I guess before everyone sees it, Madam Chair, do you want me to just. There's a lot of color coding in here. Yeah. Different proposals and I am not sure what was. What the committee, if the committee has made any decisions yet. So for the purposes of right now, should I just do the new language that's in green that you were referencing that was that was just decided. Yeah, that was just to come up with sorry. I think that that would make the most sense so that we can start with the newest, because we've already walked through the other language we haven't made decisions about many of them but we have had. You have given them to us and but so if you can do the minus and color coded here but I think it's green. Interesting on the iPad, the color doesn't come through. I opened it on the app. It's I have to open it on a laptop for it to come for the color. Well, she will also tell us which section the changes are in. No, it's interesting which technology goes what. All right, does everybody have this now and is it posted. Okay, great. So Becky, if you want to walk us through the. For the new changes. Yeah, the changes were all in section 10, which I think this is just an issue with my. Our system here but for some reason the page numbers are now gone from again from this document even though I had added them back into another version. So the changes are in the pension task force section of the bill, which it looks like it's starting on page 18. If you're able to scroll through on the and iPad to that. It's section 10 section 10. Yeah, just go to 10 that. Then you can figure it out. Yeah, so the changes are section 10 subsection C. So this is the powers and the duties of the task force. I tried to highlight in green, all of the, the new language, although if you're not seeing the highlighting there's some things and other colors. It might be confusing, but the, the first change is in subdivision a one a. So this previously referred to changing the ADAC and the actuarial accrued liabilities for each system based on the difference between fiscal year 21 and 22. That in the most recent actuarial report. So this is, and setting a pension stabilization target number based on that. So this is being a little more prescription prescriptive with actual numbers so putting those the number the target numbers in there. This has the task force recommending options to lower the ADAC and the unfunded actuarial crewed liability based on actuarial value of assets by 2550 75 and 100% of the size of the increases from fiscal year 21 to 22 as reported in the actuarial valuation review. In 2020. So I've laid out here what those numbers actually were for the teachers and the employees systems, a state employee system so it gives actual numbers for what those 2550 75 and 100% on values are so you'll see for the teachers for the ADAC it's 32.1 million 48.1 million and then 64.1 and for the unfunded accrued liabilities it's 94.7 189.4 284.1 million and then 378.8 million. And then the state employees system. Also presented here it's for ADAC 9 million 18.1 million 27.1 million and 36.1 million and then the unfunded accrued liabilities is 56.3 million 112.5 million 168.8 million and then 225 million. The next new language isn't I also just for context here I also switched around the order to try to make it flow a little better, because a number of duties were added, and I, they didn't seem to be, you know, chronological in order. So some of the, some of the stuff that is necessarily new just in a different order in this list, but subdivision B is new, and that is recommending options to increase the funded ratios by 15% for the teacher system and 10% for the employee system by fiscal year 27. C is not new so this is having the task force do a five year review of benefit expenditure levels, as well as employer employee contribution levels and growth rates on a three five and 10 year projection of these levels and rates. And the E are both new. So D is identifying potential options for limiting the growth in the ADAC to know more than inflation, and then assessing the impacts associated with any modifications the current amortization schedule. F is this was in the language before but some language changes were made here so F is looking at based on the benefit and funding benchmarks. A proposed benefit structure that would look at a shared risk model for employer and employee contributions and cost of living adjustments and what was added here is having a focus on reducing any future increases to the actuarial determined employer contributions. An extra and tier that needs to be removed. Then it's looking at an estimate of the cost of current and any proposed benefit structures on a budgetary pays you go in full actuarial accrual basis. The state's pension contributions as a percentage of direct general spending and comparison of other state pension contributions. And then this last one is new language which is how proposed benefit changes for new members may reduce the impact of future actuarial assumption losses. Sorry, I see there's mistakes which is what happens when I try to do things fast but there's two G's, G and the second G which is really an H. Those are not new so I can skip over those and then what is labeled as H which I guess should be I is So a plan for pre funding OPEB looking at how federal funds can be used that was there but what's been added here is that it also looking at identifying long long term impacts of pay as you go funding for OPEB. And then there were no other changes to the task force duties, but I can also go over any of the other language, if that would be helpful. So, are there questions about these. We have both Chris and Tom who had some input into this here with us to answer any questions. Yes, Senator columnar. Thank you Madam chair. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two Romanettes that were in the house version and what appears now. I mean, in a real simplified easy to understand fashion. That's possible. I mean with subdivision a in F or an a. I gotta go back to the document now. I think a had the two, the two Romanettes. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't really know that was a word but it isn't we learned it from Tucker. Roman numerals and there, then there are Romanettes. Okay. Okay, there you go. So a have the two Romanettes. And actually F does too. Well F has, I think in the in the house past version there were, there were three, if I'm not, I might be mistaken on that and now there are four but I can double check that. In the last version that we had from April 23. They were on page 19, the two Romanettes. Yeah, so I think it was setting the pension stabilization target number. Yes. I might defer to Chris to explain that because that seems more numbers focused. Chris, would you like to. I'm going to go ahead and share for the record Chris group joint fiscal office. Senator column or that's a great question. The, the overall theme, I think is consistent with respect to focusing on options and recommendations that could focus on sort of chipping away at the year over from FY 21 to FY 22. I think the distinction with this language is it specifies it and sort of clarifies that that the task force is not charged with sort of an all or nothing approach that that they should prepare a set of options and options to say to the legislature. Here's what it would look like or here's what it would take to to chip away at 25% of that size of the growth 50% 75 or the full thing and just translated those percentages into rounded off dollar figures to try to make it a little bit clearer with a little less actuarial jargon. So what it is this language translates to into dollars. Okay, thank you. Yeah. It's helpful. Can we, okay, but can we, I'm going to stay there for a second. I'm just trying to read a so it says, sorry my dog also doesn't like to rain or something. So, lower the actuarially determined employer contributions based on actual value of assets by 2550 70% and 100% of the size of the increases. It's a lot of language. So if I understand correctly, what it's saying is show a scenarios for either a zero increase, a 25% increase of 50% or a 100% increase. There's, there's no, there's nothing for the zero increase but okay for the. Yes, so the other part is correct so for 2550 75 100% and then the Romanettes provide the detail on what those actual numbers are rather than just giving the percentage for for both systems it's saying for a deck. You know 25% was 16 million. Okay, so it says, I just want to try to read one of them, lower the determined employer contribution by 100% of the size of the increase. That means a zero increase doesn't it. No, or it by 100% of the increase. Zero increase would be status quo situation. You lower it by 100% of the increase, you're lowering the size of the lowering it by 100% of the size of the increase so the increase in in the teacher retirement system was to the ADAC was $64.1 million that would be 100% of the increase. So if you're preparing an option that would get at 25% of the size. What about 100% lower it by 100% then that would be $64.1 million. That's what I'm saying right so you're worried by that you would lower it by the 64 million, but it but I think to your point is that I think by the time this would be lowered it is going to have increased more so you're not going to be back to where you were, even if you lower it by 64.1 million, you're not going to be at the number from fiscal year 21. If that helps. Kind of. It seems exceptionally convoluted to me, like, I think we want to help people understand what we're doing. And I don't know where it's at odds with just speak in plain English to do that rather than what's happening here. This is very strange. I think the attempt was putting the numbers in which was trying to make clear exactly what, what amounts yours, they were. The task force is going to recommend lowering it by. But the intro to this is explaining the framework for it so we're like that those numbers represent 2550 75 and 100% that they're not just arbitrary numbers being in the put in the bill. I think. Tom, I'm sorry. I think. Yes, I saw that. Thank you. Oh, sorry. To me, it looks like, and this is what I understood that we were trying to accomplish is to link it to the current amortization schedule so we already have a plan to fully fund the unfunded liability. If all of our current estimates hold true to 2038. This was a way it's, it would by throwing out the numbers is basically telling the committee well this is what we currently have in terms of the asset, the amortization schedule listed both for teachers and for employees. And so it was trying to get in a way to link to the current existing so they don't come back and say okay the easiest way to do this is to just re amortize or the easiest way to do this is is. I'll have to look at multiple options and I'll have to look at multiple issues going on with each year's amortization in order to come up with it. There are a lot of numbers here. It's, there is already a plan in place the question is is that reasonable and how else would you do it to reach these objectives I guess that's probably easiest way to put it. Madam chair, are you taking comments at this point of questions. Both I guess if that does it do any committee members have any more questions or clarifications or does it make sense. Okay, I guess like it has to be a simpler way to say this and if there's not then I feel like I feel like I'm being asked to do something I don't understand and I wouldn't want other people to feel like they don't understand there has to be a simpler way to say this. This is the attempt I think to say it in a simpler way. I mean if you compare it to what was before this is actually, I think illustrates the money that we're talking about. So, the way I understand this is that the task force would be looking at options to lower the a deck it's called by 25% and the unfunded liability by the increase lower the delta that's different right lower the increase by 25% not lower it by 25%. No it's it's setting up scenarios of how do you lower it by these different percentage numbers, like what would it how would you achieve lowering it by 16 million how would you achieve lowering it by 32.1 million. But over what lowering it over what the change from the previous year that that amount represents that change that is the change. Right but that's different than saying you would lower it by the amount of saying you would lower it by the percentage of the increase of the previous year. Not just lower it. Chris or Tom can you help us out here. Madam chair I think I think what they're saying is the these are these are the sizes of the increases. So like, you would be, you know the size of the increase. I'm just looking at line five there for simplicity on the teacher system or system to 4.1 million. That would be 100% of the size of the increase. So, this is back if I could try to get to a point that Rebecca made as well. So, right now, this is the, the valuation 632,020, and the change was 604 million and 96 million. On the teacher side it's roughly 370 not not excuse me 379 million and 64.1 so 64.1 for the ADEC 379 million for the, for the change between the 2000 and 19 value which impacted the 2021 budget and the 2020 value that impacted the 2000 it will impact the 2022 although you fully appropriated the money in the current budget. And that's the intent of this language I think getting to Rebecca's point. If the committee's working to December, and a new val comes out, you will have a moving target so you needed to find the period of time, because you could have a gain or a loss. And we don't know what that's going to look like right now our investments are doing very very well. We still have April May, excuse me May and June to go. But, you know, we've set the time frame of, you know, set it from the 604 million and the 96 I think it would be helpful. And again I'm going to have to go back up this is the first time I've had a chance to look at it. And I think you would want to do in here is say that the current between 2000 and 21, the valuation that affects 2021 and the value valuation that affects 2022. And the in the unfunded liability if you want to split them up are you know 379 million for the for the teachers and in 225 million because that's the target on which the percentages are based now I'm going to be very candid. When you get to the comment period I'm still answering a question I have some concerns about those percentages, but I would define the base is you know 379 and 64 and 225 and I can do the math here quickly but I won't for the teacher system it's right there at 100% define the difference that you're looking for getting to Senator arms question define the base on what you are making percentage changes, and I think that right up front you need to say that the difference between the two was 604 and 96 million and break it out. And then you're looking at 25% of that 50% 75 and 100. And again I have a comment on that but I think that's the answer to the question. I guess I'm deferred to send it around if she if you think that works. I need I need some time with this and I haven't felt more comfortable that I understand why, why we need to do this, but why we need to what the discomfort was with. I understand we need to be somewhere between more sustainable and specific. This feels exceptionally specific. And just, you know, really hard to to ask a group to do in a short period of time. These are, this is like reapportionment but but like a lot more I mean they have to toggle to a lot of really specific ranges, it looks like that. Maybe we could say a scenario over here in a scenario over there and that gives us some sense of what's in between but to say 2550 75 100. I think, I think then they need, you know, two years to do this and a lot more than $200,000 of financial support to do this this is a huge task. I would agree with you on the percentages and again, Madam Chair, if you want me to comment I think it would be helpful because. Yes, sure. So, you know, in previous testimony, both Chris and myself said you need to have a goal in what we were talking about with the 604 in the 96, and you can disaggregated. You need to have a goal, because if you don't, then the committee is kind of in a position where they don't know where to settle. And if you do 25% then you have to say what's the amortization schedule look like, and how far do you have to push it out. And then you have to do another one for the 50% and the 75%. And I think that would be more helpful is if you said something to the effect of approaching the 604 million again disaggregated and the 96 million and what you know we came to 474 and we came to 80 some odd million dollars 85 million is coming to mind I don't have the sheet in front of me of the of the a deck. I didn't get any further than that. Now you folks came out with a higher number based on a scenario that was very different I think yours is north of 500 Chris. But I guess the issue is, I would say approaching that number and then the committee can say, well we couldn't get there, or this is a reasonable level of benefits, and then, but to do an artificial 2550 75 and 100 I think it creates more cumbersome, it's more cumbersome, and it creates more effort at each one of those scenarios. And I would argue that if you just do 25, your amortization table is going to go out. And it's going to cost the taxpayer more money. And I think we need to say approach that. And without putting words in Chris's mouth, we talked about having goals and trying to, and the goal that, you know that the board of trustees had was to get a number to the previous levels and again I think that if you said approaching within reasonable levels of benefit changes or something along that line give yourself a hedge, but make every effort to try to get to the best term possible within benefits within revenues and within to get to that but again I think that this is very very cumbersome creates more work. And I don't think to be very candid 25% would get you there. Now if you need to have some combination of revenue and benefits, this still leaves you the opening, and again saying approaching within reasonable benefit changes or something or with a combination of benefits and revenues, or just leave approaching this this artificial construct will create more work in the utility of the pieces at the at the lower end of the spectrum won't get you to what you need to be. Okay, I, I, I understood that the way the reason one of the reasons we put these in here is because it, it allowed for kind of steps. If we come up with a solution for the 25% in year one or two and then 50% and this so that it wasn't you weren't saying right off hand right off the bat that you have to do this all right now. That was nothing that that was my understanding that with that was one of the reasons for looking at something like this so that you might you might have a different approach. You might have phased in approaches for the different, but if that doesn't make any sense that's. I mean Madam Chair have short term short term goals and work your way towards the long term. Yeah, solution. And then Madam Chair there's an inconsistency in here if you would have just do 25% of the unfunded liability, the fiscal year 23 a deck will go up significantly more than the 96.6 million we're having because by statute you have to solve the problem by 2038 If you do less change now, it's going to cost you more in the future, and it's also going to cost interest. The other option is to push out the the amortization period and doing that will cost the taxpayer even more interest. It's not a good solution, it would be badly received by the investment community, but if you have a 25% unfunded liability reduction, you still have more liability over time to that you have to solve in terms of repayment of the mortgage. So if you lower the amount of money you're paying up the front at the front end, and you haven't changed the mortgage, you have to pay more at the other end, and that becomes more expensive as I said for the taxpayer. Okay, I guess that was an exercise in futility. Madam chair if I may. Yes, I think what just maybe to put a fine point on what the treasure just said I think her points, an important one is, you know, I think the language she's proposing, you know, that perhaps you move away from the 2550 75 scenario would would in fact more closely resemble the prior language, only without the dollar signs. So that would really you know if if the committee, I think the committee has latitude and slicing and dicing this how they feel is appropriate but I just wanted to clarify for anybody that's watching that that would be that would be moving a little bit more to the prior version is just that the prior version didn't translate those percentages into dollars so if that's where the committee wants to go. But the dollars would would would basically just be what's in here at the high end. And those would be would be transposed over to the point of text. Right. Yeah. So, I didn't I that's not what I heard from the pressure I could be wrong. I heard her saying that, even if you just did 25%. You would get a reasonable cost benefit analysis and I think you know, I don't think she said just take out the dollar figures which are illustrative of the percentage amounts, right doing 2550 75 100. Those are all for very different exercises that are each time consuming and involve a lot of different scenarios. And so picking one and noting the costs and benefits because I think sustainable is a very subjective term but you know, to say sustainable, you could be sustainable from an employment and recruitment perspective or sustainable from a financial perspective but to say what are the costs and benefits of taking one of those percentages and demonstrating what the, the amount, you know, decrease over the delta would look like, and what the cost and benefits of the ideas to get there are. That's what I heard but but Madam Treasurer is correct me if I'm wrong. So I think that we're pretty much on the same page senator I think the one correction I would make or difference is that if you do only 25% of the unfunded liability, you're still facing those higher costs not as high as the amortization the 604 and the 96 million, which by the way, again our calculations are by 2037. That would be a half billion dollars of a deck. At the risk of, you know, it would increase the amount of impact it would have on your operating funds because the growth in terms of the budget not so much that the present value of the dollars, but in terms of its share. So going with a lower number increases the amount of a deck you'd have to have go, you know, and be simply because you have to pay the mortgage, your point is well taken about doing these at different levels because it's extraordinarily complex.  So you'd have to do to then you have so you'd be doing 12348 different versions of this to get to that. And then you have the question of do you do it to 2038, or do you do it further out too long to kind of smooth out the amortization. So now you've got potentially as many as 16 different scenarios. You know, with this, I think that having language and this is something that I think, and again Chris I'm not trying to put, you know, words in your mouth, but I think we both said that something saying that you approach it or something with a goal is very important to get to, you know, and again the definition of sustainable will differ from person to person, but approaching the, the reduction of the 604 and the 96. And I think approaching helps because it leaves you some room and a combination of benefit and revenues so that you recognize the impact that revenues might have in terms of this. I believe that you need to make structural changes as well, and that you can't just rely on revenue, but I think that that kind of language gets you someplace. Because again, I'm looking at this and saying that you can't do 25% of the of the unfunded liability and then reduce the a deck by 25% it just, it just won't work. If you feel differently about that. Thank you. I'm sorry but I was scheduled to for today and I can stay a couple minutes more but I didn't know if you wanted me to go over the other new language quickly before. Yeah, why don't you do that. And then we can continue this conversation. Chris and Tom are you able to stay a bit. Okay, I'm good to the other, the other new language is in the next section it's section 11. So this is on page 23. It's creating a joint legislative pension oversight committee. So moving on to the next page the, and this is in statute. So this committee is created for the purposes of exercising oversight over the state employees and teachers system and working with them providing assistance to other legislative committees that work on state retirement systems and I put in OPEB as an open question there. The leadership of the committee would be appointed each biennium. And it would be three members of the house appointed by the speaker, and they would not be from the same party and then three members of the Senate, not from the same party could be appointed by the committee on committees. So the duties of the, the committee would be to evaluate and make recommendations on issues of public policy relating to the provision of retirement benefits to the state's public sector workforce. I don't get any changes to statutory provisions regarding the provision design and administration of both retirement benefits and retirement systems, and then finally looking at the appropriate annual appropriation to fund the state's retirement obligations. And that would be in accordance with actual recommendations statutory amortization schedules and funding policies. The committee would be electing a chair, a vice chair and a clerk from among its members and be able to adopt their own rules of procedure. And each biennium the chair would rotate between house and Senate members. In meetings, they could meet at the call of the chair during session, and then I've left blank how many times during the off session that the committee would be able to meet. But there's also ability to meet with the approval of the speaker and the president and the, the pro tem. A quorum of the committee would be four members. We have assistance from ledge council legislative operations and JFO. And then the members would also be eligible for compensation and reimbursement when the committee when the general assembly is not in session. So are there any questions about for Becky about this section. I'm just a little hard time finding it. My apologies, is that in yellow. It's green and it's, it's past the task force. It's way it's the very last. It's, it's way near the end. It's on page 24. Okay, we don't have pages on this unfortunately my apologies for interrupting. I'm hoping to get all colors of the rainbow by the time we're done. I wouldn't be able to read it. Mine are all gray anyway it doesn't make any difference. I just have to go to the end of the, of the bill. So are there any technical questions. Questions for Becky about this before she has. Yeah, Senator calmer. I don't I don't think it's a technical question for Becky I just wondered how this interplays with deep. I'm not sure how this works. So this, so VPIC is, is more is making the investment decisions for the retirement systems. This, this committee is more of a legislative oversight committee. So they're not. They're looking at when the legislature. Is presented with policy decisions surrounding the retirement systems. They would consider those they would consider any statutory changes. They would look at, you know, making recommendations for how much should be appropriated to fund the retirement systems. So they don't have the sort of investment responsibilities or oversight of the investment that of VPIC it's more just the oversight over the legislative role with respect to the retirement systems. And I think, I think that we saw this as being just having a retirement committee that kind of kept an eye on things as as it went along from year to year and they last with all oversight committees they don't really have any power. They just make they have to make recommendations to the standing committees. And I think it would be similar to the joint legislative, the Justice Oversight Committee. I never know the exact title, but they have a similar function with respect to judicial matters under the jurisdiction of the legislature. And this, this really goes to I think the treasurer's point earlier, which is we really need to own this more respond more fully the legislature has to make the calls on this we need to this is goes to sort of ownership and oversight and and really if we have a group charged with it. I think they will attend to it more fully. But I can, this is maybe this is not to Becky so I can wait if it's just questions for Becky right now. It looks like there aren't any right now. Okay. I worry about the message that this sense because to me it sends a message that we're going to keep messing with people's pensions. And I'd much rather see us put language in to the course or somewhere in this whole bill that says after this one someone signs a contract with the state at a certain pension level, it does not change. And what I worry about is having this oversight group that's constantly looks like it might be setting policy and messing with things just adds more anxiety to the lives of the employees who's whose pensions are being and we just talked about having financial decisions. So I just, I don't know what value a group of legislators would be adding to that so that's just my feeling about this. Well I think that one of the things that we talked about was that the legislature just kind of kept shoving things down the road for a long time I mean we didn't take that responsibility and that ownership. And this, this isn't looking at the benefits. This is looking at the, the kind of where are we, are we falling behind, are we keeping up with it where we're supposed to be. I, this committee this oversight committee can't change any benefits. Okay it says changes to statutory provisions regarding the provision design and administration of retirement benefits and retirement systems. But not the benefits themselves the administration of the benefits I, I mean we can change that language but I think that I think that we personally I think we really need some kind of an oversight committee that from the legislature that can, can be responsible for making sure that we're moving in the right direction. One of our biggest obligations as, as a legislator one of our biggest responsibilities and we have no legislative oversight we have legislative oversight joint oversight committees on a lot of other things that have less financial impact on the state than this. I don't know why we said someone couldn't be a legislator and serve on VPIC but now we have six legislators over here that we're adding to a new layer of oversight. I don't really understand the point. Well VPIC is an investment committee. I don't. This is not an investment committee this is a making recommendations to the standing committees in the lectures like your work, you know probably. I guess you said what it's not about, but I don't know what it would be about them because this says all about the design benefit administration. I think it's helpful I mean there are, you know this is the benefit issues is what the legislature is dealing with right now but I mean there are pension related bills that come up every session so I mean there are other a number of other statutory changes that do happen each year. So that could be an example of something else that they would consider. I know that the treasure can can probably speak to this more but there's been sort of studies that the treasure has been tasked to do over the last number of years with respect to certain membership groups. There's, there have been a lot of miscellaneous sort of amendments to the retirement system statutory language so I think that this is more just looking at. The difference to statutory provisions would would also include I think some of those examples of other kinds of changes that the legislature considers each year. I feel like that's what this committee is for but I'm new and then in addition to that I think the only thing that would give me any comfort enough to support that is that at some point in the bill we're saying, we're going to make changes next time we're not what that is, we are looking at ways to make that binding and to not continue to change people's pensions after they sign a contract with the state. I, I would love to be able to say that, but I don't think I could ever commit to that changes are made all the time to everything. I mean, I thought I signed a contract with for my social security and they're changing my benefits all the time for Medicare, and they're all my social security check keeps going down because they keep giving me a 2% increase and then increasing my Medicare payments by 6%. So, so I think that if we, if we put that in here that nothing would ever change, then, then what we're doing is saying that any, any increased liabilities always fall on this on the legislature on the state budget. It should be fair you may feel that way about your social security but the federal government when they take on new employees sign a contract that does not change their retirement benefits. It never, it never changes. I can't believe that they're changing that that both benefits don't change. I can double check but a lot of constituents email and said, you know, I wish you were like the federal government when my spouse signed a contract with the federal government. That is a binding contract they do not you cannot change their benefits after you cannot change the retirement benefits after that. Does anybody know if that's true. I'm surprised, but I guess if it's a weekend. I mean, without any detail and sorry I do have to go in a minute. Without any detail or context for that question, I think that this goes back to a question of whether they're, you know, I think it's a constitutional question of whether there is a violation of a contract of the contracts clause. And so the under the US Constitution and so I think that there's a little more to the analysis than just it's never possible to change but again, I can't speak to anyone specific search situations or contracts, but I think there are scenarios where benefits do change based on what is being changed and the specific contract in place. Before we release may I ask a question about that. Sure. My understanding and again, recognizing that I'm a person in the finance world and not legal. But what I'm seeing is that that while there's a contract clause in the federal government. There's also a understanding I hate the word that they use, but the that in no way does that change the policing, which means oversight of benefits, whether or whether it's other state services and essentially that it doesn't take away the power of the states under certain circumstances and I and I believe I've seen different opinions on this particular issue. But that that essentially you can't aggregate the states respond the ability to to to make its own decisions around this within certain parameters in terms of you know whether there's a financial need to do it. An equity issue and the like so I'm going to defer to to to Becky I've seen some decisions on that night and I again, I don't have a law degree I'm not going to pretend that I know that. But I'm looking for some help in understanding that. Yeah, so I think, you know, it's, it's, this is something it's hard to generalize because it's really specific to what, what the source of the legal contract is and what, what is actually being changed but in general I guess what the Treasurer was just speaking to is that sort of one prong of the test for under the contracts clauses, whether there is, you know, sort of a reasonable and necessary reason, reason for this change. And that is, you know, some examples of that are like if the state is under such severe fiscal distress, and there have been examples where the courts have found that. The fiscal situation is so bad in a state that it has warranted, and even if, even if you are impairing someone's contract it has warranted being able to do that. But again, it's really hard to generalize because I think it's a very fact specific analysis. So I would like to, I think there are two questions here one is the question. First about the oversight committee, and I, I hear Senator Ron that you do not think we need an oversight committee that just the goal was that somebody in the legislature is always kind of being cognizant of what is happening with our retirement systems, and we couldn't say that's this committee, but this committee has a bazillion things that were responsible for and we can't be the oversight committee for elections and for and judiciary committee is not the oversight committee for the judicial judicial oversight. It's a separate committee that is made up of both House and Senate members. And so, I hear you saying we don't need this. I would like to hear from Senator Polina and Senator column or about this oversight committee. Senator column or I would support it. I think if we had it 10 years ago we'd be in a different situation today. I think that we need someone who keeps a closer eye on what's going on with pension situation. I mean how we ever fell this far behind without legislators being fully informed. I don't know whether it's fair way to put it but not reacting enough anyway. So I think that there needs to be some oversight that's clearly from the legislature. I mean we're stuck holding the bag so to speak. So I think that there needs to be some appropriations. Senator Clarkson. Yeah, I think it really goes to Beth's comment, which I had appreciated, which is, you know, we need to own, own this issue more fully and give it more weight than we do. And having a legislative oversight committee does exactly that. I mean it puts it puts a constant on one of our greatest responsibilities, and we should pay more attention to it. So I see Steve has his hand up and then Tom. I'll put my hand up to. Okay. Oh yeah, Tom has his to. Yes. Thank you, chair. Just having reviewed this just now I have some concerns about it. And I hear what members of the committee are saying about the legislature's role and responsibility. My concern is that the full legislature has that responsibility. I'm worried about because this is a politically volatile issue as you can see and it's something that people care deeply about is that the legislature will frequently with oversight committees defer those decisions to the to a much smaller group of legislators who serve on the oversight committee in the off session. And it makes it harder for Vermonters to effectively advocate and essentially influence their legislature. If it's a small group of legislators who are currently they may not have the power to make changes. But as things progress, we know that in past legislative initiatives. The legislature has given oversight committees the power to make decisions. So I do agree that legislature does have to provide oversight. And you know certainly if anyone's had an opportunity. She's not only a fiscal wizard but she is an artist, and she has also created a collage of reports that she provided to the legislature, several committees of what was happening with the pension. And so I just am concerned that actually the oversight committee may have the opposite effect of having the full legislature provide its oversight role and instead, it might be too tempting to just empower a small number of legislators who could make big decisions without the ability of Vermonters to be able to effectively advocate one way or the other. So before we jump to Tom, I'm going to ask you a question, Steve. In my experience, no oversight committee has been able to make decisions, they can make recommendations to standing committees. I've never seen an oversight committee that can actually make a decision. So I can give you an example. So the Joint Justice Oversight Committee and the Joint Child Protection Committee made a decision to privatize Woodside. And it was not a decision that was made by the full legislature, it was made by a small group of legislators. And unless those legislators are your legislator, it was very difficult for our members, for instance, to have any influence on that decision because their legislators weren't on the oversight committee. So that does happen, it just happened in this last summer. And I just raise it as a concern because I do agree with you, I think the discussion about the legislature, having oversight, we would want our view would be that more legislators the entire legislature is elected to have oversight. But we think it might be too tempting to give a small group of people the power to make difficult political decisions. And I think that it's just a caution that we would have about having this kind of oversight committee. Well, I do have a little bit of a disagreement about how Woodside, how that happened. It wasn't as clear as that. But in my opinion, because I sit on judiciary and we wrestled with that a lot. So I don't think it really was that a decision that was made that easily. And we could set up a joint oversight committee of 180 people. I don't think that's very effective. And I don't think that 180 people will pay equal attention to it. I think when you're nominated by your peers to serve on a specific committee that, you know, that your antenna or up for that your antenna is on every bill that recommends different retirement changes to the tax code, your antenna or up for anything that would change or affect the retirement system in any capacity and there are bunches of different ways it could do that. So I think it's, you know, I just, I disagree with you Steve I think actually it would help with ownership and I wish we'd have this 15 years ago. I wish I wish we'd had a group of people who really were dedicated to paying more attention. And you're right. Beth gives us a report every year. And it's one of many reports and if you had six people paying really much closer attention to it and understanding the implications of some of those recommendations. I would think we would be at a different place. I just want to be clear that I did not see this oversight committee making big decisions either. No, just saw them as somebody sort of tracking what's going on and we're going back. But that's what I mean did I say something different than that I didn't mean. No, no, well, Steve had talked about not wanting to make big decisions. No they make recommendations to the cause they're paying attention. Yeah. Okay, Tom. Thank you chair. I think oversight is definitely needed. My one question and concern this sounds almost like more of a subcommittee of this committee I don't know if the legislature has subcommittees. In the corporate world you would see this as a subcommittee because it really is addressing an issue for this committee's functioning as I believe one concern I would have is well, who would be pick report to, I know all of the. The commission has this reporting to gov ops with all our reports anticipated for the VP changes so I would just recommend some consideration given to the changes that you're anticipating with VP pick there are a lot of reports and recommendations and oversight built into that. Would this be in addition to another step before the legislature or be in addition to or complimentary to and how would the, who would have the final word what if gov ops says something different and this committee has some other different opinion it just makes a little confusing. This committee has no authority to do anything. The only thing they have authority to do is to make recommendations and really you. I guess is that the committee will the oversight committee will probably most likely be made up of people from gov ops and appropriations, because those are the two committees just as justice oversight is made up of people from judiciary and probably corrections and the house. So, it's the committees that that are the most involved in it, but it means that that is their main their main focus instead of the 27 bills that we've been dealing with this year and the reports that came from all of them. This committee would be focusing on just retirement. It's a big issue. And I think it needs, it needs the attention. Um, Jeff, maybe you're muted. Sorry. I'm typically, if there's led, if there's something that needs to go to an oversight committee. It's just drafted in that particular legislation to send it to that oversight committee. It's not. It's sort of set in statute that everything goes to them. It's just a, if there's a particular issue that the legislature wants that committee to consider. Yeah, yeah, you're right. Beth. So I apologize that I can't raise the hand because I can't figure out how to do that. I can't be there. I can't either. So just. And I'm in good company. So first I would like to say thank you, Steve for referring to my work as an artist. And I did present in one of the packages to you a copy of some of the reports because I ran out of room that we submitted with the status of the plans. And, and, and some of the concerns that we had, but again, that art is never a way that people describe me although I appreciate art. So let me start with what the division of responsibilities are currently. So you really have four. One is the retirement board of trustees, and they are charged by, by, frankly, they're not charged by a Rissa which is private plans but they are charged by the IRS. And some of the, the, the requirements are that they act solely in the interest of the participants in their beneficiaries, and they act for the exclusive purpose of providing those benefits to workers and to ensure that the expenses are reasonable for the plan and carrying out duties with care due diligence and the remaining pieces relate to diversifying assets and the like. So they have a very definite fiduciary responsibility in the if and they take a look, we take a look on a regular basis, part of the miscellaneous tax bill I would point out Becky, but to make sure that we're in compliance with the IRS, we go through a process of reviewing that the IRS used to do determination letter so if you did a determination letter on your statute, you were in good shape. And anything that was done after that would be something that would be okay, something they would look at, but anything that was in that determination they've stopped doing that. But essentially you're responsible for that so that's a board function. The other function is that the retirement staff, and they work for the boards through the treasurer's office so they report to our office, but essentially what they're doing is administering the benefits and there's been legal rulings by the Attorney General's office that a board that meets monthly or infrequently is not in a position to do those that administration, whether you put it under a board or whatever but we are essentially in the process with making sure that the benefits are done those 500 retirements that we did in the month of June last year, remotely I want to again thank the retirement staff, talking to people about their benefits talking to people about their options and retirement, as you might imagine, that's a life changing event and we spent a lot of time on that talking about their health care so that's number two. The third one is the investments which you've addressed in the earlier section on the structure of VPIC and I'm very pleased that most of that is similar to what Tom Galanca and I submitted and on top of that had the endorsement at least in concept by the VPIC. The fourth is you in the legislature and you have to two responsibilities under statute. Number one, to define what those benefits are so you are the creator and again the owner of that so if there's a change in benefits, we can't make it. In fact, the miscellaneous tax miscellaneous tax, excuse me, the miscellaneous retirement bill frequently has adjustments to make sure that we're in compliance but secondly, benefit changes, or changes in contributions for instance in the municipal system. Over the last several years, there's been multiple increases. It's kind of a risk sharing model in itself, which is that the employer and the employee share of contributions go up incrementally. And you approve that. If not, they would go to a different statutory level and cause some concerns for the employees. So that is one of your responsibilities. The other responsibility is to appropriate the dollars. So you're on the benefits and your your your issues are also around appropriating the dollars and if you can't make the appropriation, you have two options. You can dig it, you dig yourself into a bigger hole, or change the benefits. And if the if the result is that despite the fact that you've made the aid at which we have, with the exception of the teacher system, all the way through 2014 with health care not just 2007, but the impact of not appropriating the additional monies for health care. You make the benefit changes to address that, or to address inequities. This summer, for instance, for a long time, Madam Chair, we took a look at the group see who's in and who's out another decision that you folks make. But we had an advisory committee to take a look at that. And I don't think that's going to happen this session, Madam Chair, but I think it's something we we still need to address. So that's the division of labor. If you were to create an oversight committee that looked at the administration of the plan and took a look at the responsibility as a board, for instance, to set the actuarial assumptions to to to administer the benefits. I think that you would get into an issue where politics, frankly, would would override the number one and the number two IRS responsibilities, acting solely in the interest of the participating participants and their beneficiaries and acting for the exclusive exclusive benefit and purpose of those benefits to the two members in their in their beneficiaries that's referred to as the exclusive benefit rule. So a while back, and we were talking, I had a conversation with this about with some folks recently. Two states and I will one state one municipality without mentioning their name so one state to balance their budget actually rated the pension fund, and the IRS came in and said, put the money back and and and give you interest. One state getting I mean in a municipality getting to Becky's question. The IRS rule that if they didn't do something along that line that they would in fact put the the system into into jeopardy. What I would refer to as the death spiral in terms of the pension system. So, getting the legislature involved in in doing the work of the pension boards I think is is contrary to what the IRS has so I would want to work on the language. I do believe in and frankly we've been sending in reports since 2012 you're right. I remember one, one day we did a eight hour piece on on pensions and oversight and environmental social and governance and we in DC versus DB, and I think that the representatives that were there was was strongly supportive of a defined benefit plan. I would agree with you that it hasn't had the attention we primarily make those records, those reports. We do an annual report that all members have access to it's on your on your web. Web page or I think I have to move and the lights are going to go out there we go. And, in addition to that, we send reports to primarily go box and appropriations, but I would also agree with you that you have a lot of work. Perhaps you want to have folks to take a look at that and discuss that I wouldn't say make the decisions I would be very clear about, but in the process, taking a good look at those issues, how the, how the benefit structure, how the unfunded liability how the benefit structure is trending, and to provide that information. In addition to our reports because we will continue to do that I think that that's something that I would recommend but I think the language here goes too far. And it puts them in a position. And again I've just taken a quick look at this language where you're now creating a another role for the for the General Assembly and that division of labor between investments. The pension board, the board of trustees, the retirement division, and the in the legislature I think needs to stay because if you start making those benefit changes, you're now in putting politics. Excuse me not benefit changes into what the pension boards are doing whether it's changing the actuarial assumptions, changing their process in terms of how they interpret benefits and here appeals by employees, or the disability functions. You're now getting into the issue of exclusive benefit benefit rule. And I think that that would be a danger to the plan, but looking at appropriations, looking at the ADEC, having some discussion about that and bringing it to, I think you folks because you are the committee of jurisdiction and the appropriations committee because it impacts them is something that would work. Again we've sent the reports but I think that Senator Polina's comments are in all of you is that why we've sent the reports that has not received the attention it should. I think that this might be a way to do it, but limit the functions of that oversight committee, getting to Steve's point. If there's too many decisions and decision making authority there you could run into, you know, three or four people making decisions, being concerned about it. And, for instance, a scenario that I would consider a nightmare would be a recommendation to go with a defined contribution versus a defined benefit plan. I think that it's all right to have the conversations with your committee about the cost because it is more expensive and provides less benefits. So I think that's a lose lose proposition. I'm talking too long I was apologize for going there, but I think that that the wording on this if you're going to go forward with it and I think there's some value to it to be very clear about the the responsibilities and the division of those responsibilities. If somebody can point out the exact language here that needs to be changed because that is exactly what this oversight committee is designed to do it is not designed to make any decisions at all oversight committees do not have authority to make decisions and I do agree with Steve around the Woodside decision and how that came about but that aside, oversight committees cannot make decisions. They make recommendations. And so I am confused about what the language is that needs to change to make sure that we're saying that. And one of the things that I was thinking about when Anthony when Senator Polina said that if we had this 10 years ago, if we'd have this 10 years ago, we might have, we're making a shift now around having the employees of the it is the employees will now be employees of the pic, as opposed to in the Treasurer's office, we might have made that decision. Seven years ago, because I know you've been working on that for a while, but that isn't something that we have the ability to pay that close attention to but this oversight committee could because they'll be listening and talking and hearing from people and so I guess I guess if there's language that needs to change to make it clear that they don't make decisions. And I'm not sure we need to put that in because oversight committees can never make decisions. That's, they're not allowed to. So, no, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm going to go to Jeff. Yeah, please. So thank you Madam chair and I'm catching up like others you're just seeing the language for the first time. I won't, I won't rehash some of the concerns already expressed I'll just add to specifically the oversight committee, and then you've got the VPIC changing, and then you've got the task force doing some work, and I do worry the overlap of the three now groups, and one solution maybe to delay the start of the oversight committee until after the task force has done its work for example. Right, and so that you, and then you've got multiple legislators in multiple committees. You're going to be the same. Should they be the same should they be different so that you get a wider perspective is that is that advisable in and of itself. And then I think as best that articulated. The concern is the overlap of workload if you will and I appreciate that the workload of looking at the pension is a big one for this committee and I would say that you, the Senate and House Government Operations Committee are the oversight, but if you want to sort of delegate that responsibility to a subgroup over the summer and I think that's what this is. It sounds like in during adjournment because it mentions that in the language to. So I assume then and I don't know this with they were then report in January or something to the House and Senate gov ops committees of their work over the summer, and then you would carry it forward to the next adjournment and so on and so on. Yeah, I think I think that's, that's the way they work and that's the way oversight committees tend to operate and I think that during the session. They only meet if there's something really dramatic that happens. But they mainly meet over the summer and when we're not in session and we, we can't meet so we can't have any oversight in the summer and I think that delaying the, the information of the, I don't think there's any problem with that I don't think we had any thought that that this committee when we were talking about it that this committee would have would start to operate until the task force was was done with its work that but so I appreciate that. I will point out that under number two be two on members. I do think we need to change that a little bit because it says three members of the Senate, who shall not be from the same sane party, and I think there is no such thing in the Senate. We all tend to be a little insane. I just would make sure that we correct that. Sorry, I was just trying to lighten that up a little bit. I'm sorry, the light, light, lighting up. Never mind the reducing the tension and maybe a little sense of humor there but you asked for some suggestions with respect to the duties and if the if the commit once the committee has finished its work I'd like an opportunity to suggest a few things. Well, no, this is the time to suggest them but I'm going to call on Chris first. Just real briefly, I think the treasurer raised some really significant points and some important points. I just wanted to clarify one thing in the bill just for anybody who may be watching at home that the way this is currently worded, the committee would evaluate and make recommendations on changes to statutory provisions. So it's not worded that the oversight committee would try to assume any fiduciary responsibilities, or, you know, I think I think you raised that the example of benefit changes or things of that nature just sort of the nuts and bolts of the day to day. I think the way this is worded is that they would focus on making recommendations around things that involve changes to statute. Yes. I don't, I agree with what you just said I think it would need wording changes to align with what you just said I'm happy to expound on that more but the line that I read earlier feels very out of sync with what you just said. So I would be, I can reopen it. Sorry, I'm looking at line 17 on page 25. Is that the one I read before I think what I had read before was on page 24, but I could be wrong. It said, been it said something about benefit design, etc, etc. statutory provisions around those. It isn't someone read it out loud because I don't have it changes to statutory provisions regarding the provision design and administration of retirement benefits. And the retirement system so it's only statutory changes that are being recommended. If there are changes that don't require statute changes then this committee doesn't address them. They're an oversight committee for the legislature. And that I think this is standard language. I think Becky pulled this out from oversight committees the way they're, they're designed, but I definitely agree with Jeff it should take effect. I think the effective data as well earlier it should be changed to take effect after the work of the other group. I am not surprised to be outnumbered on the idea that more legislators on more committees, you know, does anything for anybody I'm on the government accountability committee and the judicial administration committee we've met once this year and have not really accomplished anything. You know, I have a lot of doubts about adding more bureaucracy and more committees to our structure I have not seen it make a difference in Vermonter's lives but I'm completely willing to be outnumbered on this it will not affect my vote on the overall bill. I think we can make this effective as of July 2022. Then that means that because it would be appointed then during the report from the task force comes back before January we act on it in that in next year's session. And the task the oversight committee takes is appointed during that session and and starts its meetings during the summer of 2022 with recommendations for 2023. We may not have any recommendations for 2023 because we've just made a whole bunch of changes so it might not have any it might come back and say, you know what the changes that we made last year seem to be working okay or we made this change and it really was a huge mistake and we need to go back and look at it. So I could, is there a column or thank you Madam chair, I'll be very brief because it's getting late. I know that when I made my statement I certainly didn't mean to imply anything that was disrespectful to your work. But in fact, I think it, it points to the fact that this committee would alleviate a lot of us from from having to I'm trying to say this the right way. I meet in the summer, and we can't especially in the Senate when we're on two committees during the session. A lot of stuff gets by as I will be the first to admit I don't read a lot of reports that was probably supposed to read. But that to me is even more of a reason why we could create this oversight committee, whose only job it is to look at the reports that you have dutifully sent to us. We can't make any recommendation what are they can't make any decisions. I look at it the same as if we have a situation in a prison where there was a weekly breakout, and the Justice Oversight Committee would get together and say what's going on in the back. What could we possibly recommend that would, that would help this situation whether we need to buy a, you know, a more secure system in terms of security or whatever. So, I just, I still think if we, and I'm all for putting it off until the task force has completed its work. But I think I made a little bit of a case for putting the oversight committee because we're just so overburdened during the session that I think this would alleviate a lot of that pressure. Madam chair, am I on board now or if you have if you have language changes, let's get to them. Sure. So, and I would like to go back tomorrow to the scope of the task force but we're going to do everything tomorrow. Okay, that's great. So when I'm looking at this language weekend. We're here all weekend. You didn't got bring your pajamas. Yeah. I'm usually around so you know, charge of the cannolis in the popcorn. I gotta go get your cannolis I'm sorry. But I guess I could eat some remotely and and and really not be satisfactory. So, if I'm looking at this language, number two, which has been mentioned changes to the statutory provisions between the design and administration of retirement benefits and the retirement system, I would remove in the administration of retirement benefits and the retirement systems that is the purview of the board. And while I agree that you would not make that you're making recommendations not decisions. I think the implication there is that that's that's in the purview of the of the of the assembly. So I would I would recommend taking that out you know, regarding the provision and design design of benefits is within the purview of the legislature as I said you were the owner and the creator of that. But I would take out that part of the administration and benefits that if I'm if I'm on the I am on the Board of Trustees, other members might as I do see that that may be ambiguous and create some problems in the future. With respect to number three, the appropriate annual appropriation. What I would say there is that you would receive the ADAC the actually determined employer contribution from the retirement board right now we send it to the general assembly and to the commissioner by November 1 for the purposes of including in the budget and a decision whether or not to do that. So I would say there that the committee would receive the actually determined employer contribution as recommended by the respective board of trustees and review that hopefully I won't this wouldn't be in statute hopefully say we could do better than that. But I would ask them to take a look at it and make any recommendations around it so again, if it would relate to one and two, which is that if it's, if it's something that you feel is something that can't be supported then you would have those other conversations. But I would also be careful about the the the piece about statutory amortization schedules that is in your purview to change that and funding policies. And I would start off with that is the ADAC and recede of that in the analysis of that because again, we have conversations. That's in our reports to you. We do have conversations with you and the appropriations about it but a more focused I think makes sense. And we certainly have those conversations with the governor's office to which is, you know, I remember conversations going back to what do you think that's much. Usually that's the, that's the comment when it goes down, or less than less than expected everyone's happy with that. And number one, I don't know issues of public policy related to the provision of retirement benefits to the state's public sector workforce I'm not quite understanding what public policy means in there, but that that again that's something that, you know, could be wordsmith but I would worry about two and three and make those changes. Because I think then it respects the division of responsibility, and it's more clear about your actions with respect to the ADAC because frankly, in 1990s and 2000s if if the committees of jurisdiction and the administration the governor's office, and that involved I just have to say multiple governors were not picking on any one governor that if more attention and been paid for that, paid attention to that, we would not be in such a low funding percentage on the teacher side in particular. But I do have to point out something that is inaccurate and has been said many times, the $604 million increase, or the $379 million increase in the teacher system is not related to the underfunding of the past. It's related to the changes in the in the investment rate of return assumption and that's not investment performance because that's another problem where people link performance to the rate of return assumption because across the country, rate of return assumptions are changing and going down. But secondly, when you're looking at this, it, the real action, the real besides that rate of return in the teacher system of 5050 the demographics were also moving the curve on that. And the demographics account to primarily teacher turnover and teacher around retirements hadn't had a major impact. And if I'm looking at this from a, an oversight committee, I want to know why, and I think that that's a very important, you know, we talked about other decisions in there but the reality is the biggest mover in the teacher system was that and I think it has some relationship frankly to property tax. I'm not putting an opinion out on property tax and we're neutral on that in the Treasury's office that's not our role in taxation. But as I said in many, many occasions, is that when you press the balloon on one end, it pops out on the other, and the committee may want to take a look at the full impact of that so you know what is the cost at the local level, what is the cost at the state level, and are you effectively making from the sum of the parts. So that would be the changes I would suggest in two and three, and perhaps adding a little bit of, you know, it's interaction and policy with relationship to tax policy perhaps. I think if I can comment my, I think that number one addresses that the public policy that that that is what that is intended to do to look at the whole public policy as it's affected by that. And then in two, I, if we take out that administration of and just say changes to statutory provisions regarding the provision design. Yeah, benefits. Design of benefits of benefits. Okay, but on number three. I'm kind of confused because you talked about they need to make the recommendation, but they need to receive it from the board first and and we can put that in there. It's this committee certainly is not going to be just meeting with themselves. They're going to be operating in a vacuum and just get the six people get together and say, Well, let's make a recommendation on the appropriate annual appropriation. They're going to be meeting with with the appropriate people to get the information before they make the recommendation so we can put it in there or not the first they have to receive the, the information and then they make a recommendation. I think the appropriate annual appropriation is is a is a little vague. I think that what you would want to say is that you would receive the ADAC the actual recommendation from the board of trustees and make recommendations to the full body around the issues of appropriation amortization and because that is in your purview and what's the last word in that one and funding policies. I think that that's appropriate. I would clearly disagree if you would have turned around and say don't fund the whole ADAC as a as a legislative body certainly not the oversight committee. I would certainly disagree if you said that's extend the amortization period to make this easier to do now because that's a short term solution with a long term loss to the taxpayer that said within your purview. But but this isn't saying what they're going to recommend at all this is just saying that they need to, they need to take the information they need to gather all the information, and then they need to come, and not to the whole they're not going to do it to the whole general assembly. They're going to make it to the committees of jurisdiction they're going to make it to the House, Gov Opps, Senate Gov Opps, and the two appropriations committees. They're not going to do it to the whole general assembly that isn't the way oversight committees were sure they're going to make those recommendations so if we want to put in there that first they have to receive the information. I can do that but I would be highly suspect of any oversight committee that didn't actually receive the information that they were looking at before they made a recommendation, but they wouldn't be doing very good oversight. Yeah, they would be terrible. Yeah. Yeah, I think that the you know the actuary does the ADAC, the board. And I guess I just would start with that instead of the word appropriation because it almost implies not to you folks, but sometime in the future that that the appropriation could be done in the absence of the actuarial. No, it says in accordance with actuarial recommendations. There you go my apologies. Thank you. It clearly says that my apologies there. Again, this is a quick read. So, I think that that one may be a tad award smithing and and again number two. And again my apologies I'm looking at this for the first time with the wrong glasses so as we all are actually. Yeah. I'm chair. Yeah. I just want to make clear my understanding of the reading where it said of a different party. Was that each of the three members would have to be of a different party than the other. No, no. It says not all shall be from the same party. So you can have two hours and one D or two days and one hour or one D and one P and one hour, but you couldn't have three hours, three days or three P's. That's the way. That changes things for me a little bit. I think we would benefit from having the maximum amount of political diversity in this group. We can do that, but we don't have any P's in the Senate. We have people who run as both redo but we don't have any P's the P's do not caucus in the Senate as a caucus. We could maybe say unless there are. I, I, we could ask the working Vermonters caucus to appoint one from each side. No. Well, okay, I shouldn't have been so. Okay. I think that oversight committees legislative legislative committees are appointed by the speaker and the committee on committees. And if we start having caucuses that aren't even real. I mean, they're, they are real, but they have no authority and no, they have no authority to they are, they make recommendations and they meet and look at issues but why would we have them making a recommendation. Your, your first no was to people of three different political parties but you, we, you have an independent, I just think we would benefit from from asking for the maximum amount of political diversity on the group otherwise. I don't know how we do that. Okay, I can. No more than one should be from the same party. Yeah, that wouldn't work in the Senate. It's impossible. I mean, we are possible. I don't, we don't, this is the way we set up all. This is the way all most all committees are set up that they shouldn't be from the same political party. Right. That's pretty standard. I understand the argument. This is the way we've always done things. I just think this is might be a year to question that and this might be a situation where we look at. Why, why does that makes it even more political that's like saying two parties, you know that I think this should exist at all I think it's already political. I don't know you have it so I'm a no at this point. Well, I think you want people with also people who have interest and who have expertise in this particular area not just belong to a certain party. Those words have been used very subjectively this session. So, I'm confused about your. Is it your opposition to this particular oversight committee or oversight committees in general. Probably, probably a little bit of both I mean we have some I'm on two committees that have not met at all and have not oversight committees, neither of those are an oversight committee. They're not oversight. Call it an accountability committee. Calm down a little bit here. That is not an oversight committee. That's a very specific committee that's set up for a very specific purpose. And it isn't. It isn't an oversight committee and the others and administration committee and I have press to me. I thought you're on joint rules. Made one joint legislative rules with me and Joe Benning. I thought that was judicial. Yeah, judicial rules, judicial rules, it's not administration. And that's not an oversight committee. Okay. Do you think this is going to meet significantly more than those other committees, because I haven't seen a lot of activity from other committees that have. Well, I can tell you why I can tell you why a government accountability committee hasn't met because it's an off session committee, and it met in December. So it hasn't met since then because it's an off session committee. It's written as an off session committee. Yes. Okay. What is it? What is this written as? It's primarily an off session committee, but if I say that it can be, it can meet at the call of the chair during the session. Yeah. I mean, they're oversight, you know, the, the state house management committee is an oversight committee to overseas the management of the, of the state house. And like legislative council is oversees the, the workings of legislative council.  I, I, I just, I'm not. I'm not. My thought was that everybody would like to have some more oversight over an input into what's happening with our retirement system. The whole conversation so far has been about why not have professionals and experts do it as far away from the legislature as possible. And now this is the complete departure from that. Because this is, but this isn't having anything to do with VPIC or investments or anything else. That's all over there. This is saying the legislature needs to have more involvement. Beth keeps saying, and I, or maybe it was Tom, that this is, this is ours. We need to own it. I said in my first comment, Beth has charged us with owning this more responsibly. Right. This is ours. Gov ops and appropriation. No, this is the legislature needs to own this gov ops is one committee, and we have a multitude of issues to deal with. So we have, if we want to meet all summer long. We have to have this gov as a government operations committee and just look at, it would have to be the two committees though the House and the Senate, and just look at retirement, I suppose we could do that. That's too big for one thing at 16 members. And we, there is no way we can keep. We have a number of years and every year, there are retirement is come in. We have very limited time to deal with those retirement issues, just as we have limited time to deal with other things. So having the input from somebody who has been watching this and working with it and looking at it all summer long and understands it more fully. It would be valuable. But, but if it's okay if we don't have agreement on it, that's fine. Anyway, it's we're getting to a bit to the, to the witching hour, maybe we all need to take a break. Yeah, I think, I think we do. And that what we need to do on tomorrow and I'm hoping that we can wrap this up because if we don't wrap this up, we don't have a bill. It's as simple as that. We need to make all the decisions tomorrow so I work tomorrow what we're going to start at the beginning and go through it and I know that people who aren't normally on this committee and watching us may not be used to the way I like to do this, but I like to start with section one and make any changes and then just put a big red mark beside it that says we've all agreed or we haven't agreed and get it over with and then move to section two, so that we're not going back and forth and back and forth we're getting, we're agreeing with things, and if there are things that we don't agree with, then we'll come back to them but we're going to go through it second part by part and just eliminate the things that we've already agreed with and move on. Does that make sense. We'll see how we do. And, and I would say we need to be bring your pajamas, because we need to, we need to get this out if we. We, I'm going to ask the rules committee to send it to us tomorrow. And we'll get it and we have my guess is that it'll have to, there'll have to be a conference committee on it. And so if we won't if we get this out on Friday. It won't get to the floor until Tuesday. And unless we can suspend the rules to advance it to all stages. It won't actually be passed by the how the Senate until Friday, Thursday or Friday, and then it has to go back to the house so we are quickly running out of time. And I hate to say that, but we are and hopefully we'll have something that we can agree on so if I would suggest if anybody has any language changes for any of these that you bring them in tomorrow. And that when we start going through them will look at the language changes as we as we progress through the bill. I would just say, you know what I'm hearing from you feels like as a principal. It's really hard to digest a huge new concept in 24 hours that would would not really take place until next year. So for me that's what this feels like is a pretty big new change that we're trying to figure out how does it fit with all the other changes we're asking for. And at the same time that we're saying it doesn't need to happen until next year so that's just what I'm hearing and I'm going to sit with that one. Yeah, I can appreciate that I just, I was caught off guard, because we have heard so much from so many people that we needed more oversight over our whole system. So this was an attempt at a solution to give us more oversight. And that's all it was. And really keep our legislative toes to the fire and give it the priority it needs. There aren't that there aren't that many oversight committees. So this really shines a light on our making this more a legislative priority. Energy technology and correction. Justice oversight justice, not judicial justice oversight child child. One to do with child protection oversight child oversight. And a couple but there aren't there aren't that many. Okay. Yeah, I just also want to I know we haven't talked about this couple of days it seems but if we're going to try to crunch things together in the next day or so. I want to make sure that people feel comfortable with the so called balance on the both of the, the, the news commission and the task force. Something we talked a lot about early on. Yeah, we haven't made any decisions about those yet. Right. Okay. Have a nice evening. All right, thanks.