 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are finishing our walkthrough of the draft governance and task force bill. We got roughly midway through the bill yesterday afternoon. Our goal here for today will be to finish the walkthrough. And then take a few minutes of committee discussion to talk about some of the suggestions that have come in via email that pertain to the whole bill. And then I'd like to take a break and allow Ledge Council time to draft any of the changes that we want to see and then we will come back later this morning to do a final walkthrough and vote. Does that sound like a plan committee? All right, excellent. So Becky Wasserman, thank you for being with us this morning. I think we left off on page 11 or 12 maybe. Yes, we left off on page 12 section three. And I did make changes based on yesterday's discussion but for right now as you said I'm going to just go back to draft 1.2. That's posted from yesterday. So Becky Wasserman legislative council. So I'm going to start at section three, which is the VPIC FY 23 reports. I'll just give everyone a moment to orient themselves. Okay. So this section requires that the committee by January 15 of 2022. Written policies for implementing both the asset allocation study. And the asset and liability study that's required under their new duties of the committee and has to make that policy publicly available on the committee's website. One point I wanted to make here was that there's another report, the annual reports from VPIC are the language says that that should be on the Treasurer's website. And when rereading this, I saw that this was to be posted on the committee's website. So I just wanted to point that out. Just to ask the committee if they wanted to make those consistent and if so which, which website it should be posted on, which I think that the committee actually is part of the Treasurer's website. Thank you. That was going to be my point. I don't believe VPIC has a separate site from the Treasurer's site at this point. However, I mean that may change in the future as it becomes more independent but currently that's not the So for in case it does change for the purposes of statutory language, should I just say that should be publicly made publicly available without specifying the website. I think that makes sense. Great. And in subsection B by July 1 of this year the committee is is tasked with hiring an independent consultant to review and report on the operations of the committee and the retirement division of the Treasurer's office and make recommendations on best practices and necessary actions to transfer the committee to a standalone entity. The report is also going to be looking at a review of budgetary authority frequency of trainings transfer or hiring of personnel and compensation. Yesterday in the committee discussion. There was a request to clarify that that compensation should be for both the chair and the employees of the committee so that will be reflected in the next draft. And by January 15 of next year that report would be sent to your committee and Senate government operations. Section four of the bill is amending the state employees retirement system board statutory language and the change here on page 13 line 11 is changing from a five year period to a three year period, the actuarial investigation. And this is made several times in each board statutory section. Section five of the bill. This is more an open question for committee discussion. As I mentioned yesterday in each of the separate retirement systems board language. This is referenced reference to the treasure adopting standards of rules standard of conduct for the trustees of that individual board as well as members of the VP and employees of VP and the board. In this draft I had moved that those conduct standards for the committee into the committee's duties and responsibilities. But, you know, I just wanted to point out that this language is still here on in each of the boards sections. So, just, just raising how the asking how the committee wants to deal with this policy decision of, of who should be adopting these standards for, for which entities. Yeah. Representative Ganon. Becky, could you just clarify? It seems like anything to do with VP should be in the VP statute, not in the retirement board statute so is, are we cleaning that up with this drop or do we need to do it in the next draft. So right now in the, in this draft in the state employees retirement section I did clean it up I removed all the references to the treasure doing this for the members of the committee and the employees of the committee. I think for, I did not make all of those changes in the teacher's board section and the municipal board section because I just, you know, it wasn't sure what the policy decision of the committee of your committee would be, but I can, I can make that cleanup changes change throughout statute statute if that's what the committee would like to do I just wanted to sort of reflect it in one of the sections so that you could see what it, what I was referring to. I do think it's unusual to have this sort of cross reference in multiple different statutory sections I think it creates some confusion so it might be helpful to just have it all in the VP section of law with respect to the VP responsibilities. It would be helpful and I think that's where people would go to look if they had questions about, you know, how the pick is governed or governance issues not the retirement board sections of statute. Madam chair, do we want to propose that change or I. Yeah, I think that makes sense unless someone wants to jump in with a different idea, not seeing anyone diving in. I'm good with that. Thank you, Rob. Okay, so I can make that change for all three systems. And so we can kind of go quickly through the next couple sections because that's just repeating that change as well as the change from the five year to the three year actuarial investigation so section six is changing that. That time period for the actuary in the teachers retirement system and that is sort of bottom of page 14 to top of page 15 section seven. I'll do that cleanup language and the teachers board statutory section with respect to the standard of conduct. So section eight is the five to three year change in the municipal employee board. And then section nine is the standards of conduct for the municipal retired retirement board language. So that brings us to section 10 which is the pension task force representative Ganon. So Madam chair, perhaps before we go to the task force section of the bill we should discuss the proposed changes that came from the chair be picked Tom Glanka, because those apply to this section of the bill. Not the task force. Yep. So the I think those suggestions were sent to all of you via email so go ahead and and review that rep Ganon. Okay. So his first proposed change dealt with the independent definition. He suggested that instead of of excluding people who were not independent because they may be a beneficiary of pension that we just require disclosure around that. The reasoning being that with over 50,000 beneficiaries in the state of Vermont, that it's likely that a lot of people will be captured within this and exclude a lot of people from being able to serve on the pick. So rather than, you know, a prohibition from serving on VPIC, this would just be a disclosure requirement. That's the first suggested change. How do committee members feel about that suggested change. All right, I'm seeing some thumbs up in in a small state like Vermont it's not hard to get to get close to beneficiaries of these two systems. So I think it makes sense to allow for disclosure there. And Peter Anthony, do you have a question. Okay, back to you again. Okay, so his second proposed change deals with term limits around alternates that his recommendation is past time serve as an alternate be specifically excluded with respect to term limits. You know, his, his reasoning is alternate positions are excellent training ground actually, Tom Goloka came up as a beamers alternate. So that was his suggestion. Having thought about this quickly this morning. One thought is that is that we retain that alternates have term limits, similar to what members do but that those term limits where their time served as an alternate does not up towards their service as a member. So for example, if somebody serves as an alternate for three terms, and they then gets appointed as a member, they could serve a full three terms as a member of VPIC. I think we accomplish, you know, not having somebody just stay on VP for ever and ever, but give alternates, you know, a training ground and then give them an opportunity to serve as a full, full member of VPIC. And that accomplishes what Tom Goloka does but maintain some control over how long people serve on VPIC. Rep to the Claire on, are you responding to this point. Yes, I am. Madam chair that that concept actually makes a lot of sense to me. I think it gets to a lot of the things that we're trying to get to plus it lends itself to some continuity that I know there's been some concerns about over time. So I think that's a good idea. Okay. Other folks on this point rep Anthony are you on this point. I am madam chair. Go ahead. That guy. I think Tom suggestion is really an ideal way to meld the continuity issue with the state too long issue. Thanks. Rep Hooper. Point of clarification maybe you're saying john that since both the alternate and the primary of the sub committees, the sub boards are elected or appointed. They're elected or appointed at the same time. It would seem if I understood what you just said that somebody serving as an alternate for three terms would then be term limited out of serving any more time. And the primary person would also be limited by the term is that what you're saying. What I was proposing was that there would be term limits for alternates. So they could only serve. I think it's a three terms four terms, three terms, four terms, three, sorry, getting confused there three terms as an alternate. However, that would not preclude them from serving as a member and their time served as an alternate would not count to their time served as a member. Does that. Is that clarify what I said, representative Hooper. Yes, thank you. representative Colston. Thank you madam chair. I would like to agree with the member from Berrytown and I see this as a way of developing wisdom for the committee so I think it's a great idea. All right any other committee discussion on that? All right back to you Rep Ganon. Okay so number 3 I think number 3 is resolved. Let me, well first let me explain what number 3 says. It basically attaches the current listing of members and you know just notes that in Tom's situation I was pointed 2012 as an alternate to VPIC for Vmers before we became the voting member in 2015 and chair in 2016. Based on the language I'd be prohibited from serving as a member in 2024 and this chair in 2035 excluding alternate time which is what we just proposed that would increase that to 2028 and 2038 respectively. So I think we've addressed number 3. Representative Cooper. Thank you. Representative Ganon we don't need to acknowledge or make a distinction that Tom is actually an employee of VPIC when we talk about the term limit or giving consideration to prior service. Is there a nexus there with employment law at all that we would effectively say you're out for no cause other than time? I don't think there's an employment issue with respect to that. Okay. I mean people have contracts for specific terms. No I'm raising it. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I don't know that everybody knows that he's actually an employee. Should I go on to number 4? Okay. Chair Compensation. He recommended not tying that it should be reviewed after the expected consultant review is completed and he would recommend not tying it into a salary. I'm not going to go into what he recommends there but the suggestion is that instead of tying it into the report of the independent consultant that we have VPIC report back to us next session on January 15th, 2022 with a plan to address the chair's compensation. So that would give them some time to come up with a plan about how they want to address it. Representative Anthony. I'm not sure helpful or not but it seemed to me disconnecting the chair's compensation even for an interim disconnecting that from the treasure was a good idea. I was prepared to simply say why don't we set up a level of pay for the chair until such time as a compensation study is presented to us and then we can change that rather than continuing the tether. But maybe this is just as well. Since I will likely have to go to appropriations to discuss this, we would need some justification for increasing his compensation. Well, I think most of the committee believes that that compensation should be increased. I would need to be able to justify that increase in appropriation. So I just I think this would allow us to have a report that would give us a path forward with getting this done. But that's but people could disagree with that. Correct. I have to say I agree with that, but I also have to say that I the comment made by the member, I think from Essex. Tonya, I think yesterday about having that compensation tied to performance. I have to say I find very intriguing. I'm not sure if this is the place to have that conversation. It may not be, but there is a part of that that I find I think would be beneficial. I think this is absolutely the place to have that conversation. I'm not sure this is the time to have that conversations given that we'd like to we'd like to have a little more context for for how to do that. And I think waiting to do it when when VPIC comes back with a recommendation makes sense to me. Maybe if they at least know they have the latitude to have that conversation, that would be helpful. Yeah, we could specify that in any language. So yeah. All right. I forget. Was that the last of the recommendations that you wanted to review right now? Yes. I mean, number five in his email is just is just a statement that Treasurer Pierce and the chair of VPIC continue to work on a transition to independence and they are drafting a memorandum of understanding between VPIC and the Treasurer's office to determine the best process for moving forward. So there's no action we need to take with respect to that. Great. Excellent. Madam Chair, can I ask a question about the compensation issue? Just drafting. This is a little complicated because it is in statute, but you want a transition salary, a transition sort of an interim period of a salary. So I can change statute to reflect that the committee shall determine the salary you know, each year in their budget process. But then I think I need to in the transition language set a salary for fiscal year 22 so that the chair is actually paid for, you know, from from the effective date of the act. So do you have a salary that you'd like me to put in for that interim time period until the board makes that decision? Yeah, Representative Gannon has a thought on that. Yeah, I think we should stick with his current salary, which is one-third of the treasurer's salary and not change that because as we discussed yesterday, coming up with any sort of salary amount at this point without having done any research is just shooting in the dark. So I think part of the process is to have a study completed that would look at how other chairs of investment committees or retirement boards are compensated so that we would have some idea of how to set the salary in the future, whether we should even be setting the salary or whether we pick obviously with excluding the chair from that decision should be setting the salary. So I think those are the things that would come back to us in a report. So I don't think we need to change the salary at this point. Representative LeClaire, actually, John answered my question, Madam Chair. I was looking to see if we know exactly what his current salary was, but thank you. So since nothing is being changed, should I just leave statute as is for now? And then not make anything. OK, sorry, I was I was confused that there was a suggestion that there was going to be a new approach to doing it as of January when they come back. So I didn't know if you needed to set some sort of interim salary for that time period. Thank you. Representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is kind of a when or if question. The chairs of other boards, similar labor board, places like that, benefit packages, access to health care, those are things we might talk about when or if I mean, are we if VPIC decides to make a recommendation to the legislature to change that. For now, I think we're setting this or leaving it alone at this point until VPIC comes to make a recommendation. Representative Anthony, thank you. But there to be language in there to recommend to the reconstitutive VPIC that they do a compensation study or is that implicit? There is language in there right now. Oh, OK, sorry. Yeah. Then I missed it. OK, thanks. All right. Back to the draft. So I believe we're on section 10 now, the task force language. Subsection A creates the task force, which is the pension benefit, design and funding task force to review and report on the benefits, design and funding of retirement and retiree health benefit plans for the state employees retirement system and the state teachers retirement system. The membership of the task force is three members of the house. Not all from the same political party who are appointed by the speaker. Three members of the Senate, not all from the same party appointed by the committee on committees. The director of the retirement division of the state treasurer's office. A commissioner of financial regulation, the commissioner of human resources. There are three members appointed by the president of the Vermont N.E.A. Two members appointed by the V.S.C.A. and one member of the Troopers Association, who's appointed by the president of the Troopers Association. The members of the House and Senate members shall not be direct or indirect beneficiaries of either system. Moving on to page 19, the members appointed the N.E.A. member appointed mince the V.S.C.A. and the Troopers Association appointments shall not be currently serving as a legislator or the spouse or partner of anyone serving as a legislator. There's new language in subdivision C that says if a designee is appointed in someone's place and approved that that person shall be the only representative of the designator to participate in the task force proceedings so you can only designate one person to take your place. In terms of the powers and duties of the committee, so the committee is looking at recommendations about benefit provisions and appropriate funding sources, along with other recommendations that are it seems appropriate for consideration that are consistent with actuarial and governmental accounting standards, as well as demographic and workforce trends and the long term sustainability of the benefit programs. And then there are some specific tasks that are listed here. So first is setting a pension stabilization target number for each system that one reduces the actuarial accrued liability based on the actuarial value of assets by some that's the same amount as the increase in from fiscal year twenty one to fiscal year twenty two that was reported for both systems in the most recent the June 30th twenty twenty two actuarial valuation and review. And then the same for the actuarial determined employer contributions. It has to reduce they're looking to set a number that reduces that amount by the same amount that we that you saw in the increase from F year from fiscal year twenty one to twenty two for both of those retirement systems. Subdivision B, the task force will be doing a five year review of benefit expenditure levels as well as employer and employee contribution levels and growth rates and three five and ten year projection of these levels and rates based on benefit and funding benchmarks. Any proposed new benefit structures would be done with the objective of adequate benefits within the established cost containment benchmarks, including an evaluation of a shared risk model for employee contributions and cost of living adjustments and an estimate of the cost of current and any proposed benefit structures on a budgetary pay-as-you-go and full actuarial cruel basis. The task force would also evaluate the intermediate long term economic impacts to the state and local. I think that should be economies. I'll make that change of proposed changes to benefits or contributions and their potential impact on retiree spending. They would also be evaluating any cross subsidization between the groups in the state employee's retirement system and adjusting contribution amounts to eliminate any cross subsidization. The on the top of page twenty one, the task force would evaluate alternative plan designs. This would include hybrid or defined contribution plan options or a combination of a defined benefit plan and defined contribution plan. The committee, the task force will examine permanent and temporary revenue streams to fund the state employee system and the teacher system. And there there was some language that was in the previous draft that also said, including contributions from the state and employees to achieve benefit and funding benchmarks. And I didn't that was just a question for the committee on whether that should still be be in this particular responsibility. Representative Dan. Two things, I think the language in H is the language that we want. And I think we could eliminate that other language. And another I just thought of this last night. And so this is new to everyone. With respect to that, we've been focused on revenue streams. But there may be another way of addressing some of the concerns state employees teachers have about changing their benefits. And, you know, I think there one option we may want a recommendation for is whether all or part of pensions are tax exempt because that's another way, even if we were to reduce pension benefits, if they became tax exempt at the end of the day, there may not be any impact. On the state employee or teacher. So I just that might be another tool in our two box that we want the task force to have. Do you have thoughts on where you would put that? Suggestion as a as an additional line or. Madam chair, I think it could probably go into age because that's sort of addressing the tax issues. But it could be a separate. A separate one. I would put it right under age if we were going to have it a separate subsection. Representative Anthony, thank you, Madam Chair. John, I really I like that idea on a lot of levels. Just to be real clear, though, we ought to probably talk specifically about income taxes and not just use the general moniker. Obviously, it's implicit. It's Vermont because we don't have jurisdiction to change the federal. So but I would be real clear that that's the category we're talking about. Thanks. Good comment. So, committee, how do you feel about including that in the next draft to look at allowing the task force to look at the alternative of making pension income. Untaxable. All right. Seeing thumbs up all around, nobody's screaming. That's good. Thank you, Representative Gannon. Does that go along with military pensions as well? Oh, just kidding. Different bill, different committee representative. It's already in. Yeah, but it's germane. All right. Back to the draft. Sure. So subdivision. I is looking at a plan for prefunding OPEB with an evaluation of whether it's possible to use federal funds. Subdivision J is a plan to lower OPEB health care costs, including reviewing health benefit design innovations, state regulatory measures and alternative methods of providing pooled health care benefits. And then subdivision two makes it clear that the task force is not making any recommendations on adjusting the assumed rates of return. There I don't know, Madam Chair, if there were there was some suggestions yesterday about some additional language in this part of the bill. Do you want me to get through the the remainder of the draft and then let's pause for a moment and talk about the duties of the task force to the extent that members of the committee have happened upon suggestions or ideas here. I think it would be a good idea to pause and have a conversation about them. Anyone have a suggested change? Pihopsky. Absolutely. Well, as I brought up yesterday, I would like to see included here evaluation of any changes to the plan and their impact on retention and recruitment, their impact, their cross subsidization to state benefit programs and their impact on school budgets, which I do believe is kind of captured in the local economy piece. And you have suggested wording to maybe expand on that. Which which letter is that I did send some language. It was the it was the NDA letter, but I did send some language to Legislative Council yesterday. I don't know, but I. So I did I did put just I can read you what I had put together as potential language. If that is helpful in the nest draft, just sort of open for community discussion. So I had changed subdivision D to say that the task force would. Sorry. I accidently needed you my apologies. And the task force subdivision D evaluating proposed changes to benefits or contributions with respect to. First would be the intermediate long term economic impacts to the state and local economies and their potential impact on retiree spending. Second would be impact on recruitment and retention of members of state sorry of state employees and teachers as compared to the current benefit structure and contribution rates. And then last would be pre retirement and post retirement welfare and financial security of one state employees and teachers who identify as female or as a member of the BIPOC community and two state employees and teachers who. I think this language needs a little more clarification who has perhaps a family income of a certain percentage less than the federal poverty level during their years of active employment and during their retirement. I think the open question would be what that percentage level would would be for household household income. Right. Representative Damon. Well, I think this is interesting. I just would like to understand how this would be accomplished by the task force, especially given the time period they have to make recommendations. It would seems that it would be difficult for them to do this all this work because any changes they made to beneficiaries would have to go through an actuary to figure out what the costs were. It could be become very complex. So I just want to understand how this would be done. What effort would need to to be done? Would experts need to be brought in to do this analysis? I'm just confused about the level of effort this would take. It also occurs to me that it's possible there is a consultant that or a stakeholder that we could direct the task force to hear from so that there is the expectation that this information will be presented to the task force, not that the task force is going to do a deep dive into into that in their limited time. And so I wonder if there's some way we could designate that this information come from somewhere else and be put in front of the task force. Rep. I am unmuting my intention is that this information is used in any decision made and that it is not that we are looking at the whole picture and not simply making a decision now that actually will have longer term detrimental impacts to our retirees and potentially our taxpayers and our state, how that information gets put in front of the task force. I'm not an actuary. I'm not a financial expert. I don't I don't know, but I do think it is important information and it is incredibly short sighted not to include it in our decision making process. If that looks like getting it from another source and putting it in front of the task force and mandating that they use that in their decision making, I'm certainly fine with that, but I do think it is incredibly important that it be included in the calculus. Rep. Claire. Thank you, Madam Chair. My concern is, is that this task force, they've got a very heavy lift in front of them. We're asking them to do a lot. And I'm not sure if this information that we're talking about here, one is even available to be considered and used in deliberations. And I have to say there's a part of me that feels a little uncomfortable separating this group out. We're looking to make this equitable for everybody. Representative Anthony. Yeah, I'm just thinking about your comment, Madam Chair. I wonder what are the reasons I thought it was important to have the commissioner of human resources there is precisely because that office would be nearest, if you will, to the issue of retention, people retiring early, perhaps leaving the state, all those kinds of influences that were, are at least in the background, if not immediately suggested by the task force work. And I'm assuming that that person would be a resource, maybe not for qualifying for federal programs under the 200% over the poverty limit kinds of calculations, but certainly the core state interest in retention and the purpose of sustaining the retired workforce in Vermont. That I think the HR person can address, maybe not the poverty program aspect of this. Thanks. Rappie Hobsky. Absolutely. Speaking to the sort of deeper dive into certain demographics, I think what we know is that women and people of color are systemically paid less. And so I'm certainly not suggesting we ignore anyone who doesn't belong to a group that is systemically paid less. But I think that it does deserve a deeper dive into the, are we looking at a group of people that is going to be even more impacted due to the systemic injustice built into our systems? We also know that our teacher system is 75% women. So I'm not saying we don't look at everyone, I just think we need to pay particular attention to groups that are systemically paid less and systemically treated differently. We know that white women make, I think 82 cents on the dollar generally speaking and people of color are even more impacted by those systemic injustices. So by no means am I saying we should not make it equitable for all. But one way that we do that, I think is by digging deeper into groups that systemically have been treated differently. Rapp Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a tendency to agree. I think anytime we can look at a system with an eye to equity, we do our citizens in our country a disservice by not doing so. Thank you. Other committee discussion on this topic, Rep LaClaire. I guess I'm gonna need to be given some examples of where the system that we have in place with our teachers and our state employees is systemically not equal. I guess I just need to have some specifics and some concrete examples where that's the problem. So let's flag this as an area of concern. I'm not yet hearing consensus around the addition of an explicit change to the duties of the task force, but I'm wondering if there's a way that we could get this information in front of the task force by designating a stakeholder who might present valuable information to the task force. Rhett Marwicky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder since we are not the only state wrestling with pension problems, I wonder if CSG or NCSL might have some resources that they can bring to bear on this that other states have already wrestled with. I know I've been reading up on states like Illinois, which I think is kind of the worst case scenario, but I don't doubt that these concerns may have come up in other places. And maybe those resources from those national clearinghouses for information might be able to give some insights into this. Absolutely. I did have contact with the NCSL pensions guru yesterday and we have aspirations to connect today on the phone. I can certainly ask this question of them. So that's a helpful suggestion. Representative Colston. Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if this conversation can be addressed in the stakeholder input where we have an opportunity to hear and understand. So I just wonder if that's a place for it. I do as well. Representative Higley. Thank you Madam Chair. Also in that section, I guess we all, I believe got an email from the judiciary Pat Gable wanting to add something in that section as well, section D. And I don't know if now is the time to talk about that or have Pat in or whatever, but I know that that looks like they, I don't know if it would be in reading her recommendation, I don't think it would be an added member, but it specifically spells out somebody, I believe in that group. Yeah, yeah. I saw that suggestion and thought it was helpful as well. There are other ways of getting important perspectives in front of the task force other than creating another seat at the table. And one of them is designating who the task force should get stakeholder input from. So we'll certainly get to that in a moment. Let's see if we have any sense of how we wanna move forward with respect to the suggestions that Rep Vihotsky put on the table. Representative Anthony. Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you very much Representative Vihotsky. I agree, I agree with what Hooper said about equity. I just would reflect, I think we should make sure that the stakeholder and maybe language in there that the task force definitely invite in members who we think possibly have been unfairly or systemically subject to unequal access to wages, benefits, employment, et cetera, they should be in as stakeholders. And I say that because as I think all of you know, almost all the benefit structure is a reflection of the salary structure. And yet none of us I think are poised to dig into the way in which the executive branch essentially treats its, how shall I say position at the collective bargaining table. And yet that's the root, if you will, of how the benefits picture play out. So I definitely support the idea of stakeholder involvement from the judiciary, from the BIPOC community, but I'm not sure where you would go, where the task force would go on the benefits side, even if it discovered that there were certain segments of the beneficiary pool who suffered some systemic or unusual inequity. I don't know where that would go, frankly, it would raise a host of other questions, I guess. So I think stakeholder focus is really the best remedy we could, we have capability to address. Thank you. Rep Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess just thinking about it a little bit, my concern, I guess with whether it's the BIPOC community or women's groups, whatever, who would that, who would represent those groups? I mean, you can't just have it open-ended like that. I would think that you would have to have a certain designated group or individual, but I don't see how you can leave it open-ended. Rep Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with a member from Manuski as far as, I think that having that sort of representation and why can't the listed groups that are already there, they have members of that community that they can call on to be representatives already. I mean, there's nothing excluding anyone, but I do agree that the stakeholder portion of it is probably a good place for this conversation to happen. Rep Tohotski. Thank you. In terms of who I think some obvious people or obvious groups come to mind as the women's commission and the Office of Racial Affairs, and the Office of Racial Equity, if we're looking to name specific people to bring to the table, I think, yeah, I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. Okay. Other thoughts on this topic? Can I get back in real quick? Yes. I clarified my thoughts a little bit. I think that sort of in looking at this and looking at a profession that is dominated by women who, again, we know systemically are underpaid compared to their male counterparts, I think it is just really important that we look at the impacts to that community with changes that we make. And we know that we are, coming through this pandemic, women have been inordinately impacted, women have had to leave the workforce. I think it's really just important that we look at how does this impact that, how would changes impact that community? I was having a harder time earlier sort of articulating why it was important that we specifically look at groups that are inordinately impacted. And we know that those same groups have, so it isn't so much looking at specifically or only looking specifically within this, but sort of the larger picture, does this further move us in an inequitable direction if we make exchange to a benefit to a larger group? So I just wanted to kind of suss out as I was kind of processing in my own head, how to word that. So how does the committee feel about adding section in the stakeholder input that directs the task force to hear from the commission on women and the director of racial equity, Representative McCarthy. Thanks, Madam Chair. I think that the task force should absolutely look at the equity issues that Representative Bihowski brought up. I'm trying to, in my mind, figure out if the best way to do that is to specifically tell them to talk to certain people, specifically give them issues that they should discuss or to trust that the makeup that we've put together that has three NEA representatives on the task force that they would be people who would bring those equity issues that affect the professionals in there, the group that they represent. So I've struggled a little bit without seeing language in front of me and we know we're so close to trying to get this bill on its way that I think if there was a specific proposal, I kind of feel like we're floundering all over the place, trying to get our hands on a really big issue of equity kind of at the 11th hour. And I absolutely think that those issues are very important, but I want to make sure that we articulate them in a way that doesn't tie the task force and knots. Rep Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, having a little bit of time to reflect on this. I don't see really the task force role in looking at an equity issue in the sense that I understand the equity issue, but that's more on the pay end of things. I mean, their equity issue is treating everyone fairly in regards to the benefits, the pension benefits. So if I understand there may be a disparity in pay or other things for some of these groups, but tell me how the task force looking at the pension equity thing needs to be looking at a pay issue. I think the linkage there is that your pension benefit is a percentage of your income. Well, again, but that's a pay issue. It's not a pension issue. I mean, are you gonna adjust the pension based on pay? I mean, I do. No, but I think it's worthwhile and back to what Rep McCarthy said about not wanting to spin ourselves in circles for too long. It's worthwhile thinking about whether there is a way to at least put these issues on the table in front of the task force so that as the task force is working together to develop recommendations, they're not doing anything to exacerbate the situation. I mean, we know they're not going to fix the salary scale aspects of it, but I think it's reasonable for us to ask them to be very mindful of not making the problem worse, making the inequities worse. Representative LaFace. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to come on and say that I supported Representative McCarthy's thinking of, to me, in the very beginning, I thought that we were all coming from a background of give whoever, give everyone a seat at the table, give them whatever they need to get the job done so that way it can be done right so we don't come back here in 10 years. So I think us being descriptive of who they need to talk to, I would rather them have the idea and trust that we are having the right people appointed and sent to this table to do the work and I trust that they would understand some of the disparities that are occurring as sad as unfortunate as they are. I also agree that maybe this isn't, I understand the ties between pension and pay, but I think that's a bigger discussion that needs to occur, but I do support that it's something to be brought up, but I don't want to dictate to them what they, who they should and shouldn't talk to. I want the resources available to them if we need something we can do on our end to make sure those people are available, I don't want to tell them what they, who they should or shouldn't be talking to. Rupi Hobsky. Thank you. And I think you sort of summed up so well, Madam Chair, my sort of point in making sure we don't exacerbate already existing issues. In terms of this sort of being at the 11th hour, I mean, I saw the draft for the first time yesterday. It was on, like I responded when I could respond. And I think with all due respect, we have spent decades hoping that the people at the table will bring these things up or trusting that they will and they haven't. And so I actually think it is really important that we name it explicitly as something that has to be addressed and considered. Yeah. Rep Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a language to propose. So on page 21, line 19, after stakeholders, the following language, including those impacted by issues of inequities. Many discussion. Rupi Hobsky. I think that that starts to get at the issue and I appreciate you working on that. I do think it is important though that we explicitly name that it's part of the, like part of the process is ensuring that whatever choices we make, don't exacerbate the problem as you, and maybe Madam Chair, seeing as you framed it so perfectly, you have some thoughts on how we might frame that in the language as well. Yeah. And of course, it never comes out when on demand in the middle of committee deliberations. I wonder if we might just flag this as something that we intend to come back to in terms of perfecting how we want to express that stakeholder input. And I will note for the committee that even though it is our intention to move this bill out today, there are other stops that the bill has to make before it gets to the floor. And if we have the ability to find some consensus around how we designate this stakeholder input with respect to equity, we can certainly offer a committee amendment when the bill gets to the floor if we haven't been able to figure it out today. Representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to say I like the member from the agency's suggestion. It's very short, sweet to the point, but broad enough that it takes into consideration anyone who should have some participation in the conversation. So how do we feel about adding that short phrase that Representative Colston suggested and then sitting with it for a while to see if there's something else we feel like we need to do. All right, looks like thumbs up all around. Excellent. Representative Anthony. I just, I think it wouldn't be too difficult for Rebecca to wed the short phrase that Representative Colston put in and meld that with the idea of making sure that any inequities that were observed not be made any more severe. And just leave it go with that and not be prescriptive about it. Thank you. So one thought I can propose is that in subdivision two, where it says the committee's not making recommendations on adjusting the assumed rates of return, I can maybe add some language that also says that any recommendations that are made shall consider, you know, not a phrase it differently, but not exacerbating any inequities. And I don't know if you want to address the retention question as well, but recommendations would also look at retention issues. Yeah, I've had a lot of conversations with folks about the value of a good pension benefit with respect to recruitment and retention. The conundrum that I keep coming up against in the context of this task force is that the task force doesn't have, you know, doesn't have any way of swaying the other parts of a full compensation package, whether it be healthcare or salary or paid leave or whatever. So, yeah, still trying to figure out how to ask the task force to recognize how the pensions fit within the larger compensation and its impact on recruitment and retention. Rep. Gannon, did you have something you wanted to suggest? Actually, nothing to suggest, just a question. I mean, both state employees and teachers are subject to collective bargaining agreements. I don't believe collective bargaining agreements treat people differently based on their gender or their color. But maybe I am incorrect in that assumption. Representative Bielski. I just wanted to respond to that. I'm looking at a broader issue, not necessary. So we know that teachers specifically are 75% and we know that professions that are largely women are often underpaid. So I'm looking at this larger picture of does a particular change mean that women as a whole will continue to be in an equitable space. So not necessarily within the collective bargaining space, but in the larger structure. Thank you for that clarification. All right, so let's sit with this with the intention of adding the short phrase that Representative Colston suggested. Becky, if you want to put that language in front of us and we'll take a look at it on our next walk through after we've had a chance to sort of digest and process this. All right, we've got a couple more pages of the bill and then... Sure, so I think we're on stakeholder impact in subsection D on page 21. So during the course of deliberations, the task force will solicit input, including through public hearings from affected stakeholders and consult with group D members of the state employee system and members of that system employed as state correctional officers. And I believe there was an issue raised about that the judiciary had some language as well to add in here. Yes, Representative Higley, I think brought that up, but Representative Dana, do you have it right in front of you? Yep, I have it. Their language would change D subsection two and it would say to consult with one representatives designated by the Supreme Court, acting in its constitutional role as the administrator of the judicial branch. Questions, comments on that Representative Hooper? On the whole section there, Madam Chair. Specifically on the judiciary language that Rep Gannon was talking about. Judiciary language, great. All right, Rep Bihoski. I was glad to see this as the committee knows I have concerns with the larger structure of the task force and felt one of the pieces that was missing was judiciary's representation. So I'm certainly happy to see that they are included. I wonder if stakeholder input is the best place or if they should actually have a full seat on the task force. But I definitely am glad to see that they have reached out. I am as well, Representative Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is on sub two there. When we talk about state correctional officers, are we talking about the broad swath of all of them or just the in-facility ones? The language doesn't specify, I think it's trying to capture all correctional officers. It's not specifying those that work in a facility. Okay. Because the probation and parole people are technically that. It's a pretty broad category. Representative Anthony. What's going to say, pardon me. It happens that I believe the facility folks are actually part of a different group or certainly have an unusual or differentiable set of terms for their benefit package. That's kind of why I think Rep Hooper's question is well put because they are treated differentially because of the physicality and the early retirement and so on, so forth differences. So I would favor, frankly, being more specific in terms of who you invite in precisely because this is not a homogeneous group. Thank you. Yeah, and I would just say that I think the language was attempting to capture everyone because it would be because members are in that category are in different groups. It would be harder to name everyone specifically. So the intent was trying to be very broad here so that anyone would feel that they could be consulted on it, but of course the committee can have a policy decision to specifically name certain types of employment categories. Representative Gannon. Well, I think Representative Anthony answered my question is just having narrower language with respect to this to correctional officers. So I think that that would be a good idea if that's what I think that's what we're trying to do. Representative Hooper. Thank you. Well, following up on that line of conversation, I initially thought this might be getting towards the people who at this time have the 20 year and out clause which is not everybody that works for corrections or is a corrections officer. So that sort of is the clarity that I was looking for where this language was headed to some degree. Other committee discussion, suggestions, comments. All right, let's be specific about folks within the correction system and we'll take a look at the language after we've seen group D reference separated out from that and see if there's anything else we need to add. So I think I might need a little more guidance on what specific groups are, I guess it's not a pension group, but what specific members you would like listed. Anyone have a suggestion on how to specify Representative Hooper? Well, again, I don't know how specific we can be without knowing what we're trying to do, but I mean, the current 20 year early out provision is directed towards people who work in facility, but a corrections officer is also somebody that goes out and does home visits to make sure your battery is charged and your ankle bracelet, it's pretty broad. I don't know where we're trying to go with this language. So consult on. So is it just referencing anybody who is employed by the Department of Corrections? Would that be rather than saying correctional officers? Well, this is why I asked the other day about whether we were talking about Plan G here, which is sort of a specific subset, but apparently that's not the case. So I don't know where to draw the line without knowing what the picture is. Representative Anthony. Thank you. Let me suggest that we use a general term like employees of corrections, but then specifically say that the folks who are officers in facilities, I think that's G. G is in, am I right, Rep Hooper? It is G. G is a proposal that a new group be created that would extend a different benefit structure to people with those physically demanding jobs in the Department of Corrections and other places. And other places, yes. Yeah, I just think the overarching one, but then comma, especially here from the group D folks is useful. So they'll get the general and they'll get the specific when they invite those people in to testify. Representative Lefler. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I am, my concern about this is the more prescriptive we get about this, my concern is that this task force, I guess that's the terminology here. I want them to be able to have as broad and free ranging of a discussion as they need to have to address these issues going forward. And my concern is if we get too prescriptive one, we could bog the conversation down, but two, would they interpret it that because it wasn't specified that therefore they shouldn't discuss it? Do you know what I mean? I don't want to send a mixed message to these folks. I don't think anything should be off the table. So Becky, let's take a look at a draft that specifies that they should get stakeholder input from employees of the Department of Corrections and we'll leave it at that. And the task force can and will hear some new ideas presented from that perspective and can decide what to do with it. Okay, sounds great. So I will move on to assistance in subsection E. So starting at the top of page 22, the task force has the administrative technical and legal assistance from the Office of the State Treasurer, fiscal assistance from the Joint Fiscal Office and committee support services from the Office of Legislative Operations. Subdivision two allows the task force to contract for an independent benefits expert and legal expert as necessary. And there's an amount of $200,000 in general funds. That's appropriated for that purpose, those purposes. Subsection F is a report. So this report is due September 1st. That report would go to the governor and the House and Senate committees and government operations and would have some recommendations, findings and recommendations for legislative action. And the task force would also be sending a copy of that report to the boards of each of the retirement systems for their consideration. In terms of meetings in subsection G, the members, the House and Senate members of the committee, so those six members would select from amongst themselves a House and Senate co-chair for the committee. And those co-chairs would call the first meeting of the committee by June 15th of this year. A majority of the membership of the committee would constitute a quorum and then the task force would cease to exist by June 30th of next year. In terms of compensation and reimbursement, attendance at the meetings for legislators, those legislators would get per diem compensation and reimbursement. So right now this draft says for not more than six meetings and I believe yesterday that was changed to 12 meetings and that money would come from the amount appropriated to the legislature. For other members of the committee who are not state employees, they would also get compensation and reimbursement for 12 meetings and that will come from money appropriated to the state treasurer. And then finally section 11, the effective date, the act would be effective on passage. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we did talk about 12, but then I thought at the end we bumped it to 15, just have that little extra amount if they needed it. That was what I thought, but up for discussion I guess. Let's straw poll that. How do people feel about giving the flexibility of 15 so that if there's something that requires a quick turnaround, they could meet twice in a week. Okay, I'm seeing thumbs up all around. Thank you. Madam Chair, I did, but then I made a comment about committee meetings. I don't know whether we even should muddy the waters of subcommittees, not the task force, but okay. But yeah, I threw out the 15, but not counting subcommittee meetings. Thanks. Rep Fihoski. I meant to actually take my hand down. I was, it was 15 that I was getting at. I mean, I want to have some larger comment, but we're not there yet. Okay. I rep Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a minor edit to offer on page one, line 10, in order to be consistent, I think design should be included, pension benefits, design and funding task force. Thanks. I did catch that. And I made that change in the next draft. Thank you. Yep. We can always count on the member from Winooski for his very fine proofreading skills. There was a duplicate word in there though that let's counsel thought that you hadn't yet suggested. So I was wondering if maybe I fatigue was setting in after too many long hours on zoom. Okay. So we are set with the 15 flexibility of 15. Does anybody else want to make comment on any of that last section before we come back up to the top for any final conversation before we take a break for redrafting? All right. Back to the top page one. I just want to make sure that we have reviewed any other suggested changes that may have come in to the committee. Representative Hooper. I hesitate to go back, but the last thing I had suggested that if the committee decides they need more time, joint fiscal consider be considered to give them a a window to go in. A window to go a little longer. Is that not favorably considered? I notice it's not in here. Let's open that up for committee discussion. I mean, I have thoughts about it, but I don't want to try to sway the open committee discussion. Rep McCarthy. I feel very strongly that we should put a hard date and try to get the committee to get us a report and we've never put anybody in chains for being a week or two late on these kinds of reports. But I think we've all acknowledged the urgency. We are doing this and setting up this task force to be responsive and give more time, but we need these recommendations and we need them so that there is time for people to respond, for legislators to get up to speed and for us to take action next year. So I feel very strongly that we should set a hard date and have the commission, the task force work to that date. Rep the hope, Steve. I suspect I will be in the minority here, but given the, as we pointed out repeatedly, this is a pretty broad scope that brings in lots of voices across a summer right after COVID when people may be in and out. And I feel that some flexibility around the date is actually really important. And given that this report is to advise a legislature that likely won't be acting on it until January, I think we do have the room to offer the possibility of some extension. Representative, what's there? Thank you, ma'am. I agree with a member from St. Albans. I think that a hard date that gives somebody something to work towards. And I'll add that the number that we're trying to address here continues to get larger by the month. I think what I would want to add to this conversation and this is really fairly internal to the workings of this committee, as much as we might have wanted to think that we're going to adjourn in May and come back in January. We have this little task of getting input and feedback from boards of civil authority around the state with respect to redistricting plans. And so we have a lot on our plate for this fall. And so to the extent that we can hope to have this report in September, I think it will be to the benefit of staging that workload that we have within committee. And Rep McCarthy makes a very good point that we don't throw the report in the trash just because you missed the deadline by a week or two. Representative Hooper. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm not addressing the issue of the report being generated. I'm addressing the issue of whether or not the committee has adequate time when they get backed up against the real decision-making process to get everybody in, everybody talking and reach agreement. At this point, we have it set at June 30th, six months from normal convening. And even that would be 60 days before the scenario that you lay out, I would hate to see this be rushed just because we have placed an ironclad deadline on it. Thank you. Any other committee discussion on the topic of deadline flexibility? Could I just add, oh, sorry. Yes, go ahead Becky. I just wanted to add from I guess a drafting perspective that I think it's less typical to have another authority granting an extension of time during the interim. I think it would either, it might make more sense just to push the date back. And part of the reason I'm saying that is also that for appropriations purposes because you are allowing them to meet for a certain number of meetings. I think that does go into the budget question of what is being appropriated for the expenses and reimbursements for the members of the task force. So that would be just another consideration of if you wanna just extend it to, I'm just randomly picking November 1st and then have the meetings court, the number of meetings correspond to what that would equal out to. Yeah, it opens up a whole new set of considerations. Representative Marwicky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just gonna reiterate what I shared the other day about my understanding of and experiences that hard, fast deadlines are inspiring and sometimes liberating. And I think this is a time when keeping people's feet to the fire and not letting them drag is essential. Okay, so I believe I'm hearing not unanimity but a majority consensus to leave the deadline where it is without specifying any ability to extend that deadline. Is that what you're hearing? Super. Anything else on the end of the bill, the effective date, the due date, all of that. Or can we come back to the beginning and make sure that we have considered any other drafting changes that we would like to ask Ledge Council to make before we take a break? Okay, okay. Representative Dan and anything else you think we need to talk about? A very minor issue, but is the name of the pick. Given that we're standing up an independent entity, should its name slightly change so that it is not just a committee? I'm not sure of too many independent committees. For example, like the Women's Commission, that's a commission, the equity panel. I mean, so that's just minor point, but I don't think we stand up too many independent committees. So from a drafting perspective, Becky, does it make sense to rename this as the commission? Yes, I would agree that just in looking at other examples of independent entities, they're typically boards or commissions. So that would make sense to be consistent with other types of independent entities that are created in statute. Committee discussion on the question of committee versus commission. Representative Anthony. I definitely think not to be committee. If you want to differentiate the old from the new, then this should become a board. And then the acronym changes. Thank you. It does change. Well, we have system boards. And so I wonder if we might stick with commission, but happy to have that committee discussion. Rob LaClaire. I just wanted to know how you're going to pronounce the acronym. V-Pibb is a very strange acronym, V-Pibb. It's actually kind of a funny one, but if we stick with commission, we can still call it V-Pic, which rolls off the tongue. Any other committee discussion on that? I will raise that if I do that since there's so many cross references in title three, it would be... It's going to change the length of the bill significantly. Yes. And I could perhaps add in language that Ledge Council can make sure that everything is sort of tidied up in statute over the summer if that could be one option. I can kind of do my best to find all those references right now, but it does change, I think they're probably mentioned in quite a number of other statutory sections. Let's see if we can find that shortcut method of aligning other statutes with this name change and that seems a little bit better than trying to add another 70 pages to this bill that John Yenen has to report on the floor and then could be interrogated on simply because we made a change of committee to commission. Rep Vihovsky, you had your hand up, I think on the broader question of anything else to put on the table. Yeah, absolutely. I wanted to come back to my concerns around the makeup of the task force. And I know yesterday it was brought up that people had received a lot of emails, which I was honestly confused by because I hadn't yet checked my email for the day. I spent was up late into the evening on the phone with constituents. And was up early this morning on the phone who continue to share their concerns with the balance of the committee. And I know that multiple ideas and thoughts have come forward about ways to potentially address some of those concerns. And I think it's worth looking at the various possibilities. I know one way of addressing it has come up is having one of the House and one of the Senate members appointed by the workers caucus. I know another thought that has been put on my, you know, in my mind is ensuring that there's tripartisan representation rather than simply not from the same party. I would, as I said yesterday, suggest we sort of expand the task force to include more representatives from people who are pension beneficiaries. But I will say that I'm continuing to hear a significant concern in this area. Committee discussion, Rhett McCarthy. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I too was on the phone late into the evening with constituents who were primarily concerned about the makeup of the task force in previous iterations. I think this proposal that we have in front of us that has an additional NEA member and the additional VTA member address a significant amount of those concerns for folks, but there continue to be what I would consider sort of, you know, one-click politics style, email links that are on Facebook pages that are generating a significant amount of email based on the previous iterations of the proposal. So I've found that in the conversations that actually have a constituents that the balance of, you know, the additional employee or a plan member representatives that are in the proposal we actually have in front of us has alleviated a lot of those concerns and that most of the feedback that I'm getting is coming from previous versions of the proposal. So that's been my experience. Representative Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. I learned from a certain union leader that the concern of balance was one of tripartisanship. And I directed into the section in the bill that speaks to that as members will be chosen and not to be of the same party. And that in my understanding satisfies the issue of balance. Thank you. Representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too have spoken to several people over the last several days about this and obviously it depends on which version that we're referring to. But when I've had the ability to speak with the folks, usually over the phone by the way, when we can differentiate the difference between VPIC and I guess the task force, more often than not, there's a higher comfort level that they are comfortable with VPIC as far as it's only on the investment side that they're looking at things. When you're talking about the benefits side or let me rephrase this going forward talking to some of the plan changes, that's when the conversation changes to looking to make sure that there's a bit more balance of representation there. So my experience has been that when we talk about VPIC in particular, there's a much higher comfort level with those that have the skill sets. Repti Hovsky. I would agree with you representative Leclerc and I am definitely talking about my constituents concerns with that task force balance. The other thing I would just in response to representative Colston, I would agree with you. I have heard that same concern around tripartisanship and I do think it's important to sort of explicitly name that saying that it's three members not from the same party could mean it's two party representation. So if tripartisanship is the request, I think we need to explicitly name that. Committee discussion on that point, representative Hooper. I certainly have no objection to including as many and as diverse as possible. So I would support that as a support period. It gives everybody a little bit of buy-in and I think in this process, that is one of the most important things we can do. Representative Marwicky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm gonna raise a concern about fair representation here if we're gonna look at tripartisanship. Let's look at the numbers that Dramonters have elected their parties. Both in the House and Senate, the majorities are pretty clear. And I think if we're gonna give equal standing to a party that has 92 caucus members, to one that has what, seven or eight, I'm not sure how that creates a level playing field here. So I'm gonna hold up that concern. I think we're being very generous here in suggesting that we have members of different parties. But when we look at the numbers that Dramonters elected us, that it comes across very differently from my perspective. Representative Lefebvre. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was saying, I agreed with the comment a couple before that I read there should be tripartisan representation, but going off of Representative Marwicky's comment, I do feel that in different parts of Vermont, there might be different population or different parties elected higher. But then once you get again into other parts where we still have participants of these plans, there is higher, some of the numbers might not be as reflective as other portions. So I would agree to try to urge to have the tripartisan values at the table. Representative Gannon. First and overall comment about the makeup at the task force. I think we've worked very hard in listening to everyone who's had feedback with respect to the task force. And I think we've made substantial changes to increase the balance of representation on that task force. So we've tried to listen to people. And in conversations I've had with union representatives, they appreciate the work that we have done to change the balance. They may not be totally happy with what we did, but I think they know that we are trying to make an effort to ensure that there is a balance on the task force. With respect to the legislative representatives, I think as many people have stated, we need skill sets on the task force that it can address this pension issue. I would hate to tie the speaker's hands to have to nominate somebody from one of the six members of the progressive party with respect to whether they have that expertise or not. I think we need to put the best legislators who have the correct experience on this task force regardless of which party they are. This is a heavy lift. And I really don't think it is a partisan issue. I think we all have been trying to work together on this. And I think we need to give the speaker the option of choosing who are the best people in the legislature and the committee on committees, the best people in the Senate to work on this issue. And I think that's the most important issue here. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I approve of the current wording in the bill. Other committee discussion on this. So I think I'm just gonna ask a straw poll question to gauge whether we need to continue to work on this. How many folks are feeling comfortable with the wording that is in the current bill? Okay, that is a majority. Okay, anything else we need to review on over, just overall before we send Becky off to do some final edits. Right, Rep Higley, your hand is up. I assume that's just from before. Yeah, sorry. No worries, didn't just wanted to make sure you knew I was watching you. So the plan from here is to take a break enough to allow time for Ledge Council to do their work on the bill and come back to us with a final draft that we can then walk through. So this is my way of saying last call if there's something that you thought could use some improvement would love to have it suggested now. I'm gonna take a long pause and let folks scan through the bill one last time. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I might have missed it, but yesterday I don't believe that I heard the actual wording around. I think it was on page 12, number two. Now I can't even think about, let me hang on and let me see if I can find it. Oh yeah, the written copy piece. Did we ever come up with some actual wording in regards to that? That's probably in the draft 1.3. So do you want to add to that? Sure, let me just find that really quickly for you. We had a draft 1.3 under today's committee date that. Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't even bring that one up. No, no, no. Yeah. In draft 1.3 it now says written or electronic copy. Yeah, I found it, it's on page 11. So it says the committee shall send each participant or beneficiary of each plan a written or electronic copy of the report described in subdivision, one of the section in the format authorized by the participant or beneficiary. The report shall be consolidated with any other reports required to be sent by the committee to the participants or beneficiaries of each plan. Great, thanks Becky. That sounds perfect. And in terms of the next draft, I'm going to keep it as 1.3, but just change the timestamp since this was sort of a work in progress. Just to let you know there won't be a 1.4. Yet, yet. The day's not over yet, don't change that. Okay, anything else that folks would like to review or check on before we take a break? Okay. So you need 30 minutes or so to draft and then help me understand the timeframe then for editing and how best to allow time for that. So I can send it to editing as soon as I have a draft ready. I gave them a heads up that it will be coming their way, so I don't know how long it will take, but it might be best for me to just come back to the committee with what I have, the unedited version, and then just wait for them to get it back to me and it'll probably come sort of while I'm walking through. And if there's any sort of significant changes, I can let the committee know that. Okay, that's great. I'm hoping we're not making too many changes that it won't be significant. Yeah, so we will have the ability to look at an edited draft before we vote on it. That sounds great. So committee, it is 10.50 right now. How about 11.20 to give 30 minutes break to finish the redraft and get that sent off to editing? 11.20 sound good? Okay. Committee, have a nice 30 minutes. I hope you get some fresh air and sunshine and I will see you back here.