ALC-Lottery Oversight Subcommittee

Members, if you would please, uh, take your seats. right? you can still talk. That's not. How You ready? I call this uh meeting of the AFC lottery oversight subcommittee to order. We've got a little technical difficulty on our co-chair's bike, and we're going to work on that. It doesn't identify her, but I think she might be able to speak. But um I'll ask you if you have any comments. OK. If not, uh, let's, uh, begin. Uh, with a lottery, the director report exhibit B. Uh, Miss Strong. If you would identify yourself for the record, ma'am, and you will be recognized. Good afternoon, Sharon Strong, executive director of the Office of the Arkansas Lottery. OK. You're recognized for your report. So I'll just jump into, um, exhibit B. You bring up a little closer, please. Can everyone hear me? Thank you. OK. So I'm reporting on the November 2024 numbers, um, we're in fiscal year 2025. Uh, the revenues year over year. The first, the first page is, um, year over year, November 2024 versus 2023. Uh, so total revenues were up by 4.1%. And, um, I did want to point out that Uh, we did have a lot of, we did have quite a few prize payouts, but then in marketing and advertising in general and administrative, those, uh, numbers were Down, we, we spent less in this year than we did last year. And then total net proceeds were just down, um, by 2.9%. The next slide is comparative income statements, November 2024 versus our actual budget. So you can see that we are right now, better than budget by about 1.2 million or 15.5% year to date. Versus, um, November 30th, 2023. Uh, instances are about the same, draw sales are down. This is a national, national trend, um, the Arkansas lottery is certainly not the only one that is affected by this. And I thought it might be interesting to show you. Something that we put together, um, Arkansas versus Can you guys see this? OK. Arkansas versus some similar. Um, lotteries, so I've got Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kentucky on here. These are similarly sized lotteries. So our draw sale, our, our draw games are down, the only thing we're seeing is a picture of the Capitol. There we go. The slide you're showing right there, do we have that in hard copy? me OK. OK. OK, we don't. So compared to these other states, um, are Arkansas Lottery is down the least, basically, um, our draw sales are down only our 28%, these other states are much higher on that. And I'm happy to Show you all this. So we're down 7%. We've got Mississippi down 12. Um Iowa is 23. Missouri, 12. Oklahoma 22. And then Kentucky is up by 1.6. Theirs is a little bit different because they have a player convenience app where you can purchase in a different method and there's. So, let me go back to here. And then we have comparative income statement, um, Year to date versus actual budget. And, um, We have, uh, we're, like I said before, our budget is, uh, uh, we're better than budget by about 15. Um, our income before transfers is up by 15.7%. What we have transferred to the Department of Higher Ed is $1.5 million. Yeah. Um, this shows our trust account. We're at 312 million. Our reserve balance is 6.8 million. Our total debt set off is 14,704. And, um, our total income taxes, federal and state withheld as 680,000. The county information. We have 2 games that were launched in this month, a $1 holiday cash and a $1 candy cane cash. And that's it. OK. Members, they want to have a question. Ripton Mecklin. Hi, thank you. I had a quick question for you. You had said that the revenue was up 4.1% and net proceeds were down 2.9, and it looked like that was driven by significant increase in marketing and advertising as well as an increase in, um, general and administration, just can you give me some clarity on what was driving both of those? Versus budget. Is that right? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. No, versus actual versus last year, yeah, November of November. So I think what I had said was that our marketing dollar, we've not spent as much marketing dollars or general administrative dollars, um, for this year versus Last year, November of 2023. OK. And so some, some of that might have been because last year we had so many large jackpots that there was probably more marketing dollars spent on that. Um, I also Obviously, there's been a change in, in staff, and so we we're making some different decisions now in terms of efficiencies and some other things internally. And so that may attribute to that cost savings as well. Turned Hickey. Can you say the question again. OK, so I believe the whole category. are actual expenses are more than you budgeted. So in other words, you're showing 198 million. For the actual And 192 million for the budget, correct? And I'm looking at just for November 30th of 2024. I'm just doing the one month. On page 55. OK, 192 million? I see, yes. That's your budget, but you actually have expenses that exceed your budget. But the reason, if I understand this, is because your income is, is greater than what you were budgeting. So that's a direct correlation. Of why your expenses are higher, correct? I'm not sure about that. We have had several large, like price payouts, you can see here are the majority of our operating expenses, and we have had several large Price payouts just in the last 6 months since I've been here. Um Let, let me ask it another way, and, and maybe you all could just Make sure that you're running. I, I think it's a direct correlation because you had a higher revenues than what you're budgeting. Because you're gonna, those, you're gonna have those expenses. But let's just say that you had had only, let's say that you had actually hit it, hit it perfect. So in other words, if, if you would have had 231 million in, in revenue. I think that you would have still probably been at 192 million in expenses. You wouldn't have still, you don't think that you would still have the 198 million, correct? I don't think so. Right, OK. Thank you, ma'am. Representative David Ray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The, the comparison, uh, that you showed on the screen with different states, uh, versus our state. Could you send that to the committee staff because we don't have that on a handout and it was very difficult to read on the screen. Yes, I apologize. I'm, if you would send that staff and I'll see the staff get that out to all the members. OK, great. We'll do. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing no others, we will move to uh Uh, I C. As the commission report, uh, exhibit C. So exhibit C is the report that is required by Arkansas code 23, 115, 302B9. And it reports that our at at fiscal year in June 30th, 2024, the net proceeds were 129 million. 40 4,053. The amount deposited into and dispersed from the scholarship shortfall reserve trust account was 0, and our projection for net proceeds for fiscal year 2025 is 106.7 million. OK. Members, you have a question on that? Seeing none, we will adopt that report. Thank you. OK, I D. Yeah Somebody opened the door, the drones are coming in. We're going. Uh Thank you, Ms. Strong. I'm sure you'll be around after the meeting if anyone has questions. Thank you. Gentlemen, if you would, uh, introduce yourself for the record. Ken Warden, commissioner Division of Higher Education. Nick Fuller, Assistant commissioner for the Division of Higher Education. You're welcome, you're recognized, um, Nick's gonna lead our, uh, our presentation on IMD but before he does so, I'd like to, with the chair's uh permission display up one of our new, uh, marketing tools which is our hat for uh college is for you, so I just wanted to show this off a little bit and, uh, uh, we'll be happy to sell you all one of these to help our cause, or I'll be happy to, to buy one out of my pocket if I need to, but uh one of our things in higher education in Arkansas that we need to overcome as a participation rate. Our participation rate for higher education and not just bachelor's degree, but technical education, all those things that people that participate within proximity to high school is about 42%, 41.something. Our national average is around 62, so we could, we could 50% increase the number of students that we have participate in that in, in higher education and be on par with the national average and so. Uh, I want to appreciate, uh, the lottery efforts and the things that we do through scholarships to help our students overcome the, the financial barriers and uh I don't want to belabor that, but I want to recognize, uh, these efforts and say that they are a big deal to our students and they do help access and with that all, uh, ask Mr. Fuller to, uh, give our report on item D. Good. You recognized. Thank you. Uh, this report is just an update to report that you all have received in October, at the October lottery oversight committee meeting. This is for all of the students that received the academic challenge scholarship for fiscal 24. What this does is it, the students have until October to submit if they were on probation for grade point average. Hours taken, they have until October 1st to get us any hours they made up over the summer to regain their scholarship. So this is an update of the students that submitted those or did not. What you'll see is there are about 5000 students that were pending renewal that we're on probation at the time in October, a little over 3000 of those did not. Make up that time over the summer, so they lost their scholarship for this, this current fiscal year, there were 2000 of the 5000 that did make up the, the hours or the grade point average over the summer to get their scholarship back and were awarded that scholarship for this year. That so that's what you will see the different characteristics of the students in the, in the report. If you have any questions. OK Senator uh Hammer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason for their being dropped is because their academic scores. Is that what you said? Yes sir, well, either they're grade point average or they did not have enough hours. You have, you have to accumulate 30 hours in the year, or are you lose the scholarship as well to maintain the, the sufficient academic progress from year to year. OK. And is it on this report? As far as what separates ours from Academics, is it on this report somewhere and I've just not seen that broken down, sir, they're all, they're all grouped together. If they, if they lost the scholarship, they're all combined into. Into that successfully complete 30 hours, so it could have been that they didn't initially try to get that many hours or they dropped those classes or they did not pass those courses, so I don't think in that particular report, uh, those numbers are there, but we did extend so now they can recover those hours into the summer term. So it's an annual thing, not a 15, 15%. If they had a 15 and then past 12, they could pick up 3 in the, in the summer and still, uh, and maintain their eligibility, which is a good, a good way for them to maintain that. And they do have opportunities to uh, come back to us if they, if they have a bad semester or if they have, uh, life happens, uh, there are mechanisms by which they can re-engage and be, and, and find eligibility again. Yeah, y'all have been helpful in a couple of situations where life. Situations have occurred. That what I'm wondering is how would you venture a guess as to how many were academic. Versus how many, uh, Were the other and, and the reason I'm going where where I'm going, the, the rabbit hole I'm going down is I wonder what the universities have done. In order to assist those students and knowing where they are academically before they got that far down the road that they lost their scholarships. I, I, I don't know that I would want to make the the assumption without looking at the information. This is just a more high-level pull of the, the students that were dropped. I need to look in more detail. And anecdotally, the majority of them are, they don't complete the 30 hours rather than having the grade point being below what they need. So they, they have 15 hours they enroll in and somehow something happens and they fail one class, so they only complete 12, and they don't make that up over the summer. So would they have this summer? With those that are reflected in these numbers we'll have this summer. To make they would have been notified at the end of the spring semester that they did not meet the hours and they would had this past summer to make it up, to get the gain, regain their eligibility for the current fall semester. OK, and dollar wise, what did that, what did that capture back? We didn't capture back anything, we just would not have awarded this year saying you're looking at a majority of them would have been sophomore or junior levels, so you're You know, $4000 maximum award for those that are not being awarded. OK. All right, thank you. Since rice Thank you. Did the 42% figure that you gave have any of the trade and technical, it's all in there. Yes sir, that's participation in higher education. So, uh, it includes all technical and academic uh that'd be two year yes sir any participation, so if they were approaching a tech certificate or an associate degree and is there any estimate with, with the The expansion of the. Lottery scholarship into those programs is that expected to increase percentages or? You all speculated. Are you referring to issue one, sir? Yeah. So issue one, those programs at our public institutions are already eligible, assuming that the student is eligible to the existing requirements of ACT and such. We also have other scholarships like AR Futures and Workforce challenge that can be leveraged to these. So, uh, the only issue one effect would be for non-public institutions to leverage these opportunities in different ways. Does that make sense? OK. Thank you. Representative Ray. Yeah, my, my question was on the passage of issue one now that that's. Past, is it, is it also gonna require A statute to enable that, or do y'all? Issue rules, how, how, how, where do we go from here as far as implementing? So I Believe that it, in order To achieve the desired effect that there will need to be some legislative. Changes to eligibility requirements. And to uh this existing scholarships or new scholarships that. We point that issue at and lottery proceeds too. Uh, because there are some, I think, hurdles involved with current. Scholarship platforms, eligibility requirements, and, uh, as my letter as recommendations was pretty simple and it was that we continue to explore, examine, uh, eligibility requirements and award amounts. And so through that, you know, through that continuing look, I think it will take some. Enabling legislation for lack of better words. Yeah, that, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Seeing no one else. We'll move to item E. I may have jumped the gun, sir. I think that I've just mentioned, uh, the letter. Now, that is, uh, agenda item E, but I can address any questions you may have. Get your recommendation. Yes, sir. I think that's in your packet and the recommendation that we forwarded, uh, I mentioned that we continue to examine eligibility requirements and levels of award across all scholarship platforms. Yes. OK. Sorry, Representative Bentley. Thank you, Chairman. I'm not sure of the exact time to ask this question, but since we've enacted, um. The recent constitutional amendment to allow, uh, some of these funds to go to technical institutes now for students. I was just curious your thoughts on that moving forward and funding wise it's really like we input on that if that's appropriate time, Chairman, to, to hear their thoughts on that. And what their number, what do you think the numbers might be and how it's gonna affect things moving forward. So, Yes, ma'am. I, um. One, it's hard to say without knowing what the enabling legislation, legislation is, I think that what people may not realize is that we have 170 private career technical institutions in the state of Arkansas and those vary greatly in the nature of what they do. Some of those could be a barber college, it could be a welding school, and we have everything in between. Um We have a very different level of expectation of those institutions that we do our publics we require our publics to submit a lot more information to us because we are accountable for their outcomes. With private institutions, the level of accountability is not what it is for our publics so depending on what the enabling legislation. Would do would greatly vary the amount and number of students that we would impact. I think we have a lot of good schools in the state and we, we have a lot of good public schools and we have some good private schools. But sometimes, uh, We have to be accountable to the taxpayers on how we spend their money and someone is gonna want to us if we fund those to know what the postgraduate outcomes are, which we don't keep up with. And how those investments by you all in the state of Arkansas are helping Arkansans and Arkansas prosper. So it's a very, um, Multifaceted, very detailed, a lot of bullet points. I mean, we could, we'd be here a long time, but I'm happy to. You know, help, uh, we are as a division, I want to see what the legislative intent is and how we help you reach that intent. That's our goal. Senator Rice. We're just back to that. Is there any legislation being worked on for this session or is this something that just gotta grow in time to see what's needed or. When you say you're gonna need some enabling legislation. What timeline are we talking about? So as a as a commissioner and someone who's helping to guide a state division, I would, uh, respectfully say that I would have to ask our, our delegation, you know, what their wishes are and how we can help support that, um. In all honesty, I have been asked by several people. Uh, outside of, you know, larger groups about what can we do, what can we do? Uh, it's a very nuanced topic and there's a lot of things to consider, uh, but I do think there are some folks who are considering that, uh, um, making some changes in the near future. OK, well, and you know I just. thinking and I, I, the percentage that Amendment one passed by shows the public is behind it and There are so many kids out there. And as you're talking about, you've got to promote it, you've got to get in their head. They can with with limited amount of time they can get a trade that they can be knocking down serious money. And uh all that we can do to push and help that, not trying to take away from our other institutions, but it's greatly needed in this state and I think that percentage of kids being exposed to it will. Increase, but we, uh, I'm, I'm for supporting whatever we can do to get the right kind of legislation going. Thank you. Since Ross, I make a comment on that. Uh, you're exactly right, uh, the public wants you and needs it. Uh, one of the issues we have, we have some private institutions out here that, uh, are for-profit only. And, uh, they're more interested in, in the tuition than they are the outcome, and I'm very familiar with 2 or 3 of them, particularly in, in beauty schools that, uh, where they would get their students and go and as long as they were in, in enrolled, uh, they were, they were getting a, a payment as soon as the, the money ran out. The education ran out and there was no job, and I think Doctor Gordon is probably the biggest thing we need to watch out for. And so if, if any of y'all are going to be involved in writing legislation, just be careful. I mean, we, we don't get me wrong, we, we need educated, uh, uh, people, uh, they need jobs, uh, it doesn't have to be a fine arts degree, uh, uh, but, but plumbers, electricians, carpenters, uh, barbers, uh, you know, I mean, we, we need them all. You know, and I'll be honest with you, I, I, I need a seamstress right now, you know, and you, you can't find them anymore. those trades have gone by the wayside, and so we need them. They can make a good living. All they have to do is go to work. They, they can make a good living, but by the same token, we don't need to get into the, the rut we were in when the lottery was first developed, so that, uh, I think the figure was 73% of the freshman class that came and got their $4000 never came back. And that's why lottery went, went broke. And so we had to redo that and, uh, revise how we, we spent the money. So, again, the money's there to be spent. Let's spend it wisely. Let's get these folks educated and, and using quality schools and so obviously the legislator, we're gonna be looking over your shoulders at what's going on. I think you're already cautious as to, uh, uh, what may be coming down the pike, and I I appreciate that caution, uh, being out there representative Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My, my question is, um, Uh, with, with the passage of issue one, and, and now that is part of the Constitution. What timeline based on that because I, I'm, I'm thinking of this for my institutions in, in South Arkansas, UAM in this, uh, CTC schools, uh, they're in Crossett and, and, um, and Warren. They, they're good actors, they're bad actors and, and what about the, the public institutions that are, that are out here, when will they, uh, be able to benefit, uh, from those, the funding model and, and getting some of the scholarship moneys awarded. Are we waiting on legislation? Before you can do that, uh, because we're concerned about the bad actors. So the good actors that are out there, that are turning out good students are, are going to be punished because We're waiting to have the perfect plan. So those institutions are are currently eligible for those funds. Uh, the, the nuances in the scholarship that the eligibility requirements. Uh, for instance, our academic challenge requires a 19 ACT. We may not, you know, someone attending a, a more career heavy trades program may not have a 19 ACT. But we have a workforce challenge scholarship that awards, uh, for non-credit training. So I, you know, could talk a long time on the detail of those and thoughts on how we change those, but, uh, you know, looking at those diligently, another thing is that we, all our scholarships have good intentions, but they are created sometimes on their own. And sometimes there's little, little pieces of those that we can improve, uh, to make them stack better and work better for students. But our public institutions are eligible for lottery funds now issue one was about making those funds eligible for privates. So may as we, as we Look to change these eligibility requirements and amounts. I think it's important that we look to parity for our publics and our privates. There are good private schools. But there are private schools in Arkansas that charge you $30,000 for seven months to learn how to be a proficient welder when you could do that same work in one of our publics, maybe in a different fashion over 1 year or 2 years' time for a few $1000. Uh, there are folks that the predatory practices as Senator Caldwell, uh, mentioned, those exist. I don't think that all publics are profits are out to do that. I don't. I think, and there are ones, the proofs in the pudding. If we start getting postgraduate outcomes, and we can see someone paid $30,000 for a welding certificate in 7 months, and they've paid for that 22 years later and making a living and making good and productive citizens and taxpayers, we're all about that. We don't have the ability at this point or the authority to do that. And sometimes that, that's just, that takes some work. And I think it's important that we look for parity and that we look for a level playing field, uh, with our publics and put them in a place where they can compete, uh, with the same tools that our privates could as well. So I'm sorry, I didn't mean to belabor the point. No. Uh, just a quick follow up. I, uh, my concern is that it's probably a two-way street. There are probably some things that could be taken care of by rules. Uh, that would, would probably be more expedient. Uh, to, to taking care of some of the, some of the needs, and then I think there's a legislative fix that, that we've identified as well. So I hope we're pursuing both of those. Yes, sir. I appreciate that and I will say that. The lottery proceeds for scholarships. It is best when those funds are being used for students to reach their goals successfully and, and, and earn a better wage for their family and, and help Arkansas prosper. So I agree. Senator Hickey Yes sir, Mr. Chair, as you know, I'd ask you for a, uh, a few minutes. Uh, during the other business and this is gonna be to discuss these type of situations that I've already talked to staff about preparing a document for the membership for the upcoming session, so. If it's OK with you, I just want to make sure you don't leave because this is all gonna dovetail together because we got, we got legislation that we've set up over the last Uh, 8 to 10 years, of course, that, uh, uh, uses prior year scholarships, uh, it determines how we, uh, Anyway, we can get into that one in the, in the other business, if you don't mind, but I don't want you all to leave because I think this is gonna have to be a conversation that we're going to have to have sooner than later. Yep, so if y'all just remain seated right there we're gonna discuss item F and then we're gonna come back anden Hickey's gonna bring some other, uh, information up with that, are y'all through with your presentation, sir, both of you, OK. All right, let's move to item F. Uh, members. Representative McAlinden. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks for being here. Hey, couple, just real quick questions for you. Can you tell me, uh, what percent are going from beginning their education to completion on the scholarships? Like, are you seeing a lot of people going through either a 4 year or 2 year or however long the program is, do you know? Like if they start with a scholarship in college, how many of them are continuing to completion, ma'am. We have that. I don't have it with me, but I'm happy to provide that. We do, we do. And then a quick second question is, you said that um you would love to have postgraduate outcomes for private schools. Totally agree. I think that's fantastic to make sure that it's effective. Do you have that also for Publix already? And could you share that? Uh, we don't have that. We haven't been tracking that. Uh, we do, well. The division OK Has limited some of the public institutions, uh, through their reporting processes and accreditation report, uh, postgraduate outcomes. We do have a, a project that you might have read about in the paper here in the last couple of weeks on Uh, postgraduate outcomes and, and, and, uh, you know, how long it takes an individual to return. So we're getting better at that, and I hope that it's, that is something that we can really look at heavily in the coming years. So thank you. OK. Very good. All right, now let's go to item F and, and basically this is a review of our report that uh we spent to ALC. And uh as chairs of Arkansas Lottery Oversight Subcommittees of the Arkansas Legislative Council in compliance with state law. We wish to inform that our subcommittee met twice during the calendar year of 2024. Uh, we have the following findings, Arkansas Lottery oversight subcommunity shall continue to provide oversight to the operations and activities of the Department of Finance Administration Office of the, uh, Arkansas Lottery, Arkansas Lottery Oversight subcommittee shall continue to review the Department of Finance Administration. Office of the Arkansas Lotteries implementation of scientific Games Incorporated and Interlot Incorporated terms, uh, contract, and, uh, Arkansas Lottery oversight subcommittee shall continue to monitor the funds available to guarantee the Arkansas academic uh Challenge scholarship and workforce, uh, challenge scholarships remain solvent within its parameters. They want to have a question or comment on that, Senator Hickey. Yes. If I'm not mistaken, we, I think the term contract with Interlot has expired. I believe we need to remove that language unless somebody out there in the audience tells me different with the lottery, but I'm 100% sure of that. I'm. I do believe. Uh, turn your mic on, please. Intralo. The contract with Interlot will expire in August of 2026. OK, so So we, we still have that in, in place. Yes. OK, thank you. I was, was very good. I'm glad somebody's paying attention. That's right, yeah. Staff says you may be thinking about Camelot. OK. OK, very good. We're, we're good to go. Any discussion, any other discussion on this letter to the ALC. Alright, uh, motion to adopt. Senator Hickey, thank you. 2. All in favor say aye. OK, now we're going to other business and I'll recognize Senator Hickey. Uh, hold on, I can't get you to come on. All right, there you go. Thank you, members. As most of you all know and actually have been involved in, especially if you've been here anytime. You know, we worked on the lottery now for, you know, since it, since its inception, the, uh, whenever that was put in place, of course, uh, as, as within a lot of legislation, it was new. So we've had to work over on that over the years and whenever we were first done this, what, what was transpiring is, is we would come into a session and members would just go To doing or, you know, running legislation to do scholarships, and then they would run those and they would pass. And there was actual actually, which is a little odd, but there was no, uh, we weren't looking at cash flow of the lottery and that was causing us to get into an issue. We've been fortunate with the operations of the lotteries over the last few years and we've actually been able to just use prior years money now to know how much we have, uh, so to know how much we have to spend, but then we also went in, we, and we developed legislation so that we could attempt to always keep this thing sol solvent into the future. And if I remember correctly, what we've done is we've actually taken like the last 5-year averages. And what we do is we've developed a formula. That if a member wants to do a scholarship that, you know, Whenever the session gets here, what they have to do is something different than another bill. They don't just go to the, to the Senate education and they don't just go to the house education. What they have to do is they have to get in and they have to go through the formula first to make sure that there's money available. And then those committees actually meet jointly. To decide between the House and the Senate, which ones they want to prioritize first. So in other words, if somebody wants to do a new scholarship, uh, you know, for whatever it, whatever it may be, and it's, you know, we've got $40 million available. We've went in and did this calculation and we've got 40 million available. Well, if that scholarship's gonna eat up 20 million and you all in the Senate Education Committee say, well, that's our number one priority, then that eats up $20 million. So then we start over again and figure out what the second priority is and make sure that The same, the same process that there's still money available. This new deal with issue one. is a kink. Uh, that we need, that we need to work out also, the reason I'd asked to be on the other business is, is I wanted staff, uh, and I'd already, I already talked with them, Ms. Hal over there. What I was wanting was for her for this committee to direct her to do a document that was uh disseminated to probably all of the membership, and then heavily to the Senate and House committees, exactly when all water when all lottery scholarship money. There's a certain date you have to file that legislation by. Also though for them to go through, go ahead and run the calculation to see how much money is going to be available based on what we have in statute now because we put all that in place so that whenever session starts that the members will know that. The only, the kink that I see right here now is issue one. Normally, the House and the Senate are going to get in there and if, uh, ener Hammer, And myself and Senator Rice all had a scholarship bill, and we're gonna argue and fight amongst each other. We're gonna say, oh, Senator Hammers is gonna be our party and we're going to do first. I'm not for sure with this issue one. Since the public has put this in first, if we don't need to somehow, uh, you know, that's, that's for you all to decide. In my mind, I think that that probably trumps the legislature since that, that was passed statewide as a constitutional amendment. So I'm not for sure that we don't need to go ahead and try to develop that. Figure out that particular cost. That should probably be a priority within that to make sure that there are, there is going to be enough funds to do it, or however that was written, and I'm not familiar with that. So we need to somehow prioritize that and then if there's any money left over, then maybe members members can get in and do it. Again, I think this is a wrinkle that That we're going to have to address and I think that directive would best be suited to come from this lottery oversight committee. I hope all that makes sense and I'll try to answer any questions as it relates to that to that language that we've developed over the last I think it's 10 years now. Yeah, a long time and basically, uh, we started out with a lot of money in in lottery and, and, uh, we forecast we're about to not have enough money to pay a scholarship one day. That's why we changed it. I think that's what Senator Hickey is trying to avoid again. uh, where y'all gonna make a comment if you do turn your mic on. David Branscombe told me I talk too much, so I have to be careful. He does too. I hope he's listening um, I don't think you had a question, but I will give you a comment and I will say if you're OK, and I, I, I, I agree. We have to be responsible with the funds first off. What Makes it difficult, is not knowing what the legislation might say and being able to model the spend rate. If we're going to adjust amounts, and we're gonna adjust eligibility requirements, we have to know what each one of those scenarios are and then who, how many schools are going to participate, how many students they serve? How many of them, if we set reporting requirements are going to be willing to meet our reporting requirements because there are pluses to being a private school. But I think that we have a obligation and responsibility of the taxpayers that if we're going to spend this money in this way, we need to, you all are going to expect us to keep up with how those funds are spent, if they were, had the desired purpose, uh, desired intent if people got jobs, if they're put to work, what their wages were, long term, how did that work? And so, um, it's hard to do. Without modeling it. We have some guardrails on our scholarships right now by the nature of them being public only. Rules around being a public institution that will require that are not required of private institutions. So we have to take a very close look at that and make sure that we Meet the legislative intent and make and the intent of issue one without bankrupting the scholarship or promoting and, uh, some, I hate to even say that. I'm, I'm not promoting, but guard against predatory practices. I understand and if you, and if you haven't yet, I mean, I assume that you all dealt through any and all the specifics within the issue one. Oh, are, are we allowed within that to set up those parameters? I assume we are. I hope so, but I would think so. OK. But I guess that's what I'm saying. So we have legislation, we have legislation as you um you definitely know, uh, in place to keep this or to attempt to, you know, if we ever had some catastrophic thing for a couple of years, and yeah, we, but we also have that set in there that we would actually lower the scholarship amounts. So we actually have it set up so that we would stay solvent now and there will never be a problem. I just don't know what issue one now. It's gonna, is going to do. But we're gonna, we're gonna have to try to develop that legislation. And somehow pass that. Get those in, in place first. And try to figure out what that number is because If that's going to be the priority, and like I say, in my, in my opinion, I, I view it that it has to. So we're gonna have to, we're gonna have to get that developed, get that in there, try to figure out what that's gonna be because other members may want to run some other scholarship or add to it or whatever. I just I, I know you are. You're working with somebody to try, you're working with somebody to try to get all of this. In place, I just think that there's going to be a priority with that. So Um, and again, I guess I'm doing this through this committee here, because I can sit out here and scream this stuff all day long, but I think this directive, the, the importance of this has to come from this committee. That we ask staff to go ahead and develop this so all the members understand it and with this new twist with issue one, I'm not for sure that staff Should not make footnotes on there and say because of this, you know, that this, this could have to be included in some, in some different legislation also. It's, it's a little tricky here, I'm afraid. I, I don't know how else to say it, but again, uh, I don't, I don't know that we need a motion. I think, or if you, if you want one, but I just, I would ask that our that this committee that it comes from the lottery oversight committee that we direct staff to prepare what I'm talking about here and also as it relates to this issue one. It's how you and I didn't talk about that because this is just kind of come out in this meeting and I'm glad it did. That was Senator, why don't you go ahead and put that in a motion that then so so moved. Second All in favor say aye, you know, you, you, all right. We will try to get this out to where our members, of course, uh, we, we'll have new. Senator, I got it, yeah. Uh, where, where, uh, our membership will understand that we just can't write a blank check out here on scholarships. We did that once before and it did not work. Miss Strong, you have something to say. Pull that a little bit closer to you, please. I just wanted to ask if it would be possible to, as you are, as staff and you all are developing this, if you could be in communication with myself so that we can look at our budgeting and, um, make sure that we're able to forecast and budget appropriately. And then of course we have no idea how many legislative words will come out with some type of bill. So, but we will try to keep that. Open and, and, and, and keep everybody in the loop on this deal. Thank you. Yeah, more than happy to keep the, keep you all in the loop, of course, on any and all, and I think that's the best way, but really your operations are your operations. Uh, so what, what we look, we look to you all to maximize the amount or I do. That's my goal is that you all maximize the amount of revenue that, that you all are bringing in for the scholarship program. It's almost a separate deal because what we've done now is whatever the proceeds are. From the previous year that you all have made and the net or the net, let me repeat that, the net proceeds of that. That's what we are then using for the scholarships. It's not gonna really affect your budgeting. Unless you tell me different, something that I'm not thinking about, it's not gonna affect your budget. You know, with what we're doing here, because your, your goal, your main party is just, just to make the money. Disperse the stuff, you know, send it out to us, then we have this other legislation in there that makes it so that we're not spending more than, more than what we're bringing in and then we have to borrow from that, uh, shortfall account, scholarship shortfall account, which we're not going, we're not going to do. So, uh, so I just wanted to say that more than happy to include you in it, but this shouldn't affect your budget at all. I agree. Thank you for that though, Senator. You may. Thank you. Is what you're seeking something similar to what would be a deadline to file a bill by with a fiscal impact before it could be taken up. Is that the, the line of thinking you're going down. Actually, every bit of that is already in place. That's, that's the thing that was already in place and, and we've been doing that and it was, it's been running along perfect, although our members have struggled with understanding the process. I'm gonna be, because they all, not all, but a lot of them will come to me and start asking and, you know, and this and that and how it works. That was what I originally wanted staff to, to do. To answer your question, the difference now is this issue one, it's almost like the people have, have now said that, uh, we're, we're the biggest legislator and we're gonna prioritize this one. And then if there's any left over, then maybe you can get in. All right, can I direct a question and then your question, Senator Hammer, you recognize? I wonder and should it be taken into consideration. Your staffing ability to monitor that and would you have to, uh, get an actuary involved and is that already in your budget, or is that something you would need to include in your budget. In order to make good accurate assessments. I think that, that will all depend on what the result of any statutory changes that need to be made to encompass those private. Institutions into the, the awarding, you know, if we broaden the scope and require that, then we will need to look at staffing levels and how we monitor and. And do things, but it will all depend on what ends up coming from the statutory changes that result in from issue one. All the more reason for y'all to be in loop on because if whatever we decide to do and it, it's gonna increase your budget because you don't have the capacity or the skill sets within your staff to be able to give us what we're looking for the capacity is not there currently. It's not there currently. I think maybe she wants to say something I was. Going to say that lottery funds actually fund the disbursement of the scholarships. So we would definitely need to include that in our budget if it's going to require them to hire more people. OK. All right. Just, it's on the radar screen. That's all. I might ask just to make sure I understand. I need to go ahead and prepare the fiscal impact. of the lottery currently so that we have an estimated amount that we can then determine whatever happens with issue one put an impact to their first before any of the other bills are filed that OK. Thank you, Monsieur. Anyone else. Seeing none, uh, I want to say this is probably our last meeting. Of lottery oversight in the ninety-fourth, uh, General Assembly. And we, uh, in January 13th, we'll be entering the 95th, uh, General Assembly, and I may be back, may not be back. I don't know yet, been on the assignments we get, but thank you staff, for everything that y'all have done, uh, very, uh, uh, efficient at, at what you do and, uh, make us look better, you may not make us look good, but you sure make us look better. And a committee members, I think one of y'all for uh uh being here and participation y'all too. You have everything? Yes, I concur. I just want to say thank you for especially to the staff for their patients and their um education and helping lead this committee and thanks to the committee for participating. Were adjourn.