 meeting. We were going to go around just so that Holly can know everybody's name quickly. Your name and where are you from, is that okay? I'll start on this one, I'm going to start again. My name is Yara Frazier from Lens School Board. I'm Crispy Bang, I'm from the school board. I was in Cornwall, Romney. I'll take care of Fondori. Dorothy, Nail, or Carlos. Laura Eastmont-Gillard. Wendy Johnson, Eastmont-Gillard. Suzanna Culver. Do you hear anyone repeated? We're going to go from the second one. Are you just listening? No, I'm not going to. Any agenda revisions or board comments? I have board comments. So the Berlin board met last night with the select board mostly to discuss the fire department lease. To discuss the what? The fire department lease, because the fire department in the town of Berlin is on Berlin school property. So this is more just for informational purposes for those who will be continuing on to the merch board. Because I'm not sure that the timeline, we can get the subdivision in the paperwork done to transfer that land to the town of Berlin fire department prior to June 30th. So that might be one of the, I am still hanging out there in the works. We also discussed last night doing something similar to catalysts within Eastmont. Add it to the D4 town usage of the building. So right now, as of today, that's in Scott Cameron's hands. We're waiting to hear about that from you. Just to be clear, that's why I'm here. Thank you. Any other questions? I think those are considering the easement issue, the way that Calis had the proposal Calis made, I guess, or what they're planning to do. As far as I know, just Berlin. We were too. So we were too? Yeah. We didn't vote on it this week. So, and that would be discussed in the new board. I guess that's gone to the transitional board or the new board. What? We're going to talk about early next week where we can get this done prior to June 30th, but we don't. That's why I'm putting the information out there now that it's in the works. And I'm not sure we'll get done before June 30th. I think we need some time vote. Yes. And Berlin is a floor vote. No. I guess I have questions, but I'll wait. It's not part of the agenda, so I'll wait. Yeah. Anything else? Welcome. Yes. Okay. So we're moving to the consent agenda. We have a motion to approve the minutes. So back to the meeting. Second. Second. Please. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of approving the minutes as presented, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The discussion agenda. We're here 25 days to recommend them to a new unified school board. I think I'll leave this to you. Sure. Yes. So on page 8, Bill had offered to draft up a letter trying to clarify for the community what we might print in this new budget. What's that we're going to be putting together? And so he sent that out to you in a packet. It included some information with regard to how did we get to the $4 million accounting change. And down at the bottom, I put together a chart showing the budgets that were previously approved by the voters and the SU board, which was on the second page, the SU board approved the full Washington Central budget, not the partial. So the SU board back in December approved a $9 million budget just to refresh your memory. So it just shows how we went from a $29 million to a $33 million. It's on page 9. Having said that, Bill asked if anyone had feedback on what else might need to be to help the voters understand this current situation we're in. And at this point, you thought that the board chair, which is Matthew DeGru, would be the one signing this. Sometimes people have to overboard. It all depends on the pleasure of the group. So that would be feedback we're looking for. Do you want me to pause here or do you want me to keep going? I just wanted to ask if everybody had a chance to look at the numbers or if you won five minutes. I want to make sure that everybody had a chance to look at this. It was the package, the first package that Christa sent in for $519 after telling you the date that she sent it. May 7th. Oh, okay. So Tuesday, May 7th and 11th, 48th, she sent it. Here's the package. I just had a couple of comments. There seems to be some tight balls with the years as a reference to August of 2019 and December of 2019. I think that should be 2018 for both of them. All that first page describing in August of 2019, the executive committee in the next paragraph, December. Thank you. And then on page 16, this would be something that is in here, is that right? I'm sorry? Page 16 would be something that would be included in this. Warning? Yes. Is that right? I'm just wondering if, I mean these numbers are confusing enough and does it make sense to equalize tax rates without the CLA and the CLA? Oh, okay. Are you going to go through the next page? Okay. I'm sorry, we just were pausing on a memo. Okay. Then I should have been more clear. So when, does anybody have a problem with Matthew the other one signing it or does everybody feel like they have to sign it? On this report? On this report. And this makes a lot of people sign it. And I think it has more of a lot of people sign it. So my question for you to have as many people sign it as possible, as many of the core members sign it as possible. I guess everybody knows we have to sign it. You like that. And it's from the transition board? Yes. Isn't that what we are, the transition board? Yes. So then we would sign it? Yes. That's fine. Okay. The other thing, and we talked about this, I thought previously, is that having parts of it involved, so it stands out. I think we are all in the first, we're altering the, right above where the graph is, where the sentence starts this accounting chain. So have it, basically breaking it into two parts, and having this accounting change meets expenditure budget, will increase $4,441,206. Period. And then put that whole, the sentence I'm going to say in bold, this accounting change will not have an impact on the total educational spending or overall tax rate for WCUSD, just so that's clear to, I mean, because I think that's the thing when folks see a $4 million increase in the budget, they say, okay. Okay. And have that really stand out, because I think we talked about that, emphasizing that point. So bold, the two sentences? Just, I think the only section when they talk about that is the tax rate. I gotcha. Yeah. I was right, so I couldn't keep up with you. Okay, great. So that's all bold. I got it. Mm-hmm. What would be going out? Would it just be this letter and this one graph, or is all this paper going out? So at the annual meeting, the voters approved that a postcard would go out, and that these booklets would be available throughout the community in various locations, and that occurred at the annual meeting. So this would be a booklet, and Bill handed out samples of the booklet we did before where the front page had pictures of students. I have... So this letter that would be signed by the transition board would be on the postcard, or would be part of the booklet? No, part of the booklet. Part of the booklet. Okay. So what we were showing was a template of this booklet that went out recently with like the 32 budget. The first part was a letter from the board, and that was the same order we were going to try here. Okay. And then the second page would be the morning, which is signed by the board. And then the next page is page 11 here, which is a chart of student enrollment. Do you want me to keep going with the rest of the packet? Sure. Unless anybody else has on the memo. Just on the first... I find a mistake on the menu. Besides that, well... Yeah, on the very... Under the chart, it says Washington Central Unified Board and I are very proud of the dedicated work, all of our staff. We have been... It's a second sentence. We have been working hard together. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then if the board's going to sign, it should go from I to we, throughout the document. Yeah, I think it's fine in the beginning because I'm pleased with it. The board and I... We are pleased to have this opportunity... We're all going to sign it. It should all be we. Okay. Okay. I'll let someone do that. Yeah. Transition... It's going to be transitional board. Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha. Is it transitional or transition? I've never talked about it. It's a transition board. Yeah. Yeah, transition. You can keep going. Okay. So on page 10 is the blank morning. Bill had mentioned we get a draft to you by May 15. We have sent it out last week to Chris RuPaul. Basically from what we're looking at, there would be two articles. The first would be with regard to the budget, very similar to what you're used to, where you have, you know, how does this budget compare to the prior year on a cost per people as people? It's the standard language written by the state, so it's not really discretionary. The second article that we identified would be to request permission to create a capital fund because that was something I identified that we hadn't done. We usually do that at every separate budget at the time that it's initially set up. So where boards are considering right now transferring fund balance to capital funds and transferring it over to the new entity's capital fund, we need voter permission to have a capital fund. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? Yeah. So like when Rummy set up their computer fund and their capital fund, you had voter approval to establish it way back. U32 had permission, you all have. So this would just set up the new entity to have permission to accept those funds as a capital fund. And to maintain it as a capital fund. But we would still be keeping our capital funds at each school. Within this fund, it's like a separate business, like a food program idea, where all the money, the revenue expenses go through a capital fund and that's where you maintain all these projects. They are identified by building. I have it all set up that way. So those are the two items that we sent to Chris to have him critique and verify. And obviously it's a long morning because you have to list all the different locations for people to vote and stuff like that. Moving on to page 11, that is the information we received from NASDAQ who does enrollment predictions based on historical. So that was just the overall chart that we had that Bill thought you were requesting. We have something in here about student child account. It looks pretty flat. It's kind of boring looking, but now I'm going to move on to page 12. Can I ask you a question about that? Sure. When I read that, I found it very confusing because with that comment there, I was looking for Washington Central for non-historical and projected enrollment. There should be three things. We're not talking about any other Washington Central, so we could just take out the VT because it suggests that there's also like Vermont enrollment in there and all of Vermont. Thank you. NASDAQ does put that in every chart we have, so I'll ask them to strike it. We're here for you to get feedback. And then the next page is what you were given a while back, which is a summary of all of the budgets changes combined. I'm looking at all seven entities. And that was in your packet, I think, two minutes ago. And then pages 13 and on were in your packet last time. So it's no change. It's just a summary of all the budgets combined with a little bit more of what we call function and object codes that the state presents it. And then page 16, we wanted to talk about tax rates. So I put it together both ways because one of the things I wasn't sure people would be confused by is that we do have in this budget an equalized tax rate, which means everyone starts out with the same tax rate. But some of you have common level of appraisals that are over 100% and some are below. So that's why there's variability by town. If you feel it's too confusing to show the equalized part, I'm happy to take that off this chart and just show right to the meat and potatoes here, what is it that we're looking at for tax increases. That's the top chart. So if that's your feedback, I'm happy to hear it. Whatever you have, I think Bill mentioned, next year we'll have more information on this chart because right now we're really starting with tax rates that were from the old structure. What do you think people would be able to follow best given that they're thinking that they're used to one thing and now we're asking them to deal with another. Do we need to lay out the steps that keep the individual the tax rate before CLA and then after so that they can continue to say, oh yeah, that's what happens. That's what this chart is. I didn't do a difference, but I know that I think we'll see that it was a little confusing. I feel like we just want to get right to the point this year and just do the top chart without worrying about the equalized. You can also handle the second chart by an explanation. All towns start out of tax rate of $1.754. Yeah, that would do it. So leave out the chart but just put in an explanation and then at the chart including the CLA information. So all towns start out with an equalized tax rate of $1.754. The local CLA affects the actual tax rate. Which is why the amounts differ. I'm sorry, Loria. I don't have the chart fresh in my mind but will we still show each town CLA? I did not put the CLA in. I thought if you'd like it as an extra column, I'd be happy to do that. Yeah, just because sometimes it's, yeah. Okay, I can either put a separate chart at the bottom so it's not too many numbers in one line. Because then you can see more of a clear relationship between what CLA is and what the tax rate is. Okay. When people would be able to calculate it themselves but this would just repeat this year. So add a column for a separate chart. Add a column. Yeah, just all of you wrote it differently. Yeah, so add a column. You're right. All right, we might just put it over to the right before we even hit the tax rates. Just put it to the left right beside the name of the town. Okay, great. Thank you for the feedback. Once we design this, then next year it goes to me. And then the page 17 is a summary of what is the central office budget comprised of and what types of services do people get? This was designed years ago by Charlotte, Hannah Bassett, and we've been using this ever since, it's printed in every town report. I don't know, for the last maybe seven years. So we felt like with all the questions about what does the central office do that's helpful? Would you like the sheet in or not? I think it's important because people have always said we don't quote on that and we don't have information on that. And that would be the booklet. Again, it would be a proof of budget tonight. It puts us on a timeline to start getting, it drafted up and then motion. And that's why we sent out the revised agenda in case you'd be willing to recommend the budget to the WCU S4 to add a patron item later on tonight. So we'll issue the second sentence here we've taken out because I don't think it's accurate. I'll start where are you now? Where it says each town share is determined by its equalized proof of budget. On page 17. Oh, page 17, sorry. Where it's explaining the central office budget. It is still determined by request by town. Not by school, but by town. It doesn't make sense to me. If it's a unified budget and a unified... I don't think it would be first thing. But can you tell me that that's completely wrong? Was this yours though because we voted our... Well, but it's still going to be... For the central office budget? Well, it depends on how it's going to be done. I know. The tax rate's going to go into effect in July, right? Right. But we're still going to be separate. I will be happy to double check. I think the budgets are individually... Right. But then they're down to one and it's going to be funded by everyone. It's not going to town. I'll just check where you see if it's still appropriate. Okay. You're right. Okay. Well, if you see anything else, it's not too late to give us feedback. This is for the 19-20 budget, right? Well, I think it's a whole... It's actually... Yes, it is, but... So I think for the 19-20 budget... It's still one funding source. It is still one funding source. Right. Even though it kind of came in and... Yeah, it came in and it's fine. Right. That goes back to where... Lloyd, may I just recur from a moment to the capital fund topic? Sure. Just to make sure I understand quickly. Yes. The capital fund that we're asking voters to approve the creation of, is that essentially a fund of... a capital fund of capital funds? So that because I have this, you know, big notion that each school will continue to maintain its own... its current capital fund will roll over into a dedicated fund for that school. Is that correct? Right. So the capital fund that we're asking voters to approve is an umbrella for that kind of dedicated... Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Explain it perfectly. Because you said you have the common, separated by school, but it will all be voted on as capital funds. It's kind of like the food programs are enterprise funds, but there will be a separate tracking for each building's food program. It's the same idea. Okay. Thank you. We're not voting to fund a capital fund. We're voting to create a repository for the capital funds currently in existence to be poured into. And there are fund transfers built into your individual budgets that need a home to go to. Right. So that's what you're approving. So I don't... My understanding was that the capital funds that's like run me have a capital fund now we're probably going to take money from our general fund and put it into the capital funds in June. And then that money is dedicated towards run me. But going forward, all money that we put into any capital fund we're going to the joint capital fund. That's part of the... I think what we need to do is create this entity called a capital fund for the issues of home. Right. The L1s are going to go away. They're going to go away. Exactly. So we're just creating placeholder. Yes. For the money that current ones that are in existence to be put into this new placeholder. It's kind of like opening up the new account. We're using the same kind of wording if the lawyer says it's acceptable that U32 is in 2007 when they opened their capital fund. It's very simple. We call it an umbrella capital fund then. Well, capital fund is actually a federal description. There's operating funds and capital funds and enterprise funds. And that is a description of a separate accounting that the feds recognize. But you can have separate funds in that account. You can have as many funds as you want within a fund. Actually, they might call it a program. That's fine. What about... Do we need to do the same thing for other funds? Those... You don't have to tell me about that. Right. Those who are operating funds is the budget. So that one, it's created when the budget's proved. The other funds are designated for specific purpose. Yeah, like the scholarship funds. So those are already established. The capital... They don't need an umbrella for those. True. That's the one right there. It's part of your operations. That the students are moving fund raising for student activities, for instance. For that school. For that school. Right. For the scholarship. Or the Miller fund. That's the one that I was the most worried about. Yeah. It's all separate. Any other questions? Thank you for the accounting class. Thank you. So, Vermont Retirement System. Okay. Yes. So I think as you were surprised when we settled negotiations, we agreed to a new pension benefit. And it's called the Vemur's Group B program. And in doing so, we would need board approval to establish this new program. So we can touch with the retirement system. And what they would need is this group to approve joining the Vemur's system. And I'm calling it Vemur's. It's Vermont Municipal Employee Retirement System. And what the board would act upon would be for non-bargaining and bargaining staff of the WCU-USD to participate. And what happens, and we've done this before, is you would vote on this tonight and approve it. And then I will need to send the board minutes and a list of the eligible positions. So pretty much all custodians are eligible. We're only currently participating in the plan A. This is actually a better benefit. And this is why the negotiation team settled on plan D, because you get to retire earlier and you get a higher payment. Doty would participate too. All custodians, all cooks, everyone in the whole district in the categories that was negotiated. And those that were already in other plans would be listed for this benefit. So the cost is on a budget. The union needs this to happen sooner rather than later because what happens is once this board approves it, we send all this documentation and then Vemur's has a quarterly board meeting. And then their board has to accept our participation and say it falls under the articles of agreement that they have for this group. And then after that, then they have all these windows of opportunity where they send it out and people can be grandfathered and not participate or they can participate. They have a window of opportunity to make that decision. For union employees, they get hired after July 1st. They are required in. And for other employees that are non-bragging that are eligible, they would be required to join July 1. But all existing employees have the option to join or not. Did I confuse anyone? I know you were on the negotiation team, so I was trying to summarize anything. Did I miss anything? No, you did at every point. Louis, does this, the Vemur's, is this different from the pension plan that is being written about as having been underfunded for the past 25 years? That's the teacher retirement. True. There's three retirement systems of the state managers. One is for the state employees. The other is for the teachers and the third is for municipal. And the municipal seems to be always on track from what I can, you know, they send letters every year saying they're funded at like 90% or 85%. It's not like there's a big gap of underfunding. Okay. So, and this is for the non-tissuing staff. True. That's what I'm describing, custodians and others. What have they had so far before this? They had the 6% put into 403D, which is a separate retirement account in their name. And some have been in, like in our office, we've been in Vemur's for 10 years. Romney, your group has been in since I started here. They had joined Vemur's, I'm not sure what year the school started, but way back they had put it in maybe four years ago. So to those employees who have been in the 403D, can they roll that over into Vemur's? And by years, yes. That's why they've negotiated this round. They realized it's an opportunity to have a guaranteed monthly income when they retire instead of worrying about the stock market. Yeah. That sounds good. So does this board have the authority to vote on this? Yes. Any other questions for Lori and Vemur's? Because they need the vote. Any other questions? Right, it takes like, well it actually, it really, they cannot enroll until September because of the 90 day window. But it would be effective. But they know that, the union I've talked about. They know that it's effective July 1, but that they will have an opportunity that will be an open enrollment period through September to actually start participating. Lori, just because of the Murphy nature of the universe, everything as we were talking about last time, you're prepared to reverse course on if it plays out that way? I'm prepared, but... We're not excited about it. The further we go forward, the harder it's going to be to pull back. Yeah, which you know guarantees, practically speaking, that something outlandish will probably happen. But for the Vemur's it's for contracts and we're ready to do that together. Contracts? This is a contractual agreement. That's what's... Right, so we wouldn't need to undo that. We were ready to do it together. Sure, we wouldn't change. We wouldn't change. So I was, unless there's another question, am I right? Yes. So unless there's another question, I was going to table Articles of Agreement for a minute and jump into the Action Agenda because we would have that fresh. Right now we just have those two actions. Everybody's okay with that? Okay. Could I have a motion to authorize this burden of the same documents to join the Vermont Retirement System Group B program? Sounds like a motion. I'll second your motion. Okay, I'll have the chair. Oh. Thank you. You made the motion. I'll second it. You made the motion. I'll second it. You made the motion. I'll second it. You joined the Vermont Retirement System Group B program. Second by current. Any more discussion? All those in favor of the command of motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstaining? None. Let's move to 4.2. Again, a motion to approve the recommendation for the budget. I have a motion. So moved. So moved. Allison? Second. Second. Any more discussion? All those in favor of approving the budget with all of our edits? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstaining? None. Let's move on. Thank you. Back to 3.3. Retirement. Does everybody have this? They were parallel. That's 18. Okay. Yeah. 18. Let's start. So I was going to, we gave it just as, just as information, I think we talked about this at the last meeting, but we gave everything that you see above to Chris and he's working and does what we have to do by Friday. So we have to get it done today. This is article 4 in order for him to be able to have something for us on our meeting for the 15th. When is our last time to really get this in order for us to do the vote on the articles? So I was going to start right, jumped into article 4, unless there's any good agreement with that? Seeing none. I know some of you, like Nicole, we're not here, we're not part of the articles of agreement before, so I wouldn't be, you know, whoever, if there's any questions on whatever you read on article 4 or any clarifications before we, like, completely dive in, or did you had enough with those minutes, I don't know, send them in after. You're good? Yeah, sure. Anybody else? I have a question. We talked last meeting that all we need is a simple majority to approve an article, right? Yeah. And what can you refresh my memory about for article 4, what is the ability for a unified board to change that article? The unified, either board, you're probably kind of to sink people in some ways, either boards can change it, but right now, because of the timing, whatever we recommend is what we wrote out on the ballot. There's no time to wait. No, no, I mean like down the road. Oh, down the road, yes. Down the road after 2020. How would it be changed down the road? Would there be a vote of? Of the towns. Of the towns. Of the towns. So for example, we could, this board could decide that they want to rewrite articles of agreement in 2020 and put them out to vote. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. So we just have the ability to go back to the voters and say, you know, we change your mind and express our case and have a vote. And that's a simple majority of the whole electorate. It's not town by town. Yes, it's just a simple majority of voters. Unless we, in an article itself, request some other voting. Is that clear? And if somebody knows more, that's, we have been upgrading under the assumption and that was a feedback we got. And I've been making assumption all along that when we have this time, I'm not talking about after July 1st, they vote on the articles of agreement up or down and not on each article individually. Is that correct? No, we would be voting. The articles are going individually. Yeah, they could be voting on each one. So in other words, the warning, you could vote on all, how many articles are there? 13, say. You would vote on 13 articles. So to draft articles of agreement, we have to keep those. Right. And then the changes that we're making, for example, in the board, for members, that would have taken effect until 2020. Yeah, that part, I don't know what I'm saying. So the same with the school closing, right? Because we can't touch article 4 right now. Right. So, okay, so they decide to vote on the articles of agreement before July 1st. Those articles are basically then the default articles. Is that correct? And we can't change that before. We're just voting, sorry, we're voting on the amendments and we're trying to make the ballot not too crowded. So the feedback, and I don't have the latest from, because you didn't have time to get back to us this week. As I understand, I'm no lawyer. We will have the whole article 4 there and then the change that we're making. And we would have the same for the board representation. Okay. And then all the other 4 really are amendments and we're voting on those separate. So we don't need to put in, we don't need to vote on the draft articles of agreement because those are given to us and we just have to abide by that. That's how... I'd like to see kind of, I can't really have a draft ballot. But there's something out, so I have a picture in my mind or in front of me of what a ballot would look like. I don't need all the words, I just need the various items. And that's what we're trying to get for Chris. So that's what Chris is going to provide to us in the 15th. So if we want article 4 to be part of that sample ballot, we need to finalize onto some consensus today so he can add that to the ballot. So it doesn't mean that, once we see that ballot in the 15th, we would approve them. So we don't have an action item today to approve. We already said in our previous meeting we had an action that we agreed on the default, not on the default, on the amendments and the recommendations. So that's a document that we're going to do tonight is give him the guidance, what we want in article 4 so that he can draft, so he can put it in a ballot form for us and see if it's going to look really confusing or if we don't come to consensus, we will still have that next meeting to look at the ballot and say, yes, this is when we want to put it in front of the voters. So we're not making the final decision today, but we have the final time today in order to put that out. Is that clear? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes, that's muddy universe. I'm sorry. Can we work with you? Looking at notes from the article's agreement, it seems like there was discussion and I don't know how much or I wasn't there of a five-year moratorium of closing anything or having any language that what we're going to do because this is all, that isn't what any of us want is closed schools. So I'm wondering. That's what we're going to talk about. Well, in the article, if you look at the red, that I just have put in. It didn't make a lot of sense to me as well. I went to the notes. Yeah, so because for you at the last meeting, so the extended moratorium I did put in five, we had many conversations, so that's up to us. So we had narrowed it down to our two preferences where either town approval or town veto, whatever you want to call it, and extend the moratorium. So when you say town approval, the article number four would be stated that towns approve whether their school was closed or not? That specific town? The school would require the town. Just the town that the school is in. Okay. That's improved. That's only starting, like this two-year moratorium already and this would take, in going to effect after that first two-year period. Okay. Where is the article is written? That's what I was having trouble with. Oh, I see. So I can read it to you. I have the articles here. It's changed, I think, quite a bit from the original one that was sent to us, like, months ago. The original article is an incorporation that will look like that we got whatever in November or something. Oh, the fall part. Yeah, well, our amendment changes. Part B of four. That's what I was trying to find out in the notes from before. Okay, I can't find it anymore. I'm sure that's such a good story. So you want the article, we don't have, we have been taking notes on the articles, but we don't have the full article amended. That's where I know, even the issue that we get to, we have what the article four reads like from the daily. But it's not what we're using? It's not the same as this. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Do you mind reading it out loud? Dramatic reading, Brad. Thank you. You can understand this. I should go straight. Well, I voice mostly. Yeah. Number four. Yes. Okay. Closure of school buildings. This is part A, academic years 19, 2019 and 20, and then 2021. So in academic years, 1920 and 2021, the new union district shall not close any school building conveyed to the new union district by a forming district or cease using the building to provide direct education in at least one grade, pre-K through grade 12, unless first approved by the voters residing in the towns, so town or towns, in which the school is located. Provided, however, that if the school building was conveyed by a forming district that was already a union school district, then the new union district shall not close the school building or cease using the building to provide direct education in at least one grade in academic years, 1920 and 2021, unless first approved by the electric, electorate of the new union district. Can everybody get that? Yes. I can scan as an email but you can get it. That would be helpful. And then part B is academic year 2021 to 22 and after. In academic year 2021 to 22 and after, the new union district board shall not close any school building or cease using the building to provide direct education, instruction in at least one grade, pre-K through grade 12, unless first approved by the electorate of the new union district. So it sounds like it goes from towns for the first two years, from the town of Sanford for the first two years to something else in those amendments for the district. You already know of the electorate. I guess it's after. All this time we go through these meetings when we were talking about number four and I'm realizing that I'm listening to A read again that I'm not comfortable with being able to shrink a school down to one grade. That is analogous to eventually closing it. Especially when you include pre-K. We'll have pre-K there but that's it. Yeah. I would like to amend that one too to consider whether a school or something more than one grade. Pre-K through is three maybe? Pre-K through is three maybe? I think you'd say a number of grades if you were doing that versus... I would just say it doesn't close. Period. That's my personal feeling. Yeah, so I'm trying to think back at our conversations in... We didn't talk about A much. No, no, we didn't. We did talk about a little bit about A. But the parallels of it meaning that there could be an indirect way of closing a school by shrinking and building a school. After reading what's been happening in various other merged districts, voluntarily merged districts even, I'm finding this is not a good plan to have that I think that we need to keep our schools whole at least for the first two years. And if we want to talk about more and raise it around after that, let the boy talk about that. So that's where we were at the last time that I remember this, right, and I'll scroll through the notes. But the last time we talked about Article 4 on A, it was not even one of the hottest topics. B was what we had to look at at the end. We actually went through A pretty quickly because why we say that we didn't want to tie that board's hand to not be able to sort of do what they needed to do at the time. And we felt that we had consensus and that we wouldn't, you know, academically it doesn't make sense to have one grade in one school. The circumstances for that to happen were very unlikely. So that's where we were. But I don't know if you guys remember something. We spent quite a bit of time on Article 4. So we sort of gave up on that part on A because we wanted to make sure that B gave either that authority to the town or that we had a longer moratorium than the two years. So we already have two years granted. Two years granted not necessarily for a school can be shrunk down to two grades if you want to say a pre-K. I find that then... But we wouldn't be able to change that. I'm not trying to not listen to you, but we wouldn't be able to change that. We can't change A? We can't change A right now. We could change A in the future like we were doing with B. Welcome to change A right now. Why can't we change A? We can change. We can't really change A or B, right? B is starting. It will be in effect in 2020. I'm just... No, I was thinking there's a... And it says how different things can be changed. Yeah, I have a... That's like this class page. Yeah. So this is... It says the substance of the final notice can be amended only if approved by the voters of each town and identified in Article 1C. And it talks about Article 4, paragraph A. But you know that that's... I think that's the wrong paragraph because then it has a parenthesis explaining what it is and it says building can be closed in... Oh, no, that's right. It talks about the building being closed. It doesn't talk about the class structure, though. And so the way this creates it, you would need a vote of the town as the article indicates in order to change that article. You're in B, I'm not following you. So article... This is on page 12 of 13 of the Big Packet. When it talks about what articles... How articles can be changed and who gets to do it. Yeah. So in B is the article for paragraph B, Building Closure and Fires Approval by the voters of each town. It doesn't say anything about... About A. Paragraph A. Why not? Then it's white. But the next one does talk about Article 4, paragraph A. Oh, there. Okay, the substance of the final notice can be amended only if approved by the voters of each town. That's all closing. I was addressing shrinking it to one grade. Right. That right there is closing. That's a different... I agree. I'm not discriminating it. How can we... I think the way the simple fix might be any effort to shrink it has to be done by the super majority of the board. Or something along those lines. To change not great configurations that grades that are offered through a particular school. Right. And we could... I guess great. We could... Should we put that as a recommendation and change? Because... I mean, we should talk about what would be... What you would want to... We would want to see is that as a staff gap measure in terms of shrinking grades or any grades from school and whether that's enough. I don't know if it would be enough. You know, I kind of think of it in the terms of Calisthen has that very small class. And so, oh, we'll just move that old class over to Worcester, Eastmont, Philly, or wherever. And that would leave a hole in the school for whatever in the years. So, I think it... I think it would be a great thing to do. I mean, because our schools, all of them are small enough that we've constantly done multigrade or reconfigured to fit those little bubbles or the big bubbles that come through. I know, but that's kind of like a... Like what? Why don't we work... Our board was discussing some... So, I... Another similar... A similar thing is like, yeah, you expect the people to do the right thing. That's what we're thinking now, but we're not those people who are going to be sitting there. So, I just... It's kind of like my will. I expect my family to do the right thing, but I'm writing it down so they do. So they will do it. Are we still trying to determine if we even have the right to alter that? We can alter school closing, but... I think we can alter that, too. But, you know, we'll have to go to... I would say the way it reads here, you have to put it up to a vote. Well, that's what we're putting up. Isn't that what we're doing? But the... We're putting out the amendments. Yeah, but the way the other one reaches, it's a vote of the town affected. And... To close the school. To close the school. Yeah. And you're all looking at... Yes. What about the 90 days? Or looking at... The 90 days expired long time ago. Right. Yeah, so if you keep going... Go to the last page of the... Oh, no. See, I think there's something different. February 28th date. So I think, yeah, we have different dates on it. Yeah. Mine has 13 events. 12 of 13. Yeah, and I have the... I have the big... I say the thing... All articles of agreement, Washington Central, OO2. Yeah. I love that sort of... But at the end of the... So keep going down... Yeah, that one does... So I have that computer here. Yeah. All right. So I'm reading it now. It makes me understand this. It has to first be approved by the voters reciting in the town. Even shrinking it. To one grade. Then I have the wrong... Yeah, I think you're reading it, I think, but it doesn't say in the parentheses it talks about closing the score. It says here, shall not solve any building conveyed or cease using the building to provide direct education in one grade, at least first approved by the voters reciting in the town in which the school is located. So it's still... But the voters in the town have to approve it. No, anything further than one grade. Seize using four at least one grade. We'll have absolutely right about that. If it actually gives a lot of discretion to go to shrink it down to one grade. There's no point to one grade. No, that's not... Financially... I think the other thing is that the building's being built. But nobody would do that. If nobody would do that, then I agree to. It doesn't matter if it's yours, it's yours. It's yours. It's yours. Now, you must have heard of the times. So, well, I guess from my hope, it seems like we have a new issue It seems like we have a new issue, an article, but not new, but one that we didn't dive in from what I'm hearing enough at our last few meetings on Articles of Agreement. So, but I would like to be able to give Chris, the upper double, at least the one that was our hottest priority. Right, which would be. Which would be. So, and we know that we can amend that. And so, if we could talk about that, and then you'd be having enough time after that, we could continue to. I agree. Is that okay? Sure. To solve that problem. Yes. That's so one, and then we'll get and let you get the other parts. Is that okay? Yeah. Everybody's good with that? So, we, for that one, I'll go back to my package. We had talked about two preferred options. Should we vote on those preferred options, or should we have more discussion around the preferred options? One option being given the veto power to the town, and the other option being extending the bar touring. To, I think that last conversation was five years, right? So, I think you're here. So, yes. I'm sorry, I feel like to interrupt. I just wanted to perhaps suggest reframing the first option that you were describing instead of veto power to the town. Double approval? Double, yeah. Or the power back to the town. Or the town vote. The town vote. Yeah. Both, it would be, both the approval of the host town and the approval of the... Of the unit. Of the... Of both. Whatever this thing is. You really... So, when we had that conversation, then it's like, which vote, right? It goes to the house. So, we were... You would have to have both. It would be a double approval. You'd have to have... You couldn't just have the either, I mean, either the whole district approving and overruling the host town or have the host town wanting to unload. I mean, I can't imagine that, but who knows wanting to unload their school on the district. I mean, it would need to be both. Both the host town. Am I... Everybody's sort of looking at that. I understand. That's about the same on Trump's the other. He's saying it has to be both. But how do we do it? Two votes. Let's say the town is... No, no, no, no, no, no. All of the town say yes. Then it fails. Then it fails. Right, exactly. It has to be voted on again. Oh. With more... And then, so how many... Keep doing it, school. Keep doing it, school. There you go. So, the school's not closed? Because it is fast. That's how I understand. And I was thinking it was close. Have I ever heard who's name I was talking about? You know what it means? I don't think it does need a double vote. Needs two approvals, the school board. The school board as well. And then gets the approval of the town to do it. I don't think you need the approval of the electorate as a whole. Just the town of the town. That's how we had that last one, so I was sorry. But I was who's name. So you just did the one, but not one town. We did talk about that. The board puts it out. Approves that the town can put it out to the vote. What we had thought was like the board, and I think we eliminated that, I think we would have to have a supervisory of the vote of the board say we need to close the school and then put it to that town to vote. And that was like the double check. But not the entire electorate. But if that works, legally, I just don't know how many times you can, I think it's easier like the entire board should be really prepared to defend it, had a lot of hard conversations in order to bring this to a vote. If they've come to that conclusion, there should be a lot of data. I was gonna say there has to be a pretty good reason. You should be able to make their, it's not something we'll do lightly. And then we would put it, we're saying if we would, that is not enough to put it out to the whole electorate. We want the town to have the ability to overrule the board. To make the final decision. To make the final decision. That's, let's call that A. Yes. And then B is extending the moratorium with five years. Questions? Yeah. Let's not call it A and B. Because we've got an A that we haven't solved yet. I don't know. So this motion one is for B, we're talking about. We're talking about B, we're gonna have two options. One and two. Yes. Or something like that. Yes. I think we need to go on the next one and two, which is A and B. Are we talking about something? Is the argument that it's a section A and B? Oh, section A and B. Oh, okay. Okay. Yes. We'll call it A and B. I can put it in the blackboard, in the whiteboard. All fashion blackboard. Any discussion on that? Or any input in how we should approach this? Is there more interest? Would you also thumbs up? Is there more interest in the moratorium or more interest in the town approval? Or could vote up to vote? You know, I'm trying to get my deal sent to everybody. You see what we're sending to Chris. Yeah. So what we'll be sending to Chris is basically just guidance. Just we will be saying, Chris, our interest is to have the majority of the board approve that the school needs to close. And then how should the town, the town, the power, yeah, the vote. The vote, the town that is being affected. The ability to vote yes or no on the school closing. That's not an option. And that will last for two years? No, that will last for two years. It will last until we vote it differently. The two years is that no school can be closed. Yeah. We have no school prank. It's like a freeze. Yeah. But when we're trying to do this now, yeah, what we're trying to do in the other option is to just say we want five years. That's the other option. We want a five-year moratorium on no closing school, but then there's no other guidance from the board, right? I wasn't on the articles committee. Is there anyone who was and who supports one or the other and wants to make a pitch for one or the other? So I was in favor of the town approval. And the reason for that was that the town is intimately tied with school and schools intimately tied with the town. And closing school had a very, to my view, a negative impact on the town's livelihood and life because it would impact social interactions where social interactions take place at a school, certainly moving to town. That's where you meet everybody. That's where you establish relationships. That's where you go to events. That's where you attend. You probably have an impact on meeting, but not having a school is a distance that people move to that town. And so I think you can just send it on a slow path to becoming a less vibrant town for the students out there. I mean, of course, students can be, go to a different school, but it's different. There is a, maybe it's a my town thing, but it's more than that because the school edge, especially when there's not a vibrant town center, like Montpellier has found a town, and none of our towns have that, I don't think. Worcester, sort of does. Worcester? I would say Worcester. It doesn't have a downtown, but it has a compact town. Even though it's a town with great social communication. I mean, you know, Catalyst has the lamy bar or you did it anyway. I don't know if that qualifies, you do, yes, you do. So the school serves that function in a very significant way. And so that's where I think if the town should have that, that's already to approve the recommendation of the school to close because it's just so much more than a school. And I will point out that we really should send the vote next time. So the minutes of 3-4-2. The town approval was four, moratorium was three, and the Allen Gilbert didn't vote. He had a different criteria and so I think. And then it was just ended with those. Right, so. Yeah, we ended minutes before we were divided, right? Pretty close, correct. Half and half, and then I was in Erica's committee before and we, you know, some of us felt like having the board having a supermajority and having to make that hard decision, we've had to take into consideration what it will do to that town and then it would be put out to the entire electorate, not just the town, but I, you know, I've since then have had a lot of thoughts. You know, the tone of that. For me, it feels like the moratorium is less helpful than a town vote. So a town vote in perpetuity is a huge step in trying to make sure that the towns that are all being put together still have that safety net of feeling like they're not. You know, if they don't want to, they're not gonna be tossed somewhere. They've already been tossed one place, not gonna be tossed somewhere else that they don't wanna be. And I think Chris said it very well, what the school means. That's certainly how it was a great, I thought that was just kind of how I feel about it as well. Except you said it better. And so if we continue to give the towns about a moratorium, like for just five years, that feels a little like putting off the inevitable that everybody's worried about regarding Act 36, that they're gonna close our school. And I also feel like Worcester and Cowles have had to swallow a fair amount with this merger. And then suddenly now I personally think that those towns might be concerned with our small schools end of five years. Now you're gonna do this to us too. And I can imagine that would be a lot of resentment. So I feel like this whole union would get along better if everybody had that security that East Montpelier, Berlin and Romney sort of knew. We have to put our resources into all the schools equally. And the towns have this, so they had that bigger picture look on it. We're gonna be with you guys for a long time, so let's make this all work. And then the towns also had the reassurance that they weren't gonna be tossed to the curb. I mean, that's the city, that's the city version. Toss to the curb. I don't understand go wrong by allowing the towns. I've always said that. They're going to make the right choice depending on what's going on with the school at that time. And no one's going to ask for a school to be closed unless there is a really good reason. And I think every person in every town wants the children to have a rich educational experience. And if that's in jeopardy, then they're gonna look at this vote very carefully. And I think they'll make the right choice if that indeed ever comes to happen. If it may not. But I think we need to let them have that say. And then we're gonna turn this and let us have the interpretation either. It just says you can't close. But you can't even, you don't give the board ability to have that hard conversation. I'm not suggesting it means that it's something that I want. I don't want. I think we should have five excellent schools. But it at least gives the board ability to talk and not put the board in a position that be going under or in the rat or something. I kind of agree with Chris and people who are promoting it but I also have an added thought to it is that by knowing these little schools can say, no, we don't want to be closed. I think it will make our five towns work better together to make sure that Allison kind of said that. To make sure that we have what we need in each town. And so that's. Anybody from Oratorum? Anybody from. I'm not necessarily anti-town vote. But I do think it's not quite that. I think it might be a little bit of a false assurance. Like I think you, what you just said is if that little school doesn't want to close but that's not who's gonna be voting. Very, very few people, if you look at the whole towns electorate have very few people actually have kids in an elementary school at any one time. And if the big board does a study or makes a pitch that local taxes are going to go down if this we rearrange that might be very compelling even for the people who are living in the town who have really no, who know, I have no involvement with the elementary school. And so I'm not sure that it's such a stop gap to the importance of having a school in the town, et cetera, et cetera, because there's a lot of other people in the town that will be looking at what the board is looking at as far as the economics of it. But that would give the elector the ability to weigh those things and make that decision. I just don't, I don't see it as such a protection for the schools necessarily. Well, actually, I mean, I think any of these is not 100% protection because the official board a year down the line can say we want to change this and get the electorate to change those. Sure, that's why I asked. This is as, it's not concrete, it's glory. We make a good point, actually, if we were to approve school choice, then this would all become much more complicated to be taxes and what somebody paid in one town and then what, like, because I was originally thinking, oh, but you know, the argument that if you don't have a school, your property's gonna be worth less. So, but actually if we had school choice, that might be the opposite. So, school, am I making any sense? So, would the better protection be a requirement of two votes? Of what? A requirement of two votes in successive years to take an action because then it's not being in response to maybe a hot button item at the time. And that's one of the greatest concerns that I think I have is that in response to a economic pressure, the board may decide what we should close this school and re-assign these students to other schools that have rent, and that will be the same. And it would be in response to, and maybe a blip, maybe an economic blip or not, but I think there's no denying that down the road, there's gonna be a lot of pressure on reducing costs. Or at least minimizing the rate of growth. And that's where I think the momentum for closing schools would come from. It's just that type of thing. So, but if you required the vote over two years, you could at least dissipate that. I think you do that constitutionally. If the town goes down, it would be need to vote again, right, so it's kind of. You wanted to close it, and you'd have to have the permit to vote twice. You know, if they rejected it, you'd want to vote, but you wanted to actually close it. To actually close it, then permit to vote twice. Which also gives time for making plans if a school was being closed. That's a big deal, transportation, with who goes where, with lines, all of that is as much as I think town lines don't make sense, because you can live next to a school and have to go cross town. I don't know you right there. And I think that that just doesn't make sense, because if I lived, I'd rather my kids go on close and I'd be a part of that, it doesn't matter what town I live in. Because if my kids are in the school, that's who I haven't. That's your community. That's it. But if we were closing a school, that would bring up so many more issues that you'd need the two years. I think even if you closed a school, you'd have to have dates in place for longevity or figure it all out. I think you just said something interesting. You just said that that school, the school where your kids go as your community, and you'd agree to that. And that kind of eliminates, not eliminates, but it's all puts into perspective that we're all kind of committed to each other, that if you're to go to Doty, your community would be, would have been around Doty. You'd still have been part of Calis, but you would have been as invested. I'm not trying to minimize it, but it was just kind of beautiful to see that, right? You guys were coming where you meet, your community. Yes. I just wanted to come. But that's assuming the school stays open. Correct, correct. Because you have neighborhoods and, yeah. I mean, one of the nightmares of kids coming to U32 is all of a sudden they find friends that are 45 minutes away, but still within the district. But they always find those things. And that's one of the lovely things is they spread out to people they know from these small schools. And that's the tough part. The people who live the farthest away from U32 because nobody ever can pick you up on their way. You're always the one that's picking everybody else up on their way. Dignity thing, Britain certainly would have appreciated Chris's proposing that idea several years ago. So, come to talk about Brexit. I mean, there's decisions that you make that end up, you don't quite necessarily appreciate the consequences. Especially since I hadn't thought of that. That's a good idea. Maybe you should have two votes for Brexit. I think I'll vote for it. And unless there's urgency for it. So, I would like to vote on the two options that we had on the table. Including the modified version, the McVeigh modified version. Do we have a one category of the VEI? Not trying to over really. I was trying to keep it simple, but I didn't want to get into another. Like, is there interest that I can go one by one on the modified version having two consecutive votes there? Or a thumbs up, so I don't put anything. I think we missed a member here. I'm sorry, this is all new to me. Yeah, but you have interesting feelings about it. I like the model. I like the double. The double vote. The double vote. I don't like that double vote. I don't like that double vote. Yeah, okay. I'm pro one slash McVeigh, so the town vote with a double vote McVeigh style. So, as opposed to the majority of it, yeah. I'm not really, I think it's complicated. I think it would be confusing for the voters. And I think of board who's seriously proposing something like this. They'll have set out a multi-year plan anyway. So, the need for having more time, they'll deal with that in whatever they're proposing. So, I don't, I guess I don't feel it's necessary. The two vote affirmative. Two vote affirmative. I don't feel the same way that it feels. I don't feel it's necessary. And I think that the board, to get to that conclusion, we'd have had to do a lot of very, very hard work and have had a proposal that included numbers and included what would happen before. So. I'm not feeling real strongly, just because I was thinking about, you can always appeal votes with that 30-day business and petition and have another re-vote that way. And I think, I think as we move along with a new board and they can change things down the road, I think it might be confusing. So, at first I was kind of leaning that way, but I just think having the one vote and if they don't like it, they'll appeal it and get all those signatures. Yeah. I find the McVeigh-Dubble very interesting and I'm inclined in that direction, although I think if it doesn't carry, I mean it's an incremental improvement over a single vote just to make sure that everybody's serious about it. But, yeah. Congratulations, Chris. Great creativity. But he didn't agree with that. I just wanted to make clear that he didn't vote it for his own. That's because he's a lawyer. So, he throws out ideas and says no. I think he did. Carol, can you clarify again if you want your double or not? I guess I don't really feel strongly, you know what I mean? But can you go one way or another in order to decide? Sorry, I don't... I guess I do not feel a need for the double vote. Okay, okay. Where are we going? Six for the two vote or for the one? Well, can you even hear from me? Oh, yes, sorry. Sorry. I love you too. Thank you. We just assumed you were going to count it. Yes. I personally don't think that we need a second vote. I think the first one is hard enough to get people to come out for one vote. I think it complicates matters unnecessarily. I don't think we've ever had a history of having to have people come out and vote twice for one thing. So I think it's confusing for them. I don't think that they're going to understand why we would need to come a second time. I don't think you're going to get anyone a second time. They've already done it. There will be a core few who understand, not many. But no, I don't think it's necessary. I think we just filled with one. I think it will be the board's not going to bring it to a vote unnecessarily and without really, really, really good reasons. So that's the five to six. Yeah. I really don't know what to do. Yeah. You can just ask Chris, we have both, to prepare language for both. That's good. Yeah, that's good. So we, yeah, okay. So I guess what we're agreeing, we're forgetting completely about the mark time. We're going to discuss that. And we'll give Chris to put into paper what just two options will mean. Because we'll make a decision. They're both pretty much... Well, that would tell us how confusing it would be. If you're voting, if you're a voter, what do you mean two votes? Or if it's not confused, that might, that would help. I think that's true. You're just, if it's any comfort. When we're talking about A, it looks like the, there's at least some protection on class structure for two years built into the article. We have one minute. Okay, sorry. Could you sort of read what we're sending? So there's agreement, whether we're sending to Chris or that we're both? Yeah, someone's been back here. So, so what I have so far, I haven't done it in two years. So, school closure would have to be approved by the majority of the school board and the town where the school is located. And that's just one vote. And I will also add in here that same language. Can you go back to the school? Super majority of the school board? School closure would have to be approved by the majority of the school board. Yeah, just for anyone. And the town where the school is located. Yes. And then I will add to that another option that will include something to the effect of that it must have affirmative vote in two consecutive years. So that same language meant in two consecutive years. Affirmative town vote. Yes. Okay. Everybody good with that? So I was thinking to go, and you'll just send out a piece of paper. Moving right on. Yes, please. You just have an article 3B states that in sub two says in the last two years, back then here in 1923, 2021, the new union district board shall not restructure the great configuration of any school building conveyed to it by a forming district. Now it's it. You're talking about article three? Three, three days. Where are we? This is on page two of 13. That's what it's all about. But it defined the structure and great configuration above and it's me, excuse me. Oh, so you couldn't go down to one grade? No. Based on this. And you couldn't reassign grades because part of the definition is that you couldn't require children in the grade of grades to attend classrooms located in a different school. Correct. So it creates a two year. So that protects a right for a few years. That's fine. Yep. You're welcome. So we don't have to. Thank you. It's so nice when people are here. Thank you, Chris. No, I just wonder if we wanted to extend that further. I mean, it's still after two years, you could go down to a preschool, but we can. But it's only two years before the union board and they can extend it. They can. Make it forever or whatever. Or towards someone else. Yeah. To our schools. Okay. Consensus with that? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes. I mean, it's not going to be leave that. I'm going to brought it up, but that's okay. Because now we resulted in just going to be scared that we talk about it again. So that we are clear. So it was probably why it was not in our super priority back when we were all involved in really in depth on the article. It's just been out a while. So we've done all the actions. Any future agenda items? The future is easy. It's next Wednesday, right? And then the 15th? The 15th. The 15th. Yeah. Where is that one telling the youth or the two? It's back to youth three. Back to youth three, too. It was just we, the all states is going on that you're free to today. And that's why it's nice to be at the different schools. Music. Yeah. Thank you. I don't do much. Except not as much as you think. It's not as much as you think. Yeah. And that meeting. It's not at the SU office, but it. And that is an important meeting. So it's not at the school or the office. At the school or the SU office? I don't know. We'll have to read Christopher's. I thought it was at the SU office, but we don't have an agenda yet. Okay, so with it. But it's, it's an important meeting because we would have the stuff back from Chris Littlepool. So we would be making this decision. We make the most important right now, the budget, and that part needs to go out and close. But if we really want to have a full, it's already closed. That is the day. Yes. And how do you know? Emergency. Can you call me? Or you would be fine. Yeah. We still have the package before. So you can always send your input. Okay. And Matthew will be getting that meeting. So you'll be. That's great. Thanks. Thank you. For communications. I wanted to share with everybody. I sent an email today to the future new board, which is a lot of you guys are about participating in that board training. They hold it together. And because we can't, I can't have a back and forth email and a lot of us are here. I want to respond to your last email. I just said that, you know, it's, I understand the feeling that other people, you know, there's some numbers about the BFDA right now, but the BFDA does more than just, you know, those two issues that I'm not agreeing with. And there's a lot of people that are working there. And that, you know, that represent, you put it myself. Like I like really, you know, we're all trying to have a more include, you know, just really have those conversations. And, and it's training. It's not, it's a, it's not a brainwashing training. Or it's just, it's just that. It's not. Yeah. It's just, it's just the, you know, what the regular, it's the basics. When you get the book. Yeah. And it's just the basics. And I just thought if those people did that, you know, I don't particularly love the idea of going to an ordained, but I do love the idea of going with people that we're going to be working with. And it's just the, the basics that's not, and I agree with you that we should have a future one, which is just geared to us, how we want to break. But this sort of, which is in a level playing field with everybody of just what's, you know, what, what is the law and it's just, it's just basic. It's not, there's no, there's no agenda or some scenarios. I think I, I haven't taken that one in a little while. I'm going through the board training. Cause a lot of I went to, yeah, because this is, I mean in like four hours or something. I know they, they try to do it differently. We have been doing it regionally. And now there's been a lot of webinars, but there was a lot of insight that during the week was not good for most people. They wanted to do it Saturday. So they tried to do something different where there would be like breakfast and lunch and the case scenarios and, you know, sort of how people get to know other people too from other parts of the state. Do you know when the training is? It's, yes, June 1st. June 1st. And when is the deadline for people to sign us? So they haven't put in a deadline yet, but it would be nice by May, you know, through their last days to their first week. They did, you need to reply. It's just, it's not at a very fancy locations at the state house. What? At the state house in Ireland. Okay. Very low billy road. So I'm just putting my little, I didn't want to go back and forth, but you know, I am very happy to work and make sure that your voice is representable. That's just the idea. I don't need to worry about the next one. Is that coming? I know, I know, but I just wanted to, I'm very good at long communication. But have a motion to adjourn? Don't move. So I can't. Thank you. Nice. I was in charge of it.