MEMORANDUM

From: Chip Woodrum, SJR-91 Vice Chairman

To: SJR-91 Joint Subcommittee members and drafting group.
SJR-91 stakeholders and interested parties.

Re: Proposed work plan for the Drafting Group.

Following discussions with staff, some stakeholder representatives and others, I am proposing the following work plan for the drafting group's December 8 and subsequent meetings. In light of the work before us, it would seem that the structure outlined below offers a balance between considerations of time and task. Of course, suggestions for improving this work plan are welcome, and I would encourage you to forward them along to our staff, or to raise them at the December 8 meeting. In the meantime, however, we will at least begin on the basis of this plan.

• At the 12/8 meeting, the stakeholders and interested parties who submitted draft proposals may (i) furnish brief comments on the critical points of their proposals, (ii) offer their views on Virginia's readiness for restructuring, and (iii) comment on this tentative work plan. In order to ensure sufficient time for the drafting group's work session, we will limit these comments to 5-7 minutes. All parties submitting proposals will be placed on the meeting agenda.
• In terms of the 12/8 drafting group's working session, I believe the drafting group should use the task force reports to provide topical structure. I have asked the staff to present brief overviews of key areas, to be followed by drafting group discussion of policy options. These issues and options will be broadly outlined in a staff-generated "decision tree" developed from the task force matrixes. An example follows this memorandum. You will find it shorter and less complex than the matrix.
• The decision tree will serve as an informational record of the drafting group's work, and as a key part of the group's report to the full joint subcommittee. Most importantly, it will illuminate the drafting group's policy choices-choices equally available to the joint subcommittee, acting as a body, and potentially to the General Assembly's standing committees.
• The parties' draft submissions will be integrated into the group's discussions as we move through the decision tree. And, of course, we anticipate that stakeholder and interest group representatives will be available to answer questions and provide information as we move along.
• The drafting group can choose among the policy options outlined in the decision tree, and then direct staff to prepare corresponding statutory language-in all likelihood integrating language or ideas submitted by stakeholders or interested parties. The staff would also be encouraged to work with the parties in preparing particular language, whenever appropriate.
• As and when completed, statutory language prepared by staff will be promptly posted to the joint subcommittee's web site for comment.
• Once the entire bill has been prepared in statutory format, and all parties have been provided an opportunity to comment, the drafting group could-depending on time-(i) submit the language plus comments to the joint subcommittee, or (ii) continue to refine the language, and then submit a "smoothed" draft (plus the decision tree) to all members of the joint subcommittee for their review.

While this is an enormous task, I believe the approach outlined above will furnish the drafting group a workable method for moving through the mass of issues and policy concerns before us. I look forward to seeing all of you on December 8.

CW:cl
Encl.