almost. All right. Well, we are on. It is January 27th. This is our fourth session, >> I believe, at this point. January 27th, 2026. And I know we um have some new faces in the crowd. So, it's always good, even though we know each other at this point or getting to know each
other, always good to go around and introduce. So, I'll start first and then go to my left and then go to the right. My name is Terry Harmon and I am here serving as chief negotiator for the school board. >> Card Morrison, district team. >> Hi. Good evening. Jeff Raymond representing human resources.
>> Hi, good evening. Lisa Estz representing student affairs. >> Kim Love representing MCA. Lonnie Burch, MCEA. >> Kelly Coleman, MCA President. Gary Simmons, chief negotiator for FBA, for MCA from FBA.
>> Liz Rocklage, MCEA. Leanne Pike from MCEA. >> Joe Neri, MCEA. >> Miriam Williams, MCEA. >> Great. Well, um, kind of give a quick recap of our last session for those that are joining us new and then kind of jump
into why we're here today. I know when we talked at the last session, um, Mr. Morrison presented some financial numbers to show uh kind of an idea of where the board was hoping to go with the millillage uh renewal um that we're
trying to look towards coming up with with theou and I know we ended the session with some discussions about um interpretations of theou and what I think we left it with we had some maybe some differing views on what some of the
language was and we really took that to heart. We had some discussions over the last couple of weeks and I think it's going to be reflective in our proposal. Uh we do have anou. I said we would we did put one together. Uh we'll pass it out at this point and then I can give
you kind of an an explanation after you get it. >> I don't want to read talk while you're reading. >> Okay. Yeah. >> He'll need one. >> Thank you. his actually. >> Thank you. So, obviously you'll need time to digest
all the language as we always do. Um, but really wanted to give you the 30,000 ft explanation. >> Okay. Uh tapping on to where we left off with I think a little bit of a um back and forth over interpretation what we've tried to do through thisou it
is a two-year it is for the next it is for 2627 and when I say that what I mean is there's already been a payout this year in September. What we've done in one of the options in thisou
is keep it the same as the currentou that just expired. So for instance, if you were to look down into well, let's go in order first. Let's do it this way. In the criteria el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el eligibility criteria section section two we've incorporated the proposed financial amounts that
carter did Mr. Morrison at the last session. We made a couple of adjustments to language. I'm happy to send you the ex the June 2025 outgoing if you'd like to compare it. Just a little bit of a difference
um in terms of eligibility criteria, but nothing that I think changes really substance of the priorou. You have to be under contract, meaning a new hire or a returning employee. We added language that this should not apply to interim
contracts. You have to be an active member of the bargaining unit when the payout takes place. If you leave the bargaining unit prior to the payout, then you forfeit the future payout of it. Not going to read the entire thing, but
it keeps the spirit in terms of eligibility the same as the last one with the exception that if you recall the last agreement talked about you have to completed academic year, you have to be here and renewed or retained and then
you're eligible for the payout in September. And as I mentioned at the last meeting before we ended more towards the front of the meeting, what was really important to the to the board and I already see a misspelling. Um, >> it's okay. Under section 31A,
>> um, what was really important was trying to find a way to attract and recruit and with that complete an academic year and be here the next year, it was problematic. And so that's why when I presented at the last meeting,
the idea of going to more of a you're hired or you're working, let's do this in installment payments and beginning with next year we would do installment payments. Um, but what we've incorporated into section 3 was an attempt to address, I think, some of the
back and forth that we had. And so we've created kind of two criteria for purposes of the millillage. If you're hired before June 30th of 2026, and that is everybody that is currently getting the millillage right now, anybody that is hired this school year,
if you are hired this school year and you are renewed or retained and you are back next school year, if you look at option one under section 31A, it is exactly what is occurring right now. So if you're back next year, you
get that one one lump sum payment in September. But what we've tried to do going along with trying to have more of an installment basis is to give employees the option. This is an employee choice. You can do a
twoinstallment option. If you don't want to do that, you can do a payroll date installment option. Entirely optional to the employee. So, if you're here right now, you just got your millage se uh payout in September and you want to keep it that way, this MLOU does that. It
does not force the employee to have to choose a different option. Where we really were trying to focus additional efforts is for those new hires so that there didn't need to be a wait. And that's for the what we call category B, which is individuals who are hired next
year. So, if you're hired after June 30th, meaning July 1st, 2026, there's no longer a waiting period, you would be eligible to receive it, but it would be on a basically earn it as you work basis. That's for new hires. So, anybody
again, and I and I want to repeat this, current members of the bargaining unit who are re who just received a millage payment in September, there is not a change as to that millage payment next year. if you were continuing to work
with the district except the amount has gone up. Uh the additional language is of course it's subject to any required withholdings in the additional terms section which is section 4. Um just added a reference in
part one that if the millillage is eliminated that may be reason why we need to come back to have a discussion or a negotiation. For number two, it used to say the following will be in uh I believe the
old language included in or it amends um appendix B. If you look at current appendix B, there's not a section on millage. So, it's more of a verbiage issue. And I just said that this will be attached to appendix B as opposed to
amending it because it's not actually in it. Um, I'll let you read the rest of it. The key piece that's out of this though, um, again, that's why I encourage you to go look at the past version and compare to this version is the elimination of the retirey
entitlement to the supplement. That is not in this language right now. So, that's why I say please go take a look during your caucus or when you review it. One of the focuses that we were trying to when we came up with this was really focus on the retention and recruitment aspect. And what that means
is when those millillage payments come in from the taxpayers is trying to put as much money in the pockets in as much as we can for the employees who are in the classroom working with students. That's the whole point of the recruit and retain is to find you and keep you
working. So that was why the retirement section was angled out. Um, again, if you have questions, we're free to to field them now if you'd like to have some time to go back and look at them. But our key piece, which we wanted, which I want to emphasize again, is
sensing some reluctancy towards the end of the last meeting. Um, we tried to create a process that doesn't change anything for anybody who is currently working under theou that just exhausted in June of 2025. Can I just address on art on section
four under the additional terms on one we included that port if the millillage is eliminated. You may see it in the in in the news that the legislature um is discussing the potential to eliminate property taxes um through this
session which ultimately would have to be done through a constitutional amendment. So should in case that arise then at least we have some language that protects us and we can come back to the table. >> Okay. >> So the only question or and I'm sorry Gary I apologize.
>> No please. um for 14 plus I don't know if you highlighted that but I believe you had asked for an additional ve the board is holding firm on the 10,500 especially as we um open it up to potentially it's around 1275 members
serves me right which would be new MBUS for >> the next year so we just holding firm at that number for now >> okay uh the the main question that that I just want to make sure that we go through. Um to be crystal clear on
implementation is the understanding of of going from paying our bargaining unit members and the rears and moving forward into the implementation of of this memorandum of understanding. Now, I know that it was
explained that option one would um keep it the same as it currently is, but my question is with respect to section 3 number one, the MS, which was
millage stipen, will be paid out in the 2026, 2027, and the 2027, and 2028 school years as follows. But what's unclear just through reading it is what
is being paid out in 2026 2027 and 2027 2028. So in the millillage payout for 2026 2027 is that the millillage that our bargaining unit members who were hired um prior to June
30th um 2026 is that the 25 26 millillage that they're getting paid in the rears like it has been for the previous years or are we doing 2627 millillage in options one two or three
and then 2027 7 2028 in options 1 2 and and three cuz I'm concerned about 2526 since we've been paying paying it in a rares. So what happens to the 25 26 um millillage payout that would rightfully
be paid out in September, right? Let me ask you a question >> with all of that >> and again as I said at the beginning I think we have some disagreement over this and I articulated some of the reasons at the last meeting which is why the presentation that we made was
intended to try to avoid but if you want to bring it up that's fine. If we renewed the currentou, the one that just expired, and kept everything the exact same, I don't understand the question because
it's been good for >> I'll I'll try to help you. >> Hold on. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. It's been good for eight years, >> but now it's an issue, >> but it was always paid in a rear. >> Hold on. >> It's It's not an issue. is an
understanding on how it's going to be paid moving forward. When this millage was initially negotiated, it was used as a retention tool. So in order for you to receive the millage, you would have had to work the entire academic year prior to. So
this year in September, this school year in September, so this would be September 2025 when the millillage was paid out, it was paid out for all of those who completed the academic year of 2425, right? So you get the pay in September
for the year before. So let's go through it right this year September we got our bargaining unit members got paid if they completed the academic year of 2425 >> and we're still on as of September of this year as well. >> Correct.
>> Now when we go into September 2026 that payout would be for those who have worked the academic year of 2526. that gets paid out September of of 26 with 25 26 >> I think that's where we run into the disagreement
>> right but it's it's the disagreement when it's facts right so you can't dispute with with facts and Carter will be able to tell you what the way that this was negotiated we didn't pay them so if we start paying
them for 2627 the big question is well what happened to the millillage that was allocated for 2526 6. That's like $9 million, Terry. So, we're not going to say that 2526 is just lost because theou
sunseted on June. If we go back, Terry, give me a chance. We go back all the way to 2018, >> the millou always expired prior to us negotiating the following year. So, when we negotiated this one for 2025, it was
going into that current school year. There's nothing lost. There's no time that has elapsed. It expired in 20 in um 2025, June 30 of 2025 because we're supposed to pick it up from 25 on into the next 3 years of of the millage
contract. That's the way that it it goes. So, if what I'm saying is inaccurate, then I would encourage the district to do an audit of all of the payments from 2018 to this past September and find out what ye what year
was that payment attributed to and then I think you'll understand the point that I'm trying to make. Transitioning into 2627 as this is written would wave a payment from 2526
for all of those employees that worked this academic school year. They didn't get paid for this academic school year in September. They got paid for last academic school year this this September. And all of the people in the crowd will nod their head in agreement that that that what I'm saying is
accurate. The 2526 millillage monies have not even come in yet. The meaning the the millillage payments the millage money gets distributed April. >> No, it gets paid out in September. >> Sep. No, I'm saying to the members, but
the money that the the district collects >> Yes. >> collects in >> November through >> April, right? Yes. We're aware of that. We're just talking about not when the district gets the money, when it's paid to the bargaining unit members in the time frame that it's paid for, the
academic year that it's paid for. >> I think you're conflating eligibility for the supplement. >> I'm not okay. But here's the solution. >> I'll show you that. I'm not >> Here's the solution that I'm going to propose to you. >> Uhhuh. Um, if you have a concept that you believe
co covers what amounts should be paid through the millage payments, it might be best if you put it in a revised. We've presented our version of theou and as I said before at the very beginning of this, one of those options is no change to the
current structure except retirees. And I understand that's a big piece. So, I'm not going to diminish that. But one of the options in here does not change any way that we've done business, >> right, >> for the last two years. >> I understand that. And I'm not saying that it is, Terry. It's just that before
we take the responsibility of tentatively agreeing to any language, we have to answer all questions of implementation so that once it's ratified or once it's is going through, there's no come, oh, well, we we didn't know it was this, we didn't know it was
that. Then we have interpretation grievances that we're we're going in a spirit of collaboration and transparency as we mentioned. All I'm trying to do is establish the timeline to make sure that there's not a year being lost. And the
reason why is because this appears and if I'm wrong please correct me that this mill will start being paid out on time. Meaning that we're transitioning from going to a rears. If we're going into a rares for option one, it still raised
the question that the question that I raised is still valid. If someone hired on or before June 30th, 2026 who are renewed for the next academic year, if they choose option one in September, are they being paid for 2526 or are they
being paid for 2627? That's the biggest question that that I have with respect and it only seems like it applies to it may apply to other ones. I have to spend some more time with it. I just got this language, but I know specifically with option one, that question will still remain relevant whether that payout on
that September is for academic year 2526 or for academic year 2627. If it's for academic year 2026 27, what happened to the 2526 payout? That would be my biggest question. And it seems like it would be lost and that was the the
concern that Madame President raised in the last bargaining session. We have a sunset on 25th 26th, but when we come back with a proposal, I'll be prepared to bring you a timeline of from
the vote being passed in a general election in November to implementation in paycheck and put into paychecks. And I'll be able to show you a timeline. September of 2021 was a payment from
1920 school year. September 2022 was a payment from the 2020 2021 school year. So forth and so on until we get to this school year. And then you'll be able to visually see what my concern is. And I
have again sometimes you you run into to fundamental disagreements or um especially with respect to implementation. But with this issue, I genuinely believe that the
facts support my understanding of the way that this money has been distributed over the last six years since I took over as the chief negotiator for for MCA. So, I'll do my homework because I don't want to just speak blindly. I want
to go back, go into our archives, pull all of our millages, our millage payments, pull all of the agreements. We can take notice of the dates that they sunset and when a new agreement was reached and then how it was implemented
moving forward. And then once I I'm able to show the district and and and the the board per se for that then I will propose a revised memorandum of understanding that captures that fluid distribution
attached to the appropriate academic year just to make sure that because when you're looking at our our 14-year our 14-year veterans, right, losing out on $10,000 is a is a lot. No one can afford
to just forego a $10,000 payment. Secondly, how much how more difficult it would be to pass this referendum again in the next general election if there's some kind of of whispers or inkling that
our folks are are are not being paid properly the way that the taxpayers intended them to be paid. I want to I want to bypass all that. do our homework, cross our tees, dot our eyes, show you the timeline, and then if if there's still a disagreement, then then
we can we can have a a um a good discussion, a a a great discussion, a respectable discussion, and and come up to with with a resolution to it. But that that's what I think that we're we're prepared to do.
My only thing when I hear this as well is that when I look at your your proposal, I see that you want these new teachers to walk in the door and start getting the millage for your recruitment. I explained to you that I'm all for that, but I'm not for teachers losing a year of millage and it's not
fair. How do I talk to all my teachers in this district because every single teacher who's currently working is entitled to the money in September. How do I explain to them that, oh, we're going to let the new teachers walk in the door and get the same amount of money after we had to work a year for it? So, I'm okay with you helping the district try to get something for
retention and recruitment because I really do see that problem with St. Lucy County, but it has to be fair and it has to be done right. And that's what I tried explaining to you last time when we were going back and forth about this and I I felt that we were clear at the end, but when I see this, it still makes
me question about that 25 26 that we are working right now. We have not been paid for that money. And you can look at the ballots. I I've looked at I went back and did my own research of the ballots. I pulled my own paychecks. I mean, >> I I'll present it to to them. Um so that
because what I want to be knowledgeable of is that we have um members in the audience and members who who watch this video that are just hearing us talk and they're not going to be able to see um the document. So, I think the best thing
for for me to do is prepare um our concerns because everything else Cherry looks great, but MCA as an organization will get raped on the coals if we put pen to paper tonight and then there's a realization that our bargaining unit
members are missing out on an entire academic year of of um of of the millage stipen. So, I just want to to just to make sure because I'm speaking to you in theory. I want to go back and grab our documents, put it all in the line, and
then show you um the the payouts and and what academic year those payouts were for up to this to this point. So, we can answer we can answer that that question. But, it's a it it's just a a logical question because we were paying a concern because we were paying in the
rears. we were never paying um the millage typen for that year in question that year. It was always the year after that they they made that. So they won't take the money and run. That that's what the concern was. The only way that we can keep them from taking the millillage
and running if you got a lump if you got a lump sum payment in um September, November, you can put in I mean October, you can put in your your resignation and go to St. Lucy and get their millage too, right? So that was the reason why we put that language in place in the
first place that you had to work that academic year and then be renewed and um still employed with the district on a date of of of payout. So even if they got it and they they left, they wouldn't be entitled to anything else at at that point. So that was the reason why we we
um made the language the way that that it was, which led to us being paying it in in a rears. But that's what the big concern is 25 25 202 26 and be especially being that this is the 2526
academic year and traditionally uh when we did the when we renewed the the millillageou it was the year that um that corresponded with the the expiration the sunset of the theou so it
would always be leading up to the corresponding year we never negotiated it prior to it sunsetting. It sunset, then we moved on to negotiate the next one. And I'll be prepared to to um to show you that in documented in um documentation in our presentation for
the next bargaining session, but I think that that's what we're asking for. >> So obviously none of us I don't think some of you may have been 2018 when 2019, sorry, when the firstou was created. 2018 >> 2018 was when the millillage passed and then there was a renewal or a mirror
agreement later on in 2019 and then there was the 2022 version. >> Um I know some of us were at the table in 2022 when that millillage was created but when you say a couple of responses wanting to make sure that the members
are getting what they bargained for I would submit that they have. the board has paid out. There has been no issues with millage being paid out to your members pursuant to our joint agreements in the past. >> We're not saying that. Well, we're we're saying the way this is implemented.
>> That's why let me finish to >> then as it relates to owed money or not owed money. I wasn't here when the criteria for receiving a millage payment was developed that said in order to receive a millage payment
you needed to work a year and then renew and be here for this year. So you can I can hear you say that you believe that's in a rears. I think there's a disagreement about that. I wasn't here when eligibility was developed. I can't say what happened understandably. I just
can't. But when I review theou in the language of theus, it doesn't contemplate that the payment will be for past. In the currentou that just expired says expressly that the millillage supplement will sunset
>> in June of 2025. >> All of them say that, Terry. >> No, not the it says the millillage supplement. They don't all say that. The other ones say theou that the most recent one specifically says the millillage supplement will sunset June of 2025. What I was trying to do and this is why
I in the spirit of collaboration where we said we were trying to take a different approach to the table is why when I started it and I presented theou I presented it the way I did that look if there is a disagreement I can argue verb we've done it we've spent hours
together at this table arguing over what a word means what we were trying to do from the board's perspective to avoid any issues with that was to make a presentation that doesn't change the status quo. We just had a 2-year expire
that from my understanding from an implementation perspective, there was not a question. There was not an issue. Folks were paid out when they were supposed to be paid out. So, thisou that we presented incorporates that option. If you like the way it worked the last two years, then you can choose option
one and continue to do it the exact same way. But if you have concerns that there's something that's not addressed in this, I think the best way for us to take it back, we can go look at the timeline just as well. But if there's some language that you want to say, hey, listen, we think you missed this.
>> It's it's not a language thing. >> It started as a simple question. My question only was if you choose option one when it's paid out in 2026 2027 are they being paid for the academic year of 202627
are they being paid for the academic year of 2526 because you're saying that it doesn't change if it doesn't change based on that interpretation when they get paid it would be for 2526 if nothing changed they would still be paid in a >> rears
>> you get paid right now 1 millage supplement payment per year. >> I'm not disagreeing with that. We're talking about what year is being paid out at what particular date. >> 2627. >> 2627 would be usually be paid out in September of 2027 if if nothing changed.
It would be >> I think that's where we run into a little bit of a headache. >> Is there do you think that there's an extra pot there? >> I'm not saying it's an extra pot. So my question to you that that I would like answered on the record is in September of 2025,
what academic year was the bargaining unit paid for the millage stipen? >> You're connecting eligibility. >> I'm asking a simple question. Pursuant to the eligibility criteria, in order to receive a payment in September of 2025,
this current year, you needed to have been employed last year and employed on the day of the payout in 2025. >> That's that's all theou says. >> It does not talk about this is also payment for money in a rears or money going forward. It doesn't say that and I
wasn't here when it was negotiated. But I was, and that's what I'm trying to explain to you. >> I hear you. I was I was here and we didn't pay for the year that we were currently in. >> When we paid in September, it was for the previous year. The the whole point
in creating that language was so that people couldn't take the millage and run. The way that you didn't allow them to take the millig and run is that they had to put a year in before it was paid out. That's what I'm explaining to you. And and if you look at it, everybody who receives the millage is telling is
shaking their head that that that's how it was. So I'm not going to argue or belabor the point. I'm just going to bring you the facts. >> I'm just trying to get you if you think there's the way forward here. This is why I tried to present language and not verbally argue with with your
side. Again, we're going to do this >> every time. Every year something will come up and it's okay that we have dis discussions. That's part of what we would call it negotiation. What would help advance the ball, I think, though, is if there's something that needs to change, like if you're saying just
renewing it and doing it isn't enough, then it should be on paper. >> That's not what I'm saying. I want to make sure that we're we have the same understanding should we come to an agreement. I'm not disparaging or saying something is missing. I'm simply asking
a question because when you line it up, it's going to be 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 25 then 26 27. No 25 26. That's what my concern is.
>> Give me two seconds. >> Yep. They got the money. >> Mhm. >> Right. We're too close to Mhm. >> Yes. >> Can we take a a >> Please at this point give us about a
what is it? 5:15. >> 515. By >> all means. >> 15 minutes. >> Perfect. >> 5:30. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Great. Okay, we're back on. All right. >> 5:39. Thank you. Um, I was trying to accomplish some discussions at the table, but we needed some additional
time. Um, so I guess what I'll say this, um, really two things to follow up on some of the conversation we had. the the purpose of theou presentation that I made. This is the first issue that the district presented today was
really to try to keep for those that are currently receiving supplements the status quo to avoid um any delays particularly when the lastou and even the ones before that
have not been problematic. So what we tried to do to come to the table and I and I am not diminishing some of the other language that's been modified but I'm saying for those that are going to work this year that are going to come back to work next year the option to
keep as is what thatou reflected but item two that I have having said that you obviously on your side have some fundamental concerns about whether something's in a rears
whether there's an audit, whether there's a pot of money sitting around. And those are fundamental concerns. That's not a a grammatical issue or something minor in the contract. And in the spirit of what we've discussed before about trying to hash these things
out and problem solve, you mentioned that you you've you've a timeline that you've put together or you have background. I would put together and present >> and and I think when you say that we want to be respectful to your side if you believe that there is a fundamental
issue with thisou that >> you don't agree with our position on something and which clearly we have a little bit of a of a of a disagreement. >> It may be valuable to have that done so that we can be on the same page with this. So
the the I don't want to call it the quick fix, but theou option that we had created that allowed things to stay, it sounds like you're going to need and I think we're open to it to hear from you about what is it that fundamentally needs to be addressed because if we just
sign off on theou, I don't want to revisit this in two years or in two years or in two years. I wasn't here in 2018. Wasn't here in 2019. was kind of here in 2022, but um not fully.
I think we're open and receptive to hearing that from you that if there's something that needs to be addressed before we put pen to paper that your membership needs to have answered that there needs to be an understanding on both sides of the table, >> let's go ahead and do that >> instead of just bargaining terms on paper.
>> Right. And and I I think that that's what my commitment is. Um, Terry, because when I look at this proposal, I look at it as we're on the five yard line. It's first and goal, right? We're so close, right? And it's just that one question that that I I have with respect
to take taking option one. Option one, if it stays as it currently is, then I would my my question about 25 26 um remains. So, I
I'm going to take it. I'm going to process it. We're going to make a presentation hopefully that we can visual we can create a visual of what that concern is because that's the only thing that's preventing us from from putting pen to a paper putting pen to
paper. We want to make sure that our understanding of how this is going to be implemented um is is is the same. And I want to be explicitly clear um on on the record for um you and for um the team that's across
from me and especially the board. I'm not levying any allegations that there's a pot of money that's being held or anything of of that sort. is just my understanding of the millillage because
just just coming into here um moving here from from Texas, I never even heard that term before. That's it's the first piece of of proposal that I worked on when I was hired by FEA. That's why I remember it so so vividly.
I just want to make sure that my understanding because it was in a in a rares and when I do my presentation I'll show you the language that's in theou that wouldn't even be required to be in theou if it wasn't paid in in a rares right so I'll take you through it so
that we have a clear understanding and can answer that implementation question because the last thing that myself our new madam president um needs at this point in time is our bargaining ing unit members saying that at your first
bargaining session you cost us $10,000 or you cost us $8,000. I I don't want um that for for um Madame President Coleman. So I just want to make sure that that we're we're talking the same thing. Um our idea of implementation is
is the the same. And I think that the easiest way towards that path is having an understanding of the history of this proposal and how we got to this to this point. I think once
we we um connect those those dots, my only concern about this memorandum would be more understood than it is than it is today. But on the surface, like I said, everything looks great. It's just that one that one question or or concern that
I that I have transitioning from um being paid in in a rares to um getting paid for the academic year that you're currently in. So, I'll do my homework along with the the team. Y'all going to have to do some homework with me, but
I'll do my homework and I'll have a present a presentation >> for you in the next session. Because here's the the reality is we've had threeus on this topic. >> Mhm. >> And we've not had an issue as it comes to implementation. >> No, because we had understanding that it was paid in a rear.
>> Whatever the understanding was though, just >> for the money that was just paid, we've had three successful where everything's been addressed. There's been a specific pot of money that was collected from taxpayers, portions of which are earmarked for teacher salaries, >> retention, recruitment,
>> and we've not had an issue about paying that out. No, >> if there is a and it sounds like what we're this is what I'm trying to navigate now is and and I think your presentation would help is if you think there's something >> about the verbiage in theou if there's
something about an entitlement that a a member has it would be helpful to hear that from you and to see that from you. >> Okay. >> And it sounds and that's why I didn't want to as that's why I was trying to have a conversation with Mr. Morrison about a couple things and why we needed the break is I do think on this point
because it's a fundamental topic. I mean >> the millers money and I do think it would be valuable to hear from you all >> and to go through I mean it sounds like going through that exercise might be helpful to both sides. >> I think so. It it it can't hurt. It can't hurt right. >> We'll we'll be we'll be ready for it
too. >> Sounds good. So I just think the only business that we have is picking another date to bargain. >> Yep. >> Can we do that? >> Yeah. Yeah. We're ready. Do we want to do this off record or on? Um, >> I have no preference. >> I don't think we have to just if we're
just picking a date, we don't have to be on the record for that. >> All right. I'm I'm totally fine with that. >> We're on the record. We just don't need to have recorded video picking a date. >> Yep. >> So, do we want to adjourn the meeting and then have the discussion of select? >> We could just go off camera to do the discussion. Journ at the end of the
pick. >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh in the just for the record, it's 552 and we're going to go ahead and adjurnn. We've tenatively identified off the not off the record, off the camera, February 10th as a possible date for our next session. So, thank you all.
>> Thank you.