A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 14, 2015 | Committee Room | Pensions and Retirement

Full MP3 Audio File

Alright, looks like we have a quorum here today so we'll go ahead and get started. Welcome to the Pension and Retirements Committee meeting. If you've got any cellphone or pagers, please turn them of now, so we don't have any interruptions. I would like to first introduce our pages today, we have Rachel Chism from Gilford county, sponsored by representative John Faclay[sp?], Rachel do you want to tell a little bit of yourself. Well, I'm in the 11th grade at Southeast Guilford High School, and I'm very honoured to be here. Thank you. Thank you for your service. We also have Thomas Crosby from Burt County and sponsored by Representative Hugh [xx] I'm from Burke County as previously said, I attend Draughn High School. I'm a 10th grader, and it's an immense pleasure and honor to serve in my state's capital. Thank you for your service and our Sergeant At Arms are Barry Moore and B H Pal[sp?] Alright. Our first bill on the agenda today is house bill 277, Representative Ross. PCS, this is PCS I need a motion. I move it. Alright, move second. All in favor of the PCS being before the committee, say I Alright, we're good. Thank you Mr chairman. As many of you know that I've been here for a few years, technically once every section will have a Bill that clarifies administrative changes that are necessary to the state it's a pension plan and we do that because we want to try to conform with a number of different issues one being Federal Law, another being trying to go back and tweak some of the language to match some of the legislative changes may be would work[sp?] none in the a session. So House Bill 277, that's exactly what House Bill 277 is, is a series of tweaks and changes to the pension system, and what I'm going to do is just kind of go through and highlight each section, each change by section and then at the end if we have questions, we'll try to get those answered and I also have staff expertise here and staff also from the treasurer's office to answer any questions that go beyond my level of being able to explain it. Section One of the Bill, all this does is that it changes the length of term and imposes term limits for the members of the Supplemental Retirement Board of Trustees. That's a very simple minor change, section two, gives the State Treasurer the opportunity to contract with outside vendors for food services for their employees, and the reason for that is because as some of you may know, the treasurer's office is moving into two[sp?] locations that are outside the realm of where they've been able to get food services before. It gives them the opportunity to want to contract to have food services in the new location. Section three, amends the types of Investment Entity Structures, actually authorizes the state's externally managed fixed income funds. Section four, clarifies the volunteer service positions which are normally designated as unpaid bona fide volunteer positions during the six months immediately following the effective date of retirement which is not considered service, and that clarifies that provision. Section five, requires employers to submit and to attest the accuracy, their monthly data is necessary for proper administration of the Retirement System. You may remember some legislation in the last session relative to the reporting, that some of our local government systems use when they're reporting back to the pension plan. This is critical on an actuarial basis that this information and this data that they receive be accurate, and so this clarifies some of the requirements for that. Section 6, is a section that allows the Office of State Budget and Management to

redirect a portion of the state appropriated funds equivalent to the amount of monthly contributions due to the Retirement System or due to the Retirement system if an employer fails to submit payment within 90 days, and this has become somewhat of a problem in just the last few years. Section seven, under section seven, it allows the board of trustees to prevent expiration of rules established under general statute 128-28 and general Statute 135-6 that protects, insurance or accrued rights of members in the retirement system and that term simply means or a better description of that term is one that it guarantees that, think about a pension plan and someone who is on a pension plan, there is a promise to that individual that at some point in the future they're going to be paid a benefit, and that's really kind of the definition of that term, and it clarifies that section. Section eight. It defines or is a definition of regularly employed to mean employment position regarding or requiring not less than a 100 how of working in a calendar year provided the term shall not include individuals whose employment is considered temporary employment. So it's a to clarify the actual definition of employment and temporary employment. Section nine allows the state treasure to establish market oriented compensation plans for employees who possess specialized skills or knowledge necessary for proper administration of the middle retirement plan, and this would be experts and outside money management that sometimes are a little bit hard to get essentially on some other pays scales that we operate under guessing the opportunity to have that expertise. Section 10, qualifies with a member who is no longer actively contributing to the pension plan, and has contribution in the system will be paid a refund of his or her contributions if not eligible for retirement you may remember that the last session we had a bill that returned contributions back to any employee that wasn't in the plan under five years. In the past we did not do that and we corrected that so this brings that language more in line with that change. It also, puts a provision in that under Federal law a person has to start drawing benefits by the time they 70½ so it brings this in line with Federal law in reference to the required minimum distribution. Section 11 simply changes the death benefit to 50, 000 for members who die in active service. The way the benefit works now is a member is entitled to an amount equivalent to the salary that they would be have entitled to during the 12 month period immediately prior to the month in which the death occurred with minimum of 25, 000 and a maximum of 50. And in section 12 this enforcement policy for the de minimis separation of service violations for members who are re-employed within six months. This has become an issue in the past few years also. What this does, it gives the member the opportunity to either make a lump sum payment to the retirement system equal to three times the amount of the compensation earned during the six months immediately following the effective date of retirement, or we pay all the retirement benefits paid prior to the members in due date retirement date. That pretty much covers the 12 sections, if anyone has specific questions on any one of the twelve we're trying to get that answered, questions? I saw Representative Waddell first and then [xx] Mr. Chairman, if I could may be call on Peter or a member of the treasure office Sam Watts. If you, Mr. Watts would

come come up, take the mic, state your name. Alright, Sam Watts policy director for the retirement system. This is the will that local governments used to decide who should be involved in the local government retirement system. It has been a blended policy between an administrative rule from 1976 and a statute from 1939 and we saw the need because  to clarify it and to make it more precise so he better change his status qua except in two ways, it changes the only into defining what 1000 years is over a counter year instead of over  some other period that undetermined in the statute and it changes it such that it makes it very clear that people serving as in room county managers, or in room city managers can serve in as anyone longer than a year but if they save longer than a year they have to enroll them in the pension plan and there's a part of that definition of temporary employee as no more than 12 months on a non recurrent basis. Follow up  Follow up. I kind of sort of understand exactly what you're saying about moving from temporary to are you saying that after 1000 hours, they would have to be re-enrolled in the pension plan? The first hint is where we The position the person is in, whether it's a regular position that requires more than 1000 hours a year so if someone happens to exceed 1000 hours in a year that doesn't necessarily mean they would have to be enrolled in the pension plan. But if that were to occur for several years in a row, it would be very clear that the position probably does requires more than 1000 hours. That's not the part that's being changed, we're simply pulling the rules all into one place in this one. Representative Michelle Michelle what it appears, what you're doing is you are giving a flat rate benefit of $50000 instead of recalculating death benefits for a person who's [xx], I guess my question is, this is going to be a real [xx] is a question Representative Ross. My understanding is [xx] so it would not, technically it would not be a raise or it actually be a raise for some and not a decrease for anyone sorry verify that, I think, that definitely permission was included in the first edition of the bill. The PTF [xx] that edition sorry I'm actually operating on the version right before that one OK, so the death benefits hasn't changed at all in relation to [xx] All good? Representative Holley? That was the question that I was going to ask you, you answered that question first.   Alright, or does the committee have any further questions? Yes alright, Representative Michaux. Let me ask the question [xx] Can anybody tell me why that was not [xx]? Representative Ross? Let me refer that again back to the treasury staff. Tim works[sp?] for the Department of State Treasure. Representative Michaux, we still think that's good policy. It simplifies administration and it gives a boost to lower paid employees, but when we ran the numbers this year it was more expensive than we anticipated and given that we didn't think it was a realistic expectation that the Appropriations Committee would go

along with that, we requested that Representative Ross remove it from the PCS. Follow up. Follow up on that. This is for active employees, what if that was for inactive employees. I guess I'm trying to get to retired employees now. That remains the same, employment still remains the same? This is only a working [xx] This only to affect the death benefit for active employees in the state and the local government systems. The retiree death benefit is a separate statute. Follow up. That [xx] amount. That reflect $2, 000 for people who take it after a certain date, its been increased over time. Follow up? I think we already [xx] Thank you, Sir. Are there any further questions from the committee? Representative Waddell? Just for a motion Mr. Chairman. Alright, seeing no further questions now would be a good time for your motion. I move that we give a favorable report to the House Bill, dispose Committee Substitute for House Bills 287 and [xx] and find close to the original unless there be a referral. No referrals that I'm aware of. Alright, everyone has heard the motion, all in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed no. Alright We have next before us a PCS for House Bill 301, need a motion. I move. Alright, all in favor say I, alright the House bill 301 is before us Representative Collins Thank you committee for hearing this Bill today. I'm just looking to make sure I'm on the, I have question that I had printed just as House Bill 301, so I'm trying to see what the PCS difference is on. The bill does two pretty straight things and then one little bit more [xx] thing. The Section B down at the bottom of page one okay, it's just [xx] changes so I'm still good. Thank you, I appreciate that change[sp?] so you guys may need me and I remember yesterday when I read some minutes sensing if mainly the street lineup to find where we are going to find where cash based on the parties we had the parts we experienced that I have with our state treasurer, I actually got a cheque for like 61 bucks the other day, some paycheck some company had sent me got misplaced and finally got it back, but it's actually money that's really not our money, but we just can't run down the people whose money it is, and that money continues to grow and grow and grow until everything's happened to it. The two straight forward items in this Bill are down at the bottom of page 1, Section B there. This just requires a third party financial review each year that the treasurer would have outside the firm undertake to tell certain things about the Fund itself and so forth, and who that report has to be released to the Governor, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore and the Chairs of the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses. It also, the second thing it does is under Section C. It allows the State Treasurer a little more leeway in how to invest these funds, including up to 10% of it in what we'd call alternative investments or almost maybe, almost virginal venture capital as long as the businesses have a nexus here in North Carolina, but the same stipulation that are on the investment of the Retirement Fund that we passed last year govern this as well, if you'll read it very carefully. The third thing is a a little more subtle, and again if I'm miss-explaining this, I see a couple of the treasury staff that are here today that can correct me. I think if you combine the first paragraph there under 12. It's stating what the intent of this Street Fund is, and then you go down to page 2 lines 8, 9 and 10 where it talks about the treasurer assessing this Street Fund and how it can be utilized as an endowment, which was how it was recently set up to be a caucus[sp?] of money that we would use the grows on to fund scholarships and then particular get all the way to the bottom, D lines 23, 24 25. If you take those

three things together what this is really doing in kind of a subtle fashion but maybe not too subtle, is asking the general assembly not to continue to steal money from this Street Funds the way we have in the past, so that it can actually be used as an endowment fund the way it was intended. So that's the two very straightforward components to this Bill and the one kind of request that this Bill includes, and if there's anything I've missed again the members of the treasury staff can state that. Alright, are there any committee members that have a question? Anyone from the treasurer's office that wants to speak? Please state your name. Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Tony Solari from the Department of State Treasurer. Representative Collins has done a great job of explaining the Bill, there are a couple of things I'll mention just in addition. One, the treasurer has met with the leadership both in the House and Senate, and with all the Appropriations Chairs to discuss this Bill, and in principle they all agree that it's the right way to go with the Funds, to try to treat it as an educational endowment you know regionally college scholarship where needy and deserving students were paid for out of the investment returns. Over the course of time the court has belittled down the idea to turn the curve on that, let the [xx] grow, be able to invest the money in more lucrative ways so that we are able once again to fund college scholarships on the interest. Another aspect of this which Representative Collins mentioned is there's a great need for venture capital in North Carolina. We've had other states in helping start up businesses, get going in providing the capital they need to transfer from ideas to profits. We had discussions with the governors office on this issue. The governor has a great interest and creating a venture capital fund the treasure has a great interest in doing that as well and the commitment here is to pledge 10% of the fund to corporations with the North Carolina [xx] system to provide that venture capital and as I said we've had conversations for the governors office those are on going in terms of how best to align those interests and get that done. The last thing I'll mention is again that we have Representative Collins mentioned the audit the valuation. As many of you know a valuation is done of the pension system gives membership a sense of how the pension system is doing what the liabilities and so forth are. We would engage on a similar process with this Chief fund. The result of that audit, that evaluation would be to provide you all with appropriations chair with the amount of money, that would be needed to be set aside in order to get that fund growing and get it to the point of being able to provide those scholarships. Grow the corpus of the fund to provide the amount needed to do the scholarships. So you would have guidance in the same way the pension system comes to you and says, here's the required contribution that you need to make as an employer that valuiation would provide you all with that figure that you could appropriate or not appropriate frankly with that [xx] grow that fund out, not that I gave evaluation, so that the only things that I had. Thank you, is there anyone that wants to speak against the bill? I'm sorry, Representative Mitchel.  I have a question. Mr. Solary just state your name again Tony Sloris[sp?] in the charges office. 10% that you talked about you two minutes ago is that going to come out of the [xx] no that would come out of the caucus [xx] a little bit of [xx]. In the past we have taken funds from the [xx] but you know when we instance talk to that [xx] and I thought always are ready what actually happened [xx] no, it would be paid back into the coffers, in other words, one of the issues I think that you're getting at Representative Mitchell is, traditionally when the fund was in higher levels than it is now. We would invest that some of the pension fund money in long return investments, private equity and so forth very high return. As the court of [xx] was riddled down all the had liquidate some of

those assets to liquidity. The result has been all return on that firm right now is somewhere in the area 11/2 or 2%. We are making a target of more than a year on the pension fund how [xx] it is, we can get a greater return by going back into private something we have actually already been doing, but we need a commitment before the Treasure will be willing to do that. We need a commitment from the General Assembly to not we would, so that we wouldn't obligate that money for a long period of time and then have General Assembly come back and say we need money for scholarships we kind of have force and liquidate. But we have been really subsidently not anything that we haven't been doing in the past I'm not sure if I'm answering your question correctly, scholarship how is that going to be effective [xx] now it wont, it wont, it wont in essence it won't deplete the demand of money for scholarships the General Assembly [xx] the General Assembly if you decided to follow this rule what you would do and tell them and say where the court is and we are going to devote, we are going to keep say 5 million or 10 million in the fund to help it grow. We'll find student scholarship money from another source. But that's entirely your choice. [xx] I like to answer your question through out this community I understand that, that 10% is not a withdrawal from the cooperate, it's an investment of money from the cooperate that we will expected to be getting a return on regular basis, it feels the new liquid investment, it's not something like a CD or stock everything go cash Kenyan next week it's a long term investment but it is an investment, and we expect to make a significant return on that investment, we are not given start up business's money, we're investing in their business's and expecting [xx] return on that money, so it's not a withdrawal of money from corporate system investment [xx]. I don't understand [xx] you think you are going to get a return back on I'm worried down the line what's going to happen to the scholarship to come out of [xx] sort of Representative Bishop, and thank you Mr Chairman and I have a question to follow up on Representative Mitchelle so the idea of investing 10% into the venture capital fund that's a risk your form of investment is that right Mr [xx]. Tony Suarez yes sir venture capital is inherently more risky but you get a greater return on the investment as well and I say that the treasures office has a tremendous record venture capital. Several years ago, treasury created the innovation fund she allocated $250 million  for those purposes credit [xx] and groveler kind of joined that we made over 20% in returns of that investment. That's all and I congratulate the president on the record but I think what you're saying is, there is a need to grow the purpose of the [xx] in order to feel that she can take this 10% out and put it there because of the entire fund is it's a more valuable and riskier form of investment. It's a longer term investment, it could be anywhere from three to five or more years. and so therefore we've to protect the complicies[sp?] of the fund Follow up Mr. Chairman Follow up One thing that we concerns, I had a constituent call me and I'm a first termer, but even before we came up here about [xx] is a consumer protection concept that is if property is going to abandoned in the hands of a custodian of some sort, and you can't find then they're required to [xx] to the state and they returned it or they are supposed to return in to the consumer. But there is a sort of a Belgium conflict of interest if you will and that's the general assembly and the state treasurer has an interest in seeing this [xx] as possible so they can provide this objectives and I just have this question. I understood for example this

person or institution reported they had a long term mutual fund retirement investment. And I think if I understand correctly, if a four year period of time passes in which there is no communication, a formal communication from the consumer to the custodian and investment company is figures as an abandoned asset and they are required to turn it in. It's either if that's correct or not I don't know of that sir, I have to look at the statute. Thank you Mr. Larry, thanks again. I can't answer the question off head, though I do know that different forms of land and property have different lengths of time before they are considered abandoned. Thank you Mr Chairman may I [xx] before I recognize Representative [xx] I just wanted to notify committee that I'm going to add a referral to the appropriations on this if you have any further concerns we could straighten them out before then Representative [xx]. Representative Bishop brings up a good point and this is sort of a a subset of the debate we had last session on the pension funds and the risk here risk your assets but I do have concerns about some house some [xx] in government [xx] and what startups to pick or not I'm just wondering how is that done and what's the vehicle do we is it done through a loan with a rate of return or is it do we buy an ownership interest in this startups if it increase in value do we get shares if it is a corporation [xx] LOC unit some other in this year of ownership and just how is this done? [xx] I'm thinking. Again Representative Boustany[sp?] I wish I were an investment professional to answer that question for you, but what I understand about that is we do a lot of due diligence before we invest in the company and I think there are a variety of ways that start up capital is employed and deployed. So I really don't want  get out on a lame and answer questions that [xx] read a lot about, but I can get you an answer to that. Representative [xx] follow up. What's a material [xx] with the state, what's got to exist? Does that mean that the company is going to be located here or percentage of it is actually physically in North Carolina [xx] My name is Andrew Holter[sp?] I'm also with the Department of State Treasure and Representative Bleast[sp?] that language is very similar to what we've been using with the innovation fund vehicle that Mr [xx] spoke of early, that means that there has to be kind of a material connection with North Carolina, the company does not necessarily have to reside in North Carolina, but there has to be some sort of significant business connection with North Carolina. There are ways that we have defined it more clearly in the innovation fund content and I'll be happy to provide you with some more specific data, and I might Mr. Chair follow up on Mr. Sloris comment? Go ahead. To your earlier question, the model that the treasury chose to use with the innovation fund pension was one to procure through a competitive bid process an fund manager who will make all of the fund investment decisions for the innovation fund. She feels strongly that having an arms length between her office and the government in general from this investment decision is crucial to the effectiveness of this sort of vehicle, and we will definitely anticipate having that model going forward. We share your concern that the government is not best suited to make that sort of  investment decision until we've tried to create a vehicle using an outside manager in this case Crogner[sp?] capital management, as the fund manager making this investment decision, and making this invest decisions I might add, with rate of return, a risk adjusted rate of return as the primary objective. [xx] it is not a question it is a comment one of my concerns is that when you go down on this road, those with the political connections, will come and I'm not saying the treasure had done at this point, but there will be a different treasure and those with the political connections will get the funding, and those without don't get the funding. I just think it gives me some [xx] that we go down this road. Representative Collin I want you in the debation. Thank Mr. Chairman. One other question which is what is the size of the corpus now that is being planned and what is an anticipated need to grow to before the treasurer anticipate using his authority [xx] to invest 10% in venture capital [xx]? Thank you Mr. [xx] again.  The totals lie again, the court

said that the fund right now is enabled at 440, 000, 000 as understand it and so and so that's why we get the figure that has been used recently instead of investing and companies in the North Carolina excess about $40, 000, 000 or companies in the fund how fast the group fund can grow at one point the fund was close to $1, 000, 000, 000 that would really depend on decisions you all make made in the general assembly how much money how much money you want to leave in there on a yearly basis till to grow. We taken about a 100, 110 million in a year in unclaimed property we pay about $50 million up in claims roughly so that we just got a $50 to $60 million dollar net plus each here, we take that investment return and you could buy a little bit of extra money kicked by the general assembly and we are thinking by, it's hard to give hard estimate but it's 2018, 2020 you had that fund up to 7800 million and again at that level of corporation we're talking about in stead of 40 million perhaps as much as 80 million for investing in North Carolina companies [xx] all right I'm going to allow Representative Collins to have a final word then we are going to take a vote. Somebody I forget who it was said they want a financial profession I am a financial profession I that's what I do for a living I invest people's money, and we have, again I'm like representative [xx] don't want to get to far in all the stuff that we went through back when we were doing very same thing for the retirement fund but it is true that if you take one sliveal[xp?] of the investment world like venture capital in the element bill it may be more risky than another strategy but when you add a different element to another diverse portfolio it can actually lower the overall volatility of the whole portfolio so to my mind the the worst profolio you can possibly have probably right now will be a 100% bomb into polio just look down my phone and the senior trip treasury is yielding 1.87% right now so either you are going to satisfied with an extremely low yield for the extent of the time you hold those bonds or number two you are going to fail those bonds when rates will go up and when rates go up those bonds are going to be worth less and you're going to loose a lot of money. We normally think about bonds very, very safe investment well I will say right now since the [xx] historically high price this is as high as they have ever been in the history of the United States I want [xx] will be very, very risky and I certainly will never recommend any of my client when they do that but at times we want to point that out but adding a risky element to a port folio can actually lower over all risk of the portfolio sales, I want to make sure that we all understand that. We are ready for vote do I have a motion? Mr Chairman I move for a [xx] report. [xx] report to the TCS and I'm adding a referral to the appropriations and you wanted to go the [xx]? Yes sir I think with the discussion here probably need to go to appropriations. Second that alright all in favour of the favourable port of the PCS on house bill 301 say ah and opposed no, alright the I's have it. Thank you representative Collins alright. Just a house keeping notice house bill 331 and 385 have been combined into a PCS but representative [xx] is not here, he was representing on that so I'm going to skip down to house bill 555 at the time and we will see how far we can get on and I know our time is getting short and I will ask representative Ross to come up and chair. Thank you representative Neil. Next on the agenda is house bill 555, you've just heard probation parole officer retirement, representative Neil, make the presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to present house bill 555 to this committee. Basically, and you've got to pay for it before you, basically what hose bill 555 does is it moves probation officers over into the same category as a law enforcement officers in the state that already have what's called law enforcement retirement. Under this video what happens is service retirement which is under the age of retirement at age 55 with five years of credible service versus 65 with five years of

credible service or age 60, 25 years of credible service basically, and [xx] what it's doing is lowering the age to where they can retire, early retirement benefits at age 50, with 15 years of credible service versus 50 with H50 with 20 years of credible service, provide the separation allowance, and it also provides a special separation insurance benefit plan, and also survivors alternative benefit perfect plan. Basically it talks a little bit about the justification, if you look in general statute, this is is already settled, general statute, 143, 166.2 defines the term law enforcement officer. and it says, all full time constant employees in probation in pro laws of North Carolina and department of corrections. So they have already defined the statute as law policemen officers, under their powers and duties, in 15 bench 205, it says the now for sure have an execution of duties and possible areas and to the extent necessary that for the formers of his duties the same right to execute process is now given or that may be here after given by law to the shares of this state. So as you can see probation of officers already have or have very broad parts of areas, also in the basic training in programme for a probation officer mail. They have to go through 160 hours of basic training and in addition 82 hours of training and then every year they go through 44 hours of additional In-Service Training which includes arm training. When I started in law enforcement 1977, probation officers did not carry weapons and had very limited powers or [xx], today they are synonymous with [xx] law enforcement officer he is, you see a probation officer in the field they have their vest on, they are going to be carrying their [xx], so as you can see by statute, by the duties of a probation office, there are already pretty much considered what a law enforcement officer is, so at this time I know you probably have some questions and I would try and answer those and if I can't answer them, refer to staff. questions for the bill sponsor? Representative Michelle you start [xx] Yes sir, as hard as I've tried to explain this, Mr. David can do a lot better job. David [xx] from the Physical Research division.yes.so you all have the note the aspirin note in front of you on page two is the estimated impact on the state for the change in the retirement ages under the teachers and state employees retirement system, there is one estimate that that will cost 2 basic points or. 02% of pay roll which is roughly $2 million per year recurring cost. The other estimated bid would be roughly 1 million per year so there is they cost you that. There's a small additional liability due to the death [xx] but there's currently no state contribution to that fund and we would not anticipate it leaves a contribution to that fund due to this change and then there's a table that shows you the expected additional payouts to separation allowances, there would be no expected additional payouts for the first five years years and then small additional payouts as you can see in the years following that representative Bishop I show your appropriations I don't have another question. Other questions? [xx] stand [xx] for research you this will not change the determination of

the law you will not get any if your not getting poor your getting unreduced benefit to that there's no addition in production packer apply but the formula is 1.82% *service * pay and so it's only five years of service. You will get a benefit based on five years of service not 20 or 30 years of service. I guess my question is you're putting the probation officers on the same level as law enforcement officers for the teachers and state employees where time resistance, retirement ages, the separation allowance and the death penalty. Yes. Another question Representative Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, right now other questions Mr. Chairman Representative Wayne I think we ought to do this and my wife said when she spent 26 years in [xx] that we've been trying to do this forever and when they started making her carry a gun, and go through all the training, she thought she was not training correctly by not doing that. And I agree with her because that's what everybody has to do now. And it's different world out there and the service they have to provide in supervision of progress and pro people and I think we definitely ought to do this because it fits what they are today, not what they were in the past. Is that the form of the motion? I would do that Any other question? anyone else in the room. All right the appropriate time for Represent Wayne I moved for a favorable report to House Bill 555, and refer it to Appropriations. Alright, you've heard the motion, is there a second? Second all right motion is second all those in favor signify by saying aye, aye any opposition? All right bill passes back to you all right, I see we are out of time so we adjourn.