drafter couldn't be here today and so we've got Chris Rook here to help clarify any, you know, what does this mean in in layman's terms. And then between Chris and the vice chair and myself will convey any changes that the committee thinks we ought to make to ledge counsel so that she can redraft it over the weekend and we can take another look at the duties of the task force when we are back in committee on Tuesday. So has everybody had a chance to jump on the documents for today. So if you could. I think what we want is the powers and duties the second document that is up on our committee page under Rebecca Wasserman's name and today's date and you'll see that this extracts just the powers and duties and so John why don't you lead John Gannon lead the discussion of of what's in here and and that way I can keep my eyes on calling on hands if people want to ask questions. I can review this now my hope is that if you have suggestions of things that you want the task force to be focused on that you don't see here or if you, or if you think that there's something that could be made a little clearer we'll have a discussion about that right now and then we can have that drafted for us to look at next week. Sound like plan. Bob Hooper. Jumping right in madam chair thank you. I had a conversation last night and I guess this morning with Chris trying to fair it out what john's intention yesterday was with this stabilization target number. It came across to me as we were setting a floor. And I looked at the language of the current 2038 plan, there are escalators build into that. And I'm kind of wondering john representative again and what your thought is on how concrete the floor is. Maybe Chris can jump in a little here to and discuss that but you know I do think that that holding crude liability increases down is important. So I mean, I think that was the concept here. And I agree with that. I did the issue is if what I heard you say yesterday was we set a number. And if that number is static then as the expected funding for the 2038 unfunded liability number grows, then there has to be a need to aid up someplace and if we stick cost sharing into that too, then all of a sudden we're increasing the overall liability to the participants, pretty significantly so I want to make sure we're sort of on the same page when we're talking about something high hypothetical and how they interact with each other. And if this is too far afield, since everybody has a classy I'd look. Well, I was in part of the conversation with Chris so maybe Chris can explain what you talked about and how it applies to the language we have in front of us. Chris for joint fiscal office. Just, just to sort of clarify, you know, I think, I think what Representative Hooper's asking is, is, you know, the intent around the pension stabilization target number and, you know, please jump in if I'm mischaracterizing this My, the way I interpreted the intent here was to try to tie that target number to the dollar increase that we saw from FY 21 to FY 22. So, I think what Representative Hooper's referring to with sort of the floor is a reference to how these payments are calculated so every year when they do the valuation studies. And they'll take a look at, you know, what is what is the current unfunded liability, you know, what's your approved liabilities what's the assets in the plan, and how many years you have left to pay it off. So they'll recalculate that unfunded liability total and calculate what those annual payments will be from now until 2038 on a basis where those paint those amortization payments increased by 3% a year, and that's set in statute right now. And he's referring to the floor, he's referring to, you know, what is sort of your starting place on your, your unfunded liability and your ADAC. And I think that's that's the number that I think the intent was to try to try to reduce that amount commensurate with the, the amount of increase we saw from year to year, most recently, having said that that doesn't guarantee that you know, future payments, future payments will still increase under a status quo situation. The amortization payments would increase in 3% increments until reaching fully funded in 2038. But I think the intent is, is to just lower the floor at which those 3% increases kick in by some level commensurate with those year to year increases and I think the language here which which Becky drafted that that you know that we can review this morning. I think the intent here was to set forth direction to the committee to put forth recommendations or a series of recommendations that could, you know, either reduce the accrued liabilities by that dollar amount commensurate with the increase, and set forth some recommendations that would reduce the ADAC payment commensurate with that year to year increase, and then it would be up to the legislature to take a look at that menu of options, and decide on what they want to move forward with. I hope that added clarity and not more confusion. And since John is nodding his head a lot I assume you agree I wanted to make sure you weren't setting a firm number now that would not be adjusted in the future. That's correct. I mean, thank you. Rob McCarthy. Yeah, I wanted to just try and make sure I'm wrapping my head around the proposal that's on the table so my understanding of this language is, we're telling the task force. What we're looking for recommendations on is how to reduce the ADAC payments, but from the 22 amount to the 21 amount that we're not telling you reduce them generally. We're not saying go after the entire unfunded liability in one year or something that's unrealistic and crazy we're just saying there was this big jump in the last year with money and policy recommendations. So how do we get back on the amortization plan that we were on before. Am I understanding that right. Yeah, and if I may just to put a slightly finer point on that. I believe the intent here is not to freeze everything you know again not freeze anything at last year's levels, but it's, it's peg the recommendations to the size of the increase we saw from year to year the size of the dollar increase from year to year. Anyone else on that. Yeah, and why don't you just sort of guide us through the the various powers and duties here and I think folks will recognize that there's been some condensing of the focus. So we should consider these one by one and understand what what the task force is going to be asked to evaluate. Okay. So, this is the power power and duty section of the draft committee bill. You can see it's been reorganized. And the first power and duty we've been just discussing, which is setting up pension stabilization target for the teachers and state employees pension. And Chris has explained the intent with respect to that language which is on the first page. I won't go into that in detail because we just had discussion about it. Then what happens on the second page is we just refined the powers and duties a bit to simplify them to some extent. So the next duty is a five year review of benefit expenditure levels, as well as an employer and employee contribution levels and growth rates, and a three and five year 10 year production of those levels and rates. And B has the task force looking based on benefit and funding benchmarks propose new benefit structures with the objective of adequate benefits within the established cost containment benchmarks, which goes back to number one in the powers and duties, including an evaluation of shared risk models for employee contributions and cost of living adjustments. And then be an estimate of the cost of current in a proposed benefit structures on a budgetary pay as you go info actuarial basis. Then for funding methods. So that's looking at how we're going to fund this. So including contributions from the state and employees to achieve benefit and funding benchmarks. So we're looking at the funding, including revenue. To see how we can fund this and then a plan, finally, a plan for pre pre pre funding OPEP with an evaluation of using federal funds to the extent possible. So that that's just a refinement of what was in the original draft. And I think, you know, simplifies it because I think one of the things we want to do is to get this task force off the ground quickly and get them focused is make their mandate. As simple as possible for them to understand. Thank you. Rep Higley. Thank you madam chair. I'm going to go back up. I believe it would be three a somewhere in there when it talks about proposed new benefits structures. I think if we don't include the provision around looking at a hybrid plan that would include a DC plan that that might get overlooked overlooked. For me. I think there's so many benefits to looking at that whether it's, you know, the vested issue whether it's an investment issue around, you know, I know a few years back I was involved with the group wanting to pull out of fossil fuels and, you know, something something like that there wouldn't be an issue you'd invest where you want to invest. So there's enough issues there and enough opportunity there to look at that I'd like to see that wording in there somewhere. Yep. Excellent, we will make note of that and try to get a revision of that to put in front of the committee next week. All right. Thank you madam chair. I fully apologize but I still object to the idea of including OPEB conversation in this. It is not unfunded liability. It is an obligation of the state that's true. But it muddies the water a lot. It's a very valid conversation. It's like buying five new dump trucks for AOT. It's an obligation of the state, but shouldn't be in this conversation. I can appreciate that. However, I would note that it is seems to be a shared consensus between the treasurer the administration and legislative leadership that all those buckets need to be on the table and so that's why it's here. I recognize that then it clearly does not bar me from raising the issue. Thank you. Let's let's take a straw poll on that because I think it would be most efficient if we tried to reduce the number of times that we retread issues that we have already brought up so I'd like to ask the committee. For a yes or no do you agree that all four buckets need to be on the table as we consider solving the state's liability with respect to retiree pensions and health benefits so I know that Sam is not on video right now but maybe Sam you can unmute and just say yes or no. If you agree that we should have all four buckets expressed in the powers and duties, please give me a thumbs up or a verbal yes. One, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and Sam makes nine. Okay, if you disagree, please give me a verbal or a thumbs up. And if you are still mulling the topic and don't have an opinion right now. Okay. Let the record reflect that we have a 911. I think that Leclerc has his hand patiently waiting to speak. Thank you Madam Speaker. A couple. One comment I guess then a couple questions in that I would think that those that are the beneficiary of these OPEB payments would probably feel quite differently that they would like to know what the plan on going forward I would think. Next question on section. I guess it's on the top of page to the three and five year. Look back and I want to understand one of the one of my concerns is is that we haven't had the look back on plan expenses and income. And I think that we have to be as frequent as we should. And is the intent that we're only going to look back every three and five years. And is there an opportunity there to do a bit of a slight course correction if need be in the interim. Does that make sense. I know. I can attempt to answer that. You know one of the things that we were doing in the other section of this bill with respect to VPIC is going from a five to a three year experience study. So that is the other section of the bill. What the task force is doing is doing is just doing a review of benefit expenditures and looking at you know employee contribution levels and growth rates. Projecting them out for the next three, five and 10 years. So they have some idea of what is anticipated to happen so that they can then decide how they want to address the contribution. What I anticipate will be contribution increases. So I think that's what is it being attempted here. Okay. Does that make sense to you. Yeah, thanks John. I have to say overall I support the concept I understand that there's a little bit to be concerned about there's a lot to feel that it's going to help address the issue. The only other concern that I have is and I've expressed this in the past is that I don't want this to take. I don't want this to be a summer study committee. I would much prefer that we get a group working on this at least constituting this group as quickly as possible. So that we can start working on this issue and come to some sort of agreement and resolution as quickly as possible. I had hoped that we could do something by the end of this fiscal year. If we could do something to expedite it before the July 15 date I would certainly support a lot more support this. If we could do something along the lines of maybe on passage or something along that lines. That would give me some comfort in going forward. I'm feeling about getting this task force established ASAP. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right, we'll note that for a revision. Thank you, Sam. Rep Lefebvre, excuse me. Rep Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think most of you know I've been myself trying to figure out how to narrow the issues while not being exclusionary about those things which, A, there's still some difference of opinion or B, could potentially be a story to success. I want to go back to the four buckets. I don't want to get an argument of whether it's three or four buckets. Frankly, I don't think anybody who has spoken to this issue disagrees with prefunding and so I guess I would just say, why don't we tell the task force unless you feel very strongly. That is already decided, so to say, so that we don't, you know, have them waste time, unless there's some secret or some mysterious majority out there, I've never heard anybody say we should. So, I just want to avoid wasting time on that bucket. I guess it's my suggestion, whether they're equivalent to pensions or not, I don't want to get into that argument. I want to narrow the issues to what we really need to know, and what we really need to do is all my point. And, and back, I deeply appreciate marks. Oh, God. Rep Higley's return to the issue but frankly, I have heard nobody who said we could afford to switch horses. And so again, I, you know, leaving the task force with the idea that we might even entertain that as a hybrid system or I just think invites discussion that I don't see going anywhere. The sheer fiscal burden of trying to have a parallel system while we're unwinding the defined benefit is like nobody has told us, including Scott Beck when representative Beck when he talked about that, what the glide path would look like. I just think, you know, again, I'm trying to make the work useful and tidy for this task force. That's all I'm attempting to do to accomplish. Thank you. All right, so I think I saw a hand go up in response to the question so rep Higley, did you want to talk about DC hybrid DB. Yeah, if, if I could, again, we may not have heard about that but that's not for the lack of trying. The reason foundation month and a half ago I talked to Sam and Samantha and I had talked to them they're more than willing to come and talk with us they are working with other states, it is happening. I believe that the Vermont business roundtable is also talked about it. So it's, it's not something that hasn't been talked about. And it's definitely not something that isn't isn't workable. I mean, it's, yeah. Yeah, I, I have heard hybrid option being being talked about and and I in truth I have heard from individuals within both employee groups that that they would appreciate that option. Anyone else on this topic before I go back to the regular hands and rep Lefebvre says options rep Leclerc. Thank you madam chair. I have to agree with the member from Lowell in that I like you madam chair have spoken with several people as we all have over time about these about this issue. I had the comment made to me that these, there's a lot of people that would like this as an option for a variety of reasons, one being. I think the member from Burlington and mentioned things about the best and from South African stocks to fossil fuels, where if you have a defined contribution plan. You can have much more input into those sort of things yourself if you want for one to define contribution plans are not a novel idea here. There are several examples where that's already an option within the state retirement plan already the executive branch, I think, was it Beamer's is that correct. Have that as an option, and there is a third one here and it's escaping me here but so this is not a unique concept so I would totally support this group, having this conversation. And the last point that I will make is that those that I have spoken with about this with the current plan have expressed a little frustration in that we do seem to have these rather significant conversations about once every 10 years around these defined benefit plans, and there is a little lack of confidence around the process and sometimes those that are making the decision so I think that there is a feeling that people would like to have more direct input into their retirement plan. So I totally support that this should be a part of the conversation. We will take a look at some new language on that rep can and did you jump in because you wanted to answer something particular to this. Otherwise I'll go back to the previous list of hands need you to unmute. I apologize. Two things with respect to representative Anthony's comment about pre funding OPEB that is in subsection five a plan for prefunding OPEB with an evaluation of using federal funds the extent permissible so that is is clearly set out under these duties, but obviously if people want it more precisely set forth we can do that. I think I would just raised with respect to to representative Higley's and Leclerc statements about DC plans. I note that the chair and I received an email from a member, one of the members from Essex today from a teacher indicating that they were interested in a DC plan, and weren't sure that the union would raise that So I just note that we have heard from at least one teacher who would like something like that on the table. Excellent. Rep Pooper. Thank you madam chair to that last comment of both the state employees and the teachers have DC plans as an option for which they were originally designed available to them. I agree with representative Anthony the esteemed junior member from Barry that it's not necessarily a question at this point of whether or not. It's a good thing or a bad thing it's a question that we're in the middle of trying to figure out how to fund this, and that's going to cost more so that seems to be the bottom line. However, the other senior member from Barry raised an issue that causes me to. We are indeed talking about cost sharing here to do so without to do so while continuing to look at the state plan as one plan. It's very homogeneous as opposed to the unfunded liability that is accrued to each individual plan within the state plan is patently unfair because quite frankly, as I've said many times and as I have requested at least six times. The cost and attributed unfunded liability. accrual is different for each one of these plans so if somebody retires and buys and Mercedes and somebody else retires and starts to wonder whether they can eat at a restaurant more than once a week to continue to cost share. I think in that way seems inequitable and I would again ask that we put something in here that says the plans need to be looked at individually because they are not homogeneous their liability is different. And their cost share if we go that way should be different. Thank you. The groups need to be looked at in more individually. Yes, they are designated in statute I think as plans so. Okay, well, I would love to suggest that revision because I think that's something that has come up a number of times. So we will try to make that a more explicit duty of the task force. Thank you. I have a couple of things. One of them is that I see the line about stakeholder input has been removed and I think it's really important that we have that put in that that I think it was subsection 8D the portion that says during the course of deliberations and prior to any final recommendations being made the task force will solicit input including through public hearings from affected stakeholders I think that's really important to keep it in here. I also wanted to share some concerns about starting the task force before July one given the teachers and the school year and I think asking them to play catch up for a task force that started while they're still navigating a coven school year really isn't okay or fair. I have some real concerns with that. I also and then there's two pieces that I would like to see one put back in and one considered to be added one is around specifically a permanent revenue source. That's something I think we've talked a lot about and I do think is really important for the task force to look at. I also think that while we're talking about drastically restructuring putting the idea of divestment from fossil fuels back on the table as as a possibility is important. So we've got to unpack there. Repgan and I saw you shaking your head about the reference to stakeholder involvement and we're looking at sort of a subsection of the original bill just related to the powers and duties. So Repgan and did you find reference to the stakeholder engagement in a different part of the bill. That's correct Madam Chair that section hasn't been taken out. Okay. Apologize if that's confusing and this limited section that we're looking at but I just want to confirm that there is no intent to take that section out. In fact, I think we're thinking about identifying some of the stakeholders that should definitely be part of this discussion. Yeah. And if anybody has any thoughts about who should be part of this discussion who which stakeholders definitely need to be in front of this task force. Please, please let the chair or myself know. Yes, because we're going to convey this discussion to much counsel with the hope that she can incorporate some of these suggestions into a revised draft on Tuesday. So if there are suggestions of specific stakeholders you'd like engagement with. I think that makes sense. The next point rep the host he just made was around the start date for the task force and not wanting our education professionals to feel like they are unable to follow the work of the task force. I think that the school year started late because of the pandemic. I don't know for sure whether the end date is going to extend past mid June. Does anybody know what the school calendars are looking like around the state. We didn't start till after Labor Day. If you give me a second because I work in a school I can go check my school calendar and see when they're put on putting pinning the end date just give me a minute. So let's let's have that conversation I know there's some variability around the state based on how many snow days different districts may have had or how many, you know, shut downs due to covert outbreaks might have occurred during the year. So I think it would be pretty clear by mid June that that schools are out of session so let's just confirm that and and see. The next point was dedicated revenue source and I think I think that we did have new revenue more clearly outlined in a previous draft so I think we can probably we can probably make that clear here that the task force should consider new revenue because that that was one of our directives. Then the last one the issue of divestment. I'm hoping we can like time out on that because that does feel like a whole different conversation that we might want to have. And so June 15 this currently listed as the last day of school is that does that seem like an adequate start date to folks. No. We have a difference of opinion there so let's flag that and maybe we can have ledge council just flag that for us and we will make a final decision on that when we, when we get to the final draft of the bill next week. Repla fave. Can you hear me okay. Yes. I just wanted to come back to the remarks from representative of clay and representative Higley. And that I just wanted to share my appreciation for this being able to have a closer look, because that was my whole goal was just for there to be options for the participants and the plans. And that as I had said that was the biggest cry, one of the biggest cries that I heard is that people were forced to do something. And if they had options maybe they wouldn't have done that and to me, people should be able to be their own stewards and stakeholders so I wanted to share my appreciation for that being up for discussion during the task force. Thank you. Thank you, rep hopper. I have just had a flight of ideas thing and I think that it's really significant and we should at least have some level of discussion on it but in the context of the last proposal we were talking about a significant extension of the amount of years somebody would have to work. And the response was I'm going to quit early. The largest driver of bankruptcy in the country now is health care and the unintended consequence of people walking out the door early since provision of health care to retiree is at least in the state pool I'm not sure about the teachers is meeting that retirement date. And it seems to me like that could very well throw a lot of people into the abyss of no health care, possibly, and that's kind of a big thing. I don't know either. I don't know how we deal with that. But if the commission recommends something that causes people to work longer and they don't want to that's the unintended consequence and that comes back to haunt us in state benefit provision. So, maybe we make money maybe we lose money. It seems like a big thing that we might have missed. I'm not sure that I'm hearing a specific recommendation for with respect to the duties of this task force. I mean, if, if we're if you're suggesting that we need to ask the task force to prepare for the contingency that someone might decide they want to retire early. I feel like that's a lot of moving parts for for the task force to. Well, I think that I mean like I said it's it's a three minutes ago flight of ideas thing that just sort of came together but I think we should at least say to them. If you're going to do something that possibly impacts the longevity of people in their employment. This has to be something you also take into consideration. That's all I have to offer. Does anyone want to respond with a thought to that. Rep Anthony. I would like to consider some language that encourages the committee to consider incentives to stay on till the encroach normal new normal years of service whether that goes the road of the rule of 90 or it goes through the road of some incentives is up to them. But but it occurs to me. That red pooper is not wrong about the either disincentives for leaving or incentives for staying I don't care. You know really how you frame it but to flag that as a as a worry for the administration as well as for the pension fund, as well as for open. I'm not wrong. I don't know. I don't want to be too prescriptive about that but I think the issue itself of the balance between the number of people working and the number of people retired is something that has to be kept under under consideration and put through that filter, no matter what proposal is on the table, frankly. Thank you. And I guess I would just say from a, from a makeup of the task force mindset that's why the director of retirement was envisioned to be on the task force and that's why the director of human resources from the administration was, was envisioned being able to participate here so that we have that perspective front and center. And if I may, since you asked about the several ideas that also previously came up from our representative from Essex. I frankly think, once you charge a group to exercise. He was particularly, he was particularly, I'm careful fiduciary duty. I'm not sure. Telling them about divestment is, is going to be useful, at least at this point. And so I guess I'm not signing on to that particular revision stakeholders are in so I guess that takes care of itself, but it occurred to me, going down a prescriptive road. specifically telling them something that they have to decide and they have to feel out for themselves. Thanks. It would occur to me that it would be beneficial to get the perspective of each of the system boards in considering the question of divestment as well because it, you know when push comes to shove this is their money. Next on my list replic layer you're next. Thank you madam chair. A couple of things here. Well I guess the circle back start with the divestment I feel very strongly that that is not a conversation that you have on the pension side of things on the investment side. I have that conversation on the benefit side. I think that that's fair, but at least for me is that if you feel strongly about that, then you make sure that you're prepared to cover the decrease in plan earnings and plan value. I'm not sure that I'd want to share that with the taxpayers of Vermont. I get some people feel some. I'm not sure that if you have individual issues that that's the place to have them. A couple of things that were brought up one is my understanding is there's nothing that excludes anybody being from being a part of this commission is it. I think it's pretty broad and fairly comprehensive as far as those that want to be on it and have the input for one. As far as the timing goes, I feel very strongly we need to do this sooner than later, because until I'm showing different facts. The pension that's in the most trouble financially is the teachers and it's to the tune of $13 million a month. Both of these groups are covered by very well represented and highly trained bargaining units that will be at the table representing them. And as somebody who has negotiated with one of those groups, you can certainly do this. It happens throughout the school year. So there's no reason why that can't happen. And of course, you know, we're in April, before this thing even gets stood up, we could be well into June anyway. So from a timing perspective, I don't see that being an issue. As far as a funding source goes, we've got one. It's called the state of Vermont. And the plan participants. We had a good robust for debate about a, an additional revenue source that even that if it passed would know where's near be enough money. So I think that we've already got the funding sources. And we just got to focus on those and make sure that they're doing what the plans need them to do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can appreciate that. We do want to move as fast as we can to get started on this. And what I'm going to do is I have two different districts that I represent to educational districts, and they each have union reps. And I think getting input from them closer to the ground level is something we all could do. And it might not be a, an accurate survey with, with enough, but it might be helpful for us just to check in before we make an assumption that the teachers want to go one way or the other. Thank you. Rep Ganon. Thank you. I just wanted to address the divestment question I think, perhaps this afternoon, when the treasurer comes in. Representative Bioski could ask about that to her because I think she has done extensive work on that issue in the past and can address her concerns and I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think she has had concerns with that so I think that might be a topic for discussion this afternoon. Yeah. Let's see, Rep Bioski. Thank you. So I would, I have to respectfully disagree that we have a dedicated funding stream part of the reason we're in this mess is that for nearly two decades the state did not meet its requirement for funding the teacher system. One way that we ensure that we move to that is by dedicating a long standing funding stream that will always fund this system so I think it is really important that it's on the table and shows our state employees and our teachers that we actually are committed to doing this differently. Rep McCarthy. Yeah, I wanted to initially address some of the comments and questions about the timeline around, especially the start of the task force work. And it occurs to me that while we're empowering and and asking this task force to work on these specific issues. And the reason we're having this conversation is that we recognize the urgency of making sure that we put the pensions on a more sustainable path that whether it starts on June 15 or July 1 or May 1 that whatever recommendations are made. We don't want to act upon them until the legislature comes back, and that the whole reason that we're doing this task force, and then having them make recommendations is so that we have the ability to get by in consideration, bring stakeholders together like we heard overwhelmingly that we were moving too fast. And the reason we were having these conversations in our committee over the last couple of months is we recognize that urgency that represent representative Leclerre talked about you know the the unsustainable path that we're on right now, but I don't know that we'll be able to to act on the tasks force recommendations any faster by having them start a couple weeks earlier. I also tend to agree with some of what representative you hope he said around, you know, making sure that the employees that folks get educated that there's, you know, the misinformation that we heard over the last few weeks can is kind of put to bed in the in the public and with members, participant members and that people feel some buy in to whatever process to you know to the process and the recommendations that come out of the task force. I also just wanted to say. Yeah, I guess I'll leave it there I, I, I want to make sure that we we balance the urgency of tackling some of these issues with making sure that we aren't having folks who are depending on the system for their retirement feel like there's an imminent collapse. So the urgency is that the costs are ballooning in an unsustainable way right, not that we're not going to be able to pay for the benefits that are coming right away and I think some of the language that we've used in this conversation gets it could muddy the waters for folks out there in the public and I just want to make sure we're careful about that. Excellent point thank you. All right. Anyone else have a question comment thought or suggestion with respect to the powers and duties that we want to have revised for a draft for Tuesday rep Higley. Thank you madam chair and this may go to a representative again and I was trying to look back at the original draft and talking about the stakeholders piece, and I can't find what I'm looking for but is there any provision in there as to how these stakeholders will get their information to this task force. In other words, is there going to be a specific email for that task force and I guess I'm just concerned as far as making sure that these folks are able to and what that process looks like. Sure I can help answer that representative Higley. I'll just read you the language that we have from the original draft, which is stakeholder input during the course of its deliberations and prior to any final recommendation being made the task force should solicit input, including through public hearings from the affected stakeholders. Okay, so that alright yep so any by any means basically including public hearings. Okay, thanks. All right, any other questions comments concerns suggestions with respect to the powers and duties of the task force. All right, we will do our best to convey these to Ledge Council so that we can have them drafted and put in front of the committee. It is my hope that after we meet this afternoon, we will have a better sense of how to narrow in on on what's closer to a final draft. And so, as I've said many times, you know if you have needs if you have thoughts if you have ideas, you know, do catch me and and we can talk through how you might put those ideas on the table. And if there are no other topics that we need to discuss right now. Anybody else got anything they want put on the table right now. Nobody's diving in for their little hand. Excellent. Except for replica air who's coming over to unmute. Yes, sir. Thank you. I just want to verify that the posted agenda is what you want us to go by as far as when to come back. Be back. Yeah, let's review that because I think it says one o'clock. Yes, one o'clock we will have the union representatives and we'll have them for an hour. And at two o'clock we will have Beth Pierce and Tom Galanca. And I would expect that that will last a full hour it could spill over into the three o'clock hour and we can certainly have some committee discussion after we have heard from those different entities. Yes, in general you have a lunch break and come back at one. Any other questions. All right. Thank you committee for for good work on this this morning, and we will do our best to incorporate the, the, the suggestions and and we can take another look at the language in case we didn't get it right and and we'll look at new language on Tuesday rep Hooper. Thank you madam chair I have a another commitment that one which may drag me away for a while. I'll be back as soon as I can. Okay, well, you will miss out on the teachers and state employees perspective on the bill, but you can always watch on YouTube. All right, so committee, I will see you in a few hours. Thank you.