Um, so, um, and I did explain that we took out the flying of the US flag at half staff, just in case anybody had concerns about that. So, okay. Do we say half staff or half mast, I've always said half. Half staff. Oh, oh, I changed that in my floor report. I always said it wrong. All right, committee. Can we look at our two compositions of our two boards I think that's where we are. Am I right about that. Yes. So, um, which would, what's your preference which would you rather tackle first here. Let's do it. Okay. We had a great feedback. I don't know why I thought we don't have feedback. We had a lot of notes and a lot of iterations. So I don't think we had agreed to it. So the way it is in the bill is one. Visors, one visors, one muni, two governor, one treasure, DFR, the LCT and Brown school boards association. That's the way it is in the bill. And we've had some iterations of that. So just some, um, I will say for my part, that for the VP. I am happy with the way it is constructed now. I think that it's an investment board. And, um, as we noted earlier, everybody should be concerned with getting the best investments, the best returns possible. And when I look at this, it looks like there are three, three kind of. The first here, there's the participants, the kind of the union people, the employers, and then the kind of other taxpayer type people, the public. And we have three union or participant members to employer members. And three, what I would consider kind of the public taxpayer members, that's the two governors and the DFR, I guess I put there. Okay. And then the treasure. Put separately, but that's anyway, that's depending on how you look at it. So I'd like committee discussion where everybody else is. I'll just, that's where I am. So Senator columnar. Thank you Madam chair. So as I counted up there are 10 members but nine voters. Yes, because the chair doesn't vote except the chair doesn't vote, except in a tie. And this is the way it came over from the other body and I think, as I said, it seems like a week ago now. I support the way it came over from the other body is the center, Ron. So, I think that if we believe that the governor, you know, is has, you know, their person or their perspective represented with one financial expert. We don't believe that they're going to have people who sort of disagree on their financial positions. I'm sorry my dog is just really wanting today again, because it's for 40. I think that having their DFR commissioner and one appointee is sufficient. And what that does is move it back to eight voting members, which, you know, first of all, brings down the number which I heard was less is more on this front and I rather started to like the idea that there was a little bit of friction that it was rare that you'd get a kind of split vote that there's often consensus that happens. So should there be the need to really, you know, hash something out, you'd have four and four with the chair being a tie breaking vote so I would move to remove one of the governor's appointees or remove DFR and they can be either one of the governor's appointees or someone who comes as a staff person and kind of shares their perspective. I apologize because I thought I was done saying what I was going to say but I forgot to add what I think is one of the crucial issues here is that, although we have the voting members, we have at the table we have more voices. And so the, the three retirement system people each have two people two voices at the table, and I think voices at the table is as important as votes because voices at the table. I'm thinking of just our committee, when we have five people who actually vote on something, but we have a lot of people here who have voices at the table and they help us get to a place where are where we can vote on it and so I, I, when I look at this I look at, there are actually six union representative, I mean, yeah, six voices at the table. Well then there's, you can add that up for for a lot of other folks too so they don't. Well the governor has two alternatives as well. On one alternate one alternative it's still. Okay. So I would support the governor having one vote one voting member and one alternate. Got it. And then there. So then that would be two voices at the table from the governor, plus three actually because of yeah, three. Yeah, got it. Okay. I can just add, the governor gets a lot of say the whole time, you know, the governor has a lot of people involved throughout the process as other staff around and the governor has a lot of power after this this group does their work I just don't think the governor needs. I don't know for voices or however many, it would be at this point, it would be yeah. Okay. Senator Polina. I would basically just, I would agree with what the conversation he just had with what Senator Ron was saying I think the governor having one, one appointee plus one alternate seems like plenty. Okay. Senator Clarkson. So then you'd have eight members and the, and the chair. Yes. I mean, eight voting members. Yes. You'd actually have six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 voices at the table plus the chair. Okay, got it. Yep. So, you know, I guess just so eight voting members one non voting member, right. No, well he's voting in a tie. The chair votes in a tie. Yes. Oh, I guess I hadn't taken that on board. Okay. I guess that's her hand up, which might mean something important. Okay, okay. Thank you. Our attorney. Becky needs to leave at five o'clock. And if we do need an attorney present, she said that she would find coverage for us. So I just wanted to put that out there now since we still have about 20 more minutes. So committee here's. I'm concerned about us. Going late here and coming. I'd like us to come to some decision. But is it possible for us to come to some decisions tonight and get them to Becky or whoever the attorney is. So any possibility we could meet on Monday to actually vote out when we've seen a nice clean copy of everything we've decided. Yeah, I was going to say I have preferred times but I would also clear anything on my schedule for this. So, just anybody. One more. Could you meet. I would hope that we could come up with all of our decisions today, but then allow Becky and whoever else the attorney might be to do it and get a clean copy to us so that we can actually vote out what we see as a nice clean copy instead of asking them to stay tonight. And I do have an edited version of everything you've done so far. So it would just be the membership decision making. Yep. Yes, I can meet Monday. I don't know that that advances the calendar though. Well, I think that if we can vote it out on Monday we could. If we voted out today it's still going to go on notice on. I'll check with Bloomer but I think that we can probably, and I'm going to ask if we can pending entry on the calendar if we can actually take it up. Senator Polina, could you possibly just a little bit. Okay, and Senator Clarkson. I could conceivably meet it at like 1212 30 to 330 or four. Oh, I don't think it would take that long. But I mean I could meet early afternoon. Yeah. Okay. How about really early in the morning. Yeah, that's my favorite time you know that. I'm fine with that. I can't. I have a, I have a something I have to do in London. Early in the morning. I'm, well, I mean, which is fine. You can meet without me. I'm not. No, I'd like us to meet all together, and we can set a time but with that decided we'll figure out a time later on but we'll allow Becky to to do what she needs to do and not to have to try and find somebody to sit in for her right now. Okay. Yeah, yes. Okay, great. Thanks. All right, so let's go back to our. And look what I did. I did go pick one. It's been raining here all day. It is, it is the most beautiful day so far here. It is been raining for the last 24 hours hasn't stopped. It's really blustery. And it's cold enough that you have to have on a sweatshirt when I love it's my favorite, my favorite weather. Anyway, okay. Enough of that. So, Senator Rom you are voting for one governor appoint the only change in here would be one governor's appointee and one alternate. I'm just changing it from. So, there's really two appointees, but only one vote. Yeah, okay. And Senator Plena you agree with that. Yes. Senator Parkson. Well, I hate being the deciding factor here. But I'm fine with it. Sadly, I'm fine with it either way. I think it's fine. And I'm well, I think it's it's an investment group and everyone, every for monitor should care enormously about how well these investments do it is on all our shoulders. How well this perform. So, that being said, I, so I just, I think everybody has ideally the same interest and the thing I'm reluctant to give up with the governor's appointees is that they have to be financial experts and independent. And listen, what it says that. I know that's what I'm saying. I'm willing to give up a financial expert. That's, that's what case is proposing is that we give up one financial expert. So I guess what I'm here's what I'm saying is that the governor gets one appointee they're a financial expert they get to they have the ability to move the entire group in a direction that feels more political than just why do why do they need to financial experts I'm not saying we can't have another financial expert if we if they're chosen by another group but why we would give the governor to financial experts and to alternate feels like a lot to me. There aren't two alternatives and one also one alternate but also the governor is going to not the governor but the commissioner of financial regulation is one of the members and that financial expert as well. As is the chair. Sure. As is the chair, as is the treasurer. Right. Experts everywhere. So, so actually then I would, then I would support the one, one member of the, of the governors, and, and I would support the that. And my, yeah, my only other concern and now that I know the chair can split votes that's. Okay. The other thing we have to remember is, you know, Senator Palmer I'll get you in a second is that the people that are appointed by the femurs and beasters and visas. Those are such bad names but anyway, the people that are appointed by them, do not have to necessarily be. They can be a financial right also. I mean, my guess is that they're going to want to appoint people who are as well versed and find out there. They would never appoint me, for example, to this board, but they, because they're going to think very carefully about who they're going to appoint so I would love to get to Senator Palmer I just want to say one thing about that too. That's okay with Senator. I see that I hope at some point you know everybody would agree. It's good to have some financial experts and maybe even a preponderance of financial experts but as Jeff and others have pointed out people with other perspectives also make great points about financial matters right we can get ourselves into a world of trouble and global recession by only listening to financial experts so I just don't want them to become so paramount in this conversation we forget other perspectives are valuable. It is interesting because I always said standards and poor are whoever they are are the ones that rate us and yet they're the ones that got us into the 2008 recession so Senator Palmer and then Tom. Yeah, and I realized we've sort of already the dais cast as it were, but I just would say for those that are worried about any undue influence from the administration, the current composition, the governor has to, and there are fewer people on the right board. So he has or she has more of an influence now. And, you know, we're proposing that it go to 10 with nine votes. So I don't know why we wouldn't leave the governor having to. Anyway, that's just. Okay. Tom. I would support the current the way it's written with the two and one for the governor and here's my reason. If you change that it's going to affect the current composition, just like Senator column or said so we have to address the transition issue differently, because he currently has to voting in one. One non voting. The new member you're adding is this secretary of financial. The commissioner of financial regulation originally was the commissioner of finance and so I would prefer if you want to take one away. That would be where I would look only because it wouldn't affect the transition process. And we'd have to get rid of one has already been appointed by the governor, which I would rather not do you at this point. The second point is I do think the house and the way this came about was the house is insistence on having the financial appointees, and we whittled away that from Beamer's members and Vista's members and Vista's members through this whole process to make sure we had exposure that we wouldn't exclude like superintendents and city city members. So, I prefer how it's listed but if you do take one away, I would not touch the governor's appointees and I look for the new member that you're looking at on. So thank you. Senator Ron. Before I allow myself to agree with Tom on this, I will just start by saying, you know, we were changing the composition material anyway by leaving it at three labor folks and still going to 10 people. I just want to say that someone's feelings being heard or not making it through the transition would be the best reason to change the composition in favor of giving less of a voice to the labor folks and more of a voice to the governor's folks. But I will agree that I have said all along, if the governor had two appointees and they wanted to appoint their DFR commissioner, great, you know, but let's just give them those two appointments and not have DFR on there then. Senator Parkson. But Tom the commissioner of financial regulation is a governor appointee. So I think the point I think if you keep the commissioner and one appointee that that are that is keeps your current two governor appointees quite frankly. So I think that's, that's part of why I'm okay with going with that suggestion because that keeps you with two governor appointees. I think it would be more the institution knowledge from the investment professionals that are the current governor's appointees. You're talking about the current people not just the positions. This change would affect the current makeup of the VPIC which would affect the institutional knowledge of the two members which do have a significant level of expertise on the current board so I just bring that up as a point. The transition period. Yes. I would say that I think that the governor's appointee is their transition under the transition language right now. They're actually they would actually need to be reappointed as of this June. So, but you're getting rid of a spot. That's why you wouldn't be able to replace one of the governor's positions in an existing spot if you remove it. Right, I just was bringing up for for everyone's reference of the, the reappointment would happen in June it would just be for one, one person. And, and also I just want to make the point just so this is on your radar that if you change the number of members on this commission. There's also language about the how many, how many votes you need for certain decisions and so I think you have to think about whether you want to change that as well. So right now there's five, five votes needed to make a decision of the committee, but six in the case of setting actuarial assumptions. So you might want to keep that as is but I just wanted to raise that for you as well. I actually like Tom's idea here and one of the reasons I like it is because my guess is that the, the VP board will work with the commissioner of DFR when they need to anyway and that if, if the original person that was appointed was considered else was the commissioner of a secretary of finance or commissioner of finance and budget and management I guess that they had some on clarity about which, which government agency or department was the best represented on here and so I would. I actually like Tom's suggestion of leaving the two governor appointees and the one alternate and removing the commissioner of DFR and if the, and, and they, and the commissioner of DFR when, when his or her expertise is required I'm sure we'll be asked to, to work with them anyway. So I actually like that, that suggestion. I could live with that. Brian. I guess. Anybody else have any comments about that. Senator Polina. I think that's okay. That would have been my second choice. Me too. It might have been my first if I thought about it but I wasn't smart enough to think about it. That's why Tom's joining us on this. So, let me just ask everybody else here then if that if, if we leave the VP board the way it is in here, but remove the commissioner of DFR. Does that so I want to hear from everybody here Beth. I actually submitted the original piece with with commissioner of finance. I would like to have kept it that way clearly that's not going to happen. So I would agree with Tom that this is the, the next best approach. Thank you. Tom other Tom. I'm sure for the record Tom out to know our legislative specialist via CA. We support any decision by the committee that would move the composition of the toward parody between the representatives originating from the employee groups and those not so yes we support this shift as well. Thank you, Mike. We would support this. Jeff. In a turn about I will support what Tom and Mike just said. Yes, we support it. All right. Chris. It's a policy question madam chair that I defer to the legislature for I just work here. Okay, you're right. You're right. Okay, and Eric probably would say the same thing. Madam chair, we do I do and I emphasize Tom's point about continuity of the folks serving on the now in the institution of knowledge we have there. Okay. So, so before I sign off I will I will make that change but I just want to double check that you also want to keep the votes as they are. You have eight member eight voting members and nine and one tiebreaker. Do you want to five. So I think you need five concurring votes so that you would have a majority but then do you want to keep the six votes for the setting actuarial assumptions. Yeah, I think so.  That's fine. Oh, it just makes a little super majority but we'll be fine. Yeah. I like that a lot. Is everybody okay with leaving the numbers as they are. Yes. Okay, great. Oh, that was easier than I thought okay let's move to the task force. So, we, I went through my notes and I have about 30 different suggestions for compositions for the task force. And I am going to throw mine out right now. I think I did it earlier to house. And I know this gives us 13 members but to house to Senate to governor. VSEA one VTA and three NEA. And I don't know if Tom and Mike you were with us when I justified this by saying that that gives the two, two boards. I don't remember because while VSEA and VTA are separate bargaining units they're part of the same board or whatever that's called. So that that's my suggestion and then the treasure. So, Well, as I mentioned before. If you set it up that way which is almost there. That leaves seven people who are non beneficiaries, but that way. And six people who are so the imbalance is would be on the side of the non beneficiary so I would prefer to see it. I would actually suggest the same thing we were considering in the last conversation about the commission that the governor get one vote, or one person. And that way it would be six and six beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. Senator Clarkson. Are you with us. Yes, I'm with you. Yeah, I, I, I, I, I support this I also was playing around with thinking about going back to three house three Senate and the director of retirement and a non voting member. And I was sort of thinking about that too. In addition to all the other people or no, no, just that. Okay. Three house three Senate, one director of retirement who doesn't vote who's a non voting member. Three NEA to VSEA and one trooper. And no governor appointees. No. No treasure. I think that the director of retirement. You want on here, but I think we heard from the treasure that it would. While the director of retirement would certainly weigh in that there during this time period of time is her busiest time of the year and she simply would not be able to do it. That's what we heard. Yeah, I think that if, if we were to do that and her, her, her designee I probably end up a Michael anyways. That's right. I do remember that it's very difficult. I do want to point out, although I, you know, I do see myself as someone independent and I actually that I am a member of the system, while I have the opportunity as an exempt employee to participate in a defined contribution plan. I believe the DB plans are the best place to go and that's why I'm there. Right. So, well, can I ask the treasurer.  If you're the 13th member, does that sit well with you I mean this could get intense so. So, you know, I, I guess what I would say here is that, you know, to you've got to legislate to house to Senate. Then I would look at the same thing reducing the governors by one, but I would also think that they need to have real skin in the game. And I would suggest is that it would be the secretary of administration or her designate. I think it's important to recognize that a senior member of the staff because the appoint somebody from from another from the community and I think there's obviously advantages to that. There's someone that is in contact and working with this and assigned to the governor's staff some, you know, it has enough influence on the process, because ultimately the governor needs to have skin in the game as well. You know, we've talked about that this is, as I said earlier that this is turn that off. This is the I owe you some dinner at so do cheese. Oh, yes. I think that's the rule that the phone goes off. The rule. I owe you that. But, you know, I think that you folks, as I said earlier are the creator and the owner. So I see that, you know, there has to be a lead from the, from the, from the legislature and I would again recommend that the co chairs be one from the house. But you do need the treasurer's office on there and you do need the governor's office on there. And again I think that it has to be has the is is part of the administration because ultimately the administration is going to have to weigh in on this. And I think that frankly the governors all of us represent the taxpayers that's why they elect you. That's why they elect me and that's why they elect the governor. And I do think that this gets to equal members. And I would, I would think that this is a good way to go. And thank you folks for thinking about this I think equity with with the unions is extraordinarily important on this committee. You know when we started our process we met with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks, because we wanted them to be involved in this. And I think that this is the way to go one way or the other getting. And the other thing is the larger it gets the harder it is to do things so. I think this is a balance. So you yours would you're suggesting yours to house to Senate, and specifically the secretary of administration or designate so that there's it isn't just a governor's appointee from, from wherever. Yeah. You're right you're right it does have to be somebody who represents the administration, not just who is appointed by the administration. I think that's a great point, Beth, that they need the governor's office really needs skin in the game. That's a very good suggestion. I, I'm going to be really frank. I think that I worry about 5050 just I worry about, you know, a stalemate vote and I and I worry about that so what do we do if we end up, you know, it just that the an even number is just a concern. And that's all I, I cannot for Senator Rahm I'll call on you. But I cannot for the life of me, think that for legislators would always be of the same mind. Oh, great. Or that six representatives from the VSE and the NEA and the VTA would always be of the same mind. I am not worried about a stalemate vote here because I, I don't think I think everybody is going to be going into this with with the best interests in mind of the participants and the state itself so I Those four House and Senate members. Have you ever seen four House and Senate members that are all of the same mind always. No, no, of course not. No, look at the five of us. Right. So I actually think that's an interesting proposal. And I didn't mean to jump ahead of Senator Rahm, but I, I'm trying to follow the Treasurer's plan. So to to the Secretary of Administration, the Treasurer's Office, and who else, and the six Labor members that we've been turning to VSE a one VTA and three NEA five six seven eight nine 1011. No, no. I'm confused. Well, so you're saying no governor appointees. No, the Secretary of Administration. Right, right. That Secretary of Administration. That's all from the administration. And the governor gets an additional one as well. No. And I don't come up with 12. Well, to house. Yeah. To Senate. Yeah. Secretary of Administration. That's five. Yeah. To VSE a one VTA. Three NEA. That's six. The Treasurer. Or five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Okay. Well, I originally, I think earlier supported your position, Madam Chair. I think I still do. I would 13. Yeah. I would. I, I could go with this or I could go with the Secretary of Administration and another appointee by the governor, but I think that that's. That there's going to be. That the. I am not. I'm not concerned about a stalemate. I am concerned that. That there is going to be. This. The process here is so important. That if there is a feeling that. Any way. That it is stacked against the participants.  Energetic buy in. That there needs to be. That there needs to be an inclusion and. And because I think that the. We've made, we will make sure that the two. The four house and Senate people are not the two from each body are not of the same party. I think it's pretty clear that there will probably be. At least two Republicans. On here. And. That that. And so I feel comfortable that in this case, and we're talking about a Republican governor and two Republicans on the committee. I mean, that that's going to be a given, I believe. So. I think that there will be the ability for the governor to have. Some voice in here without necessarily having that vote. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good, I think that's a good general statement, but I. I do think it's true. Senator columnar. Yeah, no, I think you're right, Madam chair. And I appreciate your, your honesty and openness. I think that's exactly right. So the only difference between what you originally. Proposed today. And what the latest suggestion is the specificity of one of the governors. Well, Appointees, if you will, I would have one one voice there. Well, have one voting voice. Yeah. And as part of the administration, but, but in fact, I think it's going to be very clear that there has to be. That the governor will have influence in other ways. All sorts of people have influences in other ways. I mean, right. Right. It will hopefully this group will hear from. A whole range of interests and expertise. I mean, they'll have influence left, right and center. I, I'm okay with best suggestion. Could I, I don't want to sound dense, but I just want to go through the numbers one more time. So I know what we're talking about. Okay. Two from the house, two from the Senate. Secretary of administration. Three from the NEA. Three from the VSEA. No, one from the VSEA, two from the VSEA. Two from VSEA. And the treasure. And one from VTA. Okay. I was combining VSEA and VTA. Okay. Now. Mike, Mike just gave you the death stare. And there's one governor too. No, there's the governor is only represented by the secretary of administration. Is that what we're saying? No, some legislators potentially. Well, it, you know, we don't know who will be appointed by the legislature. So it might, but the governor is going to, for terms of the administration, the governor saw the executive branch secretary of administration. Is it. That's that's suggestion that gives us. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Then I was misunderstanding because I thought when I said your original proposal today, madam chair. Yeah. Two, two, two treasure. Three, two, one. And that the only difference now would be that one of the two from the governor would be in fact, the secretary of administration, but that would still leave one other one. Actually that is, that was my original proposal was two for the governor, but I think that. I think that. Having the secretary of administration there is a pretty powerful voice. And, and I think that that. That voice. It really carries the weight of the executive branch and of the governor. And, and I did listen to. Beth's. Justification for that in that. If this isn't seen as balanced that they're the. Energetic. The energy going into this might be less than we hope for if, if there's a feeling that it's stacked against the participants. I mean, I think that that is a very powerful voice. And, and it is true what Beth says that it's the. Legislature. Really is that it's going to make the decisions here. And that has to own this. And so having four legislators on here. Makes sense to me because. We better be behind whatever. Comes out of this. Here, here. Here, here. I agree. That's, that's a Senator column or why I. You are right. My initial one was two. But I think that. Beth's statement. And I think that. We heard before from the unions that the process here is so. Important. And the, the. The perception that it's. That it's really balanced and.  Two house and two Senate members. We don't know who they might be. They might be. Right. We don't know who they'll be people who hate unions or they might be. Union members. I mean, not of these unions, but. So we don't know who they'll be. So we don't know where they're going to. Kind of politically line up. So I'm, I'm fine with Beth's suggestion to. Have the one. And I know the governor would like to have two, but I think that the secretary of administration is a very powerful voice. The only other thing, which I put out, but nobody nippled at all. So I'm just going to be. Willing to put it out again, which is to, if, if Brian, if we were to consider that, that we would then make one of. Those three people, a non-voting member, and then you'd have balance on the vote. That's just an idea. So if you had. What? So if you, yeah, so if you had. The secretary of administration and a governor's appointee and the treasurer. One of them. Would be non-voting. And then you'd have nine. What you'd keep. You'd have nine people, nine voices, but only. Only eight votes. You'd have balanced votes.  Oh, play with this a little bit. I see what you're saying. So that the governor would have. The governor. Basically an alternate on there. Who would be a voice at the table, but not a vote. Right. And then you'd have nine. What you'd keep. You'd have nine people, nine voices, but only. Only eight votes. You'd have balanced votes.  Oh, play with this a little bit. I see what you're saying so that the governor would have. You know, I see what you're saying. Yeah. And then that keeps. That addresses. Brian's concern or. You know, anyway, it's, and it depends on who you'd want to make. Not have the vote, but I mean, it's just an idea. It was just so that you. Anyway, if you wanted to do that. I think that. I think that, you know, there will be many, many, many voices at the table here. I don't think I agree. I think about it. I'm not sure if I, I'm looking at my screen right now and there are. One, two, three, four. There are 12. People here. And they're really, there are only five votes here, but there are 12 voices at the table. And those voices, I think. Have been very instrumental in helping us to. And so when this committee meets, whether it's 11 members or 12 members, they are going to have other voices at the table. They are going to be talking to. To tons of people out there. I mean, they'd better. If these. Nine people or 12 people think that they're going to solve this on their own. They're crazy. Right. We're going to be talking to all kinds of experts and to Tom and to Chris and to. DFR and to human resources.  Solution here. So I'm, I'm not concerned about. Adding. When I think about it, I like your suggestion, but I don't think it makes any sense because there will always be many, many more. Just trying to be creative and thinking. Another option. No, I appreciate that.  I actually wrote down on my notes before we went before we came back in. That one option would be to make one of them non-voting. So Anthony. And I do appreciate your attempt. Senator Clarkson to. At least consider my position. And I guess I find myself in the rather familiar position of. Four to one's. Voting here, which is fine. I don't think it'll keep me from voting against the bill, but I do want to make it clear out. I still think. Because I think, Madam chair, you raise a good point. If you take a little bit of your time, I think it's a good time to make a decision. I think that's a good time to make a decision. I think. Because I think, Madam chair, you raise a good point. If you take a look at the four legislators, you could easily say two of them are going to go one way. And two of them are going to go the other way. And so then we've got five labor representatives and possibly seven votes. If you, if you take the two Democrat progressive, whatever. So. You know what I mean? It just. I still feel that the governor should have that extra voice. But as I said, I think it's not going to prevent me from. Not voting for the bill. May I just say, I just, I just have to say. But I don't, I think there's a common purpose, which is a sustainable pensions. A sustainable pension system that benefits our workers. And our state going into the future. I think everybody should have that same goal. So I would hope that was not a political thing. I mean, I think all of us want a sustainable pension system. It's really important. It's important to our, our, our credit rating around the state. I mean, it's important to everything. It's important to our taxpayers. They, you know, it's important to our beneficiaries. I think.  We're all taxpayers. We all support the system. We all care that it's healthy. So I just don't see this as a political, you know, where that there's any sort of position politically actually. And I would hope if there wouldn't be, I would hope that we all would be wanting the same thing. How we get there is going to be, of course, the robust conversation. But I would really hope that. That piece was not political and that we all hopefully want the same thing. I agree, but I wasn't the one that brought up the balance issue. That was brought up by the, by the labor unions. And so I'm trying to respond to that. Well, being fair to the administration as well. That's all. Yeah. Senator rum. So I just want to say, you know, maybe. I think there are very few decisions where if we just said, let's get a room of financial experts together. And they can solve it, you know, and we would be satisfied with the outcome. No offense, Tom. You know, I think there are very few decisions that, that are, that are that nature. We have loaded this task force up with a lot of big questions and a lot of things that are bigger than just is this pension fund sustainable. And frankly, we're not all in the position of being told, you have to work longer in a prison or doing some back breaking work or teaching after you're burnt out, you know, we're not all in that position. Those are other questions that this group is being asked to consider where it really matters to have labor voices saying that are diverse, right? Because they don't all have the same job and they don't all have the same and elementary school teacher is different than a high school teacher, you know, is different than someone who works in agriculture. So, you know, these are really non monolithic perspectives that all need to be at the table for these big questions we're asking. Right. I think they will be. I think you're right. I think that if you really look at this, there are probably. 12 different perspectives on almost any issue that's going to be presented. Because and because I don't know who will like who. Any A will appoint to this or who VSEA will appoint to it. If the VTA will probably appoint somebody who represents the troopers, but the VSEA could appoint somebody from corrections and somebody from. Who doesn't work in such a high stress situation. I mean, you're right. You're right. There will be many different perspectives. Yeah. Well, that's a given. It's 12 different for monitors. So that's a given. Right. Okay, committee. Can I, I'm going to ask other people now to weigh in on. On the. This proposal that was given to us by the. The treasure, which is to house to Senate. The secretary of administration or designee. To VSEA one VTA. Three NEA and the treasure. So can I hear from. People. Who wants to. Jeff, I see you unmuted yourself. Yeah. Thank you. Madam chair and thank you committee. This has been. It's a much improved work and I appreciate the effort. Significantly as to this particular item. I support the treasurer's move here. I think that. We've, we've been calling a center column or pointed out for balance. For years. Before I worked at Vermont NEA, I represented ERISA plans, which are required to have balance. Multi employer plans have balanced by law. And, and you rarely, if ever have. You know, really divided questions. You really, you know, because everybody, as you pointed out, Senator Clarkson, they're trying to, they want to plan this here today as well as tomorrow. And I will point out that it was a teacher member in the late 90s. Who was really sounded the alarm about the underfunding back then. And file a lawsuit. So as a teacher member of the board. Who really pointed out the underfunding issue. And so. That was, you know, that, that was. So I firmly believe that this balance. On this task force is really important to achieve. And I thank the treasurer for the suggestion and I support it. Thank you. Tom. Thank you, Madam chair. I want to thank you, the members of the committee and treasurer appears for really highlighting the importance of balance in this discussion. We would certainly support this proposal as it accomplishes a balance between voting members of the, who are appoint, who are appointees. And I think that's really important. I think that's really important. I think that's really important. I think that's really important for the members of the three affected labor unions and those who are not. We think that's really essential. And I will just say quickly to a point that senator Clarkson had raised earlier. About the possibility of, of, of stalemate and that being a concern. I think that as you said, madam chair. Balanced composition actually perhaps counterintuitively. Lends itself. I think that's really important. I think that all members of the committee would agree that this has to be a productive productive conversation. As opposed to a system that would be set up in such a way where there might be a perception of a lack of balance either way. And I'll just say our members are eager to have those productive conversations. They have experienced having those conversations in a balance set up through their years of experience. In the collective bargaining process. I know members of this committee will have experienced that And we really do think that is the thing that is most likely to yield what Senator Clarkson and other members of the committee had said quite correctly that we and everyone else wants, which is a productive and stable pension system going forward. So we would support such a balanced approach. Thank you. I got a little distracted there by Steve's t-shirt. Oh, is he joined us. Maybe he heard what we were working on. And he went out quickly and had a t-shirt made. Well, he's been vaccinated.  Maybe they even that t-shirt to wear. I'm going to have Mike weigh in. This makes it easy for me. I agree with Jeff and Tom and the points they made. The most important thing is that going into this task force and starting this work, the state employees and teachers have confidence in the process that's laid out to get to the endpoint. And the balance you're suggesting accomplishes that so we support it. Beth, we know what you think since it was your proposal to begin. She's maybe had time to rethink it. You still support your own idea. Tom Galanca, do you want to weigh in here? I'll just say I support, I support the treasure and the suffer it. And although VPIC isn't named in this task force, we do stand ready and willing to help in any way we can, you know, through this process. So thank you for your efforts here. Thank you. Now, I will ask one more question about the, this board. So currently in the bill, it says that the members from the legislature shall not be direct or indirect beneficiaries of either of the two retirement systems. Do we, do we continue to support that? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Everybody. Okay. And it also says that the members appointed to that the other members. So that would be the F and H, who are F and H. Oh, the, I have to look who are the the any the members appointed by the unions that those six members shall not currently be currently serving as a legislator, or the spouse or partner of an individual currently serving as a legislator. Yes, I support that too. Senator Polina. Sure. Sure. Senator Ron. It's fine and there's a transition period I think for the person we would affect most personally. Well, this there's no transition here because this is a brand new task force. This is the task force. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry, I went right back to VP. Yeah. Yeah. So it does. Is everybody fine with those? Yes. Okay, great. All right, so shall we. I know that center column are that you disagree with this position but does is everybody else in agreement with the with the treasures proposal. Okay, I think we have it. And we didn't even have to pull out the PJs. I know or our dinner, even. But it is time for a glass of wine. Sure. So, I guess, yeah. I will, I will say that I will get this information to Becky. And if we could just meet for a few minutes on Monday to make to get a clean copy and, and have a vote on it. Can we do that. And what time is best we need to make sure that the five of us and Gail and and Becky won't have to be with us because she'll have a clean copy to us but what time should we try to plan on. What. Senator column are. I know that won't work I said 630 in the morning. Okay, great. I have no problem with that. That is so not.  You'll still be up by 630. Well, that's, you know, if we met at 1230 I'd be fine 1238. I'd be fine. I would, I'm, I'm kind of tough on Monday until 1130 or 1145 but I could do any time after that. And I vote for three o'clock it's the one time I wouldn't have to move anything, but I can also move thing. So from like three to four. I doubt we need a whole hour we could say, huh. Hey, some of us work on Monday Sunday to do other. Working at me is that most of us book things on Monday for because it's the one day you have to book all the meetings that you need to do and you're, you know, so. I think it's nine to noon on Monday so afternoon works better for me. So how about Brian if we did it tagged it on to lunch and did it like from one to two, in case you would, it would that be a difficult one for you to move. One to two is probably the hardest one for me to move. Okay. Where about noon. Do it during lunch we could all have lunch together. I'm not exactly expecting an hour either. No, I'm not either noon to two involves work of mind that involves other people other city officials and people that are hard to reschedule around. How about five PM. I've got a meeting at five. I can't do that. How long does your meeting at five last. It will last an hour, or an hour and a half. Or four, four to five I could do. Let's do 430 I doubt if it'll take us more than half an hour. Okay. Does 430 work. Only if it doesn't take more than half an hour. I can, if we can refrain from getting back into the debate on anything. I think that all we need to do is we'll have a clean copy and have a vote. Okay. Okay. Okay. Madam chair. Yes. May I ask a favor? Could you send that to the witnesses as well? No. No. I'm sorry, Beth. We will make sure that it is sent to everybody as soon as it's there is a clean copy. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And that it's also posted. I just want to make sure that in cases like technical, something in and or in order that we take care of it. I absolutely. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. For more debate. Believe me. I'm getting a little punchy here, but. Yes. This bill. This bill was on a journey. Agreed. One stop. There'll be plenty of time for more input. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So. Just in case. We don't have our usual cast of characters with us. On Monday. I just want to. Thank. Everybody for your. Really. Committed and. Flexibility here in working. This is a really hard issue to deal with and it affects so many lives. And, and the. Finances of the state, the, the health of the state. So I think that. Personally, I just want to thank everybody for your involvement here and. Thank you. Tom and Chris and Matthew have been just amazing. And the VTA and the VSEA and the NEA have been. Really helpful and work. I think it's been a good process and. I'm proud of everybody for the work we've done. And committee members for. Hanging in there and for putting up with my. So. I wouldn't call it. Yes. Senator columnar. Thank you, Madam chair. So even though again, I'm in my familiar position. Of the underdog here. Just to show you that there's no arm felt here. And I'm in good spirits. I did look this up. I don't know whether this will help Senator Rom later, but the term half mask is preferred by dictionaries. And I'm in that position. I'm in that position. And I'm in the position that we have staff is more appropriate on land. Right. Thank you. That's great. I thought that confirm a sort of the gut feeling and how about that's great. Thank you, Brian. Your welcome. So. Our eyes. Our eyes are now at half. Half. Okay, so anybody else have anything they need to share right now or want to please know who's cooking dinner.


So hello everybody, I can see a bunch of people who have already joined us for this escalation webinar and you've already started introducing yourselves in the chat. So hello, hi, those of you who are introducing yourselves. A little bit about myself, my name is Lucy Karima. I use the pronoun she and her and I'm based in Budapest in Hungary. I'm from the UK originally and I've been part of the international climate justice movement for about the past 10 years now. And I started off as a youth climate activist, which is why I'm super excited to be part of this project and to be supporting the school that is in this way in September. And this webinar is called escalation, and it's one of three webinars that we're running on a kind of rolling repeating basis over the next few weeks. The other two webinars are on goals and strategy and on going big so recruiting outreach that kind of thing. These two webinars are designed really to be taken in any order so don't worry if this is your second webinar that you joined or your third. They can be taken in any order they all kind of overlap and they're designed to be kind of complimentary in that way. So I want to say hello to those of you who are introducing yourselves in the chat. So hi Grace, hi Georgie, hi Yoko, hello Irons, Bethany, Neil, Johnny, Sarah, and I can see there's some people who have joined you other webinars before so welcome back to you. You'll notice that you're on mute at the moment and you will be muted for the duration of this call. But don't worry there is going to be a chance to come off mute during parts of the call for the discussion. And I'm going to run you through some of the kind of tools that we're going to use with zoom today so some of you might be familiar with zoom some of you may not be but hopefully it's going to be pretty simple. So a lot of you have already discovered the chat box so that's probably our most used zoom tool. And we're asking you to type in your introductions, which everyone is doing so that's just also to get you practicing using that chat box. And you can use the chat box at any point during this webinar to communicate with me with any of the other participants. And just one thing to make sure is that when you are sending a message in the chat, there's a little blue drop down menu. And you can choose who you're sending the message to and we would recommend you put it to all panelists and attendees because that means that everybody's going to be able to see your message. So what we're going to use is the question and answer box the Q&A. So you might see that in your little zoom window a little Q&A box. And we don't use this as frequently but it's there if you want to put a question in there that you don't want to get lost as the chat box kind of scrolls up. So we'll try and answer your question live if we can, or we'll save these questions to the question and answer session at the end. There's also a tool which is raise hand so you'll see this little hand signal. And so during the webinar there might be times when I ask people to share I invite you to come off the mic. So if you'd like to share in that way if you'd like to speak and then do raise your hand and I'll take you off mute. And another tool that we'll be using is the poll but you won't be able to see that in your Zoom window yet. You'll see that when it pops up when I launch a poll. And just to note that if you're joining via a voice call on your phone then I'm afraid you won't be able to take part in the poll but I can explain what's happening and that kind of thing. So hello to everybody who's who's writing in the hellos. So we have people from Mexico we have people from Kenya Paul hello Indonesia Chile. Abby hello. Thank you for saying for typing in your hellos. And that reminds me that we have one person on the call that I'd like to introduce who is our tech person so that's Nicole today Nicole do you want to say hello. Hi everyone. So Nicole is going to be there for you really if you've got any problems with zoom that Nicole might be able to help you with just just reach out to her. She's going to be helping me as well. And so just to let you know we are recording this webinar we record all the webinars and that's really for training purposes and also for you to watch back as well at your leisure. So a big hello to everybody and let's get started. So what you're going to need for this webinar is I'd advise having a pen and paper and just to write your own notes. And this webinar is kind of designed to be interactive so we're inviting you to take responsibility for your own learning and just engage with the questions as much as possible because that will help us to move forward with the webinar. So the agenda today is first of all we're going to talk about why disruptive action wire strike. We're going to talk about getting used to stepping outside of our comfort zones when it comes to the climate strikes. We're going to discuss differing levels of risk that different people will face when it comes to the strikes. And then finally we're going to make a sort of plan of action together. And then I'm going to take you through some of the resources that are available for you. So, I'm going to kick off now with a poll. So, as I mentioned, if you're joining by voice, voice call, I'm afraid you won't be able to see this, but everybody else should have just seen a box kind of pop up on your screen. And what we're asking in this poll, you can start filling it in straight away. It's just for us to get an idea of the experience level on this call and who's in our sort of virtual room. So we're asking, have you been involved in a climate action event before? So no, or yeah, one, maybe two, or I'm a regular activist. I do this all the time kind of thing. And then are you connected up with other local activists? So again, it's a multiple choice. Yes, I'm involved in a local climate action group, or there's a group locally. I'm not involved yet, or there isn't a group. I want to start one, or I don't want to be part of a group. That's also an option. So those of you, I can see all of the responses coming in fast. You can't see this, but I can see it. But I'm going to give you another five seconds to fill that out. So five, four, three, two, one. Okay, so I'll just share the results there with you. And thanks, Georgie, for taking part through the chat as well. It's good to see answers and get to know who's here.  So it's going to be your first time taking action in September, which is super, super exciting. And I want to extend a very warm welcome to you. And we have a few regular activists and some people who have taken action before, so a little, a bit of a mix there. We have most people by small margin know that there's a group locally or are involved in a climate action group already. And a few people would like to start on, which is quite exciting. So thanks for taking part in the poll. Sorry that you can't see the poll, Georgie. I'm not sure why not, but yes, I'm sorry about that. It should have popped up on your screen. So we're going to, first of all, talk about why, why disruption? We're going to start with the basics. What is going to make the global climate strike different to previous days of action? So why a strike?  So we're asking what if Greta had taken, so Greta Thunberg, our friend who's sailing to New York at the moment, what if Greta had taken action on Saturdays instead of Fridays? So instead of going on strike and from school and sitting outside Parliament on Fridays, what if she'd done that on Saturdays?  How would it have been different? So Grace, absolutely, not as much attention. Great, great answer, Georgie. It would have been easy to ignore. I think that's, that's really it would not been impactful. There's no school on Saturdays, less visibility, less impact. Yeah. So I think we're all agreed that it wouldn't have been disruptive. It wouldn't have had the same kind of impact that it has had. And actually we, we don't really have to imagine because we've been doing climate marches on weekends for years. So it's about 10 years since 350.org, organized the first global day of climate action. And of course there are reasons for this, right? Okay. So, so it's more accessible to people to, to hold something like that on a weekend. More people are more likely to show up and that's, that's a reasonable assumption. But as you've all said, you know, that makes it easier to ignore, right? So now young people are actually asking us to strike and strikes are disruptive. They're disruptive to businesses, to education, to industry, to the economy. And so this is really what's, what's led to escalated attention on the climate movement this year. So I want to give a nice quote here from Martin Luther King, which goes that nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such attention that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can no longer be ignored. And of course Martin Luther King wasn't talking about climate change, right? But this is really pretty familiar. So we know that climate change is a crisis, but it's not being treated as such by most governments and particularly not those in the global north. So by interrupting our systems as extinction, rebellion, Fridays for Future, the school strikes have done, just as many, many movements have done over the years. They've recreated a crisis on the ground in practical terms. And in this way, those in power are forced to confront the issue. Another quote here from Shudja Popovich from the time of the Serbian uprising. This successfully led to regime change in 2000. And the quote goes, By themselves, rulers cannot collect taxes, enforce repressive laws and regulations, keep trains running on time, prepare national budgets, direct traffic, manage ports, print money, repair roads, keep food supplied to the markets, make steel, build rockets, train the police and the army, issue postage stamps or even milk a cow. So people provide these services to the ruler through a variety of organizations and institutions. And if the people stop providing these skills, the ruler cannot rule. So this kind of reveals how much power we really have if we look at it in these terms and how the current system relies on all of us to support it and keep it going. So without that, we know that the system wouldn't work. It would crumble. So what's interesting about a strike, going on strike in this way, is that you're kind of interrupting two systems, right?  So your workplace or your school. And then you're also disrupting the place where you're heading to to gather. So it might be a street or a town square. So in that sense, you know, there's two sites of disruption. And there's also two communities of solidarity. So there's your colleagues and fellow students. And then there's the other protesters that you're joining. So my question to you now is thinking about your, your context and your plans for your climate strike. Where are you going to be striking from? So it might be a workplace. It might be school, but give us a bit of information. So the type of workplace or school, the number of people there. So start typing into the chat now. Where are you going to be striking from? Okay, so someone's workplace balance is work. So 200 employees at your work. Okay.  Great. University of central Florida college. So we've got workplaces. We've got universities. We've got colleges. We've got schools, different types of schools, preschools, prep schools. Excellent. Okay. Amazing. So we've got a real variety there. And now I wonder if you can guess what the next question is. So the next question that I want you to tell me is where are you planning to go? And maybe this is figured out for you at the moment. Maybe it's not planned yet, but where are you and your, your colleagues, your fellow students? Where are you going to be marching to? What are you going to be doing? Okay. We've got a neighborhood, neighborhood park Las Vegas strip. Amazing. That sounds very exciting. A marketplace. Okay.  It sounds like where else are people going to be marching to or, or sorry, striking and, and moving to current ideas. Okay. Local environmental department. Okay. Great choice. Okay. Wow. A very powerful place. So where the pulse nightclub shooting vigil was held. Okay. Wow. That's going to be very powerful. Public Plaza. Capital city center. Football field. City Hall representative office. Okay. So there's, it looks like there's a ton of different types of targets that we have. We've got a real mix there of sites of disruption where you're going to be moving to. And it's likely that there's going to be, you know, during your strike, there's going to be many, many different places in one town that people are striking from, but maybe only one or two places where people are going to come and gather. So that's where you're going to, you know, feel the real people power. So now that we're going to, we're going to move into looking at some examples of effective, disruptive action, either recently or historically. And I wondered if you're able to give me some examples of maybe something that you've seen in the news recently, maybe something that you've read about, or you know about historically of examples of effective, disruptive action. And type those into the chat. And your, your eagle-eyed, you've seen everything on the next slide. I thought that I backtrack quick enough so you couldn't see it. So, okay. We've got extinction rebellion in London. Great. Okay. That's a really good example. Blocking streets and airports as in Hong Kong. Okay. So I think Hong Kong is really on everybody's mind at the moment. Yeah. Greta did that alone. She, she disrupted and was successful. Doing her disruption alone. The Parkland student protests. I don't know about those. Bethany, maybe you want to expand on that maybe a little bit. Okay. So we've had some examples. Okay. After the Parkland school shooting. Okay. I understand. The, the, the March for our lives. Against the guns. Protests. Yeah. They were, they were, they've been incredibly effective, powerful, gaining media attention. Absolutely. And disruptive as well. So, you know, we have a few examples. I mean, we've been crowdsourcing these different examples from the different webinars we've been holding. So a few other ideas that people had. Of course, we have the protests in Hong Kong. The yellow vest movement in France. Extinction rebellion. Again, sit-ins blocking oil rigs. And we have some more examples of, for example, strikes and people are going to, you know, a recent example of this is Italian dock workers who refused to allow the Saudi Saudi ships with weapons in protest. Of what's going on in Yemen. We've had economic boycotts. So for example, the South African boycotts, the boycott of South African goods to end apartheid in South Africa. And top of that, we've had a lot of, a lot of, a lot of, the boycott of South African goods to end apartheid in South Africa. Toppling of statues. So for example, those iconic images that came out of Iraq. And the Kay activists who are very close to our hearts. So a group of, you know, people in kayaks basically blocking oil rigs. And we've had some great examples of disruption from black lives matter who've been blocking highways, bridges, stopping deportation flights, that kind of thing. And then on sort of another scale, we've seen sustained civil disobedience movements of civil disobedience, which have led to actual real regime change in the Philippines, for example, in 1986 and in Serbia in the year 2000. So I think one of the, one of the kind of takeaways from this is that. These examples have been very successful. And many people think that, you know, protesters choose nonviolent disruption, civil disobedience or strikes. To be troublemakers, to be the most radical ones, or they choose it because it's the moral choice or the more principal choice.  And these are all valid reasons, but actually one of the main reasons people choose disruption is because it works. And it often works where other tactics have failed and it's been proven to be a highly effective strategy for bringing about lasting change at scale. And perhaps even the most effective strategy. So we're changing the way that we're approaching climate activism to better reflect the urgency and the scale of the crisis. And this also means that we're trying to create a new normal in climate activism, one which is going to shift public perception of the scale of the crisis and hopefully encourage more people to be supportive of our demands. So here's another kind of scenario that I'd like you to imagine.  It's likely that you're going to copy them, right? You're going to shrug and continue as you are. But then imagine that someone comes in and says this is an emergency. There's a fire. Everyone needs to evacuate. And then the first table stands up to leave. Everyone's likely to follow, right? So with the climate strikes, we are those people demonstrating the urgency and we're hoping that people follow us. So now we're going to explore a little bit more about what it means to go on strike from work or from school and to take to the streets and what this might look like for different people in different contexts. So I'm going to launch another poll now. Here we go. This is hopefully going to pop up on all your screens. And we want to know now how comfortable or prepared do you think people in your workplace or school are to take action? So do you think they're already engaged and ready? Do you have an idea of some colleagues or fellow students who you think are going to be into this and helping you to make it happen? Or do you think that there's going to be a lot of resistance? Do you think it's going to be a big challenge? So if you can, could you fill in the poll? And we'll see where everybody is. And the reason we're doing this poll is, you know, we want everybody to be fully ready. And we want to know, are you going to be going on strike with only a few friends, close friends from your team? Or are we going to try and get the whole class or the whole department or the whole school or workplace to go out on strike? So five more seconds. Five, four, three, two, one. There you go. Okay.  A couple of people feel like, yeah, we're ready. Let's do this, which is fantastic. And there's some people who feel like it's going to be a challenge. And that's okay. We're going to talk about that on this webinar and on the other webinars as well. So we're going to have a little brainstorm now. And it's time to get that pen and paper you fetched at the beginning of the webinar. And I'm going to give you one minute from now. I would like you to write down three different people. So for example, your mom or colleague, a hairdresser, a friend, people who you think you might meet in the next 24 hours. And who you can have this conversation with. I'm going to be asking if they will join. So I want you to write down on the paper, those three names. And I'm going to give you about a minute to do that. So start writing now on it. If anybody finishes before that one minute, then do feel free to share in the chat box. Okay. So hopefully all of you have three names down on your piece of paper. So my follow up question now. Is. Of those three people. Who is going to be easiest to convince to join. And who is going to be the hardest person to convince to join the strikes. And I want you to write these into the chat box. So it would be great if you can put, you know, the name of the person plus your relationship to them. So. Maybe don't just put John because I don't know who John is. So just put your, you know, the easiest person that you think you're going to be able to convince pretty easily. And then who's going to be the hardest. Okay. So Rena, is that person who's running for city council. Are they going to be the easiest person to convince to join? Do you think she'll be the easiest? Okay. So staff members are easier to invite because they're already aware of the urgencies. Okay. Easiest activist friend. Okay. So already active. Hardest your daughter. Okay. Rachel class. Classmate has done gum. Gum violence workout will be the easiest. So, or people who are already activists, it looks like these, these people are going to be pretty easy to convince. I mean, they may not, they may not still be easy, but they're going to be easier. Maybe. Okay. Hardest will be the people around the school, such as the parents. Okay. Okay. So for those people who. For whom it's going to be hard. I'm hoping that you're going to ask them anyway. And try and think about the reasons as well, why you think it's going to be hard to convince them, because actually some of those reasons may not exist. And what I mean by that is that sometimes we make assumptions that people don't, aren't already active on climate change because they don't care. And a lot of the time that's not the reason a lot of the time it's because they haven't yet found a way of becoming active. They haven't found their entry point. They don't know what they can do. So hopefully we're providing them with something to do. So we're going to look at some of the barriers that might prevent these people from participating in a strike. And I think that we've already surfaced a few of those barriers. So for example, one of the barriers is that, you know, some people don't believe in climate change. Okay. So there's, there's a very obvious barrier right there, which is kind of ideological barrier.  So what might they be scared of? What might be the barrier? So I want you to think about these people who might be holding back from taking part in the strikes. What are those barriers holding them back? And maybe you can type into the chat some answers. Maybe you've thought about this. Okay. People might not want to strike because they don't want to inconvenience others at our workplace who will have to fill in from them for them. That's a good point actually. Yeah. Uncertainty. So some people are not sure whether that's actually going to make a difference. Fear of getting fired. Yeah. This is, this is a very understandable one. Yeah. So in people, you know, for people for whom, you know, their job is not secure, especially, um, who are not allowed to strike, for example, that might be an even bigger risk. Fear of being laughed at, fear of getting a no from their boss. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So we have quite a few fears here coming out as barriers. So fear of being alone, fear of sort of standing out and, and, you know, being the only one doing this. Um, people, people, I guess, underestimating the threat of climate change or not believing in it. So thinking it won't affect them, not believing in climate change. And people uncertain whether what they're doing is going to make a difference. And, you know, that's a very reasonable, uh, concern, for example. So thank you, Nicole is typing in your answers into this sheet here. And I'm going to share with you, you know, a few of the other ideas that we've had. That have come through these webinars. Um, one of those barriers. Oh, sorry. Let me just see. I've got them. I think I might have deleted them. Sorry. Oh, that's okay. That's okay. Because what we can do now is we can focus on some of those barriers and think about what might be some of the supports that we might offer to people. So for example, if your friend is uncertain that what they're going to do is going to make a difference. How can you help them to overcome that uncertainty? How can you still inspire them to be part of it? And you can type in the chat your ideas. You can raise your hand as well. Let me see if we have some of our supports here. Yeah. Okay. So Georgie says, yeah, let's point to examples. So Greta, the Eleverse Civil Rights Movement. So this is one of the reasons we started off with this, uh, with this kind of brainstorm thinking about all of these really effective disruptive actions that have happened. Um, that have been incredibly successful. Um, and showing that this is a real, this is a strategy that the climate movement until this year maybe or last year hasn't really employed at scale. And this is why it's going to work. Inspire people to be a part of it because of their lives and lives of their children. Absolutely. So I think that we have these kind of ideas about how to start these conversations and how to remove some of those barriers. Some of the ideas that we came up with as well are, so for example, we've listed some of these barriers and, and there's some examples that we came up with earlier, um, throughout the course of these webinars, uh, about, you know, some of you have, have like alluded to this financial risk, the job security risk. So what are the kind of things that we can put in place for people to kind of feel like that's a risk they can overcome. So for example, solidarity funds might be something that you might want to employ. Um, this idea that you can't make a difference. Well, we've got all these examples of historical change that have used this strategy that we're employing and have brought about lasting change. Um, this kind of fear of being alone, you know, why don't we set up affinity groups or buddy pairs? Um, I want to pick up on this point really from Neil as well. It's important to manage expectations at this stage. The gathering can help grow a movement for eventual direct action, even if it doesn't cause immediate policy changes. I think that's a really good point, Neil. I think that what we're trying to, what we're trying to do is we're using these goals, these massive sort of high level goals of like system change, uh, ending fossil fuels. We don't expect that this one climate strike is going to achieve that. Right. So I think that's a really good point. Thank you, Neil. So moving on.  And I think that this has arisen in sort of various places, but we want to give it a bit of attention. We want to make sure that our event draws on the strengths of everyone who's participating. Right. But we know that people in certain communities experience a maybe, you know, more substantial barriers to participating in certain strikes or protests. So I've got kind of a different question now, which is, what additional risks or barriers might these kinds of people in these communities experience when attending a protest? So oppressed ethnic minorities, for example, women, children, elders, disabled people, LGBTQ people, low-income workers, people in precarious work, what are those sort of additional risks or additional levels of risk that they might face or barriers that they might face when they're wanting to participate in this kind of protest event? So we've had a comment that minorities sometimes are the most dynamic and dedicated. I think that's a really good point. And what we want to impress is that we're not talking about so much creating space within our movement, right? We're not so much talking about that as we are talking about learning from the experiences of communities who have been often doing the most radical work in the most difficult circumstances in terms of activism for a really long time and making sure that we're drawing on those strengths and drawing on those experiences and inviting people into a space that is safe and is going to address those kind of inequalities. So violence harassment, prejudice from others, prejudice from others, not being able to afford the lost wage hours for low-income people, absolutely. Further stigmatization. Yeah, opponents using their status to distract from the issue or marginalize protesters. Make sure every single person feels included and every person can make a difference. People of color might be targeted by police when protesting, protesting even while white people do the same thing. Yeah, this is certainly true in many parts of Europe, in the US for sure. Historical violence from officials. So I think that, yeah, physical harm and risk. So I think that I think, you know, we've all got this. I mean, if one of my friends who I'm asking to participate in this global action, for example, if they are a migrant worker who's not sure of their working status and rights, it's likely they're going to face a higher legal risk and a higher job security risk, right? Maybe some of you might have heard of a recent raid by the immigration officials in the US by ICE on a chicken processing plant in Mississippi that targeted those migrant workers who had already been on strike and had already been fighting for better work conditions. So these are the kinds of extra risks that people from these communities might face when carrying out a kind of protest that, you know, others from the majority may take for granted. And one of you quite rightly said that, you know, for example, in many countries, people of color are going to face a much higher risk to their physical or legal safety as, you know, even when those communities gather peacefully, they're more likely to be targeted by authorities, they're more likely to face higher penalties and sometimes even physical risk to themselves. So I mean, I think that we all get this, but some reasons for being diverse and inclusive, you know, we talk about this a little more in the goals and strategy webinar, but the root causes of the climate crisis are grounded in white supremacy, are grounded in capitalist neoliberalism. You know, the root cause is this idea that some people's profit is more important than other people's well-being. And so this is something we are going to be challenging with every action that we take. Also, recognizing that in a state of emergency, we do risk further marginalizing or scapegoating certain communities, stripping them of their rights, and we need to practice solidarity in every action that we take. And quite simply, if we don't include people, if we're exclusive, if we stick to our little bubble, we're never going to reach a critical mass of people power that's needed. So I want to tell you a little case study thinking about, you know, ways that we can, we can diversify the roles within our actions to make it more inclusive and to have different levels of risk within our actions. I want to tell you a little story which is in the climate resistance handbook, which is the story of a student who is living under the repressive authoritarian regime in Mongolia in the 1980s, a student called Hashbat Hulan. And on International Human Rights Day in 1989, Hashbat and around 200 students organized a protest in the main square of the capital. And this was quite a radical act at the time. It was quite risky, but it got people's attention and it cut through the media propaganda. So next, they created an organizational structure. They created roles and tactics. They organized coordinating committee meetings, open meetings, which is kind of the opposite to what the government was doing, which were attended by thousands of people. And at some point, the students decided to go on hunger strike. So obviously high risk tactic, high risk strategy going on hunger strike. And they did this in like publicly in the main square when it was minus 15 degrees. And they got a huge amount of attention and publicity. And they reached out to allies to support, but they didn't ask everybody to do the hunger strike. They just asked people to support in a way that's disruptive, but in a way that feels safe for people. So for example, 500 mine workers stopped work for an hour in solidarity, so not for the whole day, because there was obviously a risk that they couldn't take, but they stopped work for an hour. And symbolically, this showed how much they were aligned with this movement, how much they supported this movement. Monks joined, they offered support, and teachers went on strike. So teachers did go on strike. In the long term, they withdrew their labor. And eventually, this worked. And the students got their demands. They managed to mount the pressure and become successful and have their demands for democratic elections met. And some of the principles in this story that we can learn from are, of course, solidarity and support and consent and, you know, doing what you feel comfortable with, but also allowing there to be differing levels of engagement, differing roles. So what we're saying here is not that everybody should be able to just choose what's the easiest thing for them to do, right? Because this isn't really about what's easy. It's about determining what is the most impactful and disruptive action that you can take whilst also ensuring your safety, right? So that's really what we're asking. So now my question for you, the last question, is really, how could you design your strike action to include differing levels of risk or diverse roles? So once again, I want you to type into the chat if you have any ideas for roles which might be a lower level of risk, might enable people who are willing to take more risk and still might be disruptive, but might enable more people to take part. So Bethany already, I have a friend who's unable to strike but is helping us to plan the event. Okay, so a behind the scenes role is definitely, you know, something that you could offer out to people. Lower risk sharing on social media, helping to create banners or content. Yeah, absolutely, Yoko. I think, you know, certainly during your strike, you might need somebody sat somewhere with really good internet connection who is just blasting out all of the tweets that are coming through from the strike. It's a low risk job but somebody's got to do it, right? A group of parents that's unwilling to hold signs but had the idea of creating a line of parents holding hands to show their support. That's really nice. I think that's a really nice way of, you know, acting in solidarity but maybe not taking on that risk of being noticed. Excellent. I think these are really good ideas. People who can't afford losing wage hours during prime time could help with prep off hours, direct attention to the strike at their work. Excellent. Some great ideas. Climbing, some holding banners, some securing the area, talking to press, absolutely. Getting permission from Climate Change Department, okay. Okay, yeah, saying that it's going to be a peaceful protest to educate and spread awareness. Okay, so ways of sort of mitigating the risk as well. I like that. I like that idea. So I think that, you know, this is a great exercise to do to sort of make sure that your event really is inclusive and is recognizing, I think most of all, those differing layers of risk that people are able to or not able to take on. Okay, Johnny, you're creating a viral video, wow, with multiple sources. Okay, that sounds very, very exciting. Maybe you can tell me more about that later. And so I think that, I think we've seen that there are loads of different types of ways that we can get people involved. But again, making sure that it's not just sort of like the easiest thing to do, that people are stepping outside of their comfort zones, but they're doing it in a way that's safe for them, right? So now it's time to put our learnings into practice. So what we would like you to do is to practice, is to have those conversations. So you've all listed like three people, right, that you think you'll come across in the next 24 hours that you think you might be able to talk to. So our task for you, our challenge is to talk to them, to ask them if they want to join, can you join us? And keep that conversation going, right? If they say yes, then, you know, ask how they're feeling about it, see how they can be involved, maybe give them a role. If they don't want to take part, it'd be great to hear more about what's holding them back. And maybe it's one of these barriers that we've discussed. And maybe you feel like there's a way that you can persuade them to take part. And the second part of this task is to report back. So we actually have a Facebook group. So some of you might already know, but we have a Facebook group, we've set it up for you folks to support each other, to write your reflections, and to give each other advice and to help each other along this journey. So I'm going to ask my tech person, Nicole, if you can possibly type in, there you go. So the link to the Facebook group is in the chat box now. You can already click on it, you can already request to join, I will approve your request. And really this group is for you. So to share your learnings and to ask each other questions. If you don't have a Facebook account, you can also report back to me via email. And that's my email there, lucy.cadena at 350.org. And so I want to spend a bit of time just going through some of the resources that are available to you during this time, and make sure that you have the support you need. So the first, I mean, obviously is the climatestrike.net, globalclimatestrike.net website. Hopefully you're all kind of familiar. Maybe some of you have used this to register for this webinar. But I wanted to draw your attention to some of these resources and we're adding resources all the time. We're updating this website all the time. So there's a really, really useful, frequently asked questions there, which has got most of the information you're really going to need to know about the context of the global climate strikes, what's planned, what's planned in different places. And there's a super little nifty map there with new events cropping up all the time. So you can find one near you, join up with a group near you if there is, or start your own.  So if you can print out some of these, these are super great. I want to show you some of these like closed signs. So you can print these off. These are like little stickers.  And they're just really cool. And they'll help to get a lot of attention. So there's tons of different resources here on this website for you. Another great resource that I want to draw your attention to is the Climate Resistance Handbook, which is a handbook that we've been drawing from for these webinars, for these trainings. And there's a link there to it. And this is actually a free resource. So you can scroll down and you can download your free copy as a PDF. And it's written by Daniel Hunter with Afford by Greta Thunberg. It's really great. And this whole website as well, trainings.350.org, it's got tons and tons of resources to help you out. So it's worth having a little look through there. And of course, you can contact me at any time, lucy.cadena at 350.org. And if that's too long to remember, just help at 350.org. And that will get you through to me. So I want to leave the space for any questions that we have. Oh, Melissa said, please type these links. So I wonder if, Nicole, are you able to type those links into the chat so that people have them there and can copy them? Just to let you know that you'll also get an email after this webinar from me. And we'll have all of these links in there. So you'll be able to look at them from there. It's also going to remind you to register for the other topics if you haven't already. It's going to remind you of the Facebook group. And it's also going to ask you if you've got any feedback, which we are always very, very grateful for. And just also to mention, there's going to be a survey that will pop up after this webinar, which is of course completely optional, but it's going to help us monitor our progress in building a powerful diverse movement. So we'd be really grateful if you can fill that out as well. So yeah, so let's take some questions. We have a few minutes now at the end. I'm going to check and see if there's anything in the Q&A box. Okay, so Carl asks, is it important that a person strikes from work? So what if the person can take a day off or use paid holiday to attend? So I think, Carl, I think this is, it's a really good question. And I think that it's all about, again, looking at different levels of risk and what you are comfortable with, what is safe for you. So obviously, we are recommending that as many people as possible do strike from work, because that's really what's going to cause that kind of shutdown effect. That's what's going to really disrupt the economy, industry, businesses, schools, that kind of thing. But again, it's about those differing layers of risk and those differing kind of barriers that people have. There are other ways, and on the website, there are lots of different kind of ways that people can contribute to the strike. So for example, maybe you don't, maybe you still work that day, but you hold a workshop on the climate strikes on climate action, for example. If you're a teacher, maybe you can do this as well.  So there's a question from Rena, which is how to motivate people in a small city or school to join the protests even, especially when you don't know the host. So I think that's a good question. And by the way, if anybody who feels like they have any answers to these questions as well, please do take part. I think, you know, I come from a very small city and a very small school, and I'm thinking back to what this might have been like. And I think that the main thing that's going to really make people feel connected to something bigger than what they're doing is that kind of sense of global solidarity, is making people realize that they're part of something that's not just, you know, something small where they are, but actually they're part of a global movement and a global action, and everybody's doing this together. So I feel to me, being from a small school, a small city and a small school, I feel like that would make a difference to me and that would motivate me. And if you can think of ways to integrate that sense of global solidarity and that sense of it being a global moment into your action, I think that would really make it a bit more powerful for people. We've got a question from Yoko. Could you recommend certain policy changes that can be used as a guideline and reference to make a city carbon free? I don't know if I have any, because they are so circumstantial and context specific that I don't know whether I could recommend one sweeping policy recommendation. However, Yoko, I would really recommend that you come to our training on goals and strategy, because that's where we're going to delve a lot more deeply into these questions of aims and policy changes and recommendations, both at, you know, at the global level, at the national level, and at the local level. So I think if you can join us there, that would be really helpful. And I'm just checking. So Melissa says, our local elementary school principal is holding an assembly prior to each strike to teach kids about the climate crisis. She's pledged to allow students, teachers and parents to go on strike if they choose. That's fantastic. We need way more principals like that. That's amazing. So, oh, Nicole, did you want to say something? No. No. Just to show my face. And Johnny's telling us about his viral video to reach over 100 million people and wondering if I can be putting contact with higher up. Okay, Johnny, I'm going to talk to you after this. Okay, let's chat after this webinar and talk about this viral video. And one question from Melissa, is there a list of scientists, professors, CEOs, companies would be nice to send to other professors, et cetera, to say, look who's in, you're not alone. That's a fantastic question, actually, Melissa. I'm not sure if we have on the website that list. What we certainly do have on the website is a big list of the supporting organizations.  So there's like trade unions. There's lots of NGOs. There's kind of a real diversity of different partners. And that's kind of also down at the more specific regional level. There's, you know, look, all these many, many, many partners. In terms of who's in, I mean, I think that there are a few kind of open letters that have been sent around the kind of school strikes supporting the strikes. And so I don't have a list to hand, but I know that there are some kind of supportive letters with like a list of different professors and things like that. So I think that's a really great question, Melissa. And I will suggest to the team that we get some kind of list together like that. Okay, so I think that I've answered all the questions. And I, unless there are any more questions, I think that I'm going to say a big thank you to everybody for joining. And don't forget, you can get into contact with me at any point. If you have any questions, let us know how you get on in the Facebook group with talking to your three people. And don't forget to sign up and register for the other webinars in this series, because it'd be great for you all to carry on because some of the questions that you've come up with, we're going to tackle any other sessions as well. So a big thank you for joining for everybody. And if you're looking for how to leave the call for those of you not familiar with Zoom, there's like a little leave, leave webinar signed somewhere here. So thank you everybody and see you on the next training.