Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Tim Nugent]: Alright. We're live. Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning, everyone. It is Thursday, January 9, just after 9AM, house government operations and military affairs. We are continuing our work on h five sixty seven, an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and a capital debt, a k a k a miscellaneous treasurer's bill. So we're doing witness testimony after, hearing from some other folks last week and, reviewing the bill. So we're here to talk to relevant stakeholders and hear their thoughts and opinions. So, we'll start off with Josh Hanford, if you could, sir. Good to see you again, Josh. Sir, charging you your rent.

[Josh Hanford]: I can get you off to a quick and efficient start because I don't have a ton to comment on other than, the language that pertains to the REAMers members about, is in line with, we don't have any concerns on that language. It sort of tries to clarify consistent across the state employees and and VMR's systems. We don't believe it would have any negative impact on our members. Certainly reserve the right if anything changes along the way here to come back and talk to you more. But we've checked in with the folks that, sort of monitor that on our end and don't believe this language creates any concerns for us. That's really all I have to say here.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I wish I had like

[Steve Howard]: something prepared,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: but the thunder bender that prevented me from

[Josh Hanford]: getting to my parking spot this morning has me a little behind schedule.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Did somebody bend your ear?

[Josh Hanford]: Not mine. No. Just couldn't get where I was going. Okay. We're all good. Can't get there from here.

[Tim Nugent]: Exactly,

[Josh Hanford]: exactly. But yeah, pretty short and sweet for us. I don't know if you have any specific questions, but we believe this is sort of technical from our perspective on the areas that that we concern

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: concern with. No, I mean, that's kind of what I was looking for was just the opinion as it was relevant to your your association, your Yeah. Alright. Any questions for Josh from the table? Seeing no hands. You're relieved, sir. Thank you. Yes. We'll be back. Appreciate it.

[Tim Nugent]: Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Up next, Tim and Jennifer Decent.

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: I'm the president of the Sheriff's Association sitting in the good chair. I'm gonna sit in this one right here. We have pretty brief testimony. Tim leaders, want Department of State attorneys and sheriffs.

[Sheriff Jennifer Harlow]: Jennifer Harlow, sheriff of Orleans County, president of Vermont Sheriff Association. So

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: we did deputy treasurer Sherrer and I did speak on this briefly, and I know the treasurer will be coming in to speak with majority of the sheriffs a couple weeks, which will be great to just talk through. As some as, Tim Duncan knows, so I used I used to work in the treasurer's office. I remember some of the history on this. And, you know, there was a transition a few years back. And so, this mostly pertains to, everyone remembers in this committee, there's the county pure county side of the sheriff's operations, and there's the state side

[Steve Howard]: of the sheriff's do, which

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: is where I I fall. And so with respect to the state side, we pay the salary and benefits of the sheriffs, and we also have the state employees that engage in transport active state employees under supreme court decision. And so those are really under our department, but we allocate them for law enforcement supervision to local sheriff. Not every sheriff has a transport deputy or deputies, but they are spread across the state. Sheriff Pablo has two transport deputies in Orleans, for example. There's 25 FTEs in the transport program, 21 are currently filled. Conversation for a different day, but BAA will hopefully help us fill some of those vacancies. Over time, it's driving us through the roof. Have to say it when I'm in the room here even though it's total. With respect to this bill, it really will come down to the continued culture of compliance that I think the treasurer is is trying to engage with, so that this doesn't have to be exercised. And we're talking about section six of of the bill, relating to the state system. And there are some, sheriffs that opted to go into the state system and some that are still in the Beamer system, as you know. And so equalizing and creating some equity between the enforcement provisions is well intended. And as a former treasury employee, having, the support of fiscal health across the system is something that you'll never hear anyone in our department or across the sheriffs have any issues with retirement funds, need employee and employer contributions always. And we wanna ensure that there are safeguards so that when there's no treasurer paycheck or no Tim Dugent in the future, a 20 treasurer twenty years in the future cannot, abuse any portion of of statute, or selectively utilize it. As a prosecutor myself, I always try to changing statute, we're ensuring that there are safeguards. And those can both be in statute, but also in MOUs, administrative practices between agencies and departments. And so we're gonna continue that side of it. Regardless of what's happening here, if a treasurer sorry, if the sheriff in a particular county who should be contributing falls out of compliance and we're aware of particularly one sheriff who did fall out of compliance who also happens to be removed from the ability to engage in law enforcement activities in northern part of the state. We engaged with that sheriff and helped to make clear that the employer contribution is vital, and the employees that work for that individual in that county deserve both sides of the nation to be punished for any of that. So we are supportive of, creating some equity, and I'll leave, the remainder for sheriff Harlow to to detail as well. Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Just a a quick question where where you caught that contributions not being remitted properly or on time or whatever the details were. How was that flagged? Did you get that audit? Or

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: It was flagged by the director of the retirement division, to us, and then we engaged with the they had been engaging with that sheriff, and they were they were not, having, success and and despite really good efforts. And so then, Annie Noonan, in our department, I got on the phone with that sheriff a number of times and brought the individual into compliance. And I should also mention with me in the room today is Annie's successor, the new director of labor relations and operations, Lauren Clemens, who comes to us, twenty years of experience at Social Security. And so the federal government's losses are is our major gain. So Lauren is the the successor to Annie's position here, engages with the sheriffs on lots of issues. That's, that's the story with that one, sheriff in particular. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Table is yours.

[Sheriff Jennifer Harlow]: Just, we're mostly looking looking at this and speaking with the treasurer's office. We are looking in compliance with this, but looking again for safeguards. The treasurer is gonna be coming to meet with us, like Tim said, the next couple weeks. We're looking forward to that conversation. They may have more to offer after that. But right now, that's what we have. Thank you.

[Tim Nugent]: Great. That's it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions? Representative Hooper or Brown, Jim? Some sheriffs are in favor of some. Are.

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: We look to the retirement division for that breakdown. I don't exactly remember the full breakdown on that.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: If you may, sir.

[Tim Nugent]: Tim Nugent, Director of Retirement System in the Children's Office. In Beamer's, we have Essex, Chittenden, Grand Isle, Washington, and Orleans. Then, there's leave Addison. It's not.

[Tim Lueders-Dumont]: Conversation for a different day.

[Steve Howard]: Continuity comes to mind. Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you for that, Tim. Any other questions at this stage? Seeing no hands. Alright. We are moving along briskly. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Up next, sergeant Mike O'Neill

[Nick Kramer]: and House of Kate Nugent Charter.

[Mike O’Neill]: I think Dean will testify in part, so I think I'll testify one pretty, pretty quick.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. That's totally fine. If you feel like coming up as well or leaving him isolated on its own, that is your fault. Retired. Sorry. Okay. I didn't I didn't have that footer on my cheat sheet. Too hard. I'm

[Tim Nugent]: one of those. Let let this thing go.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No.

[Sgt. Dan Trotter]: Good afternoon. Good morning. Excuse me. My name is Dan Trotter. I'm a sergeant with the state police. I'm the president of Vermont Troopers Association.

[Mike O’Neill]: And Mike O'Neill. I'm the director of the association and a retired trooper.

[Sgt. Dan Trotter]: So we will be, short and sweet as well. We did have a chance to review, the language in this, and, I was also member of the previous, pension task force in 2021, and, again, we would be, in favor of creating, this task force, and as, as it's presented here, we're certainly in favor of the language, and all of the stakeholders in it. And certainly, we are in the same agreement. Anything that we can do to maintain the sustainability of this for our retirees, and for the taxpayers, and everyone else is certainly a noble goal, and it's something that we look forward to working with.

[Mike O’Neill]: Give you the first time too. There's a task force that they start their work on the same page, going in the same direction with a common goal because they've been some pretty divisive issues over the last years. We've gotten to good points with them, but there were some challenges. And I'm hoping this is something that starts with everyone going in the same direction.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I guess in summary, just as far as words on the page, you're finding everything available Yep. With how it reads right now? Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Questions from the table. Thanks, Ben. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. One quick note.

[Steve Howard]: Alright.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Steve Howard. How you doing, Steve? Well, how are you? Doing?

[Steve Howard]: It's Thursday. We're almost there. For the record, I'm Steve Howard. I'm the executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association. And I just wanna say for the record that I am in full compliance with Annie Newman And will remain so for the rest of my life. Yes. To be sure everyone's aware of that. Compliance thresholds carry a new retirement. Annie could bring a sheriff into compliance, I guess. In the

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Northwest. Yeah. Yeah.

[Steve Howard]: So on behalf of our members, I would like to say that, we are strongly in support of this legislation. We think it's a visionary piece of work by, our treasurer who we have had a great working relationship with. We are excited about the fact that we are we can see the finish line, and we are getting closer to having a fully funded pension system. Pension system is a pension is a promise. It's critical to the recruitment and retention of state employees. And with almost 900 vacant positions in state government and many more soon to be coming, We need this pension to keep our our workforce active and vital. So it's it's really important to us that this legislation be adopted. I think, we did consult I'm here with Tom who is the brains of our operation here. And he, he and I spoke with, Eric Davis, is our treasurer, but is also the chair of the retirement board, who looked at this legislation. He had one suggestion, and of course, it'll shock you that the State Employees Association, both supports the new positions that are in the bill, but also would suggest one more additional position be added. I believe, Eric's suggestion was that a new position be added, at VPIC, to help manage the growing workload, around the OPEB liabilities. You know, we are we are we've turned we turned a corner a few years ago and began to, prefund and invest, to provide retiree health care, which makes a lot of sense for retirees, but also for the fiscal health of the state. And they just have additional work and have been trying to get, hoping to get another position to help them, with that workload. So with that, and before I screw anything else up, I'll just say, here's my testimony, mister chairman. Okay. So with the exception of a desire for

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: one more position for BPEC for a OHEB liability, that is that's all you got for us? That's all I got. Okay. Questions from the table?

[Tim Nugent]: What's the acronym?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: OHEB? It's the benefits. Yep. Yep.

[Steve Howard]: It's I'm sorry.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I should have OPEB. OPEB.

[Steve Howard]: Employee Other Other

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: employment benefits.

[Tim Nugent]: That's

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Other I had a word for that one too. You started prompting me, and then I got it to roll out.

[Steve Howard]: I had you on the acronym. I was breaking down the actual, like, long form. Sorry.

[Tim Nugent]: I should

[Steve Howard]: have explained that.

[Sheriff Jennifer Harlow]: It's been a lot of these acronyms.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. I would say the big buckets of acronyms for us are the pension system and the military. Yeah. Lot of acronyms. Yeah. I'm using the

[Steve Howard]: Wait till you hear from DCF. Like Yeah. Fortunately, that is

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We should work hard at military.

[Steve Howard]: DCF has, like, acronyms for everything. You know?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: A little side project for you. You can do a pension systems acronym sheet for us as a working document. What a great idea, Tom. Found

[Tim Nugent]: that out

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: there as a resource for the committee. Delegating.

[Steve Howard]: Yes. Oh, no. I could

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: preach, brother. Yeah. Alright. On that note, last call for Steve. No? Alright, man. Thank you so much. Wow. Wow.

[Tim Nugent]: Alright. Colin, good to see you.

[Colin Robinson]: It's been a while. It has been a minute. I mean, you're

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm across persistently across the hall. Yeah. That's happened. You never saw over there.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'll be here. Wonderful.

[Colin Robinson]: Well, thanks for having me. For the record, Colin Robinson, Vermont, NEA. And just want to, sort of join the chorus here in, thanking the treasurer's office for their work on this. Before I get into some substance, I just wanna mention point of education is that, obviously, we represent k 12 educators, and that includes support staff as well as licensed teachers. So, obviously, the teachers are investors, the teachers' retirement system, but actually two thirds of the participants of VMers are school employees, bus drivers, food service workers, paraeducators, business managers. And so, folks often don't necessarily realize that, but we also represent a significant number of folks in the beamer system. So, as it relates to the task force, obviously, tremendous work was hard work was done by all last time in '21 and '22, and we recognize that this, little mini task force is a important step to landing that plane so we can realize the fully funded promise of the pension system by 2038. So we are comfortable with that language and appreciate that work. On the OPEB side of things, absolutely recognize that now that we're on this path of prefunding, and we have significant funds that are there. They should be invested, in the most economically advantageable way to the system. Also, I just wanna, say that I think it might have flown on the radar. Maybe you all had an opportunity to hear from Tim Duncan and his team, but the treasurer of the office just did, phenomenal work this summer related to the teacher's health care retiree health care benefit. And, the VISTAs board, turned around and, did some phenomenal work this summer realizing that Blue Cross Blue Shield's Medicare Advantage plans were gonna come in incredibly hot with incredibly high plan costs and, really just want to acknowledge their incredible work to turn that around to both save taxpayers money on the OPEB side of things as well as retired educators and teachers money. So that's section eight through 20. And then the final thing I just wanna mention is, in sections twenty one and twenty two of the bill, and we appreciate the treasurer's office, having this language in there and represent Birong having this language in there. This would allow a person who is elected to serve as the president of an employee organization who otherwise would be eligible to participate in VMRs or VISTAs to, in an actuarially neutral way, receive, and be allowed to purchase service credit for their time serving as president of that employee organization. This is already allowed for folks who, provide service to the peace corps, to the military, time is teaching in another state, and, this is a cost born solely by the individual, but it would acknowledge that service that they provide to the state and the community. And so just wanted to acknowledge that section as well. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Questions for Colin. Wow. I saw this body mass. I thought we were gonna be at least, like, an hour an hour hour.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Excellent.

[Josh Hanford]: Nothing else for calling. Please, sir.

[Colin Robinson]: Alright. Thank you all. Happy to come back anytime.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. We got the good coffee.

[Tim Nugent]: Retirement boards, the VISTAs, VCRS, and VMERS, have asked me to come in today and share their support for this bill. I submitted two documents to the committee. One is a letter that or a memo that I provided last week from the systems that expressly provides support for the two positions that will the one position that's in the bill and then that second position that Mr. Howard referenced for VPIC. Our boards heard from VPIC and they heard from us at our January meetings talking about the bill generally, but also specifically the position requests that we have in the retirement division and that VPIC has in VPIC. I know this committee has had a walk through the bill, so I won't do that again, I'm happy to answer any questions or take it in any direction you'd like to go.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Robert Hooper. What's your most recent, most accurate estimation of the loss to the system of the two positions?

[Tim Nugent]: I don't know VPCs offhand. I apologize. I think what I heard from Eric last was in the 130 range. Don't quote me on that. Think Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: With an ish. Yeah. And I

[Tim Nugent]: know the treasurer just presented our budget yesterday. The retirement division position, I think is coming in around 140, fully loaded.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's correct. That was gonna be my question because I know the one position was that it was gonna be funded through the by by the fund, not taking from I was curious about the second, then you just answered that.

[Tim Nugent]: Yeah. That's generally speaking, for these funds, It's actually a they're complicated, but it's a really simple, simple idea. It's the contributions from employees and employers go in along with investment earnings. That's the inputs and the outputs are the benefit payments. And then the expenses of administering the system and salaries of my team are inexpensive administering the system.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, I know BAA is moving out the door soon. So we're starting to pull together our work on the on the big bills. So you have a conversation a little bit later about the memo from you folks that have something to work off as we start building our budget memo for appropriations.

[Tim Nugent]: That is very much on our radar.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The two I assumed, hey, we're here. We're being formal. The

[Tim Nugent]: two items from this bill specifically that would implicate appropriations would be the position, obviously. And then that task force, we're asking for a $75,000 appropriation to retain our actuaries to they have to run scenarios to help us understand what option A versus option B versus option C would look like on our funding path.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. So yeah, no. The need and the request is totally understood. We're just trying to get our homework in order sooner than later. Happy to help everybody. So thank you. Any questions for Tim? All right. Yes, please. Yeah, yeah. We got nothing but a clock.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Could you talk a little bit more about the one position versus two positions and prioritization? And would it be as efficient and effective, you think, with one?

[Tim Nugent]: So those positions are very different. Just to be clear, this bill, as it sits right now, it's only the one position in the retirement division. I can't really speak too much to the other position, at a high level, because I'm familiar with their work in VPIC. It's a whole separate organization, and it's focused on the work of investing the funds. That work has both gotten increased in size in recent years. And now with our OPEB funds going over, we'll increase in complexity too. It's not at all unlikely that those funds would be managed in a slightly different way, given the different nature of the liabilities associated with the OPEB system. So increased size and complexity there. And really, it's a similar story on our side. It's just different types of work. Know, Mr. Robinson mentioned the work we did with HealthSpring this summer. When I started in the treasurer's office back in 2017, health insurance, we procured the policy for the teacher system. It was pretty simple. We went through VIHI, which is the entity that provides health insurance for active service. They're a great organization. They provide a lot of tools and a lot of expertise at a quasi public. So they're kind of different than your average health insurer. In past years, we've changed the way we provide health insurance, first with VBA and now

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: with

[Tim Nugent]: HealthSpring. One effect of that is that our comprehensive plan today is cheaper than it was in 2021, which is a pretty amazing thing in this health care environment. So we've gotten a lot of value out of it. Flip side is there's a ton more complexity that comes along with administering that. And that's just one area. All of the different systems are getting more complex. So what we need is someone to focus both on our health care plan, our supplemental plans. We administer fine contribution and deferred compensation plans. They're getting more complicated. You may have heard a couple of years ago, Secure Act two point zero was passed, and that brings a whole another raft of complexity into the systems. So with that, and in order to continually both prudently manage the systems today and find opportunities for savings tomorrow, we believe another position in

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the retirement division is important.

[Tim Nugent]: Anything else, Tim? That's it for me. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And finally, the list, have Nick Crank. Very

[Nick Kramer]: grateful to all of the ongoing witnesses for leaving me the full hour and a half, which I intend to fully utilize. This cable is yours. I suffocate. Yes, I will be brief. For the record, Nick Kramer, I'm the Chief Operating Officer of Agency of Administration. Good to see the committee again, be back in the room. We, I've been asked very specifically to testify on section 23 of the bill, having to do with some amendments to the CDAC statute. So, I'll keep my comments limited, to that section unless of course there are any other questions from the committee. But, the brief history here and I apologize, I haven't had a chance to catch up with prior testimony. So I don't know if the committee's gotten a primer on this section or not. CDAC is of course the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, which is a statutorily enabled body that meets, annually to review the kind of portfolio of state debt and issue recommendations on what they believe to be the prudent amount of debt that we can issue, general obligation debt moving forward. That sets for, the committee's information kind of the the swim lanes for the capital bill, among other things.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's not the goal. That's fine.

[Nick Kramer]: So every so often, the committee, in their due diligence, takes a look at their statutory charge, thinks about if any updates are needed in the space. A big part of the emphasis has been really on, making decisions that are fiscally prudent and support the highest possible credit rating that, Vermont strives to get. We are sort of the ultimate rating, not the top, the A plus, but like the A rating. That's not the actual letters, I'm using like grade school terminology. And we're of course always striving to get back to AAA, which we used to be at one point. And so in order to do that, the committee often looks at what's the latest and greatest in terms of what rating agencies are looking at. And then other metrics too, there's a whole list in CDAC statute of things that they look at Two years ago, so in 2000, the 2024, there was a robust conversation about making some updates to the statute. The committee, meets several times over the course of the fall, had some back and forth and exchanged a couple versions of proposed edits. There are a couple there were a couple different things, but specifically today, what's showing up in this bill is there was there was discussion about two two points. One was, you know, we're a state with a lot of aging infrastructure, and it feels like that should be important, right? As we think about specifically general obligation debt to fund capital projects, shouldn't we be looking at some metric of how much, how old is our stock, right, and how old are our buildings, and does that inform, do we bond more, do we bond less, as part of one of many things. So there was some back and forth about the language to use there. An initial draft supplied by the treasurer's office used the term capital asset depreciation ratio, which is a really specific thing in accounting as a metric to look at. The committee had some discussion about that term, noting, among other things, that like per the capital asset depreciation ratio, the building that we're sitting in might have a significantly lower value than some of us would apply to it just using common sense. And so there were just some qualms about using capital asset depreciation ratio specifically. So there was a suggestion made to broaden that language to make it a little bit more general and offer some discretion. So that was one piece. And then there was another piece looking at state, like other long term liabilities, our pension systems and our OPEB outstanding liabilities are of course a big thing that the rating agencies look at, and in that conversation, was an initial draft that said other, there was an intention wanting to add flexibility to what CDAC could look at in terms of the metrics. There was language that said other metrics at the committee's discretion. There was a robust conversation just saying, well, that kind of is a slippery slope and opens the door to like real volatility in terms of what the committee uses annually to inform their report. Why don't we tie it to other metrics as adopted by credit rating agencies, which is part of what we're striving to align with. So it's a lot of technical detail, that's sort of my want, apologies, but that's the long and the short. There was some conversation about both of those two pieces, given I understand that just unwittingly, of through an oversight, the recommended language that was presented to the legislature last year on behalf of the committee was just an earlier version of the language that was being discussed. Those two pieces that I just outlined, those final recommendations didn't make it in to what was presented to the legislature this year as the committee was looking through. There were some chin scratching because they thought, didn't we talk about these two pieces? So this year and 2025 as they met, just all unilaterally resolved to make the correction. So that shows up in section 23 of this bill. But the administration is certainly supportive of that. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Take any questions. I'll take you for that context on the back end too. So I'm glad to hear that this language. Working on the language here with counsel and the treasurer's office, I didn't have that sort of backstory. So I appreciate that very much. It's sort of, everybody working together to solve for x. So things happen. Right?

[Nick Kramer]: A lot of balls in the air at this time of year in particular. So we're glad that it's. Okay. So bottom line, words on

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the page are amendable, section 23 for you and your agency. It certainly helps out. All right.

[Nick Kramer]: Enthusiastically supportive of technical corrections. And

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: that was great, benign deliberations. Appreciate that. Do we have questions for our guest? It seemed no hands. Alright. So the hope is we gotta, you know, to have a conversation about this other position request. We need to chitchat on that, but other than that, it seems based on the testimony today, things will be pretty well teed up. My hope is to get this guy out of here, out of our room, because it's gonna have shots on the train, end of next week, early the following week, when we all tune it in. But, any commentary from the table right now? That was brisk work. All right, committee, when we break, we don't have anything until eleven, but we all have multiple bills we're working on, so we utilize that time to hone in the things that we have moving. So we won't be on air for that, but we will all be moving our brains and our pens. Thank you very much everyone. And Nick, if you could take us off, please, we'll come back at eleven for a flyby on h five forty one. That's something judiciary has been working on in elections.