Good afternoon folks and come to the Vermont House government operations committee before we get started with today's testimony. I thought it would be worthwhile just to orient us to how how we got here and and what the other side that we have before us. You know, most of us have been receiving emails and phone calls from our neighbors, our friends, who are teachers and who are state employees and. And, and there's a lot of frustration about the proposals that have been put on the table so far. I think it's really important for us to just recognize for a moment the challenges that bring us to this conversation. You know our pension system is is not in a good financial setting. Our unfunded have been growing and that has caused a a spike in the a deck with amount that the general fund needs to put in the budget every year in order to our our payment plan the reason and we have a payment plan dates back to a lot of the historical underfunding that was done before many of us were elected here into the and before any of us were sitting in the positions that we're in right now. So stabilizing the public pension system is is important. Even while it is a difficult conversation. And I want to reiterate reiterate that at the starting point of that conversation we are not in the middle or not at the end this is not the 11th hour it feel like it but we will take as much time as we need to to hear from folks to enter into a dialogue and to get this right. So what our hope is here today is to hear the reaction from from the folks in the system. I understand that a report you will come to say to us today is we haven't had the time to fully digest. What we have before us when when the speaker directed us to start having this conversation and to put proposal. It was I think in in reaction to the proposal. That the treasure put on the table in very and I think it's worth just noting some of the key differences between what what we put on the table earlier this week and what proposals have seen earlier. So that is a desire to make sure that we're not people who are within five years of retirement and I understand that that there's a lot more refined needs to be done to define what that means if we're moving forward with that concept, because certainly, it's not kind what being within five years of retirement means. We have tried to overlaid progressivity in in assets to pay more recognizing that folks on the lower end of the income spectrum need more of their weekly paychecks just to be able to keep a roof over the head and and put food on the table. And we've, we've proposed a measure of risk and reward sharing and and that we think is important to to help all of us continue driving towards the health and sustainability of our pension fund and within that risk and reward sharing you will notice progressivity again built into that with the recognition that folks who make more have a little more flexibility in their weekly paychecks so it's a long, long preface but I thought it was important for that to be the base level of what we're starting with. The speaker has directed us to have this conversation and wants us to take as much time as we need, you know, while we may not get to everything that we need to get to today. And it is my desire to give me a break away from the computer before we come back to our public hearing at four o'clock this afternoon. I think we'll be coming back to this again next week in order to engage more deeply with with folks who may not have a chance to to have full conversation that they want to today. So, I think what I'd like to do is is just run through the folks who are here with us.  I'd like to start with Jeff Fana. And thank you Jeff for being with us. Thank you for for sharing your initial thoughts and perspectives. Thank you. And so, maybe this is the fortuitous, because I have a weekly meeting with the Secretary of Education with a bunch of education groups we've been doing this every Friday since the pandemic started so I won't be as late I'll try to stick around and answer any questions but I may not after I finish I may try to get over there to see what's going on in other worlds so if you don't, if, if you don't mind. So once again Jeff Fannon executive director Vermont NEA. And I'm here today to speak to the initial pension proposal of the vice chair, excuse me the chair and the vice chair that was released on Tuesday I always like this, you know, make sure I'm grounded in what we're talking about. In the simplest terms the proposal requires teachers to pay more work longer and get less in retirement. This proposal is even is even more severe than the Treasurer's January proposal that she herself described as extreme. In raw terms the Treasurer's proposal asked teachers to shoulder an additional $250 million in new taxes or fees. And this proposal seems to go further, adding an additional $58 million thereby asking teachers to shoulder a total of $309 million in new tax burdens. I'll be honest they are shocked and frankly angry. At a time when the state is a wash and federal money and the governor's budget itself proposes to pay the entirety of the ad act. My members are asking me why us why now. And I think with good reason. Instead of asking what went wrong. The proposal puts the entire burden on teachers and that is unacceptable. The federal stimulus money is boosting the state's economy dramatically right now. And we should use those additional new dollars creatively to figure this out without taking money out of teachers paychecks. Doing now what is proposed is frankly an insult to the hardworking teachers of the state. And is unnecessary given the boost from the feds. We agree that the long term health and viability of the retirement system is a top priority. Indeed, Vermont and EA has negotiated and supported fair and balanced adjustments in both 2010 and 2014. State pension system managers and actuaries told us then that those changes put the system on a long term path of full funding by 2038. Thoughtfully and expertly examining what happened must be part of any solution going forward. I am concerned that teachers are reacting react rationally to this proposal and may leave the profession at a time when we need them more than ever. As we begin to open up our society. Return to some sense of normalcy, including reopening schools fully. We are becoming more and more aware of the pressing needs of our students and driving teachers out because they don't see hope in the retirement is absolutely the wrong message to send these teachers. Many schools in Vermont are already having a hard time attracting fully qualified licensed teachers. And we think this will make the problem even worse. Make no mistake making these proposed cuts will economically harm teachers now and in the future. And they are beginning to ask us about about this how this proposal affects them personally, and how they can avoid the proposal, including leaving the profession in some cases leaving the state. If teachers leave as I'm starting to hear, or even if those who are very close to retirement at the top of the salary schedule have an incentive to stay. That will have an effect on the education fund that so far has not been examined. In other words, the treasurer is correctly noted that policy decisions in the education arena do have effects on the retirement system. Obviously this proposal will do something to the education fund and the teaching workforce in our schools that should be examined, so that we don't simply try to solve one problem, only to have another problem crop up elsewhere. The proposal only asked teachers and state employees to work longer pay more and get less in retirement. If we truly are all in this together we believe the wealthiest among us who did marvelously in the stock market last year should be asked to pay their fair share. Secondly, because I represent teachers including math teachers. We think we noticed the mathematical error in the proposal. The pages aren't numbered but it's the employee risk sharing contribution page. That tax seems inaccurate to us point 5% of $60,000 would be 300 not $200 point 75% of $80,000 would be $600 not $350. Now instead of there's a cap on this tax. That's not clear on this page and we just wanted that clarified so maybe the math is is altered in some way that's not on the page but that's what we see. The time we have now should be put to good use to answer questions about the actual real changes, the rate of return adjustments and explore equitable solutions. So it's not the time to ask teachers to shoulder even more of the burden when they are already carrying much of the pandemic burden, frankly it's unfair. So with that I'll stop and say thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Committee any questions for Jeff, Mark Higley. Thank you madam chair thank you Jeff. In the beginning your testimony if you've got it there you had said that you had looked at this proposal on Tuesday. It may be a big deal, but it is to me in a sense that Wednesday is the first that I saw it. I think it was on the on your way on, I thought I understood it to be on your website on Tuesday that's when I. I got it, I think maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong the days, I will be honest with you in the pandemic world I'm, I'm, I'm giving myself grace on days because they all blur together. So represent Higley if I'm off by day, that's on me I'll go back and check when I first saw it I said Tuesday, but it may have been because I was thinking, using some of the testimony yesterday or something like that so maybe I got confused on dates, fair enough. Well, again, I say that it's not that big a deal but again, I had mentioned on Tuesday as far as the public hearing went that we didn't have a new proposal and there was folks that reached out to me through emails, some of them being teachers, saying that they were surprised that they didn't want to hear from that I didn't want to hear from that. And I said, you know that was, there wasn't even a proposal on Tuesday, but anyway it's just, it does make a difference to me. Thank you. It's an important difference I acknowledge and I will go back represent Higley double check I did this this morning. After one cup of coffee and I'll, I'll check my math as it were, as I as I asserted in my later in my testimony, checking math is good showing your work is good and I'll do so. Thanks chef no big deal. Peter Anthony. Thank you madam chair Jeff on it had been suggested when we as you have just urged tried to dig into the failure of actuary performance predictions. At least I heard some testimony which said part of the reason that the actuaries didn't pick up on the growing underfunding on the teacher side was unanticipated early retirements, digging a little deeper. The answer was, some of those were subject to inducements, if I may or incentive offers at the local level over which we would have no control, no matter what we did. And then later, we asked, well is this ongoing, you've just suggested that it may get worse, I guess I want to know whether at least the locally driven encouragement to get out of senior teachers, has that sort of passed through the, the, the likely eligible category, or are those inducements still having an effect, which are so difficult to predict Jeff. Thanks. So I think if I understand the correct, the question correctly and the conversation correctly. What I'm suggesting is if you the proposals it stands. Suggest to more seasoned teachers I'll say it that way that they should stick around a little bit longer than they might otherwise have wanted to or they may need to frankly. So that that's that was that concept the other concept that I've spoken several times with the treasure about this is the she is she has asserted and I think she's done it in this committee that act 46. The consolidation school board consolidation law did create some odd. It did have some consequences for the retirement fund because people stayed or left earlier than they might have otherwise done. And they may have been fully vested for example, but because of the change the consolidation that the teacher may have. They may not have been the need for to our teachers or something like that. And so people left and so that was I think that's what I've heard from the treasure in that context. The incentives, the retirement centers that were in some in some local contracts. I'm not, I think those and I said this to the treasure I think most of those are gone at this point. And so I'm not aware but I don't keep track of all of them every place. And they're well over 100 contracts were unlike the state you know we that they're they just have single contracts for groups of employees we're all over the state. So, those incentives I think are less of an issue if that's what you're talking about retirement incentives on individual contracts. I think with the treasure segment is act 46, and its effects. I guess I, if I may, Madam Chair, I just want to be sure that we don't have to worry about the continuation of those, not wanting to get into the arena of whether or not what the legislature may do. Somehow Trump's local contracts, I don't want to have that legalistic debate, frankly. So, I was searching for an answer to, are we done with that incentive effects of act 46, because we're not the actuary predictions still have the chance no matter what we do of being unable to capture that. And I just want to be sure that we are able to capture capture irrelevant. I should say retirement predictions. I want accuracy I think is everybody else does. So we know what to pay. And, and what result to expect. Thank you, Jeff. You are just just quickly respond and say, I don't think there's a lot of incentives out there in contracts and I, and given that what I'm hearing is it's not. There were years ago where the schools didn't want to carry a lot of teachers and we're trying to figure it out with declining enrollment. We're not hearing that now and in fact the exact opposite they need teachers. Thank you, Jeff. Yep. John Gannon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to address. Jeff's concern about our math with respect to risk sharing contributions are terrific joint fiscal office. Send me a note, it says the math is correct. It works like an income tax with marginal rates. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate knowing that you know with math teachers look at math and numbers and. Anyway, I will go back and try to understand me I'll touch base with with Chris Rupert JFO and understand the math on that so thank you represent again and I appreciate you checking. No problem. Yes.  Tonya and I'll be back in a moment. Thank you, Madam chair, following up a little bit on representative Anthony's question around the impact of early retirements and retirements. This is a bit of a two-parter. I'm wondering if we have any numbers or knowledge about how the pandemic has impacted early retirements in the school that I work in I know of at least a handful of teachers who have opted to retire rather than continue teaching through the pandemic or are now planning on retiring earlier than anticipated due to the increased stress of the pandemic and I'm wondering if we have any knowledge of what if any impact this is going to have on the pension. It's a two-parter, but we also know that this plan may cause teachers to choose to retire early and I'm wondering if we have any numbers on how many teachers would be able to just retire and what if any unanticipated consequences that might have on our pension system. Those are great questions. And I'm sadly sad to say that I don't know that I have all the answers or even much of the answers. I think this is probably a better question for the treasurer's office and frankly the retirement division. They're the ones who hear from teachers and state employees when they're applying and have the data. I think the retirement incentives are excuse me the pandemic retirements are real but it's anecdotal. You know somebody who's eligible to retire and just says I'm done because of the pandemic I'm you know for any number of reasons. It's not I don't think they have a pandemic box where you have to check and say this is why I'm retiring. So that's anecdotal at best I think, but there are, I do know that there have been an uptick. The extent to which I think is probably Erica Wolfing at the retirement office, who probably is the best person to speak with and the same for for the second question as well. So, I'm sorry I can't answer this, they have the data I we have membership it's anecdotal but they don't tell us, even when they retire even they don't have to. Thank you so much I will to make sure to try to follow up with Erica. And Samantha you have the next question. I do and I apologize my signal is not strong so I need to stay off camera as well with the chair and I are very close to each other here in our counties. I have the same questions and concerns that Mr Fannon had when I did the math it did not come out for me and when you reach out to JFO, if they could please submit how they get their, how they've gotten to where they're getting. Because to me those were very, very large differences. And if they are going to go off of something that is kind of like the mean or or even the smaller number they're working with if they could please, at least report that in there. Because it's not fair to mislead people, especially with something of this magnitude. Yeah, I've got a note to myself I'll check in with Chris roof and see if I can figure this out because I want to know myself to Mike McCarthy. Thanks Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Jeff, a little bit about the difference between what you described as a tax on teachers and the reduction in unfunded liabilities with some of this proposal. Because I think there's a little bit of a conflation there of two things that aren't exactly the same. So, you know, if over time we reduce unfunded liabilities with some of the changes in the proposal. And the state is also doing, you know, putting in more money all of us as Vermonters are I wondering if we can dig in a little bit on that description of the cost or the estimated cost of this proposal to teachers versus a reduction in the unfunded liabilities of the teachers pension system. I'm not sure I understand the question I do understand that you're, you're, you may be quarreling it sounds like with my use of the word tax and, you know, the employee risk sharing as I look at that is an increase on something somebody's paying. I think of that as a tax. I don't call it a fee.  It's coming out of their paycheck. So if that's, and I do acknowledge that the unfunded liability, you know, has grown. There's no question about that based on the actual reals reevaluation. I'm trying to read the chat I'm sorry. So I, I'm not sure exactly or some represent McCarthy what if we're just quarreling about words that's fine and I get that but I'm not sure exactly what you want me to be answering I'm not sure what the question is I'll just say that. Yeah, I guess, I guess my question is just. I, yeah, I mean I guess I just wanted to go back to what you said about the shared burden of addressing, you know, keeping these funds viable into the future, like we've tried to ground this work and our consideration of this proposal in preserving these funds and I met with some of my local maple run members yesterday, and they had a lot of questions. But I'm trying to talk with them clearly about what is being proposed, what things are on the table and get their feedback from it. I guess to move away from this conversation about exactly what we call the teacher share of what we're proposing is to say that the biggest feedback I heard initially from my constituents last night was around the retirement age, and I heard actually some support for understanding that contribution increases, you know, might be an equitable way and in order to help my local EA members so I'm wondering if you have heard similar feedback in terms of you know what things any members broadly, you know feel are better, you know, things that they can support on some level that are in these proposals versus things they'd like us to take a deeper dive into. Fair enough. I received this on Tuesday or Wednesday and I'll check my math again there on that.  Right, it's, it's, it's a visceral.  You know, all of those emotions are in it. I don't think we've reached a place having just had this for two or three days or the case may be to know specifically what seems like they, they want to work with and I just don't know but right now. The whole thing hits like a package and is a problem. That's what I'm hearing. So I don't have, you know, it's been two days. And what we're getting what we're getting is probably what you got last night which is a lot of emotion, anger frustration and we're not there yet. Further on, it's too early. It's completely understandable and, and, you know, I, I know the weight of what's been put on the table and how hard it is to unpack that and start to engage so I very much appreciate your challenges in, in trying to speak for, for a group of people who are overwhelmed and frustrated. Bob Hooper. Rep McCarthy brings up to my mind a good question because there are levers that we pull that will impact other things and, and it brings a question to mind but if indeed we use the word tax or we use the word fee or whatever if the contribution of the teachers goes up and the state employees then I'll say without something in the plan that correspondingly ensures that the state is going to either match or as they have been generously doing before through the appropriation process. Then the question to me comes down to something that I think is probably at the root of a lot of the teachers anger. And that is, are we trying to solve the problem of the unfunded liability, or are we trying to cut the pension benefit. That might not necessarily be the same thing I mean I've mentioned sunsetting this the other day which would seem to be appropriate. If we get to the point where the unfunded liability is extinguished. And that's along with the conversation this morning is probably a good thing but I would expect, and this isn't a question this is kind of a speech. I would expect that we would expect. If the teachers and the state employees are going to be ponying up a considerable amount of extra money that it be at least matched if we are going forward with the process of extinguishing the unfunded liability. I would assume you would agree. I would. Thank you for answering that question. Thanks for asking a question Bob. Any, any more questions. No thank you now. Peter Anthony. Thank you very much madam chair. Let me go at this somewhat similarly to my friend rep Hooper. I had a colleague in the legislature who said, in summary fashion. The contribution, the employees own the unfunded liability, the legislature owns. Simple, you know, I don't know how else to put it. Having said that, because we have a latitude of funds that we didn't know we had. I think what we need to do is figure out what, and I appreciate the fact that you've only had a couple of three days, four days, two days to hear from the members. I really need to know where we have wiggle room I don't expect you to answer that today. Where is it on either side the contribution side, or the benefit side that we could agree on a figure to inject for instance on our responsibility side of the fence, so that we can buy ourselves some time to talk about the more policy surgical granular as some people like to call it issues for which there's no clear path forward immediately obviously on the table. And I for somebody who wants to go forward in one fashion or another but not lose the opportunity to harness some of the infusion of cash, want to know where the things we could agree on harness those funds, and which short list of issues. I would say, All right, look, let's agree to think about those a little more deeply, but we can't hold up the whole show that we settle everything. It's just, that's not realistic, given where the treasurer is given, essentially where the session is. So, I'm just trying to tease out, where can we agree enough to commit sufficient funds the teachers quit panicking and postpone for a longer and more searching conversation issues that will be sensitive, at least could be discussed in a less panic written environment. Thanks. No question there but I thank you. The notion representative Anthony is a good one. And just for the record, I just saw him at pop in my email something from JFO Chris root. And I'll check that afterwards, maybe the math is in there. Bob Hooper your hand is still up or again up again up madam chair, thank you. I'm focused a little bit Jeff and I, I'm hearing from a couple of teachers. I don't know if you have a switch on that or not. But, you know, there's a distinct line being drawn in the proposal between the five year and under people, and the five year and over people in terms of their closeness to walking out the door. It's a particular process, not not buying time process. And it seems like a lot of the, the people who are over five years, both in the teachers population and the state employees population are more aggravated because it's often the magic key to get out on harm. And the, the level of faith that they've lost in the system seems to be driving something a little bit more intense than I expected. Because you know you do have five years to make different plans, but that's, that's not enough.  Are you seeing that more so than we are seeing in the emails I mean is there now a fundamental disruption in the trust of us that you're getting feedback on. I think there is a fundamental concern out in the field with how all of this is going to affect individuals. You're a teacher who is 20 years in the system, and suddenly you've got to work another 25 I think it is under the proposal that that affects your life and depend you know whether you get kids in college or kids in elementary school, those are things so it's it's a, it's a sense of the unknown, and is the concern with lack of trust I think there is an element, very much of that yes, that I you know somebody else out there is doing something that is really affecting my livelihood, my future, my family, and all of that and and it's been a tumultuous years we all acknowledge, and then this is sort of another significant blow at a particularly, you know, in opportune moment I'll say that and so the love of the piece of this is teacher contracts by law are going out April 15. So teachers have to have a contract offer from for next year. So, people are starting to think about that right now. And with this proposal on layered on top. I don't know, you know we're hearing a lot it's just a lot of frustration noise emotion. And I'm, I'm genuinely concerned that come April 15. I'm going to hear a lot more concrete. What if I do x what if I do why. And I don't know that I will have answers for all all of those x and y's. And I'm not sure the retirement office will either. I have. I mean, quite frankly haven't talked to the retirement office had them in here and had people email me that you know I used to get somebody at least answering the phone now I'm being told. Somebody's answering the phone they're just doing email. And the line continues to get longer and longer for somebody to get an estimate. I don't think they know, quite frankly, and and that's really just for you know, that's really bothersome that we can't get the information we need, either on the cost of the plans that I personally asked for three times I think, or how long the lines and how many people were going to lose where we're going to lose them, whether the teacher that's in Bennington now is made a decision staying in Vermont or jumping over to New York State to work is now advantageous. The unintended consequences of this are legion. And I'm worried that we stumble. Thank you. Me too. I show the worry. Okay, any other committee questions for Jeff. All right. Thank you Jeff please stick around if you can but I understand you're trying to be in two places at once. I'll stick for cigarette for a bit. Great. Thank you. Steve Howard. Welcome. Thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for being here. And again we'll apologize the small project I hadn't going on yesterday is now turned into a major construction scene and you may hear a jackhammer from time to time. I'm afraid to go downstairs and see what they're doing, but some, at some point I will find out but if you hear a jackhammer that's what it is. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify my name is Steve Howard I'm the executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association. And before I start my testimony I wanted to thank the committee for your dedication and willingness to have a public hearing tonight and Monday, the SCA called for the public hearing we're very grateful for your response. So those are, you know, it's hard with that many people on a Friday night so I really wanted to express your mic our gratitude for that it's it's an important thing for our members. They want to know that the committee that is potentially going to cut their pension can look them in the eye and see who they are and hear their stories and see the human faces and the experiences behind all the spreadsheets and the actuarial reports, the JFO reports, which we all are all necessary part of the process but ultimately all of that is about the people that you will see tonight on their zoom screens. Let me start by saying that the VSEA is opposed to this proposal. And we, we very much appreciate the chairs comments yesterday about the hard work and the personal sacrifice of our members that have been in the teachers who that have been made throughout the COVID crisis to protect the lives of the teachers and to protect Vermont, most more effectively than than most states in the country. Nurses who fought to protect patients at the vet's home and the psychiatric hospital correctional officers who battled outbreaks in our prisons, wearing modified garbage bags. We have environment workers who are who are currently as we speak testing contract taste contract contact tracing and vaccinating Vermonters are economic service and Department of Labor employees who worked around the clock to protect Vermonters would just lost their jobs. They are the AOT truck drivers who drove materials and supplies all over the state of all the employees who showed up who converted their homes and into state offices in order to keep state government running. You've heard me say this before and I think it bears repeating. They don't have press conferences every week, but they deserve the credit for how Vermont has come out of this pandemic. I would say that these members, while they appreciate your kind, your kind words feel abandoned. They feel attacked. Some feel betrayed by the patrol by the proposal that was introduced two days ago. This proposal has profound impacts on their lives, their hopes their dreams. They feel a promise was made a contract signed. And now, after their heroic efforts. During the call once again for Vermonters, they feel like they're in the middle of a smackdown, basically, they thought that even especially in the midst of a pandemic, that the political leadership of our state would have their backs. They don't feel that way when they review this proposal. Our members understand that politics and political tactics will be used even here in Vermont where we're somewhat immune to what happens across the country and other state houses and in Congress. But this process leaves them dumbfounded. Last night a member even described it to me as shady. The way they see it a bill was developed by a committee behind closed doors, which has been acknowledged by the leadership both privately to us and publicly in the media. That was outside the transparent process that this committee, this distinguished committee affords. It's not something that we see that often in Vermont. And it's, I think from our members perspective very disturbing. We asked why we can't take our time on a complicated consequential and long developing problem with a careful and deliberate summer study process. We are told that it's because of the political calendar that we have to rush this through this year, regardless if the process leaves thousands of state employees believing that the process is rushed and ranked. We believe that the political calendar is their problem, and they have confidence that this committee and the members of the General Assembly can handle both both the political challenges that they face and this issue next year after a process goes forward that they can believe in. And so they've asked me to come here today to ask you once again to slow this down. I really wanted me to appeal to six people on this committee who can still save this process. Create a summer study committee that is equally divided between teachers employees troopers and the members of the General Assembly. We have always done our part, and we've always worked together.  This has almost been a year now of unbelievable sacrifice.  They're also concerned about the proposal that they see before the committee. Because they know we will work with you and we will work with you, especially if we feel we'll, we have been treated respectfully. And if all ideas are on the table, including a dedicated revenue source, noticeably missing for this proposal and yet identified with the leadership in our 30 minute check ins with the speaker as one of the state employees top priorities. Let me say this before, and I just have to say this again, in 30 years we can't muster the courage to ask the wealthiest people to pay one cent more. We need leaders in both the legislature and in the executive who are willing to lead to lead like Governor Snelling, and be willing to do at least something they might they may not want to do. That is how deals get done. That is how progress gets made. Governor off the hook and refusing to raise revenues to help the situation because we're afraid to engage the governor, and we've decided he gets a pass on leadership is not acceptable to state employees. Governor Scott, who has a skyrocketing approval rating at this moment in a crisis in our state could stick his neck out and lead like Governor Snelling. And that we think is something that is not too much to ask. Instead, we see a proposal that taxes state employees that tells AOP AOT drivers plowing your roads, state police lieutenants who are responding to domestic assaults, the dietary aid making $12 an hour at the Vermont veterans home that they can be on the menu. But the governor and the wealthiest amongst us are protected. That is not leadership inflicting pain on those with almost no power and no responsibility for this situation is the easy way out. Pensions benefit all Vermonters 62 cents on every dollar from in our in our pension system as a result of our proceeds from investment on Wall Street, 78% of our members retire and stay in your local communities here right in this state. They are pulling money out of Wall Street and spending it on Main Street and they did so. They do so after having worked a career in which they might not have come to state government and current and and they stayed longer than they might otherwise have because of the pension, your constituents benefit from that from the institutional knowledge from the experience that they have serving the people of the state of Vermont and we've seen it in times like this and in times like Irene, and whenever they've been called out that institutional knowledge and experience has come through for Vermonters. As Jeff said, we agreed this plan is a plan that asks our members to work longer to pay more to get less. I can never see this as a radical plan that is really a national outlier. Just to go through some of the elements of the plan and the response that they have the COLA threshold and the floor threatens to destroy the retirement dignity are members of work so hard for it's potentially, it could potentially put some of them into poverty, dependent on state services, some of the services they may have delivered state employees. And most of most of the retirees again, I think it bears repeating our women. We also would know that Vermont's pension system nationally is already 7% less than the national average in terms of pension benefits. So already, we are, we are behind other states across the country, and this this proposal would only move us further behind the change to the AFC, which is really a direct cut benefits, only two other states have an AFC higher than five years, Florida in Illinois. The 10 year vesting proposal doesn't make any sense to us at all. I think it will affect the young workers that we have worked so hard to attract a state government who look and say, you know, I can, I can, I have an opportunity to get out and go into the private sector and I'm going to do it now. I think it will be very difficult to to attract new younger employees to come or new employees to come to state government, because of the longer wait, and really it doesn't do much for the unfunded liability, or for the, for the employer contribution so that that proposal, in particular baffles our members. And in relation to risk sharing and the contribution rate, state employees have always done their share. Every single time they have been asked to come to the table to do something to stabilize the retirement system they've always done their share, the process has been collaborative. It's been respectful, and it's been, frankly, given the amount of time it needs for for an agreement to come to fruition. And that is, that is, I think, an important part we do wonder and question why the, why the trigger is at 7.5%, and not at 7%, which is the actual a little assumed investment return retirement eligibility. The states have a retirement age between 65 and 67 for state employees. Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and South Dakota. If you're a teacher in New Mexico, you would also have that age. This would put us in a very small group of states as a radical proposal and really an outlier nationally. That is not a distinction or characterization or thinking searching for the right word of anything that our members want Vermont to be known for. They want Vermont to be known as the best employer in the country. This would put us on a list of some of the worst. They also think it's just an horrendously unfair. It's not the deal that our members signed up for when they began their state service. I talked to a member recently, actually, the days do become a blur and the nights become part of the day so it's really hard to keep up with this but I remember this story, because this was the story of a single mother who has four children who's worked 21 years dedicated and going to college all that time trying to raise her four children so that she eventually could do the job that she had dreamed of doing under this proposal. She will have to work another 24 years to get the retirement she thought she was working towards that is just crushing for her and for so many of the employees who who are in the same situation. Also, this is this age of retirement I think that Jeff made reference to it and I think representative McCarthy may have heard from his from his constituents yesterday about it but I just want you to think about this. Our correctional officers have, and many state employees have jobs that nobody else wants to do and many could not do, but think about this the average. The average age of life expectancy for a correctional officer is 59 years old. The national average for the rest of us is 75. They have higher rates of hypertension heart disease and alcoholism, high suicide rates, and they suffer from PTSD and trauma, they have a 50% divorce rate. They are required to use use of force and to be trained on use of force, they are often attacked physically, they have often forced to do extractions from cells, and they have frequently faced hostage situations in our facilities here in Vermont. The correctional facilities and I don't know if any of you have been to the correctional facilities in Vermont, but they're big, they're old, they're, they're spread out. And our correctional officers often they have they're required to do 15 minute checks that require them to run from one end of the building to another up several flights of stairs. This proposal asked them to do that until they're 67 years old. The same is true of our state police lieutenants. This, this proposal removes the ability to retire after 20 years at age 50. I got an email just this morning from a trooper who said that he was planning to retire because he had frankly done the last his last use of force in physical ground battle. And he thought he could handle both emotionally and physically talked about a scene in which he this week was out and wrestling a man of 20 years 20 was 20 years old, who had just brutally attacked his wife. He does not think he can do that for one more year. And yet this proposal asked him to do it for five. This committee is knows I think this committee very well knows the history of our of our family service workers in the Department of Children and Families. They are regularly attacked regularly threatened assaulted and murdered. And they are asked to do a job that is traumatic and difficult. Our workers at the Vermont Veterans Home in the state hospital, they are working with patients who have both physical and mental health issues, and they are not only required to do several tasks that require heavy lifting. But also they are unfortunately the recipients of brutal violent attacks. Many of our members are rushed from their work site to the hospital, because of the attacks that they endure. This proposal would have them do that until they're 67 years old. So not all jobs are the same. Many of the jobs that our members do in the public sector, demand, both physical physical and mental toll that makes this proposal really untenable for them and for for many others. We look forward to to talking with you about incentives and ways in which we could keep valuable and state employees who have reached the maximum contribution level to the pension system and are essentially donors to the pension system. We look forward to talking with you about those benefits that keep them here longer. We need more experienced and seasoned workers, just similar to the conversation that you were having with Jeff. The anecdotal message that we're getting an overwhelming response from our members is that our seasoned and most talented and experienced workers are running for the retirement divisions door. They are filling out their retirement, and they're getting ready to leave. And that's at a time when if you just look at some of our most valuable, some of the most critical classifications and state government, and we have 30 vacant trooper positions, 80 to 100 vacant correctional positions, 46 vacant positions for CDL drivers in the agency of transportation. We spend millions of dollars on traveling nurses for the state of Vermont. So, with the with the benefit package that we have now that is lower than the national average, we have a hard time attracting people and keeping them in these in these positions. So, I just want to conclude again by thanking you for the opportunity. I want to encourage you tonight in Monday to look into the eyes of the people who are testifying to listen to their stories and ask yourself, is it really so much to ask that we slow this process down, and we have a summer study committee. Is it really too difficult for us to say that the wealthiest people in the state can't pay 3% more rather than taxing people who are testifying before you. And I would finally say work with us for a better solution, work together with us to find a better solution in an open and transparent process that our members can believe in. Thank you. Thank you, Steve, John Gannon. Thank you, Chair. And thank you Steve so much for testifying and for giving us some of the concerns of your members. And I look forward to the public hearings tonight. And on Monday. And as you know, I also attended the local Wyndham County, the SCA meeting and spoke directly with members from Wyndham County. It's important to have a dialogue, and I totally agree that we need to have a dialogue with respect to all these issues, but we're running out of time. It is 2021. If we want to fully fund the pension by our goal of 2038, that's 17 years away. Every year that we delay increases the unfunded liability. That that has been a problem because it increases because of the costs, but also because of the missed assumptions, which people, you know, I'm not going to point fingers at whose fault that is, but that that is an issue, we're just running out of time. We also have a once in a lifetime opportunity this year because of the federal funding that's available to help address this problem. And I don't want to lose lose that opportunity. And, you know, as far as, you know, the chair and I working on this project before came to the committee, this is a very complicated issue. You know, understanding all the nuances of the pensions, working with the joint fiscal office working with actuaries, so we could have numbers with respect to some of the proposals we put forth takes time. And it's hard to do. So yes, I fully acknowledge we did that. But the process of deliberating what we're going to do starts in this committee. We have taken extensive testimony already to give members of this committee the background they need to make the important decisions with respect to our, our state employees pension and our teachers pension. And we will take much more testimony.  We were open to any solutions to this problem. But during the fact that we're running out of time. I think it's a huge mistake. Thank you. I don't know if you had a question if you're asking a question but what I would say is we agree with a lot of what you said. We do have to get our arms around this problem we acknowledge that what I would say is I don't think really it's the state employees who are could be held accountable for with the situation that we're in. But I think it's right to not really look back at that the one thing I would say, and I maybe was a little harsh with Governor Scott and I would, I will own that. But I will say that he has fully funded the a deck he has given us the ability to take our time and to have a balanced discussion with this summer study committee that's 50% of the workers who are impacted and 50% of the legislators who will make the decisions that that provides us the time that we need without really serious implications to the to the pension system certainly no group in the state would want anything horrific to happen to the pension system and the people who are dependent on it. We're going to see that tonight when you when you hear their testimony so I really appreciate what you had to say, and I am grateful for your coming to our meetings and I look forward to the, the both public hearings tonight and Monday. Thank you. And just one more point is, you know, we the legislature has been doing more than what the governor has been doing we have, you know, put in more money than we were required to, based on the a deck. And we've done that consistently for 10 years. And what has happened over those 10 years, our unfunded liabilities have continued to grow. That's not because the legislature's failure to fund the aid act, it is because some of the issues with some of the assumptions and we need to fix these problems now. We are just running out of time. Tonya be helps key. Thank you Madam chair I have two questions one is actually more about committee process and one is for Mr Howard but in response to your request that we look at additional revenue streams, including something like the amendment that was brought forward on the floor to discuss. What is the process for the sponsor of that amendment to bring to bring it to this committee so that we can fully vet it and discuss it because I agree we should really look at every possibility of asking those who have more than they could ever need to help support those who are holding our state up during this crisis and so I'm, I don't I just don't know what the process is how do we bring that amendment here so that we can fully discuss it and and vet it so. So, in the broadest brush this committee doesn't do revenue. And in order to consider revenue, the details of that would be considered in the ways and means committee. for us to consider the suggestion of revenue that would be a conversation that goes above the pay grade of a committee chair and needs to involve the direction of house leadership and they need to converse with Senate leadership because we don't take revenue lightly when we begin to talk about adding a tax here or a fee there. That's something that is best done if we have baked that ahead of time with the Senate. So I don't know what to tell you about the timing of that. I can tell you that the speaker has put on the table $150 million in one-time money that she would like us to use to help solve this problem. That's over and above the funding of the ADEC and I think it's a significant contribution to the problem given the way we are looking at ballooning unfunded liabilities. So I guess I would ask us to stay within the constraints of the $150 million that the speaker has carefully pulled together and asked the appropriations committee to dedicate to this. Okay. So the process, even though what was pointed to on the floor was the process of bringing it to this committee. That isn't actually the process. It certainly can come to this committee. It will then also have to go to the Ways and Means Committee. Okay. Thank you for helping me to understand that. My question for Steve is about the Department of Labor Vacancies. We've heard a lot through the pandemic about the impacts of the Department of Labor and my understanding is they regularly operate with 30 plus vacancies. Do you have the number of vacancies and the number of people that could retire from the Department of Labor tomorrow? Handy. I don't have it up the top of my head. I can look into it. I have been trying to get the numbers from the retirement division on various classifications and who's eligible. I have not been, I don't think they've been hiding it, but I just don't think I've been successful in asking for it in the right way. But I do think that's, you know, the government operations committee does have to be concerned about staffing state agencies. And, you know, we saw that what happens when you have a major incident and your constituents call the Department of Labor and the folks there are completely overwhelmed by what they have been provided for resources in order to serve your constituents. So I think getting that information, it's a very good question representative, either from JFO or from the retirement division or waiting until we can get it from somebody who can put it together. For the government operations committee, it's really important to know, you know, how will this affect people if there is this massive rush to retirement that we are hearing about anecdotally? I mean, I have heard from divisions where, you know, 26 percent, I heard the other day, 26 percent of the staff at the veterans home is eligible for retirement. And there was a division that where a member called me, I don't know if it was in the Department of Labor, but they said, you know, four out of five people who do that work in the agency of natural resources are eligible for retirement. This could be a catastrophic event in and of itself for state government if we haven't carefully planned it, which is why I think we are asking to slow this process down and to take some time and have a balanced, I think, representative Colston asked yesterday, I wasn't prepared to answer it, but, you know, the question about equity and equality, having a discussion over the summer and fall with a committee of 50 percent workers and 50 percent legislators is a pretty equal opportunity to really try to hash these things out in a more thoughtful and deliberate manner than we are here doing now. Thank you both for helping me understand all of the intricacies of that. Mark Higley. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Steve, Jeff. I guess first I'd just like to say that I actually am leaning towards giving more time to this process. As each day goes on with more testimony and things come out, you know, Jeff talked about April 15th, the teachers contracts adieu. Bob talked about pension information to employees is hard to get right now. I know that for a fact. Like I said, told people in the past, my wife is just retired. She's still working contractually right now, but retired from the state college system. Two years prior, we talked with TIAA folks over in Williston, but during her month of retirement, she was not able to get through. They've moved people out of the Williston office. Unless you have a million dollar portfolio, they don't want to talk to you. And so she had to call the main branch, which is, you know, somebody we've never talked to before. So I completely understand that issue as well. I think everything hasn't been looked at. I think, you know, Madam Chair, you spoke the other day about turning over every rock. I have mentioned, as well as a number of times, about meeting with folks from the Reason Foundation, whoever might be, that there are other states out there that are having a hybrid system that is working. I'd like to at least understand that. Maybe run it by Steve and Jeff as to their thoughts about new employees coming on. The state of Michigan, I think I mentioned this to Jeff before, in their teacher's retirement has moved or is moving to a DC plan. It seems like it's going well. I guess to go further, to talk about one of the things that I wouldn't support, and I spoke to it on the floor was the taxation of the wealthy in Vermont. You know, it seems like every issue, and it was an issue during the gubernatorial campaign last year, that broadband investment and economic recovery for COVID was going to be looked at through attacks on the wealthy. Of course, now we're flushed with money from the feds. Climate action. There's bills out there now. Education funding was talked about. Now, pensions. I mean, I think Steve, you even talked about the temporary employees receiving more benefits, health care and so forth. This is where myself as a conservative, not that we don't want the same end results a lot of times with these things, but let me give you another example. So there's a proposal out there again, and I thought this years ago, parts of it, for free lunches for all school kids. Well, you know, that's fine, but how does that relate to, if you're talking about the people make over 250,000, 500,000 or millionaires, why shouldn't they pay for their kids' meals for goodness sakes? You know, I mean, we've got to understand what we do on one end affects all the taxpayers in Vermont. So again, I'm not inclined to reach out for that form of a revenue, a certain revenue stream. I don't think we've looked at all the opportunities, not in my mind. And yeah, so and politically, I don't know. I'm not in leadership. I don't know if it's because we have the redistricting next year. I'm not sure if it's because it's a political election year. That's above my pay grade. But to be honest with you, I guess one of the things, if we do move forward, I would like to at least know how much we might be looking at that we would, as the state, would need to cough up again in the next year to keep things going. But other than that, I'm leaning towards from what I've seen as well. And Steve, you know, I was at the LaMoyle County VSEA meeting the other day, the only representative there. And they had only heard about it.  And that's when we first had it come out.  President really had her handle on, you know, what was happening as much as I did for sure. So anyway, that's where I stand right now. And again, I appreciate the discussion. Thank you. Bob Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't I don't know that I have said this. And if I have said it, I haven't said it enough. I actually do appreciate what you and John have done with this, even though, you know, I'm clearly on the page that says it's ghastly. You did put a lot of time and effort into putting the gears at least on the table and trying to make a mash. And, you know, that that's something that I think we should recognize. And I apologize for not doing that before. But now after after Tanya's question, I don't know what we're doing. I mean, on the floor now, we just had an amendment that did go around process. No question. And quite frankly, I didn't know it was coming until this morning. But a lot of the conversation was bring those things here and we'll integrate them into our process and we'll make a decision about how they fit. Now, that's not the way it's kind of going to be, maybe, you know, we can't get the information that we need to make a decision about the unintended consequences of what we're doing. We're, you know, just so many of the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to be at our disposal. I think we need to get some firm ground on what our actual charge and abilities are here. You know, there's still probably conversations going on other places that aren't even at this theoretical table. I go back to the question I had this morning. It's like, are we here to solve a problem or are we just here to cut the retirement plan? Uh, I don't, I don't really know. But I do know I'd like to be able to say, here's a solution that might help solve the problem. We should be able to entertain it without throwing it through another screen first. And if the speaker has the latitude of giving us that, that would be a good thing. So we do have a couple more folks that we need to hear from in order to be respectful here. So I'm, I guess what I'd like to do is ask the committee to contain questions to, at this point, to what Steve Howard has said, and we will have plenty of time to lay claim to our own turf and express our own ideas and opinions. But right now, we have a waiting room full of people who were hoping to start it too. And I still would like to hear from the other impacted parties. So, uh, Sam Lefebvre, and then we will move on. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Howard and his testimony. I heard that you said that there are still six people on this committee. Um, could you verify, because last thing I do, there's 11 of us here, and I would like to know who the six you have your faith in on. Thank you. That is a very good question. I'll take six votes from anybody who's willing to provide them. Sam, if I could help, it's, it's to move the process along. In other words, slow it down. He's looking for six, six to five, six to five to slow the process down, have a summer study, and move the process along in that regard. That's the, that's the six he's looking for. Doesn't matter who. Simple committee math. Okay. Um, thank you. Any other folks want to ask a question of Steve Howard? All right. Thank you, Steve. Please stick around in case other folks think of questions. Um, Mike O'Neill, thank you so much for coming back to chat with us again today. Would love to hear your thoughts. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, my name is Mike O'Neill. I'm the executive director of the VTA. The VTA leadership had the opportunity to meet with our members yesterday and get reactions to these proposals. As we expected, the proposals have created shock, anxiety, anger, concern within our ranks. The proposals put forth by the committee asked that state employees and teachers work longer, receive reduced benefits, and pay more for the benefits. That wasn't received well by our members. The message from our members was clear. They are opposed to these proposals. They see this as a portrayal. When coming into state service, employees begin making mandatory contributions into the retirement system. For group C members, the contribution rate is 8.53% of their earnings. This is not insignificant, um, you know, with the amount of money they are contributing from their earnings. They make these contributions with the understanding that the state of Vermont will honor their commitment to provide the benefits that have been promised. The relationship between our employees and the state of Vermont concerning retirement is a contract. This has been established by courts throughout the United States. Our members are asking that this contract be honored. The proposal put forth did not include input from employee representative. We didn't even learn about the proposals until they were released on Wednesday. Um, and I definitely learned that these on Tuesday, on Wednesday, I'm guessing Jeff did as well. Um, these benefit changes have unintended consequences on our workforce. I don't know that these consequences have even been explored for VSP. This is going to result in making a bad situation worse. The Vermont State police are in the midst of trying to address a recruitment crisis being faced by law enforcement nationwide. The number of police applicants has plummeted across the country. It should be noted that we only, um, hire three to four percent of the applicants that we receive. Young qualified people are no longer coming into the profession, but there are small number that are qualified of the applicants we see out of every 100 applications. We may hire three or four of those people making that challenge bigger for us and diminishing benefits that help us recruit and attract people is going to be a disaster for us. This is occurring at a time when we need to attract the best and most qualified people to meet the expectations of our society, something that your committee knows well. You have taken up in your committee issues of police reform and are joining in the rest of this nation and expecting very high standards from our people. We are also going to face a problem with retaining the people that we have if these proposals are passed. We heard from our junior members that they will look for other opportunities for employment. We know that with the recruitment crisis going on nationwide, the surrounding states are also hiring. State police agencies are hiring at the same rates we are. They are seeing the same recruitment problems and if a qualified trooper from Vermont applies to a neighboring state, it is going to be very easy for them to go and accept jobs in those other states. The benefits in the surrounding states already outpace the benefits of the Vermont State Police. So it's going to give more of an incentive for the people that we have to look at other opportunities. Our senior members are in a more difficult position. They have committed to this career in serving the state of Vermont and they have roots in Vermont. It's not as easy for them to leave. Now their families retirement plans are in danger of being dramatically altered. How do they recover from changing retirement benefits and plans that they've made with this short notice? Yes, exempting people within five years may give some comfort to a small group of people but it was mentioned earlier that's going to cause a divide amongst not only our members but in the trust they do have for this system. Testimony should be taken from Colonel Birmingham to understand the negative impacts these changes will have on the state police. A real problem will be created. It cannot be ignored. This statement is not intended to ignore the same issue the rest of state government and we're going to see with Vermont teachers. They face the same problems. Teachers work on the borders as well. It'd be even easier for teachers to cross over and work in a border state than it would be for a trooper because we are required to live in Vermont. For our members they would have to move to another state. Most state police agencies require that. Our teachers don't. It would be easy for teachers and other state employees to just cross the border to other jobs. We need to understand the impact that this may have on our workforce. The benefit package that we have, whether it's pay health insurance or retirement, is all part of a package that is important in recruiting and retaining the people that work for us and we cannot ignore that. We understand the issues that have brought us here. The unfunded liability in the visas plan and the visas plan is concerning to our members as concerning to our members as it is to every member of this committee. Our members and their families rely on these retirement benefits. They get this. We are not suggesting that this be ignored. We agree that the retirement plans must be sustainable. We do not agree with the proposals, these proposals, as the answer. We feel this was done far too quickly with no input. Our members were not even given a voice in these proposals. We ask how more federal dollars, maybe the federal dollars that have come into Vermont may be used to lower the unfunded liability to address this year's ADEC. We ask that a retirement commission be established to carefully study the system as a whole and make sure we identify all of the problems, clearly understand how we got here. Where mistakes made, was there bad advice? What was the problem that resulted in all of the missed actuarial assumptions and the investment return targets that were not met? Quickly making changes to the governance system and the structure of employee benefits is not what we feel is the right way to approach this. How do we have confidence in reactionary changes being made without fully understanding all of the aspects of the problem? Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thanks, Mike. Fascinating. Nobody has a question for you. Just can't get a hand raised. There we go. Go ahead, Bob. Mike, we talk a lot about vacancies and where'd you go? Oh, there you are. Do you have a good handle on how many people come in the door, get through the academy, maybe get one stripe and then they're on their way, that Vermont is effectively being used as a training site so that you go back to Massachusetts since I hear that accent a lot.  Is that really prevalent or are we actually seeing people with five years, six years, somewhere in that range jumping as it exists now without these changes? We generally see and it's been the same throughout my entire career, about an average of 10 people that we will get trained, get out on the road, that will leave each year to go to other agencies, whether it's another state or a federal agency. Generally, we see people leave to go to other state police agencies or the feds because the benefit package is better, but it has remained consistent. But we are hearing right now from a lot of members that if these proposals were passed, they are really going to look at other opportunities because the benefits they were promised will not be there. This is going to add to a problem that we are already facing. We currently have 32 vacancies in a department that is authorized by the strength of 332 people. Those vacancies are on top of 14 military deployments that we currently have. Staffing right now is a real challenge for us and if this makes it worse, I don't know how we get through it. Another question, if I might Madam Chair, in the group after the regular workforce of the state, we've focused in on the people that have 25 years who can then buy the last five and walk out the door in an unanticipated way. I would think that it would be different with the state police because anybody that's facing the mandatory 55 age retirement either in federal or other law enforcement agencies is going to want to be out our door and into another agency so that they can have time to vest and get a benefit before they run up against that 55. So we're talking about as a potential field of people who would be considering leaving a huge number within the workforce of the state police. Yes, I haven't been able to answer a lot of questions for our members based on the way these proposals are worded. The five-year exemption, the way it's worded refers to normal retirement eligibility and in the group C plan, according to the statutes, normal retirement eligibility is age 55. But the reality of the group C retirement is that people retire at age 50 and all of them intend to be out the door at age 50 and that five years from the way this is proposed, I don't think applies to them. So the way this is worded, I don't think anybody or very few people in the group C retirement will have that five-year exemption. I think it would apply to almost everybody. Well, I don't know that you hit on what I was asking and English isn't my primary language so I probably wasn't asking it the right way. But if I'm a trooper and I got 10 years in with the state police, I'm 28 years old, I'm going to want to get into the Massachusetts state police if their investment period is five years and then I can still get my 20, I'm backing way off from that age 50 so that I'm going to make a decision before I'm 30 to get out. Yes, I think what we will see is a large number of our people make that decision very soon if these proposals were passed. So we're talking about the core of the work, how soon can they get into a pension system in another agency for that exact reason. Yes, thank you. All right. Thank you, Mike. Please stick around in case someone has a question for you in a few moments. I would like to invite Patricia Gable. Welcome. Thank you for your patience and we welcome you to share your thoughts with us. Thank you. I'm a little concerned if you're going to end at three that we may not get through the information I want to share. Is that your current plan at this time, Madam Chair? That is our plan. How much time do you think you need because I can certainly do some rearranging? So, well, perhaps we could start and if we can't finish, I hope that we would be able to continue. Absolutely. Yeah. The other thing I wanted to mention is I'm in the middle of a storm here and the lights have flickered so I might disappear if I do, I'll try and call in. And what I will do is I think I'll turn off my video for a minute just to make sure it can be as stable as possible. But before I do that, I did want to acknowledge everyone on your committee. I've been following the work of your committee now for at least a week and a half and it isn't just the quantity of work you're dealing with but the intensity of your workload and what you've got to get through. And so, we know from research on judges, international research on judges that over time, the more things you have to decide in a short period of the time, the more difficult it is to make good decisions. And so, when you're at the end of the day, at the end of the week, I just hope you listen with an open heart. So, I'm going to turn off my video. I'll start. So, I really have four parts of my presentation to the committee today. I want to talk a little bit about the consultation process that led up to the Treasurer's Report and also that has preceded the work in the legislature. There's been a lot of work done over the last few years and particularly a lot of work done to validate the extent of the unfunded liability issues.  We agree that something needs to be done about the unfunded liability. But we're also concerned about the fact that the judiciary has really been completely excluded from all the work that's been done up until this point. And it isn't just an objection. Oh, why didn't you talk to us? It really has profound impacts on the proposals that have been put forward because we haven't had an opportunity to get the data that would be required to evaluate them, to run scenarios in a problem solving way with other parties who are knowledgeable. And so that's something I'll talk about first. The second is I want to address the impact of proposals on the group F members in the judiciary. And although some of our employees are represented by the union, we also have many people who work in the judiciary who are not represented. And therefore, it's important that you hear about them as well. The third, and this is a very important part of the proposal is the impact of proposals that appeared this week regarding the group D members of the judiciary. This could have serious impacts. And the question is, are they intended impacts or unintended impacts? And then finally, I want to talk to you about the actions that I'm going to take on behalf of the judiciary as a result of the other issues that will be discussing. So with respect to the process, I did review the treasurer's report, and I also reviewed some other resources. And the treasurer's office met with the Vermont State Employees Association, the Vermont Troopers Association, the Vermont National Education Association, and she and her office worked together with them to review possible scenarios and combinations of scenarios. She also met with the unions either weekly or twice weekly with the VSEA Board of Trustees and the legislative committee members as well as over 100 members of the VSEA Council. The treasurer's office also met with the Troopers Association and the Board of Directors. And she's met with over 300 VSEA members and 700 NEA members and conducted 13 educational meetings with members. The union board's got a chance to review draft power points, including recommended scenarios, and then the treasurer's office met again with each trustee board. I'm assuming also that in advance of the treasurer's proposal, she undoubtedly met with high-level members in the executive branch as well. As I mentioned, these are not just comments to wine about process. They really are substantive because they show the depth of analysis and dialogue that's gone into the proposals regarding some of the plans and the complete absence of anything like that regarding the group D proposal in the judiciary. I mention it because we need that and we need to find a way to have that same opportunity. And I don't know how that's going to happen within your timeline, but we're ready to engage if you are. The second thing I would like to address is the impact of the proposals on the group F members in the judiciary. We have probably about 40% of the people who work in the judiciary are not represented by the VSEA and that includes judicial officers and it also includes managers and supervisors in the judiciary. I've heard from them because, again, they haven't had the same opportunity as others have to be educated about why these things are happening, why these proposals are coming forth, and what the different scenarios are and what it would mean. What I've heard from them is that they, you know, they're amazing people just as many people in the state government are, they're dedicated under very difficult circumstances. In the judiciary, we have inadequate resources for the caseloads that we carry and that was true even before the pandemic. And in the judiciary, we've continued to hear cases throughout balancing the public health issues along with the issues of access to justice. And as some of your members undoubtedly realize, the population of people who we serve in the judiciary are among the most vulnerable in the state. We deal with child protection matters, children in need of services, the possibility that parents may lose their children. We deal with people who suffer from addiction problems and end up in the criminal justice system. We deal with people with mental health problems. We deal with families who are breaking up. There are civil cases such as eviction and foreclosure. There are civil cases involving important small business owners and large business owners. And the quality of the people who we have in the judiciary to address these issues are impressive. And they're in terms of the people who are not judges and people who are who are in the Brubeth plan first by what they did not expect. They have always known that they could make more money on a salary basis outside the judiciary. But because of the retirement benefits that are available to them, they've been willing to make that trade off. And they believe that, and I'm not, in this sense, I'm only talking about what I've heard from them. I'm not talking about any legal characteristics related to their relationship to their employment with the state. But they believe that the retirement benefits are part of their current, for the work that they've done and the work that they're doing now. They think of it as a deferred component of their compensation. And they're taken aback with the idea that after having already put that work in, in reliance on that and making choices and decisions that cannot be undone, that compensation may be retroactively taken away. And so I don't want to spend too much time talking more about the Brubeth employees, not because it's not important and not because we have a risk of losing our most seasoned managers, but because what you've heard from others about other employees in the state are true about them as well. We not only are in the pandemic, what we've just completed, a rollout of a technology project. We have not only the electronic case management system, but during the pandemic, we rolled out a video remote system where these require changes in the way people do their jobs, require training and the like. And our senior leaders and managers are crucial to be available to provide that support. And we have the same risk that everyone else has that those people are likely to retire. Some will retire because of fear. And the fear will be that they will lose their benefits. And others may retire from a lack of confidence that some of the statements that have been made of reassurance will actually end up applying to them. So I don't want to belabor that point now, not because it isn't as true in the judiciary or because those people don't matter as much, but because the issues have already been echoed by others. I'd like to turn to the group D pension. And I did go through and I read the Treasurer's Report very carefully. The Treasurer's Report does not mention the group D pension anywhere. There are no scenarios run on the group D pension. It's impossible to pick out of the report if group D members were even considered in there. There are 55 of them. It's a tiny portion of the workforce and yet they stand for the rule of law in Vermont. They are the trial judges and the Supreme Court justices. We've never been told that that pension plan, the group D pension plan, has been in place for 50 years. And it has worked very well in Vermont in terms of not only providing incentives for the most qualified lawyers to consider being judges in the state, but it also supports judicial independence. Judicial independence sounds like a slogan and we know in other parts of the country judicial independence, which is a premise of democracy and judicial independence essentially means that a judge feels free to decide a case based on the facts and the law and not on political pressure and not on the fear that the judge will be punished if he or she decides the case that way. And so it has been a cornerstone of our democracy both at the time the United States was created and also at the time our own state was founded. And judicial independence requires that judges not only devote their full time and attention to the work at hand, but they cannot be employed doing other things. They cannot do anything appreciably to earn money in other ways. And the pension plan is designed not only to attract judges who will be taking cuts in pay to enter government service in comparison to what they can earn as lawyers, but it's also there to provide them with a motivation to stay in the judiciary to go through the career track. The first five years that a person is a judge, they are really in a training mode. And so it is only after about five years that a judge can feel that he or she is ready to really fully serve. Then there's a we look forward to then a very productive period for judges where they work in all dockets, no matter where they came from. It's very important that we have diversity in our judiciary. And the diversity is not just a question of gender and race and ethnicity, but it's also a question of practice area, of experience, of wisdom. If we have time, I don't know if we will, I can go into much more detail about what it is that the judicial nominating board looks for to even consider an attorney to be a judge. And not only does an attorney have to have been practicing for 10 years, but they also need to be at the height of their profession. And so the average age right now of a trial judge of a superior judge coming on to the judiciary, starting their tenure in the judiciary is in their fifties. And so starting in their fifties, that means that we want to motivate them to stay in the judiciary for a period of time that allows them to contribute fully. We're fortunate in that many of our judges, probably most of them work past retirement age. Every year they work past retirement age right now, which is 62. It means that we're paying them as an employee, a full-time judge in the judiciary, and they're not moving into the retirement plan. And so we encourage them to continue to work as long as they feel healthy and willing to do so. And so you can see that judges are just starting in state employee and starting that track at a time when troopers are leaving. And so just as group C in the proposals had special exceptions, group D is a completely different animal. I learned this week in the committee because we've had a heck of a time trying to get the data to demonstrate why after no proposals were floated or issues were raised about the group D judges, that suddenly a proposal is thrown into the mix and we can find no data that does that analysis or shows any savings from this. I did understand from the testimony this week that from joint fiscal and from comments from some of your committee members that in fact changing the 50-year-old retirement plan for judges that has worked really well was not put in the proposal because it did provide savings. Rather, we understand that there was a sense that somehow maybe judges should have some kind of skin in the game. And so if we have an opportunity, I can demonstrate to you that the proposal that came forward was not only the most punitive to judges of any of the other proposals, but that it has profound consequences that I hope were unintended consequences. But if there were intended consequences, then we really need to have a discussion. So this issue of the speed with which you need to work is in complete contradiction to the needs that we would have to demonstrate why including the judge D proposal in your overall pension proposal is inconsistent with the period of time with which you need to work. And so I'd like to pause maybe there before I go on because I have a lot of detail and statistics about that. But I don't want to get into it and stop halfway. And perhaps your members might have questions about this before I go further. Committee, any questions? Bob Hooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Pat. I suppose I don't get smacked for asking a question that I know the answer to, but I'm not really sure if Pat knows the answer to it. No, I really don't. Pat, your department pays 14.7% as a percentage of payroll for each judge. And the judge pays 5.65. That adds up to something. Do you know what the actual plan costs as a percentage of payroll? So we don't manage the retirement plan. And that's the reason why I spoke so. Yeah, but it's just kind of a yes or no. Do you know what the plan actually costs? So we would know what comes out of payroll, right, for judges. And the process that led up to this proposal does not include any data like that. And so the process that you have been going through, and I don't mean you in the committee, but I mean the people in general involved in developing proposals and scenarios never contacted the judiciary. And we have information, which I'm sure if we had been contacted would have resulted if not in not going down that road, not making the proposals that were on the table. Unlike in the executive branch where there's a department of human resources and a department of finance and management and an entire treasurer's office, we have one manager of human resources, one budget manager, and we don't have the treasurer's office. We have one manager of finance. And so we do engage at sophisticated levels on projects, but they need to be, we need to be engaged in them. They just can't be thrown at us like that.  And that information hasn't been provided to us, but we're happy to engage and then we will. Thank you. Go ahead, Peter Anthony. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Could you tell me what's the general consensus as to why members do not apply to be on the bench until age 50? I assume that's sort of self-selection because there's no minimum age, as I understand it, to qualify. Thank you. Sorry, a mute button. I do understand why and I can give you more information about that. So the process of choosing judges goes through a judicial nominating board. The judicial nominating board is independent and it's composed of appointees from the Bar Association, the legislature, and the executive branch. The judiciary has no representation on the judicial nominating board. There is, in statute, the qualifications to be a judge. And so the minimum qualification is 10 years that you have to have practiced 10 years and you have to have practiced five years most recently in Vermont. The judicial nominating board is actually the one who ends up selecting the nominees that end up going to the governor for appointment. And they are looking for the lawyers who are at the height of their profession, the lawyers who are most recognized for excellence, the lawyers who show not just technical excellence, but a commitment to their community, to the rule of law, and to justice, the ability to write, the fact that they've been successful and received references from people that they would be the kind of people who would be successful as judges in the cases we've discussed. They are the ones producing people starting in the judiciary in their 50s because the lawyers at the height of their profession have been practicing 20-something years. And as I said, I do have statistics on our judges, which we've put together just in the two days since we saw there was a group proposal that shows the many years in law practice that they spend before they are appointed to the bench. And this is to the benefit of the court system and to Vermonters. We want the wisest and best judges to hear these cases. And unlike some of the characterizations I've heard, being a judge is not a second career. Being a judge is the continuation of a lifelong career in the law. And so for those people who do eventually make the choice to become judges, they have, this is especially true for trial lawyers because you do need to have courtroom experience as part of the many qualifications that are set forth in the statute to be a judge. And so you're, because you're drawing at this level of people in, and remember, that's an average number. So it means you're going to get some people who are younger and some people who are older. But in general, you're bringing in lawyers not only at the height of their career in terms of professional accomplishment, but the height of their career in terms of compensation. And most people who work in the judiciary, as I mentioned earlier, take the cut in salary in exchange for the benefits for lawyers at the height of their career becoming judges. Many of them have to make the decision to, when providing the service, to take a substantial cut in pay. And the judge pension that we've had for 50 years has been there as a motivator, because it provides a level of certainty and security that if they give up law practice, they will be able to continue to take care of their families and provide for their retirement and not be looking, having to look at, okay, what am I going to do when I stop becoming a judge? Am I going to go back into law practice? That we'd much rather have them retire and then serve as retired judges when we need them because it supports judicial independence. We, once people commit to a life as a judge, it's a bit of a lonely life. They're cut off from a lot of associations that they used to have because of the judicial conduct rules. And the judicial conduct rules really restrict their ability to associate with groups and even with, you know, their fellow lawyers and friends in ways that could be perceived as creating bias. And so it's, you know, in some ways it would be an exaggeration, but it's similar to committing to, you know, go into the seminary. You make a commitment to a certain kind of life that is more restricted than it would be before that. Judges are mission-driven, as are most people in the judiciary. And so I don't want to leave the impression that, oh, a judge is looking for how am I going to get the best pension possible? Oh, I mean, a lawyer does, oh, the judiciary, let's go there. But what they are looking for is if they're going to make a commitment to a life in public service, then what will that mean for them and their families? And is that really, you know, it's a long-term commitment? What will it mean? And so the, as I said, for 50 years, the pension plan has worked very well, and no one's identified any issue with it. Judges have to serve for at least 12 years to even get any real benefit from the special aspects of the group D plan. And so some of the things that have been put on the table regarding changes in the judge plan are so much, such bigger changes that are being proposed for the other plan that the incentives and the impacts, particularly on the women who have only recently become more populist in the judiciary, you may be aware that there was a period of time when there was a real concern expressed about the lack of gender diversity in candidates who were being appointed as judges. And so there was a period of time when notwithstanding the percentage of women who are lawyers practicing in Vermont during those periods and even well before that very few women were being appointed proportionally. That resulted in an informal meeting among leaders of the three branches of government to try and examine why this was happening. What was happening in the judicial nominating process that was producing a lack of diversity? And why was it that after years of women applying, they gave up applying? And was there a perception that women were not going to be permitted to serve? As a result of that, a lot of changes have taken place. And the current judicial nominating board has made great strides in reaching out to get better diversity in the bench. And the better diversity, of course, it is gender, but it's also diversity in terms of the kind of lawyers who are considered leaders and at the height of their profession who are promoted to the bench. In the state court system, the kind of work that judges do, as I described earlier, is very much dealing with the vulnerable in society. A tremendous amount of work regarding family law, regarding mental health, regarding addiction, regarding families who are challenged, regarding people facing eviction and foreclosure. And yet lawyers who were practicing in those areas were not coming through in the nominating process. Most recently, finally, they are. And we're starting to see an uptick in the number of lawyers who apply who might not have thought that they would be recognized before. The irony in the statistics that I have show that the most negative impact of the proposal would be on the women judges who serve in the judiciary. And that the majority of the people impacted in extremely odd and unusual ways are women. That your age is more important in the proposal you made than how many years you have on the bench. And so people who are appointed at the same time with the same number of experience on the bench would have dramatically different outcomes in the pension plan. We have judges now who served earlier in state government. And so they had one of the other plans. Perhaps they were a group F beneficiary. They were required at the time they became a judge and joined the group D plan. They were required to take their own contributions that they had made to the other plan to buy into the group D plan. And they were given calculations that showed what that would mean. In other words, what they return on that investment would mean. And those people are now being told, no, what we told you before, that had you made this change in your career, that's not going to happen. It's going to be something completely different. As I said, my hope and expectation is that those were completely unintended consequences of your proposal. And again, we've only had two days even to try and figure out who's impacted by this and what it would mean. And I haven't even had an opportunity to talk about what will that mean for the future of our ability to continue to recruit the best lawyers to be judges. And so normally, if we had had a process that was similar to the process that's been applied to these other groups, all of these things would have come out. We would have learned are there savings by making changes to group D that would still make sense from a pension design point of view? Are there savings that wouldn't have people leaving? And instead of becoming retired judges and coming back, going back into law practice or taking other kinds of jobs because of the dramatic changes in the proposals. And that really gets me to my fourth point, which is the judiciary realizes that because this work wasn't done, that we need to do it. And so we will be seeking and engaging to get a pension design expert of our own and we will do the work if we need to, if you're going to go down this road. But as your own committee members have talked about, that kind of work is not quick and it's not easy and it requires resources and time. And the judges who serve the state of Vermont deserve the same careful attention to these very dramatic issues as everyone else who's the subject of some of these proposals. And so we look forward to working collaboratively with the legislature, with the executive branch, with everyone who has a stake in what kind of judiciary we have. Can we maintain an independent judiciary? What think of the court cases that have been decided in Vermont over the last couple of decades? Cases out of Vermont have changed the law around the country. And that's because Vermont has been able to attract fine lawyers who became fine judges. And because of judicial independence, we're able to make courageous decisions based on the facts and on the law. And they never had to look behind them to wonder, can I continue to make these kind of decisions because I've risked political disfavor or an important constituency in the state didn't like the way it came out. So as I said, I have much more detail and statistics that we can talk about with the judge pension. But I appreciate, as I said the other day, that you're the first player in this game that asked us a question, invited us to participate. And we're eager to work with you to help achieve a good outcome. And in particular, recognizing the terrible financial situation that's facing the state. Thank you so much, Pat. Questions from committee members? All right. Well, thank you so much. And for scheduling purposes, would you like us to schedule you in on Tuesday to continue with what you prepared for today that you weren't able to get to? Or would you like to check back with us later in the week with, you know, after we've had a few more conversations, I don't want to cut you short, but I did promise committee members they could stretch their legs a bit before our public hearing at four o'clock. Well, I would appreciate the opportunity to be scheduled. And hopefully it wouldn't take up much of your committee time, but then it would give you an opportunity to understand some of the real potential outcomes of your proposed plan. Okay, we will work to get you on the schedule for next week. And committee, thank you for working into your three o'clock break hour. And I trust committee that you all have the login information for the public hearing for folks who are following along. The public hearing is in Zoom webinar format, so we will be logging on as panelists and people who are coming to testify will come into the meeting as participants or attendees. And they'll be able to see and hear what we're saying, but they won't be able to speak until we bring them up to the panel, as if we were bringing them up to the table in our actual committee room. The other thing that committee members should know is that IT would like us all to log on sometime between 3.30 and 3.45. But when you come on, please come on with your camera off and you're self-muted because there will already be attendees in the waiting room at that point. And so we won't be doing any chit-chatting about what everybody had for lunch today or whether they got exercise or how much rain they've gotten so far this afternoon. So questions, Peter Anthony? It's not a question, Madam Chair. I look forward to the hearing tonight. I didn't want to interrupt our guests to follow my good friend, Bob Hooper, saying, you know, I want to take ownership of some of the suggestions that are out there.  I coached you. So I want to take ownership of that. It's also clear to me, although I very clumsily framed this at the time when Jeff Bannon was there, I really think we have to separate issues for which the investigatory time simply doesn't allow us to do what we need to do in the window that the speaker has talked about and try to address issues where we do think we understand enough to be able to plant the flag. And I'm trying to get at that, which I've been not sure I succeeded. And I'm sorry if I offended any of you that I was part of the conspirators on the amendment this morning from the member from Burlington, but I fell on that sword purposely. I'll take ownership of that. If Steve were still listening, I'd say I did that as a matter of principle. I know perfectly well we can't pass a revenue aspect of a bill and pass a veto. So that's kind of off the radar screen, but I thought as a matter of principle it was worth saying. So I take ownership of that too and thank you very much for your indulgence. Committee, this is a process where we all have to come to the table with our own thoughts, our own values, the responses that we get from our own constituents. And I recognize that we may not all come to the same conclusions in the end, but we will do so respectfully. And so thank you, Peter, for bringing that up. And we'll continue this work. Bob Hooper and then Mark, and then I promised you guys a break. Nobody wants to go on break when they can listen to me, Madam Chair. I, you know, once again, will reflect my endorsement of Peter's comments. As I said, a very diverse day, this is very near to my heart and I do not control it well that having been said, what time are we supposed to log on? Between 3.45. Okay, I didn't hear you, Madam Chair, because the big mouth up in the corner was talking. Between 3.30 and 3.45 with camera off and muted. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Mark.