 Good morning. You are back with the Vermont house government operations committee. We are taking some time this morning to to open up and allow any folks who would like to put an idea on the table to come and present them to us. And the next person we have presenting is our one and only representative Higley. So, Mark, I'm sorry that you were called away to a different committee earlier this morning. These, these segments have been going pretty smoothly in terms of people being able to present ask clarifying questions during the presentation and then leave 10 minutes at the end for, for any other q amp a so take it away. Well, thank you madam chair and committee members. I'm sorry, if I would have known, I was third in line over in general housing in regards to the contractor bill so, but it was interesting as well to to hear the other two amendments so appreciate being allowed to to be very absent. I can catch up I'm sure I believe it was on representative back and Cynthia Browning testimony, is that correct. Yes, and any town president of BSEA also presented a proposal. Oh good. All right well yeah I'm sure I can zoom back and or look at that. I'm sure what I have to say won't take a lot of time. I did actually look over representative Lefebvre and the three amigos that proposed a plan as well. I just want to start, I guess by saying some of what I said yesterday in regards to. I want to make sure that going forward this, this new plan whatever it might be is is something that that can be sustainable, and can be good for both the employer us and the employee. In regards, I guess I first just like to start out with the pension potential options that Chris Rupert put out on the 23rd of March, where it talks about, you know, some of the options and one of the options is to create a defined distribution plan within employer matches hybrid plans with features of both the DB and the DC plans to what extent should new hires have the option of choosing which plan incentives versus mandates. Typically new plans are created for new hires with the goal of reducing the risk of growing retirement liabilities in future and that's what I'm talking about. The options may appeal to different segments of the workforce I've heard that time and time again by different people that have reached out to me. Not every public employee has long term career outlook employees with higher expectations of career mobility portability maybe desire a more portable retirement savings vehicle. I recently adopted new plans for new hires but few have abandoned the DP model entirely. And putting all new hires into a DC plan will not solve the existing structural issues in the legacy DB plan. I completely understand that again I've, I've been talking with the reason Foundation, they put out a 48 page slide show for me I, I didn't ask whether or not I could present that but I kind of perused it myself. It really lays out guidelines for the ability to have a hybrid or bifurcated system has worked in other states. I even mentioned, you may have remember that when Treasurer Pierce was in, I asked her about the DC plan and she had real concerns in regards to. It seems like in her experience. A lot of folks end up with not much of a retirement at the end of that. But these people tell me that all depends on which what you put together for a new new plan. And again, one of their comments in moving forward that they had kind of three priorities. Pay down the debt as fast as you can. Looking at all different kinds of options. Number two, get your assumptions right. That's of course a difficult one. And number three, build a plan for the future sustainable for the state and for the employees. So, then if I can I'll just go to. I believe it came there's been so much information out there but I jotted down some information from, I believe with the Vermont business roundtable that had entered in in talking about South Dakota in particular. Similar size state 760,000 population. The GDP per capita is similar. 52,000 913 to 48,000 855. State employees similar. Again, it looks like 19,000 to 14,006. This was information in that report I believe. There's a little bit of that so it says the South Dakota retirement system defined benefit and contributions are essential for an equitable distribution of benefits to both career and non career members pension members in the state pay equal fixed statutory contribution rates, equal member contributions, ensure a shared responsibility for overall management of the plan. The South Dakota plan was looking at a 55% final average of compensation. And it should increase that to the overall 85% with social security social security benefits being added. There, there are plans have been 100% funded in the past 22 of 27 actuarial evaluations. This is another note fixed contribution rates by statute prevent the transfer of costs from current generations of working employees to future generations. And just last night, I received a email from an individual who moved to Vermont from Indiana. In, in his email, I'll just I'll just read it. I tuned in the other day for your meeting with treasure Pierce, you brought up using a hybrid plan and we're basically told it just doesn't work. I moved here last year from Indiana and they have a hybrid plan and a DC only plan some people can choose between the two, and others are only enrolled in the DC plan, depending on the municipality. As far as I know I'm not aware of the program being in any danger of being underfunded just thought I would share this information and he's got a link to that states pension plan and proposal. So, I guess, with that. And the other, the other thing that I would, I would like to say is I would certainly appreciate hearing more from Jim avoid co I believe is the last name but he's the from our vk the general consultant to be back. He seemed very knowledgeable and I certainly had some more questions for him so I hope, going forward we can we can get him back. Another concern that I have and not really knowing the answer yet is in age three 15. You might have seen that there's still a there's still an amount of money in there of $20 million for funding OPEP. We were told during the budget that appropriations that included I believe that $20 million in the $150 million OPEP figure. I've reached out a number of times to get the answers to well whether this is an additional $20 million. I haven't received that answer yet so I think that's important for us to understand going forward is they're going to be an additional $20 million to to help out with OPEP or is that included in that 150. And I guess that kind of gets me to my final point again in age three 15 along in that section I can't remember just so much section it is maybe 20. It talks about that. Where the administration, the legislature and the treasurer will work together to create a proposal by May 30 is 2021. I don't believe that and I said it all along. I don't believe that's a realistic goal. And I've seen, like I said, a couple of the other proposals I actually read previous representative Browning's proposal talked a little bit with representative Beck. There's a lot out there, just there's a lot out there. My final comments would be that, and I said it kind of consistently that I'm, I'm open to extending this process whatever you might call it. I don't know as though I would call it a summer study committee but I would call it a working group starting immediately with all the stakeholders involved and coming back with a proposal by let's say the end of this fiscal year. So, again, that's that's the position I'm taking right now, because of all the information that's out there that still hasn't really been talked about or work, worked with all the stakeholders and and I think there's some smart cookies out there and we can come up with something that works into the future I believe but it's going to take longer than May 30. So with that, Madam chair I again appreciate you giving us the opportunity to at least lay out some of our concerns and options and, and we'll go from there. Thanks Mark Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam chair. Thank you Mark I'd appreciate seeing the link that you talked about to the other retirement plan. And I don't know about the three amigos thing. One of the problems we have in our defined contribution plans that we have in the state now is that people out of either caution or fear elect far too often to go into really low return instruments, some even to the stable value fund which is basically an enhanced savings savings account. In any of your investigation have you found any tool that other systems use to get people to the point where they realize they're saving for 30 years worth of future and need to be a little more aggressive that's a problem that seems to be a big plague. Right well the only thing I could say to that is, and I can I can't remember just who if it was if it was somebody from the round table or not but I had asked about that and they talked about how these employees aren't going to go go it on their own. Granted, I mean that's their option, but they talk about a sponsor they talk about trustees. So, to me, you know, it's, it's, there's that option to have that help to help them create what's needed for when they retire. Thank you. Tony Behovsky. Thank you madam chair and thanks, Mark, I am in agreement with you that we need, we definitely need more time I did have a question about South Dakota so I know that john Pelletier also testified that that's 100% funded but I think, and correct me if I'm wrong it's currently 92% but I also wonder what is the average benefit that comes out of that plan did you look into what that's paying out and what people are actually getting. I don't have that right in front of me I do have that on my computer somewhere but yeah Tony I don't I don't have that right in front of me. Okay, I know that I know they were talking about to do so yeah I don't I don't have that in front of me. Peter Anthony. Thank you very much madam chair and thank you Mark for giving us another avenue to explore I continue to puzzle over how what the trajectory and what the path to unwind the legacy plan. As you may know, that has come up a couple times this morning I don't want to drag you into other conversations but when you offer an alternative whether it's for new hires, or in parallel to the existing existing defined benefit plan. There is both an unwinding of the legacy plan, if the idea is to terminate that, as well as if you will, growing and supporting the alternative unless it's 100% employee contributor which which I understand would be in quotes easy on the state I'm not going to do that, but I understand that's a way to get around this problem, and I'm not clear nobody has actually said to me, here's the glide path. Rep Hooper typified this as a, as a curve, which is like an upside down parabola, that is to say, it goes down for a time. But then when you get near the end it probably has a fairly steep slope. As you're if you like, fighting a shrinking fund, and the last let's say 1000 people who are moving into terminating their retirement payments. That's a real squeeze and nobody. Nobody satisfied me. That's that's a situation I want to cope with. But thank you anyway for drawing the idea out again. Thank you and I did find some information for Tonya. So the average pay for state employees in 2019 was $55,900. So what I had said originally talking about their 55% of final average compensation should increase by 85%. So I'm assuming, you know that would that would be around. 50% of that is what 267 2750 27,500. So more than that. So, I don't have my calculator in front of me but anyway that's 50% is easy enough to calculate but so it looks like 28,000 plus talking about once they reach social security age that would bump that up to 85% of their final average compensation. Great thanks I can I'm sure I can find the exact numbers to I was just wondering if you had him handy but thank you for doing that math for me. Rob Leclerc. Thank you madam chair. Good morning representative. Morning morning. You know I'm going to probably be accused a little bit of asking a question and I have an idea of what the answer is but I'm just around this thing about the defined contribution. A fair amount as is it's something that is very unique and not done currently, but aren't there several examples where within state government that it already is a option. It's my understanding that in the executive branch the exempt employees have that as an option. A plan that we haven't talked about and I really don't know the answer this one is is the the municipal pension. It is my. I've heard that is an option for them but I don't know that to be the case. And then haven't you made the comment in the past that your wife was part of one of those plans and the state college system as well. I know about the state college system which is, you know the TIA defined contribution plan. I'm not sure I just heard yesterday myself as a matter of fact of the emers, having a defined contribution piece I guess so so yeah that would be very interesting to take testimony on just just what those plans are and how people are faring in them. They like them with how many people are involved in it. Sure, I would certainly appreciate that knowledge. Thank you. Nice job sir. All right, any other questions for Mark. All right. Thank you Mark I appreciate you preparing some thoughts to share with us and posing some questions for possible future study. Thank you. All right, so we are a little ahead of schedule which is nice and we do have our next witness with us so Sam LeFave has has reserved some time here this morning to put some ideas on the table. For the purposes of this discussion, we are, we are opening up time for people to present their new ideas and including as we've seen a few folks previously leave us with questions that we might want to investigate further. So, new ideas on the table, Sam LeFave take it away. Hello, Madam Chair. I apologize, I have to just on my cell phone so I do not have internet access. So I apologize if I hold my phone. But good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to present PMTK, which proposes a framework for a sustainable path forward. I believe that camp participants should have options and should know that they can. Throughout the hours of testimony that I have heard and read I found that one of the biggest disappointments is that participants do not have a choice. They must pay into the system which they have rightfully done but the goal post keep moving. We are here to offer options and opportunity to those who deserve them to us promises made should be promises kept and that is what you will see in the opening of this proposal. We begin with underlying the notion that no one who was retired will be affected. With B, we move to the implementation of the soft freeze. A soft freeze would allow current participants to stay in the current DB plan with no changes. The plan which closed to all tired after the freeze date promises made or promises kept for all current participants. The other option that is listed right below is 1A. This type of soft freeze affords participants all of the accrued benefits to a date of the freeze. Benefits would increase with growth in the participants ages. I am much more partial to the first soft freeze as I feel is given the right thing by leaving current members alone while giving them the opportunity to move if they shall choose. However, all promises made will be kept to the date of the freeze with no other changes. Section C will outline the creation of options with a concurrent defined contribution plan. Please understand that this is not to replace the current defined benefit plan, but rather a concurrent plan to run along with the DB until the last member leaves the plan. The proposal would offer a 4.5% match from the state. A mutual fund company would be selected and responsible for the implementation of the new plan. This company would responsible for all the future record keeping and producing the reports for the planned participants. This would be a significant savings for the state. I mentioned earlier that all current participants could choose to remain in the current DB plan early calculated present value of their DB plan to the new DC plan. This again will help lower the unfunded liability significantly. Another option within the new DC plan is an annuity. Regardless of what your experience level is with investing, this option would allow any new, I apologize, plan participants or members transferring from the DB plan to create essentially a personalized DB plan with a guaranteed lifetime payout. Investment choices would also include a diversified selection of mutual funds and an option for age appropriate safe harbor investments. Examples of these are target gate funds. A better way to think of a safe harbor is to think of an age appropriate portfolio that is on cruise control and will adjust as your birthdays pass. This is crucial because the current time, everyone is being invested together. I should not, with all due respect, be in the same bracket as Representative Anthony. We do not believe that individual brokerage accounts should be allowed. Bill Huff will now review and explain the benefits to all stakeholders. Madam Chair and representatives. Good morning and thank you for allowing me to testify today about PMPK. Our framework for a path forward to a sustainable Vermont pension system. But briefly, I'm a former certified financial planner who has studied designed and sold a number of different retirement plans. A retired pilot for transworld airlines and American Airlines, both of whom went bankrupt and terminated to find benefit plans where I was a participant. We feel like there are significant benefits to our proposal for all stakeholders, the state taxpayers and of course most importantly pension plan participants benefits for the state and taxpayers would include the following Actuaries deal with the multitude of variables and defined benefit plans. Choosing the plan or closing the plan to new hires will begin to eliminate that's the soft freeze that Samantha suggested closing that plan to the new hires will begin to eliminate some of those variables by lowering the number and age ranges of remaining participants. The fewer variable should allow for greater accuracy and actuarial estimates. Fewer participants will mean lower a dex and a shrinking unfunded liability over time, eventually disappearing entirely when the defined benefit plan eventually terminates with the death of the last participant. Our provision to allow a defined benefit plan participant to exchange their present value of their actuarially determined benefit into the new DC plan that defined contribution plan would significantly and instantly reduce the unfunded liability. I understand that that unfunded liability is an actuarially determined figure that will no longer exist when the participant leaves the defined benefit plan. Depending upon a number of factors, the reduction in unfunded liability will be significantly higher than the transferred amount from DB plan the DC plan and could potentially reduce the unfunded liability by billions within a few short years. PMPK would pay all accrued promise benefits to date with none of the committee's currently proposed changes. The state will have kept their promise. Annual budgetary needs are gradually reduced with a sustainable and predictable plan match replacing the a deck over time. Previous would see relief as planned cost and a rising rising credit rating would save the state money. The current periodic contentious negotiations over planning plan provisions with participants would virtually be eliminated. But most importantly, plan participants would benefit from PM PK as follows. Participants will feel as though promises made have been promises kept. Participants will have a degree of control over future benefits as they alone and as much as the law would allow determine contributions asset allocation and risk tolerance specific to their goals and needs. Opportunity would exist to fully fund a retirement benefit rather than just the 50 to 60% of average final compensation now allowed in the current defined benefit plan. Account balances at retirement would be the sole property of the plan participant. The amounts and frequency are at the discretion of the retiree, allowing for maximum financial flexibility. Participants will have a wide range of choices for investment and can tailor portfolio to meet needs and goals. But we also recognize some new participants excluded from the defined benefit plan was still desire the attributes of a DB plan. Therefore, PM PK would offer an investment option as an investment option and annuity with payout options and guarantees that mimic everything that is currently available in the DB plan. We also recognize some plan participants may not know or want to manage their own investments. For PM PK would offer safe harbor investments that Sam mentioned, they automatically provide a large diversified portfolio, appropriate to the age and the estimated retirement date of the participant that automatically adjusts as one ages. The so called target date funds can actually continue on in retirement to prudently pay out a lifetime income. Because the defined contribution plan participants own the full account value and not just a promise benefit. They can create a family financial legacy by listing beneficiaries beyond that of the typical participant and spouse or partner in important provision, not currently available. Given of participant contributions, the state match in a prudent investment mix should easily be able to accumulate assets sufficient to pay out a lifetime income with periodic inflation adjustments that equates or better the current defined benefit plan. And finally the current periodic contentious negotiations over plan provisions with legislators and the Treasury would virtually be eliminated. And I'd be happy to take questions. Thank you so much for coming with a presentation and some ideas, and also for leaving us ample time for questions so committee members. Bob Hooper. I'm going to unmute myself bill. Thank you and Samantha thank you. The bill you painted a rosy picture there and part of that rosy picture is not so rosy can you tell us what would have happened to the individual that retired from a career with this defined contribution plan if they retired in December of 2010. And I would also speculate. What that individual may have done with their particular investments. But what we did in this framework is to offer opportunities for somebody that could actually duplicate everything that they have in the defined benefit plan now so for instance, the individual that you're referring to this. If they retired in 2010, if they had opted for an annuity option within the defined contribution plan. Their, their payout could be guaranteed. Just like is currently available in the fine benefit plan. I understand representative Hooper what you're alluding to. You know the markets took big dips in our big dip in 2008 started to recover by nine and 10. You're absolutely right. The account value will will vary with with markets and depending on how that particular participant chooses to invest their investments will dictate what that final outcome is. So I can also say that if an individual is working with a financial planner, or as a student enough on their own to understand markets. And if they to stuck with whatever investment that they had at that that point, they would be probably about what 125 150% ahead of where they were when they retired that might have been tough for a year or two, but the markets did eventually recover. The last point is that I think in all these conversations we need to recognize that there's an up in a down and that needs to be on the table and and you're 100% right and going into an annuity once you have the cash is an available option however that in and of itself has cost. Thank you. Thank you. Rob Leclerc. Thank you for being here and very nice job Amanda. I mean Samantha. The question I have is, we've had several people testify that the current plan. One of the recommendations is that we do an X world deep dive analysis every three years now versus every five. I mean, I'm just, I'm surprised at that. So my question is, is, what would you recommend how, what kind of a timeframe should somebody look back over for prior time period as far as plans, earnings, or growth. I mean, when would be an appropriate time to, I guess, strategize and reprioritize and maybe change your plan going forward. Thank you representative Leclerc for the question that in my personal opinion, as a certified financial planner and years in the business managing money, the difference between three year and a five year look back I don't think has a tremendous difference. Anytime you're dealing with financial markets, you need to look over the longer timeframe frame the better. And so I really don't see that changing from a five year look back to a three year is going to be all that beneficial. Well, if I may continue the the current plan is just unsustainable, and I would hope that everybody would agree with that and something needs to be done. So the proposal that Samantha and I have put together would eventually take care of the benefit plan, just close it to new participants. But if they want to stay there they can, so that they, if they, if they like that style of pension that that's fine, but then start a concurrent and parallel defined contribution plan with many of the same attributes as the defined benefit plan but but a much, much cheaper cost to the state. Sorry, can I ask one more question around here. So that prompt so I mean as as if you're working with a client, and you're looking back over their portfolio, and it hasn't met your or their projected expectations of growth or dividends. How long of a timeframe do you look back over before you make a change in that plan going forward to reflect those desired goals. Well typically financial professionals try to meet with clients on a quarterly basis to review the plan and what you're suggesting. I think is more of an asset allocation question if, if you want to compare what the portfolio is for that particular client with what's going on in the marketplace and if you're not meeting the averages that you should in the market that is probably a question of asset allocation more than anything else. You know those those models can vary all over the place personally. I'm a big fan of the equity markets, and I've been retired now from both the airline and certified financial planner business for, for about six years. I've never changed my asset allocation. I know what I want and I stick with it and, and I think if more people were to take that lesser plan of action, they probably be better off. The tendency is for a lot of people if they look too frequently is to begin to chase returns, and that's that's counterproductive. And that that I see a lot. You meet with a client and well gee whiz my neighbor is doing better than I am or I'm not doing the market. So, you know, the, the representative planner is for kind of forced into, you know, making changes but, but those gains in that particular market have come and gone. So it's counterproductive to actually look at it too often. Thank you, sir. Mark Higley. Thank you bill. I just noticed in my notes to it and I believe it was from Chris roof from JFO talking about that any hybrid plan would have to be looked at by an actuary or have an actuarial analysis. What would what would that actually look like what and what what like the time. Would there be for that consideration. Yeah, the PMP K doesn't do away with a defined benefit plan so that's still going to be there you're still going to need actuaries as long as that that plan is in place. So by closing it to new members, it would eventually end when that last db plan participant were to die so we're looking at a very long timeframe that that you would still have that db plan and existence and then you're going to need actuaries just like you do now. But as the plan shrinks as the number of participants shrink and the variance in ages begins to decline as that pool of people that are left ages. The job of the actuary becomes a much, much easier because you've eliminated a lot of the variables. So, yes, you are going to need the actuary, you're going to have that cost of a concurrent defined contribution plan, but my suggestion would be to take the $150 million that's been alluded to here as a possible addition to the current defined benefit plan, which I look at the mandate. If it's going to take some money in it and it would to transition to a hybrid plan like like we're talking about use that money that is available to you to make the changes now to a sustainable plan for the future. And I think the what Sam and I have presented is the framework to be able to do that. The $150 million added or to pay down some unfunded liability is a great grand gesture, but in the long run that it won't solve the issues that we're looking at here. I guess if I could follow up bill, my question maybe was a little bit different than that that any hybrid plan whether it's yours or, or something other groups present has to have an actuarial analysis, prior to consideration my understanding and I guess how long would something like that, that take if if a proposal well even your proposal let's say it appears to me that JFO was saying that they'd have to be an analysis of that hybrid plan. Does that make sense. Yeah, I think I understand what your question is and I think the answer is relatively simple if you were to start from scratch and develop a hybrid plan. Part of that plan then is a defined benefit plan and absolutely you're going to need actuaries and that's going to take some time for those people to make their calculations and estimates. But what we're proposing is, we already have a defined benefit plan we already have those actuaries and they're familiar with that part of the plan but by adding a defined contribution plan, there are no actuaries involved with that. So, representative Higley to answer your question I, I don't think it would take any, any longer to do any analysis than is currently, they have with our current DB plan that that's not going to change and we're not adding a new defined benefit plan that would complicate their calculation so be relatively easy I would expect. Thank you. Welcome. John Ganon. Thank you madam chair and thank you Samantha and bill for testifying this morning. I have two questions. My first question deals with some data I was looking at out of the 2019 survey of consumer finances which is put out by the Federal Reserve. It states that the average retirement savings for household and that besides the word household is about $165,000 for retirement. How much of an annual annuity that purchase. I've been to as a certified financial planner I've been to a number of national conventions and they've, and I've been fortunate enough to sit in on seminars from some of the nationally renowned experts in that particular field, because it's always a tough question knowing how much you can derive from a pool of money. The third answer is, if you listen to the experts in this field is about 4%. So what is it's, it's, it's not a lot of money if your pool that you're working from is, is only 165,000. The, the calculations that I have made with a financial function calculator I took a hypothetical individual that might work for the state that really doesn't matter 20 or 30 years, and said that that individual would contribute 7% the state, four and a half percent. And you'd make 7% on your money which is the same amount that the treasure is using now, and the figure that I could come out with rather and it didn't make any difference was a 20 or 30 year period. I could match exactly what the benefit is from the defined benefit plan now with a 4% withdrawal which includes adjusting for inflation over time. Everybody maximizes their contributions. I, I estimated contributions at 7% and the reason that our plan was four and a half was that what was what I needed to equate to what the defined benefit plan produces now. And I understand that as our plan was introduced to several people that was one of the questions, because right now in the defined contribution plans that the state already operates, the state contribution is 7%. But it really doesn't make any difference. If, if I say the participant puts in seven and a half in the state four and a half, the total is 12%. So just reverse them and the number is going to work out the same that predesimate could put in four and a half. The state seven and a half you still got the 12% monthly contributions. That over a period of time at 7%, which is the number that our own treasury uses, you can equate a lifetime income inflation adjusted that equates to the defined benefit plan now, which means if the participant were to contribute any more than that. Then DC plans allow even for some pretty substantial contributions of later years to call makeup provisions, which I took advantage of and my, my final years at work. You can, you can boost that that lump of money considerably, and you would probably likely come up with a benefit that is exceeds what is available from the divine benefit plan now. And finally, the data from the survey of consumer finance would not bear that out. My, my second question deals with, hold on, I have to pull up the document. The Michigan Michigan closed its defined benefit plan in 1997. The plan was actually overfunded it had a hundred and ninety hundred and nine percent of assets on hand to cover all my buildings. By 2012 15 years after freezing new hires out, the planet becomes severely underfunded with an underfund unfunded level of just 60%. In other words, while the planet access assets on hand. In 1997 by 2012 the planet master significant unfunded liability of 6.2 billion. Can that happen with this plan that you proposed. I'm familiar with what happened in Michigan, but I would speculate that the once the plan was was closed, and because it was overfunded to begin with that somebody, perhaps the legislature along the line thought. Maybe we can, we don't have to put in as much as we were before. You're still going to have an actuary that will determine an ADEC figure based on those planned participants and if you short change that ADEC you're going to short you're going to create an unfunded liability. And I would speculate that that's probably what happened in Michigan. If if though they had met investment targets and the legislature had continued to fully fund their annual contributions as determined by the actuary. There's no reason that that plan should have been unfunded at all. Well, but see there's the big question, if we meet our performance investment performance, and if our actuary numbers are correct. But that's always the challenge and as you have fewer and fewer active employees in your plan. Some of those numbers, it gets a little more dangerous doesn't it. No, I'd exactly respectfully take the opposite view that as the participants in that defined benefit plan shrink, and as a pool the average age is higher. The actuary's job becomes easier, but but we all know that the an actuary's job is probably more different, difficult than a rocket scientist I mean that it's extremely tough to make those estimates and they're they're going to be wrong at times, and but that's okay. The next set of calculations would include any mistakes that were made so that you make up for the in the next annual contribution or subpar investment performance. That's the actuary's job it's a it's a revolving annual calculation that's done that takes all of that into consideration. Thank you and I urge members to read the document that I sent them on the experience West Virginia Alaska and Michigan had with moving from a D plant DB plan to a DC plan. I think the results are starkly different than what's been represented. Thank you. Thank you representative again and for your question. Great. Thank you so much. Samantha for for preparing the the proposal that you put on the table and bill for the time and thought that you put into it and bringing it to us we appreciate your time today. Thank you. Next up, we have representatives Tina and Howard, who are bringing a proposal that I believe is has been developed by the working for monitors caucus and so welcome, Mary and Brian, and thank you so much for your flexibility and coming a few minutes early because we were a little bit ahead of time so take it away. Thanks. Do I have the power to share the screen right now. We all draw up document your document on our secondary device. So if what you were planning to show us is the document that you sent as a final draft, we can all pull that up on our secondary devices. I, that's fine I thought, you know, for members of the public watching they could follow along but maybe what I'll just say is that people who are watching on YouTube want to follow along the government operations page of the legislature. I believe it's under my name, you can find the proposal that we're about to review for you. So yeah so we're here today, myself and representative Howard are here to present to you a proposal that's been developed within the working for monitors caucus. And Representative Howard before we begin I just want to say a little bit about our process so the committee under for those who may not know on the committee how we develop this proposal. Yes. What we did was after we know the of a set of members from the caucus sent a letter to leadership about this issue, several weeks back. And then there was an amendment that came from several members of the caucus and we heard some feedback about about how we were presenting and developing ideas and so we heard that feedback and we tried in the development of this proposal to take into account the feedback of our colleagues. So from the beginning of this proposal we've been, we've made sure that house leadership and the leadership of this committee was informed of every single draft of this proposal as it was being crafted and we pulled our own members to begin the proposal then created a Google Doc that members were able to comment on and chime in on, and then last night we had a meeting where we went through each section of the proposal and took a vote. And there were three sections of the proposal that had very strong support and one section that had weaker support and so we'll make sure we share that as we go through it. And at the end of the meeting we, we took a vote and then we said is anyone opposed and no one said they were opposed to this and then we offered members a chance to put their name on it. So there's people who helped shape this proposal, but who ultimately didn't put their name on it. So I just share that because the names on it don't reflect all all of the voices that went into the crafting of this proposal, but they're the people who ultimately felt comfortable taking some ownership and putting their name on it. So that being said, we were trying at every step of the way to incorporate as many voices not only of legislators but also of union members and workers advocates, as possible. So that being said let's begin. So representative Howard I believe I'm going to do the first section, you're going to do number two and three and then I'm going to do for it is that sound right. I think you said yes. Yeah, okay. Yes. I just better be sure before we begin. So now I will look at my version of this. So. So the proposal starts with a retirement fund task force and you know we're not fixated on the name. So if you had a different name that of the task force it's fine but the concept is that instead of. Generally the position of the working for monitors caucus, they're a strong agreement that instead of moving forward with a plan that changes things immediately that we should create a task force. And this doesn't under my this doesn't take away from the urgency of the issue, we're just saying, we don't, the body shouldn't act on a plan immediately that we should create a task force. And over the rest of 2021 hold more public hearings and meetings, mostly over the summer, and for this task force to come back to the legislature with a proposal in October of 2021 for legislative action in the beginning of 2022. Now, is that if house gov ops and Senate gov ops got a report in October, even if we're not regularly meeting the committee would have time to either have meetings or to review the proposal, so that you could recommend action to the entire body. Right at the beginning of 2022, get this over to the Senate so that you can move on to the important work you have to do with reapportionment, which we are sensitive to. So, we would ask, you know that that we're not asking for a major delay. And we're acknowledging the timeline that you're on to finish all your important work this biennium. In terms of the membership of the task force, we are providing you with a long list and decided that the committee could look at this list and decide ultimately, who are the best people on the task force. So our recommendation though was the more the merrier that this process should include as many people as possible. And we asked that that the membership is divided equally between workers, you know, or unions who represent the workers, the management and state officials to make sure that there's sort of equal voice between the different stakeholder groups. And these members could include or should include. Well, they may include VSEA, NEA, the VTA, the professional firefighters of Vermont, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, IBEW local 300 who covers some electric department workers, the treasurer or their appointee or their representatives. It was suggested that all members of both House and GovOps be beyond this task force, which is a lot of people, but that was suggested. So we incorporated that suggestion that the governor have representation and the judiciary, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont School Board Association, BPIC, and that they work with the actuary. So whoever the actuary is that works on this, that they'd be working closely with the task force during this time to help them make their decisions. And I will review the powers and duties now that they would evaluate the current BPIC model. And if this is the best practice or what changes need to be made to pensions, they would evaluate the governance model in general. They would evaluate the structure of current plans and ways to improve performance. They would evaluate the management of the pension funds. They would explore the long-term viability of the pension funds. They would identify and advise on long-term possibilities for dedicated funding streams. They would review short-term possible revenue streams to pay off debt liability and set us up for success. They would consider the impact of retirement benefits on workforce development, including recruitment and retention. They would assess the impact of pensions on the other areas of the state budget and the state's economy as a whole. The last part is really a vision thing, which is exploring the long-term transition to a public retirement system so that all workers can buy into pension plans someday. With the idea being that if we can stabilize these pension funds and be strategic, we may be able to create a way to work towards a public retirement system that could benefit all workers who choose to participate in that system. And we include a resource to some ideas around ways to invest that are labor-friendly. That's what this www bank of labor.com link is if people click on it. So this section of the proposal had extremely strong support. It was hard to take a vote count because there were people who were not voting on anything. There were people who don't always come who showed up. I mean, it was more of like a straw poll, but this had a very strong support from people in the meeting. So I'm going to hand the next section over to Representative Howard to present to you. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. We considered an independent evaluation of the pension funds performance and performance and management using an expert analyst contacted through the auditor's office. The evaluation will identify reasons for the funds performance and independently ascertain and certify the performance valuation and the importance of alternative investment managers like private equity real estate hedge funds and commodities going back to 2011 with a specific emphasis on the last five years, given the charges, identify alternate and potential strategies to improve or stabilize performance and to consider pro labor investments. And this report would be due in October 2021. Transparency is very important. An act to let a legislation such as California and other states have done regarding annual disclosures of the fees and expenses the public investment fund pays to alternative investment vehicle fund manager related parties, the gross and net rate of return of each alternative investment by a certified public accountant who has been able to review violation and cash flow reports of the underlying fund. And we have also put in included a link for model legislation. I apologize for my nervous testimony I am awaiting my daughter is coming home I haven't seen her in over a year so I'm just really excited so please forgive me but thank you for listening. We need to raise extra money after the covert money is gone. We consider can consider a surcharge on high income earners for a set amount of time to recapture a portion of the 2017 tax cuts to raise extra revenue to help us meet our obligations. Instead of pulling it all on the backs of workers, some preliminary numbers from JFO on the fiscal impact of a surcharge on income tax should be considered. Here are examples. 1.5% on incomes over 300,000 would equal 30 to 40 million per year. 3% on incomes over 300,000 would equal 60 to 70 million per year. 3% on income above 500,000 would equal 40 to 50 million per year. 6% on income above 500,000 would equal 70 to 90 million per year. In recognition of the importance of addressing long term liabilities. This proposal calls for the state to dedicate a total of at least $150 million as currently appropriated above the ADC amounts for paying down the states for major retirement liabilities. And then below we have a listing of the members who have supported this draft, and we are grateful for the time that you're taking to listen to us. We look forward to working together to resolve this issue. Thanks Representative Howard. Thank you Representative Howard. And just, I appreciate you doing the testimony being so excited and it's understandable why it's hard to focus when you're going to see her. That's so exciting. So what I just want to go back and report that for section two, the audit, there was very strong support for the idea of doing an audit. For section three transparency, there was very strong support. Section four is the area where there was weaker support there was still strong support, but there was weaker support and I just want to honor the views of those who question this section because asking for any additional tax on people is a big ask for us to make. Some of us believe that the people in these income brackets have benefited tremendously from tax cuts and increased wages over the last few years and that asking them to pay a little bit of that back to help the state out when we need them. Some of us believe that's the way to go and others are concerned about the impact of a surcharge some are concerned that it might lead to tax flight, you know people leaving some are concerned that it might hurt the economy. So we honor those concerns, however, the majority of people did want this piece in there, and we hope that this can be something that is considered and that this may fall more into another committee's jurisdiction that maybe ways and means should, you know, look more into this section. As well, but I just wanted to honor that so that we are, you know, honestly, representing the discussion from within our caucus but ultimately, no one opposed us bringing this forward. And as you can see, we have a mix of senators and representatives as well as three different unions who were able to sign on and one political organization. And I should say that the VSEA could not sign on because they have a process they need to use that they couldn't use quick enough, but they have their own proposal that is similar. So that being said, a representative Howard if there's nothing that you think we missed I think maybe we could take questions. No, I don't think that there is anything not from what I can see. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. I think we covered the overview and you know the gist of it is, I guess my closing comment would just be that we recognize that there is not one solution here, we have to look at this holistically. We have to look at what we've been doing and what works or doesn't work about it. We have to consider what the what would be the best practices moving forward and make a plan that solid we have to do this in collaboration with the workers and not impose something on them. And we need to be open to creative solutions to catching up on our debt and look at the past and look at what has worked in the past and the surcharge has worked at one point in Vermont history and helping us catch up. So we hope that that could still be considered. So in general, we asked that the committee, you know, look at our different ideas and perhaps take more testimony on these ideas because they do need more work. This is a proposal not a bill not an amendment. So the idea is you know we're, we're sort of tossing some cards on the table for you to incorporate into your game. So thank you. I see a hand so I'll stop there. Thank you representatives for the time and attention that you put into bringing this proposal before us I really appreciate your engagement in this. Mike Marwicky. Thank you madam chair and thanks to our fellow House members here and and member from Rutland I certainly get your excitement. I'm going to be able to babysit my two year old granddaughter for the first time since the summer. We've got lots of mud here which she loves. So I hope you enjoy your day too. I take note of the idea of raising revenues and I realize I'm in a position that many people, few people are. I'm in a town where I could go to my town and make that case. I live in the town where when Governor Dean came to our town meeting and was asked to raise taxes for schools and he said no I'm not going to raise taxes. He got booed. There aren't many towns like that in Vermont though. So my concern is when you did you talk to the administration about your plan for for raising revenues and what kind of realistic chance that had. I'm not spoken with the administration yet. I'm more than happy to sit down with them if they're well if they would like to meet with the working Vermonters caucus. That would be great actually. So, you know the product it sounds like where we're at now is we're in a we're in a deliberative process and now is the time so I you know, I would be happy to for us to meet with them or for you as our government operations committee to you in your negotiations and talks with them or house leadership to perhaps share some of this information. And one thing I would say is, I don't want to raise taxes on all people. That's not what this isn't about this isn't about like trying to tax people more it's asking a very small portion of the population who has benefited immensely during a time of economic crisis to give a little bit back to help everybody else out of this, of this whole that we're finding ourselves in. And I do think that's different than just saying let's raise property taxes on everyone or let's raise income taxes on everyone. So I think it's a, I think it'd be good for us to have that discussion with the governor, and I would hope that he'd look back at what Richard Snelling did and what what happened back in 1991 as an example of how partnership between parties and between the bodies and pieces of this would lead to, you know, a solution. Well thank you. I get that part and I, again, I agree that there have been people that have made out much better than the others and at some point I hope, starting on the national level that we, we look at that. I don't want to hear those we just had an election and the person who said no taxes, one by 65% against the guy who said he would pass a wealth tax. So, I think what we need to do is get real and find where the hundred votes we would need to pass this. And, and if we can put that on the table then it gets to be a serious proposal. But I thank you for bringing that in and appreciate your time with questions. Excuse me, I would just like to add that we are in communication with the speaker's office. Yeah, we are. I think the governor, the governor we haven't been speaking with so you know, maybe we could take the feedback and maybe we could be proactive and reach out. So, go ahead, Tonya. So, Madam Chair, as someone who was part of, of working on this plan, I do just want to be clear and make sure that I am clear with the plan coming forward that the piece about offering a potential surcharge on the highest income earners is simply a piece on the table it's not part of the proposal as like we definitely have to do this simply an option if we find ourselves in need of additional revenue. Yes, thanks, Representative Bihovsky I think what we are saying is that the state needs to follow through on the commitment to invest 150 million like we've already appropriated, but that we'd like other revenue to be considered, you know, after that like for example, if we determine that another 150 million would position us better, and then maybe over the next two years there would be a surcharge. But I will say that it's the strong opinion of the caucus that putting more money into the system isn't good enough, we have to look at what we're doing with that money, and that is a very important part of this proposal and I want to highlight that because I think the tax piece can distract people, but really what's up front here is, we want a task force to sit down and do some more deliberative work to come forward with a plan to make sure that we're doing the best possible thing with the money. So, Sam Lefebvre. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you both for being here today. I have two questions so one. I know that it was also part of our proposal or a little bit like the committee coming out people have been asking for that. Did you guys have the opportunity to see how much this task force would cost for our proposal. No, we, we don't have a, you know, the way it works is you can't get a fiscal note unless it's coming from the committee that's what I was told like they can't even for my amendment I couldn't get a fiscal note, unless you had voted yes on it. You know, we could sit down and try to calculate, like if it was, if it honestly the best thing would be if you wanted to move forward with the task force you would say to JFO how much is this cost and they would just tell you, you know, I think that's honestly the easiest thing to do because me and representative Howard could sit down if you wanted us to and try to calculate the per diems and your gov ops you you this is what you do you make commissions and boards and so you know that better than us so I would suggest if you voted in the task force that you look at the cost of having the maximum amount of people and then decide is that too expensive or not and if it is trim back, but a lot of the people involved are people who it's part of their job already. So, they may not get the per diem. But yes, there would be I want to honor that there would be a cost, there would be, I see it though as an investment because investing some money in this task force, if they come forward with a better plan could save the state hundreds of millions if not over billion dollars or whatever over 30 years so Thank you and I do appreciate you listed off a very robust amount of people that came to the meeting I didn't know if someone just threw out there like while we're looking at this. I understand that that is in our wheelhouse and I appreciate the process of getting there. My second question is is when it came out a couple of times and so I just would just like to ask have it out there so we're saying that we are asking the high income earners to pay more. Would they really have an option to say no, though, because they could, because as a representative of rookie said his town, they, they, they're fine with paying more, would there be an option if the high earners wanted to pay and they could but those that did not want to. Did not have to, if we're asking. That's an interesting thought. You know, I think when we say we're asking we're acknowledging that in the political process in order to for this body to have the political will to take this action, there would need to be some sense that their support like other members have mentioned in the day so far like you know and like the governor one by 65% I think I heard someone say one could question what that was really about there's a lot of factors involved I think changing leadership during a pandemic of somebody who was doing a fairly decent job during the pandemic. I would see that as probably the main thing. We're not here to talk about that. Ultimately, we're what the point of bringing that up I thought was to make the point that how do people feel out in the community what do people want us to do. And I think if we took time over the summer with this task force part of it could be public hearings on revenue part of it could be, you know, inviting people to come out and speak to how they would feel about the search for income outreach to the highest income earners and asking them if they would come out and testify how they feel, and perhaps, you know, taking a poll, we could do something like with the social equity caucus do it didn't have a statewide poll that we run and gather information on you know there's all different kinds of ways to assess people's willingness, but ultimately, we could also look at a way for people to opt in or opt out that could be an option. So I hope that answers the question I guess what I'm saying is when we say we ask we're acknowledging that we have the right to impose things on people, but we also want to honor like that it's if we engage in partnership with people that their people may consent to it they may say you know what, I'll give back 15 grand for the next two years out of the 60 grand that I'm saying already saving in my tax cuts. It means that my state is going to be on solid footing for the next 30 years like I tend to think that most people would give a little bit more of what they're giving if they knew they were getting I can say for myself that if, if my taxes went up to give me universal health care, and I didn't have to pay 500 a month for health care I can't afford to use I'd be thrilled, you know, so there's like you know it's it's sort of like what are you getting for the money you put in. So if, if we had a solid plan that we were going to invest this increased revenue into something that's going to save our state and help us out, people might be into it so. John again and thank you and I appreciate thank you. Thanks. Representative Howard did you want to thank you man. Thank you said it adequately. I have talked to a number of residents in my community and wealthy residents and they have said to me I would be milk willing to contribute more such as for education for these various opportunities so I think we would be surprised at the number of people that would be willing to contribute to, you know, to help our state. All right, we are closing in on three minutes to be respectful of the 30 minute time block so john again and jump right in. Thank you. And thank you, Brian Mary for bringing us forward and Brian also thank you for inviting me to the workers costs caucus and letting me listen to some of your deliberations that was great. Just a question about the task force itself. I did a quick count and I count 30 members. It's a large group to reach a decision about something as complex as pensions and OPEP. Any thoughts about how to control that because I'll tell you I was part of the last retirement task force. And it wasn't this large yet, you know, people throughout a lot of ideas. And you know, it closed down because of the pandemic, but it really because no one was willing to take responsibility to actually get you on froze a little bit for me I don't know about others. And it sounded like, like a robot but I got the gist of it which I think was that, even with a smaller group, it was challenging to find consensus and to make decisions. So we were, we figured we would give you a list of we instead of us trying to, to, I think, when I was the word right instead of us trying to kind of narrow it down we figured we'd give you a list and you could decide out of that list, how to, how to shrink it down. So I would actually defer. I don't know what you think Representative Howard but I would defer to go bops to maybe if you were going to consider a task force I would ask you to take testimony from stakeholders about who they think really needs to be on that task force. And then you could make that you could do the deliberation needed to make that decision. I felt like in a week, you know, speaking of process in a week, the, that our caucus, the working for Montes caucus. We were in a place where we were we could do that in a way that felt responsible so we thought let's hand it over to you. Let's give you, you know, we're handing you something where it's at where it was at. We're happy to do more work on it if you want us to. But it really is your duty and we, you know, we're bringing this to you. But I, my suggestion would be you take testimony to make that decision so that it's the best possible decision. Thank you. Representative Howard I want to make sure you get chances to answer these questions. Thank you. Yes, I, you know, I agree with what what Brian has said we just wanted to give you a broad base of of thoughts from the members of the caucus and rely on your expertise to if you decide to put together a group. That task force that you would be more in tune with who should be on that. That that task force. I also would like to say that leadership means doing things that are not popular, but necessary. Scott can lead like Governor Snelling, and he can convince for month that this is a good idea whichever idea we come up with. We certainly would need his support, we certainly need to have him involved in our conversations. And I just want to say thank you very much for your time and I appreciate your having to take the time to listen to our proposal. Thank you. Thank you both so much for the time and care and I appreciate that you also helped us to understand the dynamics within the workers caucus that that that you experienced as you were grappling with these ideas so. Thank you for coming in this morning and you've given us some important things to think about. Great day. All right, committee we have one last idea proposal to put on the table I think I heard it characterized as the three amigos so. Within our own committee so you, I will apologize in advance that I have to scoot to run a meeting that starts at noon, but I will be here for the next eight minutes so hopefully I'll get a chance to get a flavor of what you're presenting. Take it away. You didn't video. Okay. Thank you. Anya, go for it. Well, three amigos that was an interesting introduction and unfortunately as I said to Rob, I don't have my sombrero with me but I don't think that's the appropriate had anyway for this discussion. I think we're going to require a little magic. So, I have a tambourine for background. Ringo star that's just what we did. I have the proposal is is was emailed to you and it's also on the, the page. I don't think we need to go through every point of, but I'll say this about it. It's basically the same theory that you have heard from several proposals so far cooperation by that rather than imposition. It does not necessarily dictate anything other than the release of the $150 million and it suggests a concrete way to distribute that it recognizes that we're going to try to keep a promise. But in the long term the state of Iran is not going away. And we have the time to change course. It's an introductory sort of piece. Tonya and Peter both have strong feelings about certain sections of this. I'll invite Tonya to speak to her preferences and then Peter. So, I, my preferences are not going to be a surprise to anyone. I really feel strongly that we need a dedicated task force that brings all the voices to the table to explore all the possible options in an equitable way that shares the, the changes and this, this I think comes from my experience as a social worker and really is an augmentation to what the workers caucus brought us in that we can make difficult choices together and when we're all part of making that plan it's a whole lot easier to move forward and not feel laid and left behind so I feel strongly that we're putting forth some options, but those options are to really be explored within a larger task force that brings every voice to the table to share the impact and to fully investigate the impact and not and the multifaceted impact that we've heard. Some of these things can look great on the surface but actually make it impossible to recruit new employees which challenges our demographic problem and other impacts may be that people draw on more state benefits which actually means the taxpayer is paying a lot more in a different place. So I think we need a really broad spectrum understanding of all of these different aspects that this proposal is going to put out possibility possibilities for paths forward in that larger summer task force so that's really where I felt strongly, like I said not a surprise to anyone here. Peter. Thank you very much, Tonya and Bob and Madam Chair. I'm willing to take ownership of a couple of particular things that I really see as a good faith effort to meet the treasure halfway, the speaker part way, and get something other than simply committing $150 million, which is to say, I'm willing to talk about the decisions. I want it progressive you'll see the proposal essentially incorporates. I want to talk about VPIC and its success and its shortcomings and its ability to monitor and inform most importantly inform the legislature as to how it's doing. I am optimistic that the next actuarial valuation will see our ADEC go down. On top of that, I think it would go down if we again incorporated some specific limitations. I'm looking forward to saying that we would not implement anything that affected anybody within 10 years of retirement or inactive status. The other that I'm willing to sign on to right now is averaging salaries over four years at final salaries over four years that's in the plan. But I really do think the kind of intra group. I say sharing responsibilities and evaluating cost versus benefits is something as Tonya and Bob have said that we can't do on the fly. But I repeat, I wanted to make a good faith effort to have something on the benefit side to show for the good faith of the treasure and the speaker and try to move this along with some concrete change in what the next steps will use to make the next estimate and tell us what a deck looks like for the following year, which I think will be better. So thank you very much for considering that. You know, I think that highlight wise, aside from the money, you'll notice that we've carved out the people that are really different than the regular workforce the judicial system is Pat brought forward and law enforcement people that are just not into the mold very well because of either late hire or early retire. And there is a couple of there are a couple of changes in those groups that you'll see as you read down through. There's a rate increase there we tried to put in something for everybody to either love or hate. And Peter mentioned it's a plan, but I would characterize it differently. It's quite frankly, a mandatory subject for bargaining if you want to say that the committee is going to have to grasp and deal with and at least give you something like what what is contribution increases going to look at. You know that I've asked repeatedly for an attribution number from Beth to say, which of the plans are actually charging us more in terms of unfunded liability. Everybody gets a base contribution increase and then there's consideration of plans that are dipping into the well a little bit too much making up something new hires in this system. Everybody goes to the same thing that the teachers are at the rule of 90. That exempts of course the judges and the cops and law enforcement. But other forms of compensation like Sam and Mark and other people have brought up should at least be examined in this certain scenario, so that we know that we're making a wide ranging and valid decision. So what we did about cola for the existing workforce, we looked to equity here but we did not look to be exclusionary full cola for anybody making a not making, having earned a pension of under $25,000, and then half cola for the additional 15,000 up to 40. So that really brings in a lot of the mid range people so that they're not stagnant. The afc as people are Peter mentioned is 48 months four years it's your last four years, that shouldn't theory be your highest four years. If it's not that means you whacked the overtime cow a little bit too hard and that should probably be excluded anyway. So thinking in the system there are some means to prevent it in place now. Those should be generalized to all plans because quite frankly, they looked at plan C with the state police originally. There's a lot of that going on in every segment of government now both because of staffing levels, and because of COVID response. This gets to committee composition. This is a, as Brian just said this is essentially our responsibility. So it would be the burden on our committee to sit and listen and basically perform the duties of government here, but we bring in people from appropriations and other means, so that they might help with funding and other subjects that we might broach into. There's an equal representation from the affected groups, the treasurer comes in as a member, but also brings the actuary in because they have a contract and that saves us money to some degree. There's even Tanya's issue, my issue, Peter's issue. There's an opportunity here for people to walk up to the Salvation Army bucket and throw something in. There's also an opportunity for us to say there's the bucket go put something in. There's the thing in the back of the room that we are not looking at. We've talked around a lot, but Beth brought in a number the other day that there are 81 people I think she said that have applied for retirement, actually filed the papers. I have been tempted repeatedly to send you all the four pages worth of people that I have had communication with that are trying to do that. My last communication with somebody was that the retirement office is no longer taking calls, you either email them, or you don't talk to them, and it takes a while for them to get back so that's a system that is not working. So we need to, we need to at least have a conversation about what the impact of these proposed changes and we talk about that. We're talking about the proposal that is on the table now. That's a reference point that might not be the one that goes forward. Who knows but it's a decision of our committee to make in consultation with others. The governance piece is important I think to everybody. We heard some very strong evidence from a nationally recognized individual yesterday. We heard from a person who said, you know, COVID time who knows that said, we pick at this point is actually operating under the best practice that he knows of. There's a lot of allegation floating around about this that are the other thing. That's something that could be explored in this committee. And as far as this point number nine is concerned, it would be. The general agreement that adding two people with a high level of financial expertise in institutional investment is not a bad idea, one from the governor side, one from the member side, how it gets divided is kind of up for decision by the committee. And quite frankly, these are recommendations as I said, the committee takes all these things they're mandatory subjects for discussion. They know they will know that there are going to be a lot of pieces of the puzzle to be floating around. And we have to recognize in this document that the members of the committee are going to have the power to shuffle things around, bump some bump some out and eventually make a recommendation that we have the ability to say yes to and get on the table for introduction at the beginning of the next session as the first item of business for this body. We welcome you all to add your names to the three that are on the bottom of this list. And we'll take questions. Thank you very much for that presentation. And by the way, I have a copy of the movie the three amigos, which I'm happy to lend to anyone who has a VHS player. I'm filling the role of Chevy Chase. Yeah, exactly. The chair's guidance to me was that we could discuss this at a later committee meeting, but Rob you had your hand up so why don't we start with you. Well I do I got two questions so Peter is that in black and white. Oh, mostly brown Hollywood color. I do have a question on I don't know you got some breros to boot. I don't know which one of the three of you that just would apply to but I've heard the comment made a couple times that people in these pensions either do or could qualify for some form of public assistance. Are you able to quantify that number do we actually have people who are getting a full pension that qualify for public assistance. Sure. I have asked multiple people for that information and been told that we don't have it like we just it hasn't been looked at, but I know that it has been brought up as a possibility as things shift and change. Absolutely if we freeze things at a certain level as inflation happens someone dips below the poverty level they absolutely are going to start to qualify and Beth brought it up as a possibility. When the other day when she was talking about some of the pension changes and I have asked for those numbers and have been told that they haven't been evaluated. So I also want them. So actually it's more of a statement than there's any facts that would prove it to be true. No, no assumption. I would disagree with that. I mean, in the past we have in the past we ever as a retirement board this is a distant past have actually the teachers plan had a minimum payment involved in it and we have up that substantially over the course of several years, because quite frankly teachers below the poverty level, and it sticks in my mind that probably 10 years ago. And all things being equal benefit level and salary etc. Somebody did a run on how many people were involved with the Department of Social Welfare then, and pensioners. And it was embarrassing. And I don't think that we should shy away in this committee environment. It's an excellent question Rob to garnering that information once again and and using it as a guide stick. But I know there are people that have. I know the guy that that used to work in Department of Social Welfare with me. As the janitor, fuel assistance level of food stamps. You know you just don't make that much money and when you talk about half of that money, then you're okay. Thank you. I am going to comply with the chair's suggestion that that we adjourn for now and we can come back to this and the other proposals that we discussed this morning. And I want to thank everyone the committee who presented an idea as well as the people like representative back and China and Howard who presented ideas as well as the VSE a. Thank you so much to hear so many ideas this morning so thank you all.