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 28, 2015 | Chamber | Education K12

Full MP3 Audio File

Sergeant-at-Arms for the day is Warren Hawkins, Doug Harris and and David Lathan. First bill that we've got in front of us is House Bill 238. There is a PCS with this bill. Do I have a motion to set the PCS? Motion from Representative Glazier and Representative Holloway will be presenting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that and members of the committee, House Bill 238, it is to provide a duty-free time and lunch for teachers. This bill as you just adopted a PCS and the PCS as I understand the Chair can correct me if I'm wrong, does not have any opposition from any of the education community or associations or groups that are here and some of them may go as far as to support it. There's no money in this bill, so it is not going to be a cost to the counties, and I'll just simply read you the line here at the back that tells exactly what the bill does. It says that the school system shall provide a planned or goal of providing at least 75 minutes per week to teachers or a duty-free lunch. So that's the bill, and as I understand again, no opposition. I'll be glad to take any questions. Any questions from the committee? Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have the bill in front of us. We don't have the PCS? Correct. Okay. While we're waiting for that, is there any questions off the top of your head? [XX] the bottom here Representative Mia, Thank you Mr. Sheriff sir, representing IDOA, since we don't have the PCS[sp?] if I can just ask for you to clarify what you've just said, if this would set a goal of school districts in schools trying to provide some duty free time, it doesn't set a requirement, basically encourages none to figure how do so Yes sir, we'd asked them to give a Duty Free lunch or to create a plan that has a goal of doing so, the results of the language in here that says that principal shall not unfairly burden a given teacher by making that teacher gave up his or her duty-free is instructional planning time or duty-free lunch time on an ongoing basis so there is some flexibility in here, that superintendents and administrators would have if a dire need were to come up if they need to use that teacher, but again they cannot abuse that and constantly take that teacher's time away but yes you are correct, it is to provide the news of the duty free period or to have a goal of trying to do so and again thank the bill sponsors work to do this to try to get support from the entire education community, there was some opposition in the bill in its original form, but with the changes that were made, everyone has signed off. Representative Harvester[sp?]? Thank you Mr. Chair, just for a motion at the appropriate time. Okay, Representative Langdon okay, Representative [xx] it's the appropriate time. Thank you Mr. Chair, I move for a favourable report on the PCS for house bill 238 unfavourable to the original bill. We have a motion, all in favour of the motion say aye, Aye! any oppose? Okay, motion passes. Representative Halloway[sp?] while you are up here you are on another bill to save time we'll move to house bill 248, eliminate the [xx] final exam, there is a PCS on this entertain a motion to accept the PCS, Representatives Cleveland makes the motions to accept the PCS. Representative Halloway you have the floor. I appreciate that, members the house bill 348 eliminates the North Carolina final exam, and it also says that it will not be used to measure instrument six, or standard six on teacher valuation instrument, the reason for doing away, with the exam is one, there's no consistency among school districts any longer, some use to test I think comes from the state others are allowed to apply for a waiver and create their own test. You're certainly are not comparing

apples to apples with counties with these examinations longer, it's my understanding certainly though I'll let them speak for them self that the state board of education is not collecting this data any longer it's not the information that they're interested and we're just recommending that do away with the final exam also we remind members that we do tests kids eighth, tenth and 11th grade with the ACT, we are measuring these children to make sure that they're growing, and maturing in their education as they should be certainly maybe the will of the General Assembly at some point to replace these tests with other measurements, but again there's not a consistent model and the General Assembly or myself and some others and I think some members from state board believe this needs to go away, I ask for your support. Questions from the committee, okay I see no questions. Representative Pittman. Thanks chair just to display my ignorance what is standard six anyway because I don't know what you're talking about there? Representative Pittman standard six, the teachers have an evaluation instrument that is used to evaluate as opposed to effectiveness, and to call and read Of the top of my head what standard six is I don't know I can do that we may have to refer to staff, but what we're saying is that they will not use this final exam to meet standard six of the instrument so they 'll have to use other things to meet there, but if you want we can refer to staff and let them read to you what standard six or that instrument is, because I can't quote that off the top of my head. I wouldn't per say I know a little more what we're talking about. Does that satisfy you Representative Pittman or now he said you have staff. Okay. Staff Keira. I'm Keira Mcall, we searched standard six is on the teacher evaluation instrument. There are five standards that are done through observational assessment and other documentation at the school, standard six, is a measurement of the value that the teacher has added to the students growth, so it is a measure using the system or through other measures of how much value add the teacher has provided to the students and it is assessed based on three years of the teachers teaching experience. Any other questions from the committee? Rep. Brian? I'm sorry I'm just trying to figure out where is the standard? Is it removed in this bill? I've just been trying to find it in the actual language.   Rep. Bryan, it does not remove standard six, it just says that the North Carolina final exam will not be used in the measuring of standard six. So standard six will still exist. It's just saying that the final exam potion will no longer be used as a measuring stick or tool for that standard. Follow up? Is it just referencing? I assume they must be referencing the statute section as opposed to standard six in this language. Well what's going to have to happen department of public construction or the state board will have to apply for a waiver to the federal government to say that we no longer want to use the final exam to measure this standard. So that's all we're doing again is we're taking this test, and we're no longer going to use this as an instrument. So we're going to end the North Carolina final exam. Again the reason for that is that now we're at a point where counties are not given the same exam, they are not given the same tests, some use the state, some create their own through applying for waiver through the state. So we really can't compare counties to counties. There's no apples to apples or oranges to oranges comparison, so we think that we have outgrown this test. And like I said, we may decide to replace it with something, but certainly there are other tools after there that we can use to measure our children's growth. The General Assembly put the ACT in place about three or four years ago and we have that as a measure to make sure the kids are growing and learning in schools. And I don't know if I answered you question, I tried to, but again we're just keeping the standard not going will not use the steps to measure standard six anymore. Representative Retison, Thank you Mr. Chairman, would you help me understand section 3, I understand the fact that it is depending on the US Department of Education of proving this, but what about part II that says, the remainder of this act is effective when it becomes law, what is the remainder of this act if all

we are asking for is to eliminate, so we are going back to the statue when you talk about the remaining of this law? I'll have to refer to staff to ask them what that specifically means. The language that is there before for you is what this does. There's no hidden trick or anything in there, and I'd have to ask staff why that is probably some legal jargon that I would imagine that people who just play attorneys on TV like me don't understand, but we can refer to staff I'm Kara McCorry[sp?]. The bill is drafted that way because section one, which is the section that would say that you would no longer use it is dependent upon the waiver that North Carolina currently has, so section two which would become effective on becomes law, directs the state board to take action within 60 days of this bill becoming law to apply for that waiver, so that becomes law no matter what. Section three as the effect of day closet becomes law. What is dependent is the outcome of the waiver application process, and so section one can't become effective until that waiver is granted by the US Department of Education. So two and three are really operative clauses. Thank you Representative Glazier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For a question and then when you're ready, for a motion. I think in getting back to Representative Brian's question, Representative Holloway. One of the answers about why you don't, I think, refer to standard six by statute is because this is nacotified[sp?] Bill this is an, I'm a I right to you, you wouldn't have to and, and so it is sort of second hand, but I think, would that be right? You're correct with that, yes sir Mr. [xx] whenever you want to a motion. I've got Representative Iler for the last question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the effective today information in section three also starts the 60 day clause. Once it becomes law, then it starts the 60 day clause integrated there, there's some schools last two years in our district, just standard six was on everybody's man, and the photographic evidence was not as good as the growth evidence, and so I think the teachers were right there so thank you to be a better major, growth actually doing this way. Thank you. Representative Glacia it's the appropriate time. Thank you Mr. Chair a move for a favorable for the PCS for House Bill 248, unfavorable to the original bill we have a motion all in favor say aye, "Aye" Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you Representative Hallaway and Witmire, the next this one we're going to do is house bill 581, computer coding ofcourse elective it has a PCS, need motion to center PCS Representative Langdan, makes that motion. Representative Catham you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good morning members, part of 581 just directs that, states board of education to establish standards for the creation of cording courses in middle school and high school elective courses. Several weeks ago, there was a national conference up at Harvard, that talked about what our students need for the jobs of the future. Many CEO's from United States and around the world said one thing is that our children aren't prepared for the jobs of the future and we need to make sure coding was given as a specific example. We have some evidence of this in North Carolina, in our career technical education, which is fantastic, we just want to be able to make sure that if other departments for example in math or in science, wish to have coding electors that we can offer that. So it should be a pretty simple bill and I would ask for your support. Any questions from the committee? Thank you Mr. Chairman, just for a motion at the appropriate time. Okay, any other questions? Representative Fisher, it's the appropriate time. I move approval of a favorable report for the PCS for House Bill 581. We have a motion on the floor, all in favor say aye. Aye! Any opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you Representative Thank you members of the committee. The next bill that we have that we will do is House Bill 687, this is Public School schools testing schedule, Representative Meyer. Why he's coming out there is an amendment on the bill, or for this bill and it is from Representative Stam, you'll see two amendments from Representative Stam, this one is [xx] version two is the short one, goes along with this bill, so I'll let people Find those papers. While they're looking for that amendment, Representative if you want to go ahead and explain the bill? It is representative london[sp?], due make up. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is another bill that tries to help us with the testing burden on our schools currently schools have a specific testing window in which they have to complete all of their end of grade or end of course tests. The PCS Bill, the PCS to this bill would allow local school districts to apply for a wider window for testing if they have a valid educational reason to do so. So for instance the school system has a very large population of students with disabilities, and those students are all entitled to specific accommodations that increases the amount of time that it takes to administer those test increases the number of staff that has to be involved to administer those test. That whole year could approach the State Board of Education and as for the waver that would give them a little bit of extra time in order to get all tests done by the end of the year. OK, now that he has explained the bill let move to the amendment. Representative Stan[sp?] do you want to explain your amendment to the bill? Is this 28 version 1 or the other one? One of them has been passed out not the other my assumption what you talked me about is the one that's with version two at the end except when testing modifications are necessary? Yes! I can talked about that, I just don't have a copy; I don't know if other people have it but I can talk about it you got it. Okay go ahead and explain. Yes! Like many of you I talked to some of the best teachers and principals in my district and other than wanting to be paid a lot more one of their primary concerns from working condition is testing and the fact that in many of our schools in White County that are I don't let the teacher administer the test. This has problems for the students they may get to learn to trust a teacher for a long period of time and then some stranger comes in to administer the test and it causes and most of all, if you I think that's one reason students don't do as well in tests they should and I guess it's sort of a misguided fear that teachers are going to cheat you know for their own students and it'd probably true that one in a thousand teachers will but for the many, many students It's bad for the students to not have their teacher administering the test and we do have the exception because there are cases is where due to different IPs or different testing protocols for different students, she might have to have an exception to it, so I move the adoption of that amendment. Any question dealing with the amendment? Representative Capin thank you, thank you Mr. Speaker, just Mr. Chairman just to make sure that I'm clear represented Starn, are you talking about that possible example where child has to have the test read aloud and they have to go to a separate room and that's in the IT are you saying that if the employee of that school wouldn't be the only one to do that, or the teacher just could do that. Representative [xx] that's what is talked about in line nine, those will be the exceptions with the modification needed but it is a general policy rule I don't want the LEA saying, teacher you may not be the administrator of the test, you run the students. Any other questions dealing with the amendment? Okay. okay, he moved okay.

All in favor of the amendment say aye, "aye", any oppose? Okay now we are back on the bill, Any questions for Representative Meyer? I have a second amendment Mr. Chair. You want to take that now or when you prepare for me That's on the modified ritul[sp?] chip bill they have the same bill number on them, so I was confused. Sir, I withdraw that amendment and put it on the other bill. Thank you. That was confusion with stay up[sp]. Back on the bill, any questions for representative Meyer? Okay, representative Hardister, a motion Mr. Chair. It's appropriate time. Move for a favorable report on the PCS for House Bill 687, as amended unfavourable to original bill. Thank you. We have the motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion say aye, Aye! Any oppose. Okay, thank your Representative Mayer. Thank you, Mr Chair, thank you to the committee. on the next move we're going to do is House bill 587, School Flexibility Act. Representative Lambeth Thank you Mr. Chairman, committee members. I was Chairman of the South County school board for 18 years and during my 10 years especially when Charter School began to grow there's always a lot of [xx] about the flexibility that Charter School had and the schools didn't seem to have. So when I came here I decided I was going to be in a journey to try to figure out those ways we could help local LEA's I'd given them some more flexibility because it made sense to me that kind of leveled the playing field, give them the same rules to operate. Last session I introduced a bill that was a pilot for school districts to allow them to authorise Charter schools It didn't go anywhere, but I continued to work on it, and to Representative's Stams credit, he approached me one day and said, look, I hear this from the superintendents when I go around the state lets figure out a way to give him more flexibility. He has helped me and he is a science star to work with me. We've actually been meeting with superintendents since then we've had a great discussion, great dialogue and as it turns out they actually have a lot of flexibility that they just are not aware of. So what this bill does is that it argues a couple of examples. Districts may receive child like flexibility for low performing school. LAAs may make application to the state board of education to convert the existing school to charter schools. So section one of the bill simply states that DPI must conduct a workshop explain the flexibility of school superintendents, and this would give them that flexibility, and those examples. Another example is superintendents and school boards constantly ask for budget flexibility you probably hear that when you go around visits. Again we have provided a lot of flexibility LAAs to transfer state allocations for other purposes. So section two of this bill simply states that DPI must conduct a workshop explaining the flexibility of school superintendents basically that addresses two of their many concerns that they've had in those two areas. The other areas we've had a lot of discussion is in license, and this is the section three of the bill which deals with that area. We've had very good discussions, they've had good examples where they'd like more flexibility, and we think there is a merit in continue to explore those. So this section is still what I would consider to be a work in progress, and I know a senate is also interested in this, and because we do have a cross over deadline, I wanted to see if this committee was willing to at least move this bill forward and we would continue to work on this license section with the senate, and try to button up all the lose ends and fine tune it a little bit. superintendents of North Carolina Association of School Administrators will continue to work with us on this, and try to get this done as quickly as we can, so I'll be glad to answer any questions any questions for Representative Lambard Representative Piedmont I have a question Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the [xx] billing error, what shop should

be what shops should be a [xx] [xx] 17 says a series of workshop should be a serious of those shops Thank you Representative [xx], any other questions? The community was fast in telling me, if the committee does not mind, when we entered tie in the motion, that we can, say with a spelling correction in the motion, if there's any problem with that, anybody having any concerns with that? big grammar folks. It is but I don't teach English Representative [xx] Okay. New PCS with a to correct the spelling error. Representative Cleavan you want to tackle that motion? Yes I will, favourable report on house bill 587 rolled into a new PS to correct any grammar spelling errors. Any unfavorable to the original? Unfavorable to the original. Okay, thank you Mr. Representative Cleaver, we have the motion in front of us, all in favor of the motion say aye, Aye! Any oppose Okay, thank you Representative Lambert. Okay, the next one we are going to do is house bill 803 school performance scores, we have Chairman Johnson presenting the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I don't know that all three of us were satisfied with this bill but we think it's a good option. As you remember, we entered the performance scale in House Bill 358, through this committee, and this is the second option to change the formula of grading. This one only changes in the tax, which is currently 80/20, this one changed it to 50/50 Would you like to say something? Can I appreciate, I know this is going to be a work in progress for the Senate, but what this is doing is trying to respond. Actually, you all know this came out of Florida, and Florida has changed the model now 34 times to try to deal with growth proficiency issues, and we did a survey across the country of the states that have you know here's what our staff and CSL have said. In Arizona they have changed to a 50-50, main is 50-50. You toss 50% performance and 50% growth but the growth is split between performing and non performing students. New Mexico does 40% performance, 50% growth and 10% other factors. Oklahoma is 50 -50, Mississippi has a very distinct calculation that has about six factors. Virginia just repealed eight and a half, Ohayo has six factors they use in deciding eight and half and then South Carolina has five factors they use in doing it and finally Michigan for the most interesting it is implemented on a color system of

purple, red, orange, yellow, lime green are all based on proficiency and growth and if we go to that, I'm moving to Tihidi so Ladies and gentlemen as you can see there's very little consensus across the state especially across the country as to what measures we ought to be using so if we start with the 50-50 certainly we are half way right and hopefully we will get and it writes sooner or later. It's a progress been progressed forward we hope. Very few people are satisfied in state and a stand and this is an attempt to get it right, we'll continue to work and it will continue to be work in progress. I do want to say that we believe this is the closest to Representative [xx] passed down, my hand out on grading the two separately, we think this is as close as we are going to get to that. I think that's a very good idea too, I hope you'll support the bill any questions from the committee? Lets just walk away this way over heard it's true. Thank you Mr. Chairman, if I may commend the bill sponsors, I think this is a very good bill. I've actually brought from a lot of parents and educators in my district regarding this formula, I think the 8020 formula is problematic, 3050 makes a lot of sense I appreciate your work on this bill Representative Brian first I will echo Representative [xx] comments although Representative [xx] Tahiti may sound pretty good this time of the year, so I'm not sure you want to offer that up, and after a motion of the appropriate time Mr. Chair, Okay thank you representative Brian, representative Portman, Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just want to say it how much I appreciate this bill, it may not be perfect but it's a definite this step and right direction we have a school in my district, the principal of which is in running for principle's year, they have higher priority level among the students and yet they have an excellent growth rate you know in the students, yet theyr received a D and that didn't make sense and this to me looks like it would be a lot more fair, big improvement, I appreciate the bill. Representative Cotham, Thank you Mr. Chairman, I do feel sorry. It certainly is a working progress in one of those issues that you're not going to appease everyone one just question, I know you want to move the bill along. The only concern I have is, what about the schools that 2-3 years from now are still getting that D or F? What are we doing for them or to address that issue, to get them off that D for F list. I have a very similar bill to this, I don't know if you'd be interested in any of the language that I used I could share with you before it gets to the floor, and not trying to stall you bill, but just something to maybe take into consideration that's the educator in me, I don't want a child just to have an F, we want to get them off of that F, and I think it's the same with schools. Thank you Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, what this bill does for those students, this bill doesn't address that issue. We first have to identify the challenges in a fair and practical manner and that's what this bill does. It will take a separate effort and more concerted effort from the General Assembly to address those issues and I applaud every action that will pursue that but, this bill is first to get a fundamental system of grading, that is as fair as we can get it and as it has been said, it's a work in progress. Representative Richardson, I accidentally skipped, Oops! Sorry, Representative Johnson,. I'm sorry, I did want to answer that, or make remark to that. If I'm not mistaken, and you can correct me if I am, when the rate to achieve was first initiated, the grading system was set in and was set to be re-evaluated in three years time, so, I think that process is the way we will go. Representative Richardson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will also like to commend the sponsors of this bill, I know my superintendents will feel like they're getting Christmas in April, if this passes through the full process, so thank you very much.

Representative Stan. Thanks, I'm going to vote on because it approves on a bad situation, but I've given you this handout here, it's still a fundamental flow to combine achievement and growth, and according to this figures I did not calculate this comes from Brenda Burg with NC best if you want to hear from her yeah will go down from 43 people said of our schools getting F to 20%. Well, frankly, I would rather send my kid to a school where the achievement is not so great but the growth is there, rather than send him to a school where there is a lot of achievement, but they're not getting a year's growth. So to me this is just a wrong approach, and I keep hearing everybody wants to go to a two a two grade system but they don't do it. So I would just like to encourage you on this movements through the world that we get away from this combining mash potatoes and cello[sp?] preferring it to spaghetti and apple pie, I use divided plates with my children at home that helps with the problem. Do you want to comment Representative Lucas? Thank you Representative Stan for that analogy of the cello or the mashed potatoes, we recognize that both are necessary for the diet, and perhaps there being one stomach, we still know that it's not perfect, but we're still work in progress, and look at that hopefully. Representative Lyndon I wanted you to do the motion, but I also wanted you to compromise this is definitely a correct movement in the right direction and we tried to do that before and this thing. I thought maybe they finally after the scores come out, all over sudden oops look good, and I think this will be a real step in the right direction. It's time for your motion Representative Lyndon, is there someone else that has any more questions? I move for favor report on this bill and it just goes through the floor, right? We have a motion in front of us that was not my phone. OK, we have a motion on front of us all favor of the motion say aye "Aye" Any oppose? OK thank you guys. Next we've got house bill 673, modified read to achieve, there is a PCS. I'm sorry, my notes were wrong on, there is not a PCS on the bill, but there is an amendment that deals with the bill, it is [xx] if everybody will look at that, what will be changed is the reference at the top to HB673 and then all the the changes of the land references which is page two common lands 12313, that would change to seven and eight, but the wording of the amendment is the exact same. That prevents us from having to run more copies. Is everybody alright with that? Okay. Representative Glazer if you'll go ahead and explain. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is your member, representative Brian and others will remember the debate on the floor last year. This is an attempt not to go back and put back in play exactly what The house passed. There were few slight changes in our budget last year. The Read to Achieve Program had a number of issues and this attempts to address them in many ways the way the house did on the floor, the Senate just simply didn't agree, but this is to say when they agree to achieve program was put in place. This requires the state board of Ed to complete their review and approval process of alternative assessment by September 15th, says about it and it also tries to limit the number of tests in line with what we are doing today, if you remember there was one concern for one way to meet the [xx] chief standard you have to pass three tests at least 70% proficiency over 12 standards, so you might have a child taking 36 tests, this is an attempt to reduce that [xx], reduce the number of testing that occurs. It also gives the principal and the teacher a little flexibility for

the student who, because or perhaps an exceptionality simply keep failing the tasks, it's really not in their interest to keep seeing failure come through, so it allows the student to be put in the testing regime teacher principal and put into other portfolios capacities rather than continue to [xx] they may fail, there are a couple of other changes in there with regards to notification when a parent decides they don't want their child going to a reading camp that they have an alternative to be able to create that alternative and have notice with regard to it. It also provides the Principals have to provide information to parents within the first 30 days of school, so that we don't get into all the complaints we got last time from parents who were surprised by the regime, this gives them notice of what may be coming so that they can decide on choices for their children. There one or two other changes, and if any other member wants to speak to them, but that's the and for the most part, about 90% of the bill is what we passed on the house over last year. Thank you Representative Glazier. We're running very close on time right now, let try to dispose of the Stam amendment. Representative Stam. For the same reason as before. Okay. Thank you. so we've got, Sam has presented his amendment to the committee, yes in good detail there. All in favor favor of the amendment say aye. Aye! Any opposed? Okay. Now we have the amendment taken care of. Any questions for the bill sponsors about the bill? Representative Fisher. Has anyone said that they would like to make a motion at the appropriate time? I would like to do so. Any other questions for the bill sponsors? Okay. I don't see any. Representative Fisher. I understand that this is now a PCS, did we make a change that we haven't seen yet, but it is now a PCS. May we give a favorable report to the PCS for House Bill 673 as amended, rolled into a new PCS, and unfavorable to the original bill. OK, we have a motion Unfavorable to the original bill thank you. OK we have the motion in front of us all in favor of the motion say I. Any oppose OK thank you we have less than two minutes their has been another bill that has been presented to us that has come from the health committee and I want to ask this of the committee We as the chairs need time to review that new bill, and would you be open to meeting after session on the floor dealing with the remainder of the calender and the additional bill? Mr. Chairman. Representative xx. Thank you Mr. Chairman. What are the remaining bills that will be discussed on the floor? Well, we have one more for today which we've got to clear the room which would be a house bill 484, and the other one is house bill 768, Heat Stroke Prevention Student Athletes. Representative Richardson's bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think the first bill that you mentioned, the 484, which I think is the pilot, the [xx] bill had a lot of controversy. I know I have been getting a lot of emails, so I would have a problem doing that on the house floor. The other the other one I think is pretty easy as we heard that yesterday in health. OK, any more comments on the meeting on the floor? Yes. I wonder if we could just do down stairs to 1228 and do it in a room. Okay, let me check with the others. Yeah, we have a staffing issue with that for right now cause they have got community colleges. Any other comment on the meeting on the floor? Mr. Chairman? Yes. In my experience, meetings on the floor are for non controversial bills were  it's just consensus is reached quickly so I agree with Representative Gotham that, that's not, house bill 434 is not. We will try to find a place for after session, is that suitable for you Representative Luebke? If we find a place? Well, finding a place places, that's the only alternative, we don't have a time to meet before 3 O'clock, because just ask now, about if

there's another time we can meet I think it would make more sense. We are all going to be totally exhausted by the end of the session, and I will just ask there will be a time tomorrow when we can do that? Chairman Johnson. [xx] Find it home in here. we'll see what we can do with the staff and getting a room, and before the 3 o'clock we could've found a place thank you [xx], so please watch your emails, okay meeting adjourned.