 Right. So floor was pretty short this morning. So that leaves us some time to get some committee discussion in this morning. And so I just wanted to open up the conversation to, to have a little committee discussion but before we do that I want to orient you to the fact that the speaker had a press conference this morning at nine. She, she acknowledged that that we're hearing a lot of feedback from stakeholders about slowing down about taking the time to, to hear and engage. And so she is giving us an assignment to work towards some sort of interim committee or task force that will continue the work that we've been doing with engaging in, you know, I think, I think the way she framed it was really sort of an open. She sounded like she was really kind of acknowledging all the ideas that were put on the table yesterday and wanting to make sure that we set up a process for all ideas to be considered in this interim task force setting. And she would like us to continue to work forward on governance, which I think, given the proposal that was put before us yesterday, I think really brings us much further along the road in terms of finding some consensus changes to the, the way the pension system is governed and the transparency requirements and, and some of those issues. And with respect to the 150 million, she wants the legislature to put that in reserve and to hold on to it for, for inclusion in the discussion when we find a way to move forward with all the four pension buckets. And so just, we've spent a lot of time in the last week and a half talking about the teachers and state employees pension shortfalls but we also have that lingering challenge of trying to figure out how to pre fund teachers and state employees health care retiree benefits or open benefits and so those are the four buckets. So I just wanted to open up for committee discussion about about that if you want to start by talking about the governance proposal that we heard yesterday. Let's let's talk for a few minutes about governance and then after we have a chance to talk for a few minutes about governance. We can talk a bit about what we think that interim task force or committee might look like Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam chair first a question on. I don't even know what to call this, the speaker has said, I'd like you to I'd like you to does that mean that's where we're going or we still a committee that has broad range and what we're going to talk about and do. I mean, is this an edict I guess is the question. Because there's a lot of there's a lot of moving pieces here still. There's a lot of moving pieces here and and so she has said move forward with governance, and she has said move forward with creating a task force or interim committee to talk about revenue plan design benefit changes employee contributions, etc. Okay, thank you. The 150 I have a tendency to think that the sooner that gets to where it's supposed to go the better it's part of a funding computation that will come back at some point. And as far as the governance thing yesterday was kind of weird for me as somebody that, you know, last night got about a million emails from the pick affiliated people with what was going on that was a couple of emails and I don't think we should move forward on any conversation with governance until we actually hear from the big pick itself. There's a certain element of, and I'm just going to be frank. We need to do something before the pick gets destroyed here, because there was the impression that there was a clear agenda. May have unintended consequences so before we start off on this role I think there's going to be a special meeting. There would be a formal response from the actual organization. I would think that would be important to wait and listen to. The bills not going to pop out of here on Tuesday I can guarantee that. I just want to be on record, if you don't. And as far as the task force goes that's, I think that's the clear solution to progress. So I think it's a little over dramatic to suggest that what was presented to us yesterday by Tom Galanca and Beth Pierce is destroying the pick. No, that is not what I said. That's not my intention put it that way and I'll go back to my comment that English is not always my primary language, but the, the idea that the initial proposal that we quote unquote still have on the table was pretty radical is is what I think drove them to come yesterday and present something as an alternative. That would be my intention to use that alternative as the starting point for what we consider going forward since ours was an initial conversation starter and it seems like a relevant response to that that the chair of the pick and the state treasurer collaborated to bring us the presentation. John Gannon. Thank you madam chair. You know, I have to agree with the speaker that working on governance is critically important, and that we shouldn't delay working on it. It's one of the things we do have control over as a legislature is changing governance and ensuring. The issue with the VP that we get the type of investment performance, and the type of analysis with respect to assumed rates of return that we need desperately to stabilize our pensions. We have seen what's happened when there is poor performance and overly optimistic assume rates return. I don't want to go back to those days. So I think this is critically important work to get done as soon as we can to talk to all the people that we need to talk to and take testimony from. But I really think it is critical and I really appreciate the work of the VP chair Tom Blanca and our treasurer Beth Pierce, in putting together a thoughtful starting point for us to have this discussion. Tonya Behovsky. Thank you, chair. I would really just like to reiterate what I said yesterday that I'd like to hear from the boards that that send members to VP, so the various retirement board so I think it's the Veeamers board the VEASTERS board and the state employees board to hear their take on this. And I do want to make sure that they continue to have a voice in this process. Thank you. Anyone else Mike Marwicky. Thank you madam chair, I want to. To add that. I do feel that this is an area that we need to move forward on among the many things that we heard in those public hearings is there's little to no confidence in the decisions that that were being made by these pension boards, including that many people know who was even on the boards. And I think we need to do a better job of educating them we need to do a better job of helping that process be more more open and transparent so the people affected know what's going on, and then that the public has the confidence in it as well. Mark Higley. Thank you, Madam chair, I mentioned it yesterday as well about possibly having Jim Voitco is that how you pronounce the last name. So, yes, RVK right the general consultant to be pick and pick his brain a little bit more I really felt that you know he had initially talked about, you know that they he believes that they're currently doing a good job best practices and so on but I certainly he was a very knowledgeable individual and I would certainly appreciate hearing from him again, if it all possible. On another note while I'm thinking of it to I mentioned this yesterday as well. So, age 315 the bill that seems to be postponed into the abyss. There's a section in there that talks about 20 million set aside for Opab, and also the provision of us having something together by May 30, and I'm just, if the speaker has suggested what she has suggested, or you or us going to make sure that that gets removed from 315. My understanding and I will definitely check on it that that 20 million in age 315 is a part of the 150 million that the speaker had had said she was setting aside to work on the four buckets. So, we will definitely loop back with the appropriations committee to make sure that whichever train is leaving the station last accounts for all of it, and make sure that it is that it's all, you know, left in a place where we can come back to it when we have agreement on how to move forward with the whole package. There's another piece in that as well. So the May 30 deadline. Right, right, right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I think a month ago or whenever we passed age 315 out of the house the first time we were hoping we would have some more sense of how to move forward on Opab. That's obviously not going to be a May 30 deadline at this point because we're setting up a task force or interim committee. Right. Again, though, my understanding even that piece that was in there wasn't just about Opab though correct. I'm not sure. I guess I thought that we had, I thought we had sort of walled that office being part of the Opab fix but the conversation evolved to wanting to put together a large pot of money to fix the whole pension problem. Okay, thank you. Mike McCarthy. Yeah, I just, I can't speak to the language in 315 but what I will say is that the speaker made it really clear that the $150 million that we had parked in the budget that passed the house is going to stay in reserve under the plan that she's suggested this morning and the only thing that I wanted to highlight just to add to what the chair told us in her very accurate summary of what the speaker was saying is the acknowledgement that, you know, any ideas that are brought to the table need support and under in order to understand what the consequences and benefits are going to be if we make reforms and the task force that she recommended is going to need, you know, support. And that is, you know, another piece of what she mentioned this morning. In terms of the governance plan, I mean I think there's from the testimony that I've heard a desire to have, you know, more expert professionalism, financial expertise and independence are all things that you know we've, we've kind of heard and looking forward to continuing working on that. Yep. Also, I'm looking forward to digging in deeper into this conversation and I do, I really heard the call from lots of people from the public testimony from the speaker for transparency and I do hope that we will consider the model legislation from California on really building out a plan for transparency going forward with whatever we do. Anything else for committee discussion with respect to governance. A few of you have been weighing in how Thank you Madam chair. I guess I have a clarifying question. What is our timeline for considering and because creating this this bill that's going to address the governance issues. What that look like. I would pursue it as directly and as swiftly as we can while making time to hear from all the different people and entities that we need to hear from because the reality is we need to get something over to the Senate that they can to work on and I did talk with my Senate counterpart yesterday and she said that it was her goal to move through the the House bills that she has on the wall so that when we get over to the House bill that they will be able to focus on it because they will be done with with the House bills that we sent over prior to crossover so there is still a desire to to be collaborative, you know, in terms of not, they're going to give a crossover exemption to this bill that we're sending over there but I think we need to work on it as swiftly as possible and so I guess I hope if folks have other ideas about governance, either principles or specific recommendations with respect to governance that they reach out to members of the committee ASAP so that we can try to start developing bill language next week. In addition to that I hope we can attract any experts out there in the field who can speak to best practices of governance. Yeah, so we can be better informed. Yeah, and I think void co who spent a little bit of time with us earlier this week is is someone who has a lot of experience working with the governance in other states so you know so he, he has a lot of information on that. And we'll be able to probably take a look at what we're looking at and and give us his reflections if if we ask him to. Thank you. Thank you madam chair. What we have been hearing a lot when people come into testify is that they haven't had time to go back to their perspective boards or committees, and that they're just giving like a preliminary feeling. And so this was going off of what representative Colston said but I feel like people are not that a deadline is much more helpful for them at one we're expecting things to happen so that way people maybe can hold those emergency meetings. Because I, with all respect to people coming in and given their giving their side it's very very helpful for us to have that knowledge that we come in and you say you haven't talked to the people who will be affected. That's also not helpful for us either because we you know we want to know we want to hear that. So I do appreciate a deadline or like a timeline for things, because I think that's what people are asking for. Yeah, thank you. I have a point and, and I, you know I haven't had a whole lot of time to digest the, you know the reality of working towards a governance and task force bill. And so I will, I will certainly begin working on that as soon as we're done here in committee today and I very much appreciate that there's a lot of folks around this table who are echoing that we would like to have engagement from the different boards and groups that that are impacted by this, and, and in the case of governance the folks who are actually currently involved. So yeah, we'll, we'll keep asking for their input on it. Mark. Thank you. Not that we shouldn't do our due diligence for sure. But I just think it's important. The other body has not been very kind to many of the bills that have been sent over there. I would just, again, the time sensitivity in this. Maybe we could include at least a preliminary joint gov ops Senate meeting with us. And again, just to, you know expedite expedite the process in a sense just just a thought. So that suggestion, I'll, I'll see what I can do with that that that would be a measure of efficiency wouldn't it, if we were working alongside each other. Tonya. This is sort of kind of related to governance so bear with me. I do agree that we need to look at the structure, and I would hope that we would also still consider a full audit of the pension to really look at where things went wrong and kind of how the path seems really murky to me. And so I do still want to advocate that alongside this this work we we look at the full scope. So I, I heard that loud and clear and yesterday in the, in the morning session when we had all ideas on the table, one of the questions that I had asked back to someone who'd contacted me with that concept earlier in the week is do we have a sense of what would cost and is the, I mean, the proposal yesterday was that the auditor would would oversee that and has anyone contacted the auditor to find out how much it would cost how long it would take and, you know, anything from us. My understanding is that the auditor has been contacted and would need to contract some to oversee it and contract someone and I don't know the cost and it sounded like the time frame sort of depends on when we get moving and so he doesn't have the staff to do it but yes he is willing to oversee it. And I perhaps perhaps we should bring him into to hash through it but yes we have talked to him. So let's hope he's got a sense of what it costs and whether that's something that can be born within his budget or whether it's going to be a different additional revenue. Bob Hooper. Thank you chair. So it seems like we're on an express route here and I don't know that that's going to coordinate with what VPIC already has. I think an RFP out for a and an examination of best practice in terms of what's actually happening. Nothing if it's moot comes to mind. Are we going to interact somehow I don't remember that Tom or Beth said anything about timeline yesterday. I might have missed it. So that's an issue for me anyway. Thank you. Peter Anthony. Madam chair, am I to understand that the proposal as it evolves in the committee on governance would be part of a single bill that involved the fleshing out of the meaning of tax force or would there be two proposals to be considered and sent to the Senate separately. I would prefer to do these in the form of one bill. I just again want to get a sense as to where the difficulties and the attenuation pardon me, of time might lie and one bill will with both of those may be longer in the gestation then just the one, but I had to ask my other. To continue a line of observation from yesterday. I identify three areas where I wanted to inquire of Mr galanka and our consultant person and the treasure. The last of those areas came under the rubric of balance. And as you've always urged members including myself to bring our real life experiences to the table so to say, I will now do so. My work. Some time ago at 40 Wall Street. A rather long set of decades. I spent as a participant in academia. In economics with a business department left me with the following realistic understanding. Most. Business oriented investment oriented experts in I think the most both generous but purposeful sense of the word. I'd have said something like one in five had a balanced view of the relationship between labor and capital, which in more polite society is called employee and employer relations. That's why I asked the balance question. It's very difficult in my experience to find an expert who has a fulsome respect and willingness to participate in. I would say, equal participation of employer employer employee employer was perspectives. So I asked that, and I just will carry that ahead as we move into bringing more precision and more detail to the proposal. I enjoyed hearing the proposal. I thought it had a lot of good stuff to it but I had to fixate on that. Partly because I'm sure that participants in the tax force will also be looking at balance as we move forward. Thank you madam. Mark. Thank you. This is a disclaimer in advance of what I'm to say. Again, this is ingest. If others had seen it but I just remember in the back of my mind years back a new story that a dart thrower went up against a Wall Street expert in regards to investments in the dart thrower one. Well, you're not exactly painting a very busy picture of any improvement we might make by beefing up with a governance structure. Ingest ingest. I think that's the argument for index funds and not risky investments because I think you're right sometimes it's it's almost like meteorology. All right, any other committee discussion on governance. Well, let's switch gears then and talk a little bit about the concept of a interim committee or task force. It's a nice segue because Peter was just talking about balance and I'm sure that balance on this interim process will be important as well so open it up to committee discussion on on what that might look like. I guess to start off with I would just say it's probably going to really start out and maybe end up with a fairly large number. If you ask me. Again, I would think it would have to be reps from the emers and the teachers union and BSEA, the pic. And then, of course, I don't know how we'd work it on the legislative end of things but you know that's that that's a start. I'm sure you know we just I guess ought to just start scratching down, could we think and then reach out to others as well who have have an opinion I guess but it to me it looks like it could be rather a large task force. Yeah. That's Mike Marwicky. Thank you madam chair is two pieces. From the little I know of group dynamics I think a group bigger than 12 is not going to be a good working group. And I know there's going to be lots of hands that want to get into this but this needs to be a working group that does some serious work. The other thing I would suggest is that that the group hires an outside facilitator that's not a part of the board that can keep people on task and is not invested so much one way or the other, and that is skilled at facilitating. Thanks Mike Tonya. Thank you. I definitely echo the importance of balance. And I think we were offered sort of two lists in proposals yesterday and I would reckon, I think sort of look, I want to spend some time looking at them and sort of sifting through them. But I do think it is important that we have that that balance between employee and employer representation. So I do recognize that at least one of the lists I think I think it was representative Higley pointed out would be over 30 people which feels like it's really big. But I kind of part of me really wants to go spend some time sifting through all the representation that was that was offered up to see who should be there and I do think it makes sense. Perhaps not a voting member but but a member that sort of has some voice would be the school board association because I do think the impact. Some of what we're talking about will impact school budgets, which then goes down to the taxpayer in another place so I do think their voice is important at some point along the way if not fully on that, that committee. And as I was sort of imagining this in my foggy, just rolling out a bed brain this morning. You know the, the question occurs to me is, you know, do you keep this group very small and nimble and then direct them to take input from all of the different stakeholders or do you make a really big table and put all of those various stakeholders at it because I do a quick tally right now of what I've heard we're looking at, you know, more than a dozen, more than a dozen members of the of this. So I think it's worth doing some thinking about about the pros and cons of nimble and focused versus everybody at the table. Rob Leclerc. Good morning Madam Chair. I've been sitting back thinking about a lot of this this morning. One, unlike some other people I did not get a chance to see the speakers press conference but around this particular issue. I support the concept of what we're going to do here and have sounds like however you want to classify it as a group of people going to be working around this other issue other than governance. As somebody who has spent decades and organized labor and has negotiated a lot of different contracts and a lot of different environments. What I would like to see is that anybody who's got anything to add to this conversation is in the room around the table. Give them a timeline. My preference would be and I think, I don't know, was Tanya or somebody had alluded to, I'd like to see whatever this issue is at work that's going to be dealt with it be dealt with in this fiscal year. And I want to see this group of folks have every resource available to them that they need. I heard yesterday that the teachers pension is losing $13 million a month. I'd be happy to put $12,900,000 towards getting this issue resolved to save the $100,000 that month so we can get this thing resolved going forward. It's a little odd, but my heart goes out to all these people that are part of these pensions. These pensions wind up being a major issue every 10 years, it seems. So clearly the solutions that have been brought forward, haven't really worked out in the long term, and I really think that we owe it to them and we owe it to the Vermont taxpayers to help get this worked out. So clearly the process that happened before this came to our committee, wasn't the right process the people that should have been at the table weren't. So I totally support this, but I don't think that it's our job to be that prescriptive about who and how many. There's a lot of talented people there. And a lot of the contract negotiations I've been involved that there has been dozens of people in the room. Not necessarily everybody at the table, but you need as many different people were there with as many skill sets as you can possibly have to have the very open honest and frank conversations that have to happen. Because we don't have a choice. This is not something that we can allow to continue on. I want to venture to what I heard yesterday. If you didn't have the full faith and support of the Vermont State government behind this issue. These plans are insolvent now. We have about 5.8 billion dollars of liability out there. We have about $5 billion of assets now some may disagree with me but that's okay. So, we don't have the choice to do nothing. So I in overall conceptually totally agree. I think with what the speaker has come out with. But I want these people starting to get around the table this afternoon, if possible. And I don't want them to be shorted any sort of resources at all, because we have got to give them all the support that they could possibly have to move this thing forward and come up with a viable plan going forward. I will back up a little bit on the governance. I'm sure we're going to go back and visit that. I think I'm going to look at this totally different than most of us on the committee here. And I'm sorry but I may inspire a few emails going forward, but my sincerity is pure and that I want to do what we got to do to make these pensions. It's something that people can depend on and that aren't an issue every 10 years. Thank you madam chair. I feel like you, I feel like you set the table there but then you didn't tell us what your governance plan is. Are you, is that, is that, is this the big reveal? Are we like, are we going to hear a proposal? Can I explore that a little more? I'm trying to respect that you had moved us on to the structure they're at. I mean I hadn't heard the speakers like I said I had not heard the speakers press conference and I contrary to what some people might think I do try to think about things before I open my mouth which I know I speak frequently but you know if you want to go there. I want to have a, if we're going to talk about governance, I'm not sure that I think just tweaking this thing around the edges of the current structure is really going to get the job done. I'd like to see, I'd like to have the discussions about totally privatizing, professionalizing, let me rephrase that, professionalizing the investment side of this. I'm not going to probably inspire a couple emails but I'm not sure where I see the value of those that are beneficiaries of these pensions participating in the investment side. I don't want to see as much of a return as possible on those. And I point to that, I guess what's in 17. It appears that we've got some of the right people in the right places and things are working better. So, if you'll take a look at the history over these plans, show me where this current structure has done what we want it to do. I don't think that it has. I think it's absolutely appropriate on the benefit side were those that are the beneficiaries of these plans, having put into that. Who knows where this is going to come up but if this is just all about tweaking what's there. I think we owe it to the people who are getting the pensions, and those of us who are paying into those pensions to have that open and frank conversation about what would it look like doing it quite differently. Thanks, Rob. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative DeClair. I agree with a lot of what Rob just said, not everything, but a lot. And, you know, everybody else has had something to say that's been really critical I think to the process. Mike's point, Representative Mawiki, on the number of people to table is valid for some type of group discussion, but in this particular case, if we don't have everybody at the table, we're going to have the same discussion that we're having right now. It's just going to be a different issue, more fine pointed. This is something that goes to the heart of most people so they're going to fight for it as my email box clearly attests to. So I fully support the idea of an independent facilitator or chair, because you got to get away from the politics and there is no way to get away from the politics with one of the people that's deeply involved in the ownership of this. There's no way that this goes forward without the Treasurer's Office or somebody providing an actuary right there at the table that can say, this is where the balloon punches out as long as you're punching on this side. Because that's what really takes up the time and we did this in 09. We would give the actuary a charge and because the computers weren't then what the computers are today. They'd have to run it all night and come back the next day. I'm hoping that's not the situation now. There's, there's, if you don't have participation of everybody in the process. Nobody's going to be happy and we'll be back here again arguing about it. The reason that I think the three musketeers set up a plan structure sort of yesterday for the committee was that one. People on this page right now are going to be the ones that come back and implement something. So we should have as much information available that happened, not filtered right in front of us as we need. And, you know, if it's convenient maybe being able to sit in the room is a good thing. You got to have input from the money committees if you're going to talk about money. And, you know, there are just certain people that really need to be there. If it's done at a time when, like Rob says we have a timeline that says you got to have it done by the end of June. Pressure is a good thing. A lot of a lot of stuff to agree with here. Thank you. Sam. That's a legacy and my comment was already made. I'm sorry. No worries. Mike. Thanks, madam chair. I wanted to follow up on representable Claire's comments with a couple of thoughts that that brought to mind, you know, we, we started out this whole conversation and I think the speaker and you madam chair have have said at the beginning of almost every single meeting that we've had discussion we've had about pensions whether it was in public or whether it was here in our committee. So, starting a conversation and trying to bring people to the table and looking for responses and looking for ideas. And some of those people that we need at the table to move forward on saving Vermont's pensions and I stay rooted in the idea that we're here to make these pension programs sustainable for the beneficiaries and for the people of Vermont. And the people we needed to come and work with us just didn't want to be part of the process or didn't come and weren't here and the task force. I think is in response, not just to the proposals we heard yesterday, but in response to the fact. I don't know what people were asking us but the fact that the house, our committee, our body can't solve this problem without some of the other partners that we need at the table, and I wanted to also say that when we think about the words that are used when we describe the current state of the system. Describing them as insolvent right now is really dangerous. They're not insolvent I mean I'm not bankrupt because I owe more on my mortgage than I have in my checking account. Right, I know that my earnings are going to allow me to my future earnings are going to allow me to keep making my mortgage payment. One of the most important things about the pension systems is that that mortgage payment suddenly goes up on the state in years like this. And we're talking about governance reform and we're talking about putting a task force together scoped I hope you to look at the ideas the speaker talked about getting everything on the table revenue plan reforms. So I'm doing that all in the spirit of making sure that for Vermonters and for these public employees that everybody can have confidence and 100% agree in the goal of not coming back to this 10 years from now. So that I think is something we can all agree on. Thanks Mike, Tonya. So I just wanted to ask a clarifying question because I see sometimes the numbers get mixed and then not mixed and so I want someone to correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the unfunded liability is I think 2.9 billion and then when you add in the OPEBs which we could pre fund or don't have to pre fund, then it becomes that 5.6 but that 5.6 isn't actually the whole am I right I see John shaking his head am I right I just I'm trying to clarify because I see these numbers sort of like interchangeably used. And yeah, yeah, so the unfunded pension liability is 1.9 billion for the teachers, approximately 1 billion for the state employees and then the rest of the unfunded liability is OPEB, which equals 5.6 billion billion dollars. Thank you. Mark. I guess I'm looking at a different figure and I don't know where it came from but my understanding for the unfunded liabilities just for the teachers program and the VSEA was 3.9 billion. And where am I, where am I going wrong, john. Sorry about that. I'm double checking but I'm pretty sure those are numbers but I will double check right now. I've been using those numbers all along. I've been using 3.9 billion all along for the two there. The other thing I just wanted to say is I definitely agree with Rob in the sense of having all the resources available I guess my question there is, does it does it matter what the structure of this task force is going to be whether or not we could use JFOs expertise. I'm wondering if it if it gets outside of a legislative structure enough. Can they still be involved. I would assume that if we want JFO to be involved that we need to have this be a task force that is run by the legislature. I guess I can, I can check on that but I guess there's definitely going to be work that needs to be done that is beyond what JFO can do we need to have access to an actuary so that we can run different scenarios and and really understand what the long term impact might be of any plan design changes. Right. That's, yeah, that's, that's what JFO would even said which I mentioned yesterday. New plan proposals would have to have an actuarial analysis. Yeah. All right. Yep, just. Peter Anthony. Thank you madam chair. I just asked this earlier in the context of questions of you about the portion of the speakers thoughts for the future in respect to the holding the 150 million extra injection aside, or in reserve or whatever. I don't really like that. At the time I was going to say let me say now because come back up again. The pre funding of OPEB appeared appeared right along to be readily acceptable agreed to wise, do sharingly responsible. Why would we hold off on that. Some magical tactical endpoint is reached I can't fathom that I mean I understand that it's really the speaker's call if there is a strategic purpose to holding the extra money aside. I don't want to inquire about that at the moment but I don't understand why we would postpone a commitment decision go ahead to enact the pre funding. Certainly by the end of the fiscal year if not before. Yeah, so that is a wonderful question. And, and I thank you for the opportunity to answer it because unless we can put our pension liabilities on a more sustainable path. We will not have. We will not be able to in good conscience commit the general fund to paying both the annual a deck that ballooned by $96 million this year, and the annual OPEB pre funding bill. We, you know, we've got to get the pension a deck under control in order to be able to make room in in the general fund to be able to do both. All four buckets should be on the table at the same time. Rob LeClaire. Um, thank you madam chair. I am a couple things one I think it's you madam chair that I totally bring it within that. I think I heard you say is it. I don't think that joint fiscal being involved in this discussion. That doesn't work. One I don't think that they have the time to my understanding is they do not have that particular area of expertise, which I think we desperately need. So, one of my questions about this has always been for us to have the conversation that obviously we've had and have to continue. Do we have access. Do we have the in house resources and I'm pretty sure we don't for one. To, you know, talking about this liability I mean, I think we can split it anyway we want but the bottom line is we're talking about promises that we've made to people, whether it's your pensions or your healthcare going forward. So, I think we have to look at this as a whole number, and any change that we make, it's a change, and it's a change to the people that we've made a promise to. So that's where they have to have the conversation. So, as far as I think a comment was made about whether it's insolvent or not I guess that's a matter of how you what you look at. If you've got more debt than you have assets. That's a problem. And for those of us who have gone to financial institutions to borrow some money. If you walk in a door with that scenario. I'm walking right back out the door without any, any help so it's a matter of perspective and I did say that if you didn't have the full faith and support of the Vermont State government behind us which you do. It would be a very different conversation. But as far as when we start this and who's run out to him I'm going to emphasize, I think this thing should start these folks need to start meeting this afternoon. We don't put on how many times you meet or how long you meet it's whatever you have to do to work this out because it has to be worked out. Yeah. I agree with you in concept about putting a deadline. I think realistically we're not going to be able to put a end of the fiscal year deadline but I do think we should put a deadline that's early enough in the in 2021 that we can be working towards putting that putting a solution on the table right away in January so that we can move it more directly next year. Can I say one more thing madam chair. Around the preforming the prefunding of the OPEB. I totally get that, and it makes perfect sense, however, we have never ever had the conversation around the expense side of the OPEB, which is healthcare costs. And if there's anything for goodness sakes that is a real topic of discussion it's healthcare is the 20 million. That's enough. And until we have an idea of what we're looking at with that. I just don't want to go put 20 million dollars towards something and not know if it's going to do what it needs to do. Because again it's part of the promise that we've made to people that have been made to people, not we but. Thank you. Time to be hope scheme. I actually think that might be a legacy hand. Mark, I agree. Thank you chair. I guess. Right now, I'm in a little bit of a different frame of mind than the speaker when it comes to the $150 million. And I'd maybe like to talk about that a little bit more but I think regardless of what happens going forward that that money there needs to be committed to well. Maybe leaving OPEB out of it but needs needs to be committed as soon as possible to, to the ADEC. Anyway, that's rather than this this hold off provision. I'm chair I recently had the Pfizer vaccine and I really don't know what was in it, but I, I fear because I agree once again with Rob and Mark. Most of the discussion we've heard from Beth and other people is that the bond rating stuff is just as much impression as it is actual numbers. A commitment of putting 20 million bucks towards the OPEB outstanding and getting a recognition that we've done something with the unfunded liabilities makes a difference. I, I agree we should move that forward. And it, you know, at this point it just seems like it's being held hostage for anticipated changes and that that doesn't seem like prudence, which is a word that gets used a lot when you talk about fiscal liability. So, I would urge us to seek latitude from the speaker to move forward on those two very important things. Thank you, Tonya. I remembered what I wanted to say it wasn't actually a legacy hand I too am with that 150 million my understanding is if we invest it today it grows in interest and pays down that would help to pay down that unfunded liabilities and also, I think in agreement that requesting some latitude to get that invested as soon as possible makes sense to me. Mike McCarthy. So the speaker made it really clear that finding that extra 150 million dollars, because it has to be state dollars you know it can be freed up by the additional revenues we have given everything that's gone with federal money coming in and in this interesting time that we are in with COVID is not an easy thing. And, and I heard, you know representative Hooper when we were first talking about OPEB it seems like years ago but it was just a few weeks ago, when we were talking about prefunding made a pretty strong case and I think it was part of why we didn't move forward at that moment that we have four buckets. So if you consider the two pension systems and teachers and state employees OPEB. And we're asking a task force to come together potentially that kind of seems like where we're going and that's the task that the speaker has put on our committee that we have the tools to be able to provide us with a comprehensive solution to the unfunded liabilities and the pension crisis as we've all been describing it and I think that have that time the hands of that task force by using that resource up before and let them get started would be a bad idea so I think there there's arguments be made to earn a little bit of additional interest if we get a few months head start. But by parking that 150 million we're giving that task force the opportunity to make some decisions and recommendations that will eventually act on in the next session. Thank you Madam Chair, and I want to follow through on that thread and point out to that. What has become apparent in this week is we are out on the limb by ourselves. And we don't know for sure. Because we haven't really heard from the administration we haven't really heard from the Senate. And until we do I think we need to hold on making further decisions. And I agree with the other mm here that I'm not going to ready tie the hands of a task force before we, we get them seated. So I, I'm not ready to start pushing on that 150 million right now. Mark Higley. So I don't understand. Mike and Mike's response in regards to the 150 that's already been voted out of the house in the budget. It's there. It's there's no, no hard, hard task to find it and get it out there. It's there. So. Again, would like to reiterate it's not my words but from so called pension experts that I've been listening to some degree that the number one thing that they talked about was paying down this unfunded liabilities as quickly as possible. And again, I guess the long term issue is where where is it all going to come from my understanding now is we've got 150 million already in our bill that's over to the Senate. So, the other thing and just, I'm not a very good note keeper I have to search and search but I do have a note here that talks about the actual amount that it would help reduce the unfunded liability by $459 million. And I don't know the length of time that it would do that but that's that's what I have in my notes. And I believe that came from probably the treasure that 150 million should reduce that unfunded liability 459 million so it just started. Peter Anthony. Thank you madam chair I just can't resist the temptation to be ironic. The committee is having a tactical discussion a strategic discussion a bargaining discussion. The other half of the committee is having a fiduciary discussion, and the two trains are passing, if you will, on different tracks. I'm not going to get ironic because here we are struggling with the governor's proposal, where we really want them to think and put their fiduciary hats on and leave their tactical and strategic and self interested impulses somewhere outside the committee room, or the task force or commission room. And so we, here we are. We can't put our fiduciary hats on for whatever reason. But we're here to essentially try to create a fiduciary body, a body, which is somewhat independent in galangka sense of the word, and it will not be dissuade. It will not be a task, unlike us politicians or legislators, who, who seem to be stuck between the two. Thanks. Thank you again madam chair this. God I hope this will be the last time I speak. I stuck a note in the in the chat but I think it's important and want to bring it to the table. I'm talking at one point about capturing the premium holiday money and redirecting that to OPEB and I don't think we should let that fall out of our view, view those things are scheduled for late in the year already so if we don't do something that money will be lost. And, you know, I think we need to really Peter brought up a really good point, which hat we're wearing here and the fiduciary hat says, if we commit the 150 million, or 130 because my conversations with Hooper number one is that the 20 million is definitely directed toward OPEB is for the 130 that's left it'll be an immediate reduction of the liability. It'll reduce the a deck for next year immediately, and it will have an opportunity to grow so from the standpoint of that, using this to leverage something else. It kind of is not in the state's overall best interest so again I think that's something that we should talk about with maybe somebody that actually knows the difference in dollars and cents about whether we put it forward or we hold it back. Thank you. Thank you, Sam LaFave. Thank you, Madam Chair, so I know yesterday we heard the proposal where they have their suggestion of who they'd like on a committee in Tonya said we heard it twice. It can, can I get reminded of where the other list was because I like to like, I'd like to cross and compare maybe all could do that or maybe we have a suggestion of like a, like a survey from our end of like who we think should be there like just to try to get some of the representative Eau Claire so they get this done sooner than later but even if we are just having the option of just brainstorming something I feel if we were in person we would all have a thing on a board. We'd write who would be there we start, you know crossing or circling or moving people and I feel like that work we could do remotely also and to see the names see things on paper or electronically and just try to get this list moving of even see who we should have on this task force. So I know of the one yesterday from the suggestion and do we know the other list that we were looking at of the suggestion for the task force. I think the first place that I would look is, has this been done in the past and who sat at the table the last time and was it successful and was it the right balance, and did everybody have a voice in the process and then I would also just take to heart the suggestions that have been made about making sure that this group is adequately resourced with the financial technical actuarial expertise and and then we should talk about whether whether this is a facilitated process or whether this is a task that we will designate the facilitators so I have not had time to go back and look at the last time we had a an interim conversation around pension issues, but I'm hoping that we will have a chance to do a little bit of that research this afternoon since we don't have committee or floor. Wasn't there a small one before COVID sorry wasn't there a small one before COVID struck wasn't read again and didn't you mention that there was a. Yeah, that was a type of a narrow focused one but john go ahead and remind us what that was. Everybody was on it, but I'd be glad to provide information on that also back in 2009 there was a retirement commission. I know that report still exists. I think we can find the names and individuals that were involved in both those efforts. We can get those up and get them added as documents on our committee page under this committee discussion today so that anyone who's watching along can also browse that over the weekend since it's not going to be warm enough to go out and rake the screen very much this weekend. Tonya Behovsky. Thank you, I can answer the lists I was talking about Sam were the workers center and VSE a proposals both offered up some people that should be at the table that I thought should be in that process. I also had a question about and I'm really attempting to understand. And also probably being maybe too hopeful but with the OPEBS if if we pre funded those completely and say past universal health care where would all that money go because we would no longer have to pay for. People's health care. So, I'm just. Sorry, really knew it would be a fun problem to have. When it's our job to figure out what to do with all of that OPEB money because we finally figured out what every other country in the world has figured out and that is collectively funding health care actually makes sense. We just go away like we would then get that money back like because sometimes you know you buy something and you bought it the money's gone I'm just trying to make sure that that's it's not a creating a liability because I have hopes that someday we will figure out what every other country has figured out and how to collectively fund health care. And Q Rob LeClaire. I just want to make sure that our charge is clear here that we're not looking to tackle universal health care issue along with pensions as well. Just want to know where that money would go and just one clarifying I'm not sure there's any health care that is free. Somebody pays somewhere. Absolutely but we would no longer need to pre fund OPEB and do we just lose the money that we've put into pre funding that if health care is coming from another source. This is what I'm trying to understand. Fair question. One other comment is I'm assuming they, and I'm saying the word assume here, but the 150 million or whatever monies are earmarked for this. The treasurer or whoever would have that in some sort of interest bearing type of an account. So that it does continue to grow why the conversation is taking place. Good point. Yeah. Absolutely 2 and a half percent. No oddly enough it's under the management of VP so if you give me 150 million I bet I can get you better than two and a half percent say wouldn't it grow more in the actual accounts like what is the return on that seven 16 at this point. Okay, so we have a couple of areas that we will focus on next week. And I am hoping that folks with ideas and suggestions will send them along via email over the weekend. We can hopefully get some of these ideas drafted and begin working towards the passage of a bill that will get this issue on its way. Peter Anthony. You have to unmute yourself. Thank you madam chair. If you yourself or the vice chair would remind me in the the under the rubric of governance. I would be talking about the kinds of responsibility for making decisions which are currently part of the peck and what I'm thinking of is the very strong emphasis on singular focus on instruments. But part of that is I recall would also be bringing perhaps more voices to the conversation. But settling on a assumed rate of return. And again, I wanted to go away this weekend and think about all the things that could possibly change and I was thinking about the requirement currently of unanimity in the assumed rate of return and I'm not sure. I know of almost no institution that requires unanimity but I don't know whether the peck has a primary or leadership or whatever kind of superior view. Or not and should, should I be thinking of the setting of any, any benchmarks and I'll use the wider world in in the process of thinking about governance and who would vote, etc. Thank you. I think I would try to take the principles of what was presented by Tom Galanca and Beth Pierce yesterday and and put that into bill form as a starting point and then hear reactions from other folks about what's missing or what should be included. I think the question of full independence of the pick is probably one that makes more sense to leave to that to that RFP that they've put out to to study future possible actions, but I think the beefing up of the governance process is probably one that we can all agree on right now. If you pardon me, I just didn't hear them say anything about the benchmarks that is to say the expected rate of return maybe I missed it. But remind me I mean is was that something they assume would continue to remain early with the peck or not in their proposal. John, you want to answer that having. Yep. So, their proposal is that the pick would have sole responsibility for setting the actual assumptions including the investment rate of return inflation rate smoothing method use for calculation actual about valuation of assets or returns. Good thank you that's crystal clear. Great. So just for clarification madam chair you're were the focus and emphasis is going to be on the pick, at least initially, as opposed to looking at the whole government structure. By whole governance structure you mean the interaction of the pick with the system boards and the Treasurer's office. Yes ma'am. Yes, yeah. So I think if, if I, you know, if you take what John Gannon just said, yes it's looking at VP, but it's also changing slightly the relationship between VP and the system boards. And then I would suggest that further study about reorganization of that structure, particularly with respect to independence, and whether they have their own staff and are their own entity versus having staff within the Treasurer's office can be left for that that further investigation. That helps thank you. All right. Folks have been mulling over with respect to governance or a task force that we should get on the table here before we adjourn for the day. Bob Hooper. Thank you madam chair I lied. I think that in the context of governance. One of the things that should be at least looked at is the separation of the Treasurer's office from the VPIC structure. That's something that's been up for discussion it's going to be up for discussion in this best practice survey that's going to be done so information is going to be available to us. And in terms of moving into the future. Not a bad thing to talk about. How close to you need to unmute. Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm just wondering, how does oversight fit into this conversation about governance, because I think that's something that's missing. And do we do we put it on the table now or is it something that's separate that has to be addressed. But I think, you know, there needs to be some kind of check and balance in this new governance model I think so. Yeah, that's a really good point that you bring up, because I, I feel uncomfortable about having had this problem set on our laps and realizing that in retrospect there have been, there have been mistakes that have been being made for the last 10 years and we haven't been aware enough of them. And so, I think it's worth having a discussion about what does that oversight look like and john Gannon, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Thank you for raising that because that's something I've been thinking about as we started to focus on governance. What type of legislative oversight. Should there be with respect to this whole process because the chair is absolutely right we do not want to go back to where we were and see a decade of mistakes before we focus on it. But as with many things, the legislature does set up oversight committees or panels that are regularly tasked with focusing on a specific issue, in this case pensions, because as we all know, especially the folks that have been here for more than one term, it's very hard for a policy committee to stay focused on a single issue year in year out. Because we have so many bills that we're working on new priorities come up. And it's really hard like next year, we're going to be focused on redistricting. I think that's one thing that we may want to consider. Thanks Hal and john. Thank you like that. Mike for wiki. I just wanted to clarify that. In fact, how was speaking about our oversight of the legislative oversight to be to be brought into the picture. I think that that was confirmed with what I later heard from how and with john is that accurate how. Yes. Absolutely. I may Madam Chair that's I was trying to tease that from Mr galanka and consultant when I asked about the tension between accountability and independence. And the only responses I recall, I got was his emphasis on independence from political interference but but I was thinking like how was of the bedrock responsibility. And that that really is vested only in the legislature for being accountable to it and then in turn to the citizens of Vermont. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks Madam chair john when you talk about an oversight board like that do you have a vision for what that would look like and who would be on it or am I like 1000 years ahead of where we actually are. You know I've just started to think about this over the last couple days. I know there are oversight models that the legislature has set up for other issues. So that would be the first place I would look but I haven't, haven't done that research at this point. Awesome thank you. Mr questions, or suggestions. I'm glad we stuck around long enough to spend a moment talking about oversight and ongoing oversight because you know the, the urgency of this moment is, is in no small part due to the fact that this is an issue that does intend to get brought up until we have a raging problem and it, it certainly is worthwhile thinking about whether we could do a better job of heading off urgent or tragic conversations by, by having some more regular oversight. Peter. Thank you madam chair, I mentioned this very much in passing couple three weeks ago but my other experience on a money committee made an indelible impression because in the first or second week. I got a stack of both electronic and paper versions of reports that for instance the tax department was required to submit. We essentially dealt with mostly what's happening with programs that forgive taxes called tax expenditures current use that kind of stuff. And we, we at that time, constantly we're, we're monitoring. What was it that we were not collecting that we could have collected if we change the rules. That kind of mandatory in your face. A set of documents, whether electronic or paper that would greet the committee when it is gabbled in in January, if the timing is right again, I realized some of the reporting and information gathering may not fit that exact schedule. But, but it's sort of like, here's what VP O's the oversight body, whether the oversight body is government ops or not is, I suppose, a matter yet to be decided but, but it's the transmission of the key metrics measured against. What's going, what's happening that that would be mandatory as I, as I remember the process when I came to it anew. Thank you. Any other thoughts from committee members. Well, I welcome you to continue your, your research and continue to talk with others in your communities and in your caucuses and send your ideas my way and we will pick this up again when we get back into committee on Tuesday afternoon. Anything else before we adjourn for the day. All right. Thank you for your hard work this week. Thank you for being good conduits from your communities and your constituents to the legislature to help us figure out how we move forward. It has, it has been a bumpy couple of weeks. But I think we have found a way to bring this in for landing.