Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Welcome back from the break. During this session, we will be taking up house bill four fifty four and house bill four eighty. With that, member from Pulteney, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar, the committee of conference report on house bill four fifty four, which is an act relating to transforming Vermont's education governance, quality, and finance systems.

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules to take up h four five four's committee of conference report for immediate consideration pending entry on the notice calendar.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Hultney moves that we suspend rules take up for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar House Bill four fifty four. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to take up house bill four fifty four for immediate consideration. House bill four fifty four is an act relating to transforming Vermont's education governance, quality and finance systems. The bill was referred to the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two chambers. The committee of conference has met and considered the same and recommends that the house adopt its report which members can find in the senate calendar addendum posted on the general assembly homepage and in an email the first assistant clerk sent at 04:32 today. Member from Cornwall.

[Peter Conlon — Representative from Cornwall; Chair, House Education Committee]: Madam speaker, we present to you today the committee of conference report for h four fifty four, an act relating to transforming Vermont's education governance, quality, and finance systems. Before we get into the bill, it is perhaps worth revisiting why we have arrived here today, preparing to vote on a bill that would lead to broad change in how we govern and pay for our education system. I've spoken publicly and often about the challenges we have faced, reckoning with a system that has tens of thousands of fewer students than it did thirty or forty years ago, a system that has some of the highest per pupil costs in the country, and a system that has evolved to have great inequities. We have come to a point in Vermont where kids from one town can have significantly fewer courses, fewer programs, fewer services, fewer sports and clubs than kids in the town right next to them. I see it every day in Addison County. It could be a matter of scale. It could be a matter of what voters can afford. But one thing is for sure, it is not the student's fault. Yet that is who is paying the price for a system that needs reform. A system that needs to assure that a Vermont child's address does not dictate the quality of the school experience they receive. We need to change how we do things so that it no longer matters if you live in Orwell or Shoreham. You will receive a high school a high quality education filled with opportunities regardless of the high school you attend. And as our town meeting day school budget votes of the last two years showed, we need to move beyond the system where school boards gather in the fall to systematically decide what programs and people to cut in order to produce a budget that will pass muster with voters, making the ability to strategize and plan for the future in substantive ways nearly impossible. School boards and educators need stable, predictable funding so that they know what to expect and that they can manage to. H four fifty four puts us on a path to achieving these goals. Madam Speaker, H-four 54 has had a long and challenging journey that included multiple House committees, close to 100 witnesses, and much deliberation by all members of this body before it was voted out of the House earlier this year. From there, it went through a transformation of its own in the other body's education and finance committees before a floor amendment returned it to something much closer to the house version. But there were differences, including with what the governor wanted, and the bill went to a committee of conference to find a successful middle ground. The conference committee report before us today has compromise in it that reflects the differing views of the conferees and the goals of the governor laid forth in January. However, it is important to point out several major parts of this report where compromise did not happen. Despite the threat of a veto from the governor when h four fifty four left the house over this, a significant and significant changes in two committees of the other body, this proposal keeps the same scientifically valid foundation formula. No changes. The member from Brattleboro will speak more to this later, but it should be noted the hours and days she spent proving to the administration that these numbers also achieve the governor's goal of not spending more than we do today. This proposal also maintains a new homestead tax exemption that will leave Vermonters better off on the other side of this process. Again, a key proposal in the house passed version on which we did not compromise. Overall, the education policy section remains the same or very similar to the house passed version. Compromises include acknowledgments of the concerns of rural Vermont over class size minimums and consideration of supervisory unions in future configurations of our school system. The bill also includes new and significant limits on how the flow of public dollars to independent schools, including the end of public dollars going to out of state private schools, something that has been discussed for detail decades but never successfully implemented. Madam speaker, I will now begin a section by section look at the committee of conference report and will later yield to the member from Battleboro to explain the tax and finance policy portions of the bill. Beginning in section one, the intent language and findings. Here, you see the first indication of moving the implementation of everything up one year. As we may remember, the governor wanted three. The house wanted five. We settled at four after much deliberation and discussion among with with many people about the how, achievable that four year goal is. Section two refines the role and the duties of the Commission on the Future of Public Education. The language in the committee of conference bill reflects a long discussion that the commission itself had on its role if four fifty four passed, as well as further discussions with the chair and vice chair of the commission. This focus of the commission's discussions generally will be focusing on what new larger districts will look like and how they will operate and make recommendations to the legislature. It is expressed, however, in somewhat legalistic statutory fashion, really referring to the roles and responsibilities of school boards and the roles and responsibilities of the electorate. Also maintained in the work of the commission is a process for a community served by a school to have a voice in decisions regarding school closures and recommendations to this body, as well as recommendations for monitoring the implementation of H four fifty four in a manner that is transparent and public facing. Section three looks at the school district redistricting task force. In the house passed version, the work of this task force was a subcommittee of the committee on the future of public education. We agreed with the senate to remove this and make it a stand alone task force, and more importantly, resource it to a level that is really much more appropriate for the work it will be doing. The membership of the redistricting task force is largely as passed by the house with the addition of one member extra added from each body. The charge is also largely the same as when it left the house. Moving on to section four, this is the school district voting ward working group. This language remains unchanged from what was proposed in the house. And as a reminder, this working group is really designed to make recommendations and assist the legislature on creating equitable or constitutionally accurate voting wards and representation and things far more to do with elections than with education policy. Sections five and six address class size minimums. The house agreed with the senate to reduce these numbers very by very small numbers in an acknowledgment of some of the concerns that came from rural Vermont. The class size minimums also eliminated kindergarten from the minimum class size rules largely because we continue in Vermont to actually not require kindergarten nor even full day kindergarten. It continues to maintain a waiver process for schools that are geographically isolated or have a plan to come into compliance. The section seven also remains unchanged as was passed in the House. This is a section that essentially would prevent the state board rule from requiring a school to close in order to meet class size minimums if that school could not afford or the or if it would require a school construction project in excess of the capital reserve funds that that school district may have. Section eight refers back to the work of the state board in order to create the rules that would govern class size minimums. These rules would apply both to public schools and independent schools approved to receive public tuition. A change here is that the move from a school would be flagged if it did not meet class size minimums. Instead of two years as recommended in the house, we agreed with the senate to move that to three years. And the house also said that the secretary shall take action, and we agreed with the senate to move that to may take action. Again, this is an acknowledgment of some of the concerns that many in rural Vermont had to this part of the bill. Section nine requiring the AOE to come up with a school calendar and graduation requirements remains the same as the house. Section nine continues with more requirements from the AOE to submit reports to the general assembly by December on a range of issues that would be fairly important to the work ahead. And, again, this remains unchanged from the house proposal. Section 10 refers to an appropriation for the State Board of Education to review its rules and be resourced appropriately to make that work happen. This language, again, is the same as proposed in the House version of H four fifty four. Section 11 represents another compromise area. This retains current law surrounding the closure of schools and transition to paying tuition. The senate had held out to move this out two years. We felt having this hanging out there two years could provide the wrong incentive for schools to be thinking about closing. And again, this covers the interim period between the passage of this bill and when new districts are created and their new operating guidelines are set forth. Sections 12 through 20, I'm not going to go into great depth on. This is the state aid school construction program. This has remained unchanged in every iteration of this bill. There is one small change to this, which remains, I would say unfunded. However, it does require at this point that the funding come from a general fund appropriation, as we fund most things in state government. Section 21 is the changes surrounding what does it take to be an approved independent school that qualifies to receive public tuition. This would represent a significant change from today and would take effect on 07/01/2025, requiring that to be an approved independent school that at least 25% of the enrolled students attending on public tuition during the 2024 school year, that it is located within either a supervisory district that does not operate the same grades as the independent school, or I should say, is located within a supervisory district that does not operate a public school in some or all grades or a supervisory union with one or more member school districts that does not operate a public school for some or all grades. It again must they also must continue to comply with class size minimums. Section 22 assures that students enrolled in a currently approved independent school that may no longer qualify can finish out their time at that school. Sections 23 through 26 are the same as provided in the house, past version. This reflects the bill's portion that would give the legislature two of the 10 appointments on the State Board of Education. Again, this is no change from what was passed in the house in h four fifty four. Madam speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Cornwall yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Emilie Kornheiser — Representative from Brattleboro; Chair, House Ways & Means Committee]: Madam speaker, this committee of conference report for h four fifty four, if passed, will move Vermont toward an education finance system that is fairer and more predictable for communities and for our families. The bill provides better opportunities for kids, particularly those in historically under resourced schools. H four fifty four also moves us towards a scale that matches our changing demographics and increasingly complex needs of students, and, crucially, a quality governance system that can support our kids, teachers, and communities. To be crystal clear, if passed, this bill stabilizes and lowers property taxes in communities around the state, bends the cost curve, and creates safe, consistent, quality education for all Vermont kids for a generation. I'm proud of the work that we did here in the house and how we were able to carry that through the committee of conference and the committee of conference report before you. The majority of tax policy in this bill remains as passed by the house with some important changes and even some improvements that I will walk through now. Some of these changes clarify where tax reductions will be found. Some add contingencies to assure that all the changes will happen either consecutively or simultaneously where appropriate, and some create cleaner transitions or point out work left to be done. So I'm gonna pick up in section 27. Section 27 of the bill, clarifies how the foundation formula payments, cover the costs of each student with a weight added and further qualifies that, this is there are many, many contingencies built into this bill. Some of them are triple contingencies. And so I'm going to, even though the contingency is in the, some of the contingencies are in section of the bill. I'm gonna explain them while we're in the appropriate section of the bill rather than covering them at the end, because that I think makes more sense. So this section that we amended here only comes to pass if we study the cost. There's a section in the bill that I'll get to later where we task the joint fiscal office with studying the cost of education writ large, the weights and, base that are in the report here. And if we study those weights and base and that report from our Joint Fiscal Office Commissions comes back and says that high school more than, high school students cost more to educate on a per student basis than primary school students and the legislature then fails to act on that new information, then this section, becomes law. And what it says is that in addition to the tuition amount that's calculated in the subsection, a receiving school may charge and that's a receiving school can be independent or public. An ascending school shall be required to pay an additional fee in the amount of, 5% of the base for each student attending the receiving school. But that can only happen if more contingencies. The receiving school has received approval from the State Board of Education for that additional fee, and there'll be significant rulemaking related to this. The board's rules need to require that the receiving school demonstrates that the additional fee is needed and as we'll hear later, that also additional fee needs to be covered by supplemental district spending that I described has not Supplemental district spending procedures have not changed significantly, but I'll explain them later. And has to be fully covered by supplemental district spending. And that needs to be true in all of the districts from which this school receives students from. And so receiving school cannot charge different fees in different districts. So that is the very complex levels of contingency for that, 5% that's allowed to be charged. Then in section 29, there was a provision that was removed because that language is now in the budget. Continuing on to section Still going. Sorry. In the bottom of section thirty twenty nine, we include after a very long, piece of report that was unchanged about a report on special education costs, we've added a small provision in the committee of conference that asks the agency of education, in addition to all of the other research that they're doing on special education costs, to also add recommendations for reducing the growth in extraordinary special education reimbursement costs. Extraordinary is actually a technical term with regard to special education costs, not just a modifier, and include recommended legislative language. This is one of the major cost drivers that we saw recently in our education fund. It's important that we address it specifically. In section 30, we required a strategic plan that has, is unchanged. And then in section 31, we have conforming changes. In section 32, and section 33, we have language that was not in the as passed by the house bill but was in the budget as passed the house and then further clarified in the senate as they received more information and that essentially takes an appropriation that was passed by the house as a lump sum and gets clearer on how this $2,865,000 appropriation to the agency of education will be spent to support transitioning to new governance models for positions and for contracted services, as well as some new positions of operation business operations support specialists, data integration support specialists, a curriculum and education quality standards integration specialist, one learning and teaching integration specialist, and school facilities field support specialist. That is a lot of integration specialists, which is very much needed. In section 59, we see no changes. Sorry. I'm on page 59. Section 34. Section 35, we have one small change, which if you are going through the bill might seem significant, but it's actually more of a technical change. And we're clarifying that for the purpose of the special education weights in this bill, child with a disability means any child who is enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12, and we're excluding pre K because those students receive their special education services via triple E, which is another program and another source of funding. And then on page 61, we have some essentially editing and conforming changes. Moving on. It's still in that section, in clarifying that our prekindergarten weight, still needs a lot of research, as folks might remember, as the bill passed the house, we tasked our joint fiscal office with studying the cost

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: of

[Emilie Kornheiser — Representative from Brattleboro; Chair, House Ways & Means Committee]: prekindergarten, how it is covered differently between the education fund and our child care financial assistance funds. And so we are making sure that the prekindergarten weight defaults to current law until we're able to take that up next year. And then we have more conforming changes throughout. Continuing on. As we are working through our weights, I'm still in section 35 here. We've just added a small amount that, when we passed act one twenty seven and then in April has passed the house, it's very important that we recalibrate and recalculate our basin weights regularly to keep up with the changing efficiencies and how we deliver services, as well as the changing needs of students and our state. What we have added to those new calculations is the advice and consultation of a professional judgment panel as convened by the agency. Professional judgment panel is sort of a term of art, a technical term, in the case of education finance, and given all of the extra work we have done and learned with regards to education finance best practices nationally over the course of this bill, we decided the additional professional judgment panel was appropriate at this time. Moving on to section 37. This is a technical change to keeping with the original intent of the house. This is a change that we caught really in the final hours that four fifty four was in the house and we were hoping would be addressed in the senate. And this is to clarify what a sparse area and a sparse school applies to and that we're explicit that it is about the school and not the district, that is by city, town, or incorporated village, and that the term sparse rather than getting into what is often a delightful debate and conversation and committee with regards to definitions we thought best done by the State Board of Education. So we have tasked them with defining sparse by necessity for us. Then in section 39, we see no changes. In section 40 and when I say no changes, I just wanna be clear. Some of the sections that I said no changes, we are moving dates to align with the original date changes that the representative from Cornwall mentioned. Section 41, no changes. In section 42, we repealed two grants out of the education fund to districts that will not be necessary with new larger districts and new base and weights. And, this is an interesting one, still in section 43. When the bill passed the house, the supplemental district spending, which is the ability of districts to raise money in excess of their base and weights at the pleasure of their voters, would have raised possibly if any districts chose to do so, would have raised some extra money for the education fund. And given the real need in the course of this transformation work to be investing in school construction and our inability at this time to find an appropriate source of that yet, We put any waterfall or overflow or excess from the education fund as a result of these supplemental district spending into a special fund for school construction. When the bill left the House, I think it was clear to the members who had worked very closely with this that there was no universe where that was gonna be enough money to fund construction program or frankly even seed a school construction program. And we saw it as an important gestural nod to school construction. But given that as the bill continued its journey, we also know that it's really very important to folks across the state that we keep tax rates as low as possible, tax bills as low as possible as a result of this work. And so we moved that possible supplemental district spending excess revenue into just staying in the education fund for the purposes of possibly lowering tax bills in the future. It's possible that won't be any money at all. It's possible it'll be a few million dollars a year. We don't know until those new districts make those decisions. In sections forty four and forty five, we saw no changes. In 45a, we added another report that's effective on passage that I believe I've already explained some of to you, which is to ask our joint fiscal office to contract with one or more contractors, and we have a nice appropriation that I've already described that applies to the oh, nope. I haven't described that yet. That applies to this, to study a few more things. Whether the way we are waiting special education is the best possible way to wait special education in this bill, suitable geographic measures for determining sparsity, whether or not the city town idea is appropriate, and as I described, whether it costs more to educate a secondary student than an elementary student. In national education research, it does cost more to educate a secondary student than a primary student. However, multiple studies in Vermont have said that it doesn't, and so it's an open question still. We also how to account for the provision of career and technical education within Vermont's foundation formula. I wanna be clear, that's not necessarily a weight, but we wanna make sure that we are covering the cost of career and technical education. That's something we have really not broached in this bill since we still need to make decisions next year about CTE. And, we have appropriated $400,000 for those, studies to ensure that we can have a meaningful bidding process on that. In section 45 b, this is one of the improvements that the other body made, madam speaker. I don't always get to say that, and so I wanted to really highlight that sentence. As the bill four fifty four left the house, we, did not have a transition mechanism built into it for either tax rates or the education opportunity payments, and we were hoping that the senate would have time to pick that up as we had not, And they did indeed. And so what we see is a five year transition, where the foundation formula will essentially the education opportunity payment, that's a result of our foundation formula, will slowly ratchet up to a 100% over the course of those five years, 20% a year. And any, independent schools who are still at that time receiving tuition would also have those payments ratcheted up at the exact same scale. We will see a corresponding tax rate, sort of 20% by 20% a little bit later in the bill. In section 45 c, we have an amendment to some language that passed in act one twenty seven, which created an education fund advisory committee that was set to start this July 1. Given all the changes underway, we thought it was very important for the education fund advisory committee to still, be created, but thought it best that they have another year before them. In section 46, we don't see many changes except for adding back in a section that, frankly, we removed accidentally here in the house. Here's another improvement, which is to fix a statewide adjustment that we passed last year that we had not quite integrated into the bill fully. In section 47, this is a piece that we added, frankly, in the conference committee, in the committee of conference because we realized, under existing law, as folks might remember from last year, we do not have we, under existing law, we have a default tax rate. So if the this body, does not act to set a tax rate, we have a tax rate that we default to. And that tax rate is set to default to something that is not as attractive to members or to voters in order to ensure that we do our work each year in passing a yield bill. The bill, as passed by the house and frankly, the senate did not have a default tax rate in it, and that is an oversight that I'm glad we could correct. And we set that default tax rate to a 110% of the previous year's tax rate in the hopes that we will never experience that. Then going on, we have more conforming changes in that section. Some technical changes, where we, had the commissioner of taxes doing something that the secretary of education should best be doing. Moving on to still in section 47 here. We're still in conforming changes and technical changes. Section 48, which is the supplemental district spending yield, we are just working back in that statewide adjustment that we left out all the way through Section 51, 52. Still unconforming changes. And then We get to our homestead tax changes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: And

[Emilie Kornheiser — Representative from Brattleboro; Chair, House Ways & Means Committee]: what we have before us in the committee of conference is almost entirely what left the house with two small changes. What we have is we added, a cap on the total value, house site value that is available for the exemption, I wanna be very clear that this cap at $425,000 of value of house site value is not does not make someone ineligible for the program under current law. If your house site value is too high, you are essentially ineligible for a property tax credit or to use the income yield. However, in this, it's just saying that only the first $425,000 of value are eligible for that. And then we also, smoothed a little curve between 40,000 and $50,000 of income there. We also, excitingly, added another study to the bill that we will see in a little bit to see if perhaps the income eligibility limit might be increased to a $175,000 in the future in order to better align with some of our other tax credits in our law. And then we have some conforming changes and more of those. And then in section 53, that's when we get to that re another report. And this is the report that I described about the $175,000 a year, and what appropriate inflationary measures we should be putting in place for this homestead exemption so that we best, don't wind up in the situation we're in today, madam speaker, because we wanna make sure that this system of property tax relief can grow with us as Vermont incomes grow and as Vermont property values grow. And then section 54, we just have date changes, '55, '56, '57. In section 57, we get back to that Ed Fund advisory committee that I mentioned from 01/27, and we just made a few small changes to the language to make sure that it's speaking to the particular base and weights that we're talking about today rather than under the ones under current law. And we've added two important provisions here that the Ed Fund Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee, is sort of designed to be something like our, pension oversight committee. That that committee is gonna look at how we can maintain intradistrict equity under Vermont's foundation formula. The idea here is that with larger districts, we wanna make sure that resources are spread fairly across a district so all schools and programs can benefit. And whether, the weighted foundation formula payments lead to improved outcomes across all populations in Vermont. Again, that's really like interest intra student equity, you could describe that way. Section 58, and 59 are deleted. Section 60. We are has more conforming changes with just dates. And then in section 61, we get to our property tax classifications. What changes between four fifty four as it passed the house and our property tax classifications that we see here in the committee of conference report is that as passed the house, we had four classifications. And as passed the committee of conference, we have three classifications. The ones that we are left with now are our usual homestead classification, a new classification that is non homestead residential that the tax department is going to come back to us with much more recommendations on exact definitions of that that we will act on. And then we have a third excuse me, a fourth category that is sorry, a third category that is everything else. That everything else category can include parking lots, apartment buildings, factories, hotels, camps, everything else. There is a lot of contingencies related to these property tax classifications. The two most clearly that we're going to see as we move through is that in order for the tax department to continue to do their work to develop definitions and forms and collect data related to the new property tax classifications, we will need to vote on new district maps next year. And then, in the absence of and I'll read this word for word, madam speaker, section 61 d, In order to ensure successful implementation of education finance reform as set forth in this act, in the absence of legislative action on or before 07/01/2028, that creates a new tax rate multiplier. Essentially, that's how we'll create a new tax rate for any new categories. If we don't essentially act on these new categories by creating new multipliers, the new categories will cease to exist. And then in 62, we are in sections that are essentially conforming changes with dates. Section 63, we are in conforming changes. This is all of our regional assessment district work, and frankly, none of that changed, after it left the house except for essentially taking some of the conforming changes and leaving them to be made next year. We have many, many pages of both conforming changes and conforming changes that were removed. And then, madam speaker, we the final sections of the bill, were frankly from our miscellaneous tax bill in the house that we moved into April if they were related to property taxes, and they are unchanged in the committee of conference from what passed the house. We then have a remarkable array of, the contingencies and the effective dates, and I'm gonna spare you those because we went through them as we went through the bill and the changes to the bill. We're here today because thirty years ago, we had a court decision, the brigham decision, that established clearly that the level of educational opportunity and tax inequity in our state was unconstitutional. This landmark decision resulted in act 60, which created more opportunity and fairness in our educational system and taxation than almost any other state at that point. And that was an incredibly divisive change at that time. However, that fairness has slowly eroded by time, by smaller attempts at reform and national changes. Today, in 2025, schools and communities across the state are at levels of inequality of opportunity and taxation that are on par with our state before Brigham. This is unacceptable, and that is why we are here today. H four fifty four in your conference committee report strengthens the tax base, improves the experience of folks who pay property taxes, making it more transparent, increasing fairness, lowering bills, and removing cliffs. This bill enables our taxes to align with our policy work and to have the important decisions about our schools and our kids to be based on opportunity, practicality, and best practice, not scarcity or politics. I wanna be clear that the challenges we're facing in our school systems cannot be changed by tax policy alone. They will require all of us coming together today and in the future to rethink how our communities support our schools and how good policy can be implemented consistently throughout the state rather than in spite of the state. We can't manage this in bits and pieces, madam speaker. We have tried to do that before, and tax policy changes alone will not create the necessary opportunities. This bill rips off the band aids, duct tape, and bailing twine that have held our education and our property tax system together over the last decade. It builds on the careful sweat and effort of our schools, our teachers, and our families, and builds a careful net to sustain our children and communities into the future. We need that hope and careful vision for the future. Change is inevitable. Instability in the wider world is likely, and details matter. We don't wanna just fix problems. In this bill and in our work, we wanna set a direction forward for our kids and communities. This committee of conference report, this bill does just that, and we ask for your trust and support. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The, excuse me, the question is shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Member from Montpelier.

[Kate McCann — Representative from Montpelier]: Point of order, madam speaker. I do not believe that the committee of conference has confined itself to the differences of opinion between the two chambers in violation of Mason's seven seventy one dash two. In particular, there's the deletion of section 11 on page 31, page 38 and page 75, school construction special fund, section 28 a, tuition rules on page 55, section 27, 5% to independent schools, and section 46 a, supplemental district spending, which doesn't appear in either bill and is in in this report. And I'd like to add that the senate found the point of order well taken.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Montpelier Eye find your point of order well taken. Mason section seven seventy one provides that a report of the committee of conference is objectionable in form the committee of conference has not confined itself to the differences of opinion between the two chambers. And the member has described how the committee of conference report goes beyond the two chambers version of the bill. Therefore the report cannot be considered without a motion to suspend rules to permit its consideration member from Essex Junction.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, our body has spent six months hearing testimony from scores of Vermonters on a complex and very important issue, education in Vermont. I do not want to see the product of this work die on a procedural vote. And I suspect we will be back here this summer if we do not vote on h four fifty four today. We owe it to Vermonters to finish our work with a vote of this body. Madam speaker, I move that we suspend our rules to permit consideration of the conference committee report.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Essex Junction moves that we suspend our rules permit consideration of the committee of conference report. Just to confirm for members, a rule suspension requires, three fourths of the members present in voting. So remind people what this vote is. A yes vote is to keep on voting and working on this bill. A no vote is to stop. Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: I'd like to request division on this, please.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Members requested a division. Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Madam speaker, I'd like to remind members that the work doesn't have to stop if this bill dies. We can we're we have other vehicles and other ways we can continue this work.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Heartland, what is your point of order?

[John L. Bartholomew — Representative from Hartland (time‑bound override)]: I don't I don't believe that this motion is debatable.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Heartland, I find your point of order well taken. This is not a debatable motion, member. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please rise.

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: You

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: may be seated. And all those opposed, please rise. You may be seated. Members please listen to the results of your vote. There are a 139 members present which means to meet the threshold, we need a 105 yes votes. Those voting yes, 113. Those voting no, 26. The ayes have it, and you have suspended our rules to permit consideration of the committee of conference report. So the question is shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And the report of the committee of conference is adopted. Member from Hultney, can you please offer us a motion to deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith? Will the house please come to order?

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to deliver h four five four conference report to the governor forthwith.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Pulteney moves that we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: May I still madam speaker, may I still speak to the bill itself?

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: One moment. Yeah. Would the house please come to order? Member from Burlington, the the question that we are on right now is shall the bill be delivered to the governor? So it would have to be related to being delivered to the governor.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: In that case, I'll just, express that no. I'm not ready to send this to the governor. I'm a little shocked actually at the speed by which that vote was just called without really even gonna be giving anybody the opportunity to stand to speak to the bill itself. This is an incredible disappointment, and a breach of democracy if you want my frank frank words on it. So I'll be voting no to send this to the governor.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Will the house stand in a brief recess? May I see house leadership at the podium? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, the current question we have on the docket is shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith? After conferring with house leadership, my ask is that people can use this time to make statements if they do, to tie it to the governor but be kind and not ask for a point of order and to let comments be made. So if you had something that you wanted to say on the bill, this would be the time to do it. So the question is, shall the house deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Madam speaker, where Bear with me as I try to condense and try to figure out. Madam speaker, given who we represent, you and I have been included on dozens of emails. I personally am more than a 120. Without exception, each one of those emails, parents, educators, the relevant unions, people who have had kids years ago in the school system without exception, people have asked me to vote no on this bill. I have never received the sort of outreach I am receiving on this matter. The only people asking me to vote who would have asked me to vote yes on this bill are from within this chamber, the only ones. That's incredibly out of balance in very, very concerning ways, and that should give us all very much very pause. I know. I know that my inbox looks very similar to many members in this body, and we are doing an incredibly disservice to those people that we represent. I would have voted no. I did vote on no no on this bill. I I just did it by voice. And I did that in service to that overwhelming voice and unanimous voice of my constituents. In that service, this was an incredibly obvious, easy, and necessary no vote for me to make. And I urge this body to think about that and to think about their inboxes as we consider the question as to whether or not we're gonna send this to the governor. And I ask that when we take this vote, that it be taken by roll.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Burlington request that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Member from Montpelier.

[Kate McCann — Representative from Montpelier]: The house passed version of h four fifty four was a thoughtful path forward, supportive of our public schools, and increased opportunities for all Vermont students. The senate was clear in the committee of conference that they support public dollars going to even going to and even expanding to private independent schools. The house version was supported by the Vermont School Boards Association, the Vermont Superintendent's Association, the Principal's Association, and Vermont NEA stood neutral. The report is not supported by those in the field, of which I have been a part of for nearly three decades. And in addition, it's not supported by the chair of the commission of the future of public education. The school board chair of the district in which I work, the school board chair and superintendent in the district in which I represent, and my union have asked that I vote no, and I heard them.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from West Windsor.

[Elizabeth Burrows — Representative from West Windsor]: Thank you, madam speaker. I spent all afternoon and all night last night writing a floor speech for this, and I'm I'm not going to read it. But one of the one of the things that I wanted to say during that floor speech is that part of the reason that I have enjoyed serving on the school board in our town and in our our supervisory union for the last more than a dozen years is that all our children are all of our children and that education is not political. And the amount of politics that I have witnessed in the the process of this report that we are being asked to send to the governor is is appalling to me. And I I there I would have voted no previously on the bill had I been given a chance to vote on the bill, but, there is no way that I will support this process. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith, member from Barrie City?

[Edward “Teddy” Waszazak — Representative from Barre City]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am I'm going to deliver a good chunk of the remarks that I prepared, and urge the body to vote to send this bill to the governor, and I do so for a few reasons. First, I want to remind the body of the stories that I shared when we voted on the house version of the bill that just passed many months ago. We have middle schoolers who are struggling with substance use issues. We have parents of children who are in and out of the criminal justice system. We have teachers and administrators who are burnt out and who are hamstrung for resources. In Barrie, our per people spending falls between 11 and $12,000 per year, one of the lowest in the state. And we've seen over the past few years all over the state, but specifically in Barrie, how our schools are struggling with that chronic understaffing and the lack of resources. Not only are our children not having their academic needs met, many of them are not receiving the mental health and social supports that are so badly needed if we want our children to enjoy academic success and social emotional welfare. This bill would bring in more than $2,000. The bill that just passed would bring in more than $2,000 more per pupil into our schools, and that is transformative. You know, we are all judged, madam speaker, in my view. As Franklin Roosevelt said, not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It's whether we provide enough to those who have too little. And, madam speaker, our city is drowning. Our city is drowning in floodwaters from the past two summers. Our city is drowning in poverty, in childhood trauma, and in inadequate social services. The status quo is killing us. And for our city, doing nothing is not an option. I shared those months ago on this floor my experience as a child who grew up in a broken, substance use ridden home, and it was public school teachers who saved my life. And I will go to the grave eternally grateful for those teachers. They sacrifice still today, those same teachers, every day for our students. I say here again that there are so many more kids in Barrie who are living just like I had to, without a place to sleep at night, without access to food, and without a loving and supportive home. I believe that that dynamic is a policy failure. It is a choice, and we can make a different choice today. Our kids need us to act. They are powerless to make the decisions that must be made, to nurture them and to support them. This bill will improve the lives of the children that I represent, and they can't vote for me, and in fact, I'm sure that none of them know who I am. But I know who they are because I see them every morning when I brush my teeth and I look at the mirror. What we're doing is not working, and we owe it to them, to those kids to try. I beg of this chamber to do what is very, very hard, but very, very simple. Madam speaker, please center the emotions, the experiences, the needs of the most vulnerable, the most neglected of our children, those who are struggling with self harm, those who are struggling with the feeling of worthlessness, without any support system to rely on. I ask you, madam speaker, to remember what it was like when you had nowhere to go, when no one was sticking up for you. Remember what it was like to ask for help, but just be told that there's nothing the adults could do because of rules, resources, procedures, and a bunch of other words that ring hollow to a child who doesn't know where the next meal might come from. I do not accept, madam speaker, that disagreements over various pieces of this bill that I'll skip over because of other shallow words like procedure. I am here in this chamber, madam speaker. I am here to put faces to the numbers behind those spreadsheets and behind all the legalese. I understand and I sympathize strongly with the folks who have concerns about the bill that was just passed. I don't like everything that's in there either. But if I might just challenge this chamber one more time to think about your objections. Picture yourself sitting in Spaulding High School or Barrie City Elementary or Middle or whatever school you attended when you were a kid. I'm sure you all had that one friend who you knew was struggling. Imagine yourself in this seat, in this chamber, with immense power talking to that child, that child who's begging for help. And now imagine yourself explaining to that child your concerns with the bill that just passed. Would that child be persuaded, or do you think they would just do what is often the hardest thing any of us can do, which is ask for help? Madam speaker, let us be the adults that helped. Let's be the adults that kids remember fighting for them as the one person that was on their side. They won't remember our names. They won't remember the messy procedure that has happened on this floor. They won't know about h four fifty four. But for the kids in Barrie City who are living on the edge, who are struggling every day, they will be just a bit better off. They were just going to have that much more of a chance, madam speaker, to eventually be elected to the house of representatives. That's what I ask you to remember, and that's why I ask you all to vote to send this bill to the governor's desk.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are you ready for the question, member from Glover?

[Leanne Harple — Representative from Glover]: Madam speaker, I rise today not just as a legislator, but as a daughter of the Northeast Kingdom to share my strong, unequivocal, and unapologetic opposition to h four fifty four. I admit that this bill was written with good intentions, but intentions do not shelter children from harm. They do not preserve communities, and they do not absolve us from the consequences of bad policy. This bill lays the foundation for the slow death of rural education. It chips away at local democratic control. It opens the door to forced school closures, to forced consolidations, to forced sacrifices that will bleed our small towns dry. And so despite the good intentions, I cannot support measures that lay such dangerous groundwork in paving the way towards the eventual closure of small rural schools and that risk putting our children on long, exhausting bus rides that steal valuable time from their education and their families and take them farther and farther away from their communities. And for what? For marginal savings on a broken, unsustainable system. I've heard the word equity used to justify this bill, but I believe that word is being misused here. There is nothing equitable about putting a child on a bus for two hours a day so that they can attend a school 30 miles from home. I don't care how nice the gym is. I don't care if the science lab sparkles with every modern modern tool. If a child can't be rooted in their community, if they spend more time on a bus than with their family, if they have no connection to their town, then that is not equity, that is exile. Our small schools are not liabilities. They are the lifebloods of our towns, and our rural towns are not burdens. They are the beating heart of Vermont. The NEK and other rural communities are not just Airbnb playgrounds for leaf peepers in search of quaint charm. They are not pretty postcards to sell the Vermont brand. They are the homes of real Vermonters who have worked the rocky land with their bare hands in every season through every hardship, and they are still there. I was not elected and will not be the person to drive another nail into the coffin of these rural communities. When our fellow Vermonters sent us here, they asked us to fix the property tax crisis, not to dismantle their schools. This bill does far too little to address the actual cost drivers in education, especially health care. Instead of tearing down our small towns, we should be driving this national conversation. Instead, we are asking rural Vermont to bear the brunt of a broken system. I cannot and will not stand silently by while our smallest neediest towns are scapegoated, threatened with dramatic changes that once made can never be undone. It seems like there is a dangerous rhetoric emerging in our state that rural Vermont is no longer worth investing in, but what will happen to our smallest towns when we begin to take the first steps to shutting them down? If we strip a town of its school, what do we think will remain? Jobs, those of teachers, paraeducators, bus drivers, school cooks that contribute to our economy and keep Vermonters employed will be cut. Families will no longer settle in towns without schools. Kids with little connection to their own communities will choose not to stay. And once they're gone, they won't come back. I feel fear that this is a situation in which the juice is not worth the squeeze, or to put it in the language of rural Vermont, the sap is not worth the tap. Let's not lose forever something so special that we can never get it back. And for those of us who have been following state education policy over the last few years, we know that Vermont has been putting a lot of recent time and effort into investing in community schools model. But how can we have community schools without the community? Our students need their communities just as much, if not more, than our communities need our students. In the face of post COVID mental health crisis, student disengagement, and rising levels of homelessness and poverty, we know that our students need their community just as much if or perhaps even more than our communities need our kids. Please don't take it this from them. When I think about the devastating impacts of h four fifty four on our small towns, I can't get around the truth that this bill is not worth the cost. Let's not make a mistake that could be fatal to some of our communities. What we stand to lose today, once it's gone, we can never get back. If we pass h four fifty four, we will look back on this day with regret. And when the schools close and the towns wither, it will not be some distant accident. It will be our doing. We can do better. That is why I voted no and why I urge every one of you who still believes in Vermont rural futures to do the same in sending this to the governor.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington.

[Barbara Rachelson — Representative from Burlington]: Madam speaker, I'm grateful to your house conferees and committees for their incredible work this year. We desperately need strategic and bold change to serve all students in Vermont with an education that will meet their needs and serve them well. I've been advocating for sweeping changes in Vermont's education system as well as for reform of how to pay for an affordable and sustainable system that maximizes the use of resources, benefiting education, direct services, programming, and minimizes administrative and overhead costs. Vermont has the lowest per school district averages in The US and over 20% decrease in students over the past thirty years. There's a lot to like about h four two four. This bill does a lot of great work, especially the tax policy. I could not be prouder to have our house conferees representing our body. In my twelve years in this body, two things are hugely different about this bill, which is why I voted no. When this bill gets delivered to the governor, which I have a feeling it will, he needs to hear that I too, like many of us in this body, have received more emails on this bill than on anything. And those loud and clear voices of my constituents have influenced my no vote. These letters are not just fear of change. I know change is hard. These letters had very real feedback on the results of the conference committee. What did I hear? The foundation formula lacks sufficient modeling, putting more legislators on the school district redistricting task force gives a majority to legislators and fewer spots to the experts. The community input is vague and optional, meaning that Vermonters may not have as much opportunity to give input and feedback during this critical process. And people are worried that the time frame is extremely aggressive and not sustainable. Unfortunately, the second issue is the real and perceived conflict of some of the senate conferees resulted in a grave loss of trust of many of our constituents in our institution, which makes me so mad, particularly in questioning whose interests are being represented and taints us all despite the incredible representation of house conferees. It's I hate to see our body lose the faith of our of our state. We we must do something and make sure the governor knows that this is not everybody coming together and singing kumbaya and being very happy that this bill passed. There needs to be public education. There needs to be a more rigorous look at how, some of the conferees, who they were representing, and how they presented themselves. Because it really, I think, left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths about the good things in the bill. So I hope, when this bill goes to the governor, that the governor will heed some of these, this feedback.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington. Did I see you still?

[Kate Logan — Representative from Burlington; Progressive Caucus Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. First, I wanna express my gratitude and respect for the members of our education committee, ways and means committee, and our conferees who have invested a significant amount of effort into responding to governor Scott's proposal to transform our public education system. I'm grateful for the wide range of colleagues with whom I've been able to discuss what changes we need to see in our education system. And yet in the four months since we first saw the governor's proposal and our conference committee has bridged significant gaps and gotten the governor's support on a committee report, I cannot support h four fifty four and don't believe that it's ready to be sent to the governor. When I was canvassing the Chittenden 16 District last fall in advance of the general election, I heard from many constituents who had lived in their home in Burlington for years, many of them retirees long before housing values had increased and the cost of education ballooned due to systemic costs that we have thus far been able to rein in. Voters across the state spoke out last fall demanding that we do something about inequitable property taxes that along with many other cost increases, that have outpaced increases in income are making it increasingly impossible for working Vermonters to afford a decent standard of living. My own mixed income cooperative housing community, which primarily houses working Vermonters who are eligible for affordable housing and who can't afford to absorb additional costs, saw an increase in property taxes so significant that we had a hard time putting a budget together last year. While we voted resoundingly to approve our school budget in Burlington this year because we will not throw our kids under the bus to save on property taxes, Vermonters clearly needed us to do something. Voters asked for that and not for systemic education reform. We know that there are many homeowners in Vermont who are not paying their fair share of school taxes. Had we addressed that issue alone in this session, which is work that we were well prepared to do after a couple of sessions of study, I believe the voters would have been satisfied that their elected representatives had heard their call. This alone would have been a significant policy change on its own. Instead, the governor seemed to propose that the means to provide tax relief for working Vermonters was by making quick and sweeping systemic changes to Vermont's public schools, closing many of our small schools, dramatically reducing administrative and teaching staff by a by a really significant amount, doing a complete overhaul of public school governance, and doing all of this in a very short time frame. For the Burlington School District, which had just begun to feel the positive impacts of act one twenty seven, members of my community, my school district leadership, and my municipal leadership are confounded by the sweeping changes that h four fifty four commits us to. With uncertain impacts on our students that have not been studied and don't have empirical support. We've heard the phrase equity for students used quite liberally regarding the proposals offered in every version of h four fifty four, the education transformation bill. This session, I've learned much about the inequities in our current education system. I fully support making significant efforts to address those gaps, especially for those communities struggling to provide equitable educational opportunities to all of Vermont's children. The way that I would define educational equity in the public school system is that each student receives the education that they need in order to achieve their full potential in adulthood. The fact that an educational transformation bill is being sent to the governor that continues to divert our taxpayer dollars to private schools when we're struggling to fund our own public schools is a policy failure. On that point alone, I find myself at odds with h four fifty four and believe we have more work to do. I wish that the body and the governor would take action to move some of the core proposals board for further study and take action, this year on property taxes. I cannot support the motion to send h four fifty four to governor Scott.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: Madam speaker, I urge the body to move forward with sending this bill to the governor. We have lived for a long long time under the false pretense that we have local control despite town voted budgets impacting statewide spending, expenditures, and budgets in other communities. I have believed for a very long time that our statewide education system needs state level budget processes. One resting on us as our responsibility as with other statewide obligations. And that that is only the only path to equity truly being even possible. This bill sets up much to be done in likely too aggressive a time to achieve well. And what happens when we do that is we extend the timelines and that will probably happen. There are many key aspects not settled. Many of the impacts that people fear as expressed today that are part of unresolved issues, and they should not be resolved at this point. This bill strikes the balance between future decisions that are contingent on information yet to come with time to develop and initiating, only initiating a new step forward towards equitable opportunity in education in Vermont. So let's send it to the governor.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Madam speaker, I'm not ready to send this bill to the governor partially because in my politeness making space for others to speak earlier, I actually didn't even voice my vote. I'm not ready to send this bill to the governor despite the hard work of our delegation. I wanna thank our delegation on the conference committee for taking on this hard work on what I see as an impossible task under impossible conditions. I would briefly like to share a lesson learned when I was first elected to public office. It was for this Burlington School Board in March 2014. It was an election in which the school budget failed for the first time in eleven years. And I came on to the school board under pressure from the public to make cuts. We had a superintendent leave and had to launch a search for a new superintendent, and we had to manage stressful contract negotiations with our workers under these economic conditions. And another school board member who was elected with me is a professor in macroeconomics at UVM. She cautioned us that in a large economic system, you have to be careful about doing too much too fast because you can destabilize the entire system if you mess with too many variables at once. And so fast forward from 2014 to the election of twenty twenty four in November, the results of which have been interpreted in a variety of ways. We've heard the governor to whom we are now voting to send this bill, trying to tie it in there, frame it as a referendum on the public education system. I would argue that it was not that, and that that is a misrepresentation of the will of the voters. This this the the outcome of that election to me is the result of an electoral system in which massive amounts of money were spent by one party to spread misinformation, especially in rural areas about the voting records of candidates combined with the failure of another party to support the working class of this state and nation. This election was a reaction to taxation without true representation. It was not a call for the destruction of the public good of education. Yet that narrative has been carried forward to this moment today when we are considering sending the bill to the governor. And so here we are in 2025 despite 90% of school budgets passing. We are being asked to undermine the bedrock of our of a healthy democracy, our public education system, and hundreds of emails make it clear. Vermonters want property tax reform, not the privatization and dismantlement of our public education system. The the general assembly took significant action this session regarding one of the greatest greatest drivers of education spending. That's the rising cost of health care, and this is thanks to the advocacy of the unions representing the workers in our education system and other state institutions. Due to their advocacy, we are exploring cost control such as reference based pricing. Why aren't we waiting to yield the results of those efforts? Why aren't we focused on tax reform first? That's the greatest strength of this bill that we are voting to send to the governor right now. But instead of focusing on those things, we are jeopardizing the stability of the entire system by pulling too many levers at once, threatening to send the ocean liner into the icebergs instead of around them, and potentially robbing future generations of the social and economic opportunity that most of us had through the public education system for short term tax relief gains. This also will negatively impact public health due to significance of education as a social driver of health and crime. So although there are many strengths in this bill, I'm concerned that the weaknesses and the scale of change is going to undermine the system. Too much at once, too much at stake, especially considering the federal issues. Let's take a step back, and as they say in negotiations, return to the table, use another vehicle to sustainably fund our school system. And I just wanna thank the committee again for their work and and our delegation. I know this is hard, and it's hard for me to vote no and not support your work, but I I can't support sending this bill to the governor. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Starksboro.

[Herb Olson — Representative from Starksboro]: Thank you, madam speaker. We've heard a lot of passion about education, and that's the way it should be. Education is probably the most important thing we do as a society. There's a lot of passion. When I recently over the weekend shared with my friends and neighbors in my community how I intended to vote on this bill, the response was just overwhelming. Overwhelming, supportive, vote no on this bill, don't take our rural schools away. They feel passionately about this. This is really, really important. If this bill passes, it'll be another it'll be another piece of evidence for them that their concerns are really not taken seriously. We talk about alienation in our body politic nationally and and and elsewhere. That's what I fear is gonna happen. So I appreciate the work of everyone that everyone has done. I I I think people sincerely believe in the the correctness of what they're doing. I I just think they need to listen to other parts of our community who really feel passionately and need need these community schools to stay a viable community. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Wigesfield.

[Candice White — Representative from Waitsfield]: Madam speaker, I stand in support of sending h four five four to the governor. This bill creates a scaffolding for us to transform public education in Vermont. This bill limits public money going to private institutions. This bill establishes minimum class sizes. This bill establishes standard graduation requirements for all schools receiving public money. This bill establishes a fund for school construction that we have been lacking since 2008. This bill establishes a committee to look at student waiting and special education costs. This bill charges the commission on the future of public education with establishing a plan for how the public will participate in our public school system. This bill does a lot that we need. I am concerned this bill does not go far enough in terms of achieving cost savings in the long term, but I feel this is work we will continue next session. We are not voting today and praying that it comes out alright. We are committing to this work to improve public education now and into the future. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith, member from Burlington?

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Madam speaker, as publicly elected officials, it is often our duty to lead, to get out ahead of our communities and lead. But we are successful in that only when we have a process that brings our community along with us. The process through which we approved h four fifty four did not bring my community along. It left my community behind. As evidenced by the 126 emails I got urging me to vote no as opposed to one encouraging me to vote yes. And it wasn't just my community. Our process, voting a bill out of conference committee on Friday, a 135 page bill, and voting to pass it on Monday, left a lot of Vermont communities out of the process and behind where we are going. We left behind the teachers union. We left behind the Vermont School Board Association, the Vermont Principals Association, opposed. The Vermont Superintendent's Association, opposed. We have voted to pass this bill, and we are going to send it to the governor. And I ask simply that we all commit ourselves to reaching out to all the parts of our Vermont community who do not support this bill and listen to what they need in order for it to work for them and bring it back when we reconvene and commit to working to make this bill and Vermont's education system work for all Vermonters. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Westminster.

[Michelle Bos-Lun — Representative from Westminster]: I voted no on h four fifty four because of concern about the impact on rural communities where more than half of Vermont children attend school. Consolidated bigger schools do not build stronger communities. They do not necessarily make better experiences for students, and they are not a proven way to decrease costs. The premise that bigger is better and will save costs is not certain. If we are going to make major systemic change, we need to be certain that changes will lead to the outcomes we want for our children and our communities. We need more time to develop a plan that will best support our kids and that will be certain to reduce costs for taxpayers while continuing to meet student and community needs. This bill is not the best that we can do.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Dover.

[Laura Sibilia — Representative from Dover]: Madam speaker, in thinking about sending this bill to the governor, I have actually done a lot of thinking about this bill, having been a school board member for two decades, having been in this building and in this chamber a fierce advocate for our public education system and our funding system and equity throughout our state. There's a lot to be concerned about, worried about in this bill because, honestly, this is the biggest vision, bill that I think we have attempted. And yet, from where I sit in rural Vermont, Our education our public education system is unbelievably fragile, and we are running out of time. Madam speaker, I also want to echo and thank, this body, yourself, and the leadership of the committees. I think

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: the

[Laura Sibilia — Representative from Dover]: house has really risen to the occasion. I listened to the conference committees, as well as a lot of my constituents, And I was also appalled by the representation that was happening, the over representation that was happening. As were a lot of my constituents, and I think that anger has really fueled some hyperbole, discussion about the death of public education. I don't think that's what happened there. While I was appalled, I was listening, and I was very, very proud of our conferees for coming back and saying there is no evidence for that. We have already gone over this time and time again. You know, this is massive system change, and it's appropriate. That's where we are, madam speaker. We need a modernization of this system. We need more buildings. We need the cavalry for our boards and our teachers. We need a lot. We need money for PCBs and, you know, to address health care and any number of things. And so massive systems change is appropriate. You can't do that all in one year. And one of the things that was really important to me to understand when thinking about what I would do with this bill, which has things that I'm, you know, a little worried about, was to ask, what's gonna happen next year? Because it's really clear to me that this bill, you know, we heard triple contingencies. You know, I think about, really, there's a parade of ifs, I call it, in here. You know, there are actions that we're not taking unless and if we take other actions. And that gives me some comfort. And it also feels feels really exhausting in advance. In order to achieve the vision in this bill, we are going to be back here with difficult votes every single year. And I may find an off ramp there. It may be next year when we look at maps, and I say, absolutely not. Now you've lost me. But we're gonna have chances and chances and chances. Public involvement, incredibly important to me. Making sure that we have the same rules for public dollars, incredibly important to me. You know, one of the things that I will say, again, going back to this overrepresentation of certain voices on the conference committee, I want people to think those that are the most offended by that and that are ringing the bell the loudest about that, I want you to think about who stands to benefit if we do nothing? Whose system is working just fine for them right now? So, madam speaker, I think we do have to send this bill to the governor, and I think we're gonna have to keep doing our job, over the next year. The next legislature, will have to do their job over and over again. If there's another governor in the next biennium, they will also have to do their job. So I'm gonna vote yes, madam speaker, because we have to start, and I'm gonna pay attention. And I'm gonna use my voice when I see things are not going well, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Manchester. Member from Manchester.

[Michelle Bos-Lun — Representative from Westminster]: You said Chester.

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: Thanks, madam speaker. I so the bill has obviously passed the body with strong support and so I will be joining all of my fellow members to vote to send this bill to the governor. And I'm not a big impromptu floor speaker so I didn't write anything out. I'm just going to speak from the heart for a minute and start by saying what an honor it is to serve in this chamber. And I hope that when folks look around the body today, they see what I see, which is 150, well, I guess 139 people who care enough about their communities and care enough about democracy to put themselves out there in an incredibly public way and show up every day to try to do really, really hard work to make Vermont a better place. And I have watched the efforts of our committees in both the house and the senate and all of my colleagues with nothing but the deepest respect for the impossible tasks that we're trying to pull off here today. And I gotta tell you, to say that I've been conflicted about this vote is an understatement. I spent the first four years of my time in the house serving on the education committee and I have seen massive transformative education legislation that we passed to help communities and help schools and help Vermonters, like act, 60, that actually marked my entrance into public life. Act 46 and act one seventy three. And I look back at some of them now and I think, they do what we intended? Did they work? Did we make sure they were fully implemented? Did we get it right? And I've had a lot of the same concerns about this bill. Are we gonna

[Emilie Kornheiser — Representative from Brattleboro; Chair, House Ways & Means Committee]: get it

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: right? Are we doing the right thing? And then I think about the kaleidoscopic little district that I represent, and I've said this many times to folks this year. In the little corner of Vermont that I represent, I represent an extremely rural, tiny, fully non operating town that tuitions every single one of its kids. I operate I mean, I operate God. I represent a fully public, small, rural community that has a pretty small pre K through 12 system, public all the way, operates very efficiently and struggles I think to think about where they see themselves in the future of this bill. And then I represent two community communities that operate pre k through eight and then tuition including to one of our historic academies and to other independent schools too. So the kaleidoscope that represents Vermont's education landscape, My district is a microcosm of that. And when I think about the work I've done as a legislator, I think about two bills that I introduced that I care the most about and one was to overhaul the way we fund and govern our CTE centers and the other, which is the closest to my heart, was to stand up a pilot for community schools. And that work is really not moving forward in the way that I had hoped we would be able to move forward this year. And so I'll vote to send this bill to the governor with the greatest of hopes that the little kaleidoscope that I represent and all the hope that I see for our small rural schools and the community schools model and all the hope I see for students in our public schools, and all the tradition that I know my community feels about the independent schools that we support, and all of the hope and promise in our CTE centers somehow find a home in this future state that we're talking about. And I think we're surrounded by people of good faith and good intent and goodwill who are gonna work together to make that happen. And so I will vote yes for the communities I represent with hopes and a lot of gratitude for, the passion that everybody brings to this work.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Chittenden.

[Jim Harrison — Representative from Chittenden (town)]: Madam speaker, I too will support forwarding this bill to the governor. I've had a lot of misgivings along the way of where we were headed with our education reform efforts. Over the past few weeks, probably like many others, I didn't quite know if the conferees would ever come to an agreement. They probably didn't know that themselves. But I commended the work they did. They made a lot of compromises, maybe too many compromises from my standpoint, but they did it. They got a six o vote, and I think that needs to reflect in sending this bill on its next step in its journey. And, madam speaker, it is a journey. This bill lays out a plan, but the plan has every many steps along the way. I represent three of my four communities have school choice for secondary level education. I worry what the new districts will look like and whether or not there'll be some allowance for continuing those choices for the families that made the choices to live in one of those three communities. But that's a conversation for next year when we look at the new district maps. So again, we have a lot of work ahead of us. I will vote to do the next step in support of our conferees and for the work that they did over the past two, three, four weeks, whatever it's been. And I will vote yes. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith, member from Jericho?

[Unidentified Member from Jericho]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have I ran for office because so many of the well intentioned bills that came out of this body around education didn't work. They actually made it worse and harder for schools in this state. I have so many concerns about the under resourced agency of education that we are asking to do so much of this work and of the resourced occasionally by the Agency of Education State Board of Education that we are also asking to do a lot of this work. This is a well intentioned bill. There are a lot of good things in this bill and yet it doesn't hit the mark. I know the governor wants it. I am assuming we will probably send it to the governor. I hope that we can do the work incredibly thoughtfully that our agencies can get resourced before they start any of this work and that we can end up with something that is actually better for the students of the state. I fear that this will be like so many of the bills that caused me to be angry enough to run for office and to spend all of my time here. Not that I don't enjoy it, but I never had planned to do this in my life. So with very mixed feelings, I cannot support sending this bill to the governor.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Morristown.

[Richard Nelson — Representative from Derby]: Madam

[David Yacovone — Representative from Morristown]: speaker, I fear we're about to make a grave mistake. The public did not ask us to shuffle the deck and to reconfigure all our school districts and to come up with layers of contingencies. They asked us to lower their taxes. They will feel that we are tone deaf if we come up with a proposal that takes several years before any tax relief is in sight. We can rethink this. We can redo it. The governor challenged us with a difficult request. In his state of the state address, he said, and I'll paraphrase, give the people a plan they can understand. Is that this plan? Do you think they'll understand it? They want tax relief. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, madam speaker, he said, how long? How long will the people continue to look away and pretend they do not see? We must see that people want tax relief now. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Williston.

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: I'm a little confused procedurally, I guess, on exactly what has happened and and where we are, but I know that I'm sent here, to to take hard votes, and I'm willing to take those. And so I guess I'm explaining a vote, that would have been against four fifty four, because I wrote to a 123 constituents already today and told them that I would be voting no when I thought I'd have the opportunity to do so. I voted no even though I supported the house passed version of this bill. That bill put us on a path to a more stable future by moving us towards scale, creating statewide cohesion, and ensuring appropriate state level governance and support. I supported the work done on a foundation formula in the house bill, but I knew there were many details that needed further attention in the senate. And unfortunately, the work deviated far from a focus on the common good when the bill left the house. The deliberations, particularly in a protracted protracted conference committee, became almost exclusively about special interest carve outs and protecting the status quo in independent schools while our public schools are asked to endure massive transformation and endless unknowns. And critical language to move us towards scale, which I know is the hardest part of this, including modest class size minimums, mere intent language about school size, and a policy to ensure that if a school closes, those students and resources will stay within our public system rather than scattering further. We're watered down or eliminated. And this conference committee relies too heavily now simply on accelerating district consolidation. The hard work in this body and by stakeholders across the state about difficult but necessary education reform has clearly taken root, and I am deeply committed to continuing this work in a collaborative way with the support of those who will be asked to do the hardest part, those who will be asked to implement the changes. Public education is my life's work, but we are not there today in where we landed.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Saint Albinstown.

[Eileen Dickinson — Representative from St. Albans Town]: Thank you, madam speaker. I support setting this bill to the governor because it's clear. The status quo is not working for Vermonters. We currently spend 2,500,000,000.0 to educate 83,000 students. And when I talk with my constituents in conversation after conversation, it is very clear that something needs to be done concerning how we fund our education system. We have a once in a generation opportunity to begin those changes with House Bill four fifty four. I support sending this bill to the governor because year after year, we have seen increased property taxes including a 15.1% increase in my district last year alone. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years to buy down rates and this shows that our current path is unsustainable, especially with our declining student enrollment. With h four fifty four, we begin a process of getting our spending under control and start to focus on improving the education of our students. We still have a lot more work to do and and to to fine tune our education system to ensure every student has the best opportunities offered to them while saving our taxpayers money. I do truly want to thank the committee of conference and all the hard work they put in over the last few weeks because not often am I seeing this much compromise on a bill, and I'm happy to say not everyone completely loves h four fifty four, including myself, and that shows true compromise. We still have time to improve this bill and fix any issues we may see going forward, but we still need somewhere to start. I will be voting yes to send this bill to the governor, and I urge other members to vote yes as well. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Norwich?

[Rebecca Holcombe — Representative from Norwich]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm not gonna repeat the many things my colleagues have said here today, and I'm deeply appreciated appreciative of all the people who have worked so hard to speak for their communities and most importantly to speak for their children in their communities. There is no greater public trust than public education. Parents send the thing they love the most in the entire world to our schools, and at the schools, people have to honor that trust, treat it with respect, treat it with dignity. As someone in a small rural elementary school, I remember washing children's hair when they had no running water at home and then watching them proudly display the poetry they'd written or the solar panel they built out of tinfoil and cardboard. That is what we do in our schools. We connect kids to opportunity. And when our parents send their kids to schools, they trust that we are going to treat them with dignity. Behind those kids, there are people in school showing up every day through a pandemic, through a merger bill, through a mental health crisis, through act one twenty seven, and numerous efforts at at changing funding and putting in one time funding that created unpredictable spikes in the tax rates. They show up anyway, and what they're telling me is they're tired. They're willing to work hard because they know the status quo is not okay. But they want to know that if they work hard, that the squeeze is worth the juice, and that's my fear here. When I spoke to people all through the year and over the last couple months, I think a firefighter summarized it best. He said, people just want to know that if they work really hard and show up, that they're going to have a good school, they're going to be able to pay their bills, and they're going to have health care when we need it. People in my area are making jokes about if a 100,000,000 of one time increase in ed is enough to merge, maybe we should be merging Vermont with New Hampshire because frankly their health care market premiums are a quarter what we pay here in Vermont. We have serious cost challenges, and we have to figure out how to work together, and we can't duck them, and that's what we've done this session. When schools work, they work because of trust. We have to be building that trust. And what worries me most about this process, and I think the member from Jericho said this, I've lived through some of this, and this is not the first time we do this. We've done this. I put 40,000 miles a year on my car in the years prior to act 46 going to individual schools and individual school boards and talking to them. What were they scared about? What did they want? What were the challenges? What did their numbers say? We haven't done that work here. In fact, when my district voted on its school budget, it had to have an asterisk next to the tax rate and the student count because the agency could not provide it a student count for the purpose of setting the tax rate that matched what they knew was their reality. We are so fragile and we are asking people to make an enormous, enormous change in a context where we're starved for resources and we're about to get hit by a two by four from the federal government. So if this bill passes, everybody in this room had better be willing to show up and show up for those kids. Representative from Barrie, those kids are the ones I'm worried about because when those kids go to school, they depend on their teachers and their schools to give them self give them health care, to give them access to food. We know that Vermont spends about 2,000 more dollars a kid than our neighboring states because we provide social services for our schools. So if you're cutting that out, make sure we have a way to make sure those kids are getting what they need. So I'm I'm heartbroken by the process that's gotten us here because I know this can't succeed without trust. I'm struggling with this process because I've lived through act 46, act one seventy three, act one twenty seven, the commission, all of which stalled or were partially implemented because we couldn't bring ourselves as a body to make the hard decisions when it came to that. So if we're gonna ask the entire state to turn itself upside down, we'd be we'd better be ready to show up for it when the going gets hard because they need us to do that, but more important, our kids need us to do that. We invest in our kids because it's an act of hope. When we educate our children, it means we believe the state has a future. We can't afford to just talk about cost. I'm a lifelong public education person, and I've worked in schools my whole career. I think there are ways that we can bring down cost and certainly improve our service for kids, but it's not gonna happen if we don't have good process. And that's why I can't call for reconsideration because I've heard multiple people tell me they didn't know what they were doing. I think this bill's gonna pass. I think it's gonna go to the governor, but I think people deserved a right to know what they were voting on, and I'm disappointed that this is the way we've come down. I'm gonna ask you all to join whatever happens today in making sure that we are keeping our children and the future of the state in mind as we move forward. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith?

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Point of order or inquiry, maybe?

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. What?

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Point of inquiry.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Yes, member.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Were we just asked to reconsider?

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: No. Member member from I didn't hear that.

[Rebecca Holcombe — Representative from Norwich]: The representative from Norwich cannot ask for the reconsideration because she voted no.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I will vote to send this bill to the governor because Vermantras asked us to do hard things even when they're complicated, even with the path forward isn't simple. The system we're holding onto no longer serves those it needs to most, our students, our communities, and our values. This bill is about building a public education system worthy of our kids that is sustainable for the future. I didn't run for office to preserve the status quo. I ran to do the work and sometimes that means making hard decisions. I also want to remind members this vote is to send the bill forthwith to the governor. The outcome does not stop its movement to the governor. But I am voting yes now to keep the work and the timelines moving as it was carefully crafted in h four fifty four and I encourage the body to vote yes.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Go. Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during a roll call. When the clerk calls your name, answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall we deliver house bill four fifty four to the governor forthwith? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Austin of Colchester. Yes. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Vanusky. Yes. Byrong of Vergens.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Bishop of Colchester.

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Black of Essex.

[Emilie Kornheiser — Representative from Brattleboro; Chair, House Ways & Means Committee]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Bloomley of Burlington. Yes. Bosnia, Westminster. Yes. Bosch of Clarendon. Yes. Boutonbury City.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Boyden of Cambridge. No. Brady of Williston.

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Brannigan of Georgia.

[Edward “Teddy” Waszazak — Representative from Barre City]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Brown of Richmond. No. Burdett of West Rutland. Yes. Burkhart of South Burlington. Burrows of West Windsor. No. Bird of Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. Canfield of Fairhaven. Caris Duncan of Whitingham. No. Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Yes. Chief in the East Montpelier. No. Charleston at Chester. Christy of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. No. Coughing of Cavendish. Yes. Cole of Hartford. Colin at Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Ponnell.

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Croker to Bennington. Yes. Yes. Courtesy Bristol. No. Grinchlove, Colchester. Tamar of Venusburg. Yes. Dickinson of Saint Alvinstown.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Silbervich of Williamstown. Yes. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Dolan of Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Donahue of Northfield.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Duke of Burlington.

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Dorfie of Shaftesbury. Eastis of Guildford. Yes. And missus Springfield.

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Felters of Linden. Yes. Galfetti of Berrytown. Yes. Garifuna of Essex. Yes. Woman of Rockingham. Goodnight. Brattleboro? Yes. Ghostman in Northfield? Yes. Grand in Jericho? No. Greer Bennington?

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Gregoire Fairfield? Hangover? Harpo Glover. No explanation. Harrison and Chittenden. Yes. Harvey of Tesselton. Yes. Hedrick of Burlington.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: No explanation.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Higley of Lowell. Holcomb and Norwich. No. Cooper Randolph. No. Cooper Burlington. Yeah. Potovac Junction.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Howard of Rutland City? No. Holland of Rutland Town? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James Manchester?

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Kasenska, Burke? Keyser, Rutland City.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Kleppner, Burlington. No. Kornheiser, Battleboro. Yes. Krasno, South Burlington. Lebron Morgan. Yes. Lolly Shelburne. Yes. Alona, South Burlington.

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Lamonta Morristown. Russia Franklin. Lipsky of Stoke. No. Logan of Burlington.

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Long And Newfane. No. Uno, Saint Albans City. Maguire of Rutland City. Malay Pittsburgh. Yes. Mark of Coventry. Yes. Madeline of Thetford. McKenna Montpelier.

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: No. The explanation.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: McCoy of Pultney.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: McFawn of Barrytown? Yes. McGillah Bridport? No explanation. Nicholas of Milton? Yes. Mahali of Callis? Yes. Minnie of South Burlington? Morganella Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Or Springfield?

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Horsey Bennington?

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Mora Weston? Roecki at Putney. Yes. Nelson at Derby. No. Nielsen at Brandon.

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Nigro Bennington.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: North Of Pittsburgh. Lewis Woolket. Yes. New South Burlington.

[Leanne Harple — Representative from Glover]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: O'Brien of Tunbridge.

[Richard Nelson — Representative from Derby]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: O'Dee Burlington. Yes. Oliver Sheldon. Yes. Olson of Starksboro. Page in Newport City.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Yeah.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Parsons in Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester.

[Leanne Harple — Representative from Glover]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Pinson Aldo Dorset. Yes. Patcha Heinzberg.

[Edward “Teddy” Waszazak — Representative from Barre City]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Powers of Waterford. Annie. Priestly Bradford. Bill Westfield. Perjeta Pollock. Columbia Linden. Rachel's in Burlington. Yeah. Is that what's Randolph? Yes. Shy Middlebury?

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault — Representative from Dorset]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Seville of Dover? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Squirrel of Underhill. Study Milton. Stevens Waterbury. No. Stone of Burlington. No. Supernana Barnard. No. Sweeney of Shelburne. No. Taglavia Corinth. Yes. Taylor Milton. Yes. Tomlinson Manuski.

[Kathleen James — Representative from Manchester]: No. Two

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: for Saint Albans Town. Yes. Torrey Mortown. No. Walker Swanton. Yes, sir. Wazesack, Berry City.

[Elizabeth Burrows — Representative from West Windsor]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask — House Clerk (reading clerk function)]: Waters Evans of Charlotte. No. Wells of Brownington. No. White Weightsfield. Yes. White Bethel. No. Winter Of Ludlow. Water Waterbury. Yes. Yakavoni Morristown. No. Bartholomew Partland. Rebecca Vanusky. Berta Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury, Kristie of Hartford. No. Gregoire Fairfield, Lamonamorstown, Parsons in Newbury, Squirrel Of Underhill.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Glover.

[Leanne Harple — Representative from Glover]: I am voting no today because I did not have the opportunity to document my Novo on h four fifty four in a roll call, and I wanna make it explicitly clear to my community that I hear them, I stand with them, and I do not support h four fifty four.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington.

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: Madam speaker, I voted no on h fifth four fifty four and on this final question because this bill reflects a complete disregard for the voices of our public educators. Those on the ground who know our students and communities best were sidelined while this bill was shaped around political convenience. We had an opportunity to build trust and stability. Instead, we sent a message that their expertise is negotiable. I also remain deeply concerned by how quickly the final vote was called without adequate space for the many voices who were clearly preparing to speak. That moment mirrored the process itself, rushed in the last minute, exclusionary, and disrespectful to the professionals and communities we claim to represent. This is not what democracy looks like.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Montpelier.

[Kate McCann — Representative from Montpelier]: Madam speaker, while this bill will help some struggling communities like Barrie, it will further exacerbate the problem in districts like Saint Johnsbury, where the district's hands are tied. They have to pay the academy first, whatever they charge, and $4.54 allows them to charge even more. The k eight public school will have to make do with whatever public tax dollars are left.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Bridgeport.

[Jubilee McGill — Representative from Bridport]: Madam speaker, I voted no because we owe it to our children, our educators, our communities, and to the very values of democracy and public trust to do better. A vote of this magnitude demands transparency, collaboration, and care. This process has not met that standard.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Starksboro.

[Herb Olson — Representative from Starksboro]: Thank you, madam speaker. I voted no on

[Brian Cina — Representative from Burlington]: the

[Herb Olson — Representative from Starksboro]: question despite several features relating to the foundation formula, which I find positive, at least in theory. But the details matter. The bill will probably result in closing many smaller schools even if they provide a good education for students at a reasonable cost. Also, some districts will see a significant reduction in funding without any relief from state mandates and other expenses beyond that district's control. I know we can do better. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Dorstet.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault — Representative from Dorset]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I vote yes because my constituents sent me here for change. By voting no, the can continues to be kicked down the road, and Education Vermont remains status quo. Today, I voted to try.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Bradford.

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: I voted no because I'm here to represent the constituents of my district. Their voices have called out loud and clear for me to stand up on the record against the passage of this bill on their behalf.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Pollut.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Phil Pouech of Hinesburg)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I voted yes because I believe this gives us the opportunity to finally start necessary reform to improve education for our students and provide tax relief for all the for monitors that must fund it. H four fifty four allows this process to begin and move forward. While I have concerns with some of the content, I am hopeful and optimistic that can be be approved upon as this reform evolves.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Barnard.

[Elizabeth Burrows — Representative from West Windsor]: Madam speaker, I am voting no to uplift the many voices I heard throughout my community, and I am ashamed at leadership for how they led members astray in the process of this vote.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Winooski.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I voted no on h four fifty four, and I vote no now to send this bill to the governor. This is not what my constituents asked for. Both this process and the product are a disservice to my community and to our democracy.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Swan.

[Matt Walker — Representative from Swanton]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, when the students enrolled in pre k this year reach graduation age, they will likely be the first graduating class where the student population in Vermont public schools drops below 60,000 students.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: May I explain my vote?

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: You may.

[Unidentified Member from Burlington]: Thank you. I voted no because we are proposing a top to bottom transformation of our educational system. Our work in that process has come close to completion in creating the legal framework for that transformation, but the true work of transformation is going to happen in the classrooms, in the schools, in the school boards, and in the superintendent's offices. We cannot be successful without the support of and engagement of the teachers, the principals, the superintendents, and the school boards, and we do not yet have that.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 96. Those voting no, 45. The ayes have it. And you have ordered House Bill four fifty four to be delivered to the governor forthwith. House bill, next up is house bill four eighty which is an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to education law. The bill passed the senate with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar and there is a further amendment to consider. First we'll turn to the member from Cornwall to report on the proposal of amendment. Member from Williston to report on the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Williston.

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: Thank you, madam speaker. I will be reporting on the miscellaneous education bill, that is printed in today's calendar starting on page four four six seven. Section one amends act 29 last year's school safety act. So instead of requiring schools to take all actions necessary to establish behavioral threat assessment teams by 07/01/2025, instead require the establishment of behavioral threat assessment teams and identify members not later than 07/01/2026. It further amends section five to require that all actions necessary to implement comprehensive behavioral threat assessment teams then must be completed by 10/01/2025. This section also repeals language that requires the agency of education to establish data collection guidelines. Essentially, this is pushing out the effective dates of the emergency operations plan statute, at the request of the agency of education. Section two amends the requirement for schools to have behavioral threat assessment team policies and procedures to make it clear that school boards are responsible for the development of policies and superintendents or independent school directors or staff are responsible for the development of procedures. Sections three through eight are not changed from the house passed version, so I will not walk through them at this time. Picking up with section nine, it amends the statute that governs the appointment of a secretary of education. The senate made small changes requiring first that the governor notify the chair of the State Board of Education to initiate a search process within thirty days of a vacancy or anticipated vacancy, and then that the State Board of Education must begin the search process within sixty days of reserving receiving the letter. The sum total is ninety days to begin the search process versus what had been in our house past version of sixty days. Further, this allows the state board of ed to request funds necessary to utilize outside resources for the search process. That is where the house passed version of the miscellaneous education bill ended, so the rest of the sections I am about to walk through are new additions from the senate. Section 10, the senate wisely changed the name of this section in law from preventing early school failure to foundation for literacy. Further, the senate amended subsection c to require schools to provide students in grades kindergarten through 12 supplemental reading instruction to any enrolled student whose reading proficiency falls significantly below proficiency standards for the student's grade level or for whose reading proficiency prevents progress in school. Section 11 expands the Vermont National Guard tuition benefit program to allow eligible members to receive more than one undergraduate certificate, undergraduate degree, graduate degree, or other credential recognized by VSAC provided that the cost of all certificates and degrees and credentials received by the individual under the program do not exceed an amount equal to twice the full time in state tuition rate charged by UVM for completion of an undergraduate baccalaureate degree. Further amends the eligibility subsection to an include enrollment at a non Vermont postsecondary approved postsecondary school if the degree program is not available in Vermont. It's important to note that this benefit would be paid for within the existing appropriation that the guard holds for this program. There is no new money. Section 12 amends the statute that requires schools to maintain an emergency operations plan based on the template maintained by the Vermont School Safety Center to include a requirement that the template include one, provisions for acute cardiac events in schools along with specific protocols, and two, an athletic emergency action plan that is consistent with the Vermont Principals Association's athletic emergency action plan if the school has an athletic department or organized athletic program. Public and independent schools are required to have cardiac response plans developed and ready for implementation in the twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven school year. The agency of education worked with the American heart Vermont chapter of the American Heart Association on the final language, and it was arrived at consensus. Section 14 amends the statute regarding energy performance contracting authorization in the school construction chapter to allow school districts to enter into energy performance contracts for a period not to exceed twenty years without needing voter approval. Current law requires voter approval if the contract will be for ten or more years. Chap section 15 amends the requirement for schools to have a library material selection policies and procedures to make it clear that school boards are responsible for the development of policies for library material selection and superintendents or independent school directors or staff are responsible for the development of procedures for the reconsideration and retention of materials. Section 16 amends the moratorium on the approval of new independent schools to include a provision that clarifies a change in either tax status or conversion to a nonprofit organization by a therapeutic approved independent school absent any other changes that shall not affect the approval status of the school. Section 17 is the cell phone and social media use in school section. This creates a new subchapter to title 16 chapter nine regarding school districts, regarding the use of cell phones, personal electronic devices, and social media in schools. Creating a new section five eighty one, there is an intent section indicating that it is the general assembly's intent for all students to access the benefits of a phone and social media free school environment. Section five eighty two would create the definitions for this subchapter. Section five eighty three requires the agency of education in consultation with the Vermont School Boards Association, the Vermont Independent School Association, and a representative for the Vermont Coalition for Phone and Media Free Schools to develop a model policy to prohibit student use of cell phones and non school issued personal electronic devices that connect to cellular networks, the Internet, or have wireless capabilities at school from arrival to dismissal. This is the bell to bell policy. The model policy is required to allow use of such devices if it is required as part of a student's individual health plan and a student's IEP or five zero four plan, if it is approved by an administrator for an academic, athletic, or co curricular purpose for the most limited use reasonably possible, or if it is required for compliance with the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Public schools and approved independent schools are required to develop policies at least as comprehensive as the model policy. And if they fail to adopt a policy, they shall be presumed to have adopted the most current model policy. Section five eighty four of this new chapter prohibits schools, school districts, and SUs from using social media to communicate directly with students unless the program or platform is approved for such communication by the school district or independent school, and such approved communication program or platform shall allow school officials to archive all communications and prevent all communications from being edited or deleted once a communication has been sent and from prohibits them from requiring students to use social media for out of school academic work, school sports, extracurricular clubs, or other out of

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: school

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: sponsored activities. The agency of education is required to develop this model policy on or before 01/01/2026 such that school boards can adopt much adopt policies by 07/01/2026 to be effective in the 2627 school year. I'm a public education teacher now in my eighteenth year of high school teaching. There are three active teachers on your house education committee who teach different subjects in very different schools and two retired teachers. So we have robust conversations not just from the witnesses we hear, but within our own professional experience. I've watched the slow creep of technology into the classroom for years now, and I've told my high school students that I really wonder if there will come a day when we look back with the same level of shock, that we allow kids to walk around schools with devices loaded with social media with the same kind of shock we now have that schools once had smoking lounges. I've come to support a statewide policy on phone free schools from bell to bell reluctantly after years of thought and discussion with high school students who I admit generally oppose the idea. I think we get farther when we work with students rather than impose things on them. But I also see that unregulated screens, social media, and now rapidly developing AI, we are running a massive uncontrolled experiment on our kids, and they are the guinea pigs and the results are damning. We are the adults and we need to do the best thing that we know for kids who are at incredibly important developmental stages. I also hear the concerns of educators that worry this policy will create more work for them, and I think it's tremendously important to acknowledge it. Like everything we do here, perhaps the bill we just passed, we have the easy part. The hard work is in the implementation in the field. We were able to hear many success stories from Vermont schools that have already done this, and the resounding message has been, it's worth it, and once everyone adapts, it's positive for students and teachers alike. Finally, there is a there was a floor amendment in the senate section 18 a pertaining to students' attendance at CTE regions outside their service region. The entirety of the amendment that was accepted on the senate floor is actually current law. This simply puts it into session law as well to affirm that secondary students may apply for enrollment into programs offered at CTE centers outside their service region when the center in their service region does not offer the program and wish that they wish to enroll in or are not able to enroll in the program of their choice. Throughout our work on the miscellaneous education bill, your house education committee heard from the deputy adjutant general, the interim director of communications and legislative affairs for the agency of education, the vice president and general counsel for VSAC, three local parent advocates from the Vermont Coalition of Phone and Media Free Schools, the superintendent of the Lemoyle South Supervisory Union, the associate executive director of the Vermont Principals Association, a representative from the Vermont Independent Schools Association, the political director of the Vermont National Education Association, legislative council, a psychiatrist from the Green State Psychiatry Practice, the director of communications for the Colchester School District, the associate executive director at the Vermont Principals Association, superintendent of the Lemoyle that one's a repeat, principal of Harwood Union High School, the executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, the deputy secretary of the Agency of Education, the assistant director of student pathways at the Agency of Education, the chief information officer for the Vermont State College System, the dean of enrollment and community relations for the Community College of Vermont, the sponsor of the bill, the member from Chittenden Two, of the phone free schools bill, the vice chair of the Connecticut State Board of Education, a family physician in Montpelier, a board member from the Harwood Unified Union School District, the school safety program manager for the Vermont School Safety Center, an attorney with the Social Media Victims Law Center, the deputy executive director from the Vermont Medical Society, students from Harwood Union High School, Thetford Academy, u thirty two Middle School, Hunt Middle School, Woodstock Union Middle School, Main Street Middle School, and my favorite witnesses, students from Colchester High School. Your committee on education voted to concur with the senate's proposal of amendments on a vote, and I hope I have the right paper, of ten one zero. Ten one zero. And we ask for the body support.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: And now the member from Montpelier, representative McCann, and the member from Barrie City, representative Wazizak with offer of further proposal of amendment thereto that is printed in the calendar. Member from Mount Kilier.

[Kate McCann — Representative from Montpelier]: Madam speaker, the representative from Barrie City, and I move that h four eighty as amended by the senate be further amended by striking out sections seventeen and eighteen in their entireties and inserting in lieu thereof new sections seventeen and eighteen to take out references to personal electronic devices. Section seventeen sixteen VSA chapter nine sub chapter seven would task the agency of education to develop and review model policy to prohibit student use of cell phones from arrival to dismissal. And further, each school board shall develop, adopt, ensure, and enforce of, and make available in the manner described under subdivision five sixty three one of this title, a student cell phone use policy that shall be at least as stringent as the model policy developed by the secretary. Many of us received an email urging us to keep in the language for personal electronic devices and included an article about a second grader with a smartwatch. This reminds me of the story about my niece who was calling grandma, my mother, during class in a public school in Upstate New York. The teacher took proper steps to contact my sister and request that my niece leave the watch at home. For those of you who don't know, I am a public school teacher. When people ask why I chose teaching, my response is to build long lasting, close personal connections with young people. My high school, u thirty two middle and high school, not far from here, has had a phone policy for two years, and during that time, we have experienced increased engagement. Stakeholders are on board. Teachers and administrators are on the same page. The policy for middle school students is no phones from bell to bell. The policy for high school students allows for students to use their phones between classes and at lunch. In either part of the school, first offense is giving a warning and the phone is confiscated until the end of class. For the second offense, the device is taken to the office and returned to the student at end of day, and there is communication with the caregivers regarding the infraction. For the third offense, the phone is confiscated, turned over to administration, and the caregiver needs to come and pick up the phone. Perhaps you can imagine all the moving pieces to keep this policy effective at curbing student behavior. It is far from easy, but there is solid stakeholder buy in from families, teachers, and administrators. To complicate this with all personal electronic devices would compromise the good work we're doing at u thirty two and in many schools around the state. It will detract from building relationships and further burden school personnel. Requiring school staff to police students' use of personal electronic devices other than cell phones is legislative overreach and places an unnecessary strain on educators and administrators. The extensive testimony where we heard in house education from those in the field asked us to keep it simple. From testimony from AOE, in crafting a statewide approach, it is important ensure the policy is responsive to the needs of educators while avoiding being overly prescriptive and creating unnecessary burden. Including personal electronic devices is biting off more than we can chew and jeopardizes our intent to limit or prohibit cell phone use during the school day. While a simple policy to limit or prohibit cell phone use would support classroom teachers, and in some case, may even help to retain teachers in the classroom, dumping on the policing of all personal electronic devices will limit stakeholder support and detract from consistent implementation. There will be educators like myself who have no interest in policing whether a student is wearing a Fitbit in my statistics class or not. Nor can I imagine any appropriate discipline for wearing said device to monitor steps and heart rate throughout the day, especially for those old enough to serve in our country's military? I asked the body to consider the implications of a ban on personal electronic devices and the burden it will put on educators and administrators. I expect we will hear back from the AOE and those in the field that including personal electronic devices is too unwieldy. We may listen or we may not. In any case, madam speaker, I withdraw this amendment.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Absent objection, leave is granted. The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Member from Barrie City.

[Edward “Teddy” Waszazak — Representative from Barre City]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank, the member from Montpelier for, drafting the previously withdrawn amendment. And just to speak to the underlying bill, I think that what we're doing here is using a very, very blunt instrument, a a blanket ban, to, address a very nuanced and very complicated issue. And I I cannot express enough the respect and the thanks that I have for the House Education Committee on all the many hours of testimony that they took in this issue. But but a blanket ban is something that school districts can already do, and I'm afraid that rather than teaching our children as we enter this brave new world of technology, that we're burying our heads in the sand rather than really teaching our kids how to do this right. Digital literacy is going to be more important in the next hundred years than it was in the last. So I just want to to make that point to the body and and just to underscore that with all due respect to some of my colleagues as one of the few folks who went through public schools with a smartphone, there are better ways to get at this. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Northfield.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: Thank you, madam speaker. I I I fear I'm going to expose my age perhaps in this question, but, madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Williston is interrogated.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: Madam Speaker, I see a definition for cell phone, which is something I am very familiar with. But there's also a ban regarding personal electronic devices. And I'm wondering why there is not, a definition for what that incorporates.

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: Thank you for the question. I This is something that will have to be sorted out in the model policy process with the agency of education, the Vermont School Boards Association, phone free schools advocates and the Vermont Independent School Association in order to be appropriate to the context. It likely would be things like smartwatches. But again, this will be something that will have to be sorted out through the model policy process.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: So, madam speaker, we we do include cell phone definition rather than leaving it to the model policy. And I guess here's the tough part for me. I don't know what that includes under the personal electronic device. Does that mean purely, what's been referenced on the floor, the two things I've heard is smartwatch and Fitbit? Are is is that what that means, or is it a much broader, category?

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: Again, it will, it will have to be worked out in more detail through the model policy process. It would be anything that has internet connectivity, or blue or sorry, wireless capabilities, but there are also many exceptions because students may need something for a medical reason or they may have a school issued device. So, it is likely, things like smartwatches. But again, that is something that would have to be developed through, the model policy process to be, to be more precise.

[Anne B. Donahue — Representative from Northfield]: I thank the member. Madam speaker, actually this gives me a lot of reason for concern. I totally supported everything I had heard about the cell phone ban. But I find it problematic that we are passing a statute that requires a prohibition of something that we're not defining and that we're leaving up to potential exemptions and so forth. So madam speaker, I guess I will still support this, but it's, with reluctance, I think that it needed that degree of

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: clarification. Member from Derby.

[Richard Nelson — Representative from Derby]: Thank you, madam speaker. Past Friday, I gave the commencement address at the eighth grade graduation. The first eighth grade class to go through our junior high school without the benefit of their cell phones. And I took a quick poll, and I said, you young adults seem to have survived it. What did you think about it? And I was met with a lot of, But anyway, I digress. This past Saturday, a young lady would have graduated from our high school, perhaps if she'd had the benefit of no cell phones in eighth grade. And it was a heavy with a heavy heart, I met her mother this spring at a Maple Open House and bought Nora beads in her memory so they could have a scholarship in her honor. So I urged a body to support this bill four eighty and the cell phone. Stop the cell phone use in the schools and give kids a break from the social media. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Williston.

[Erin Brady — Representative from Williston]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have to admit I I'm almost at a loss for words because I didn't think for some time it felt like we weren't gonna get here, like this bill wasn't gonna actually move this year. And here we are, and and it's been sort of a surreal past couple of hours. So I'm not as, put together as I would like to be, but, I just want to rise in strong support for for the provision included in h four eighty that would lead to phone and social media free schools in Vermont. And I want to in the strongest words and term sentiment with the strongest sentiment possible, thank the Coalition for Phone and Social Media Free Schools which is a group of the people who often get things done, which are really motivated and caring moms. They've been amazing, truly amazing in their grassroots organizing efforts and in their support for this bill. And I I am just so deeply grateful to them. And I count myself among their membership because because of what we know about mainly the apps that are on the phones. We just celebrated today the passage into law of s 69, the Vermont age appropriate design code. And I really see phone and social media free schools as an extension of the work that we're doing here in Vermont to to protect our kids in ways that unfortunately social media companies and other entities involved in big tech are not doing. So I I urge every member to, to support h four eighty for in all its greatness but in particular for phone and social media free schools to give every kid in Vermont a break during the day from the pressure and harm that that is ever present in their lives now with social media. And I'm happy to share that in the schools in Vermont that have already enacted policies like this, they've found that hazing, harassment, and bullying, drops enormously, sometimes as much as 90%. And there there was general, consensus among those who testified that there was an intangible change as well. Academic, success increases, scores test scores go up, but what they reported was a change in the culture at their schools. And they reported that kids and teachers, everyone in the school community just seems happier. And I want us to think about how profound that is. And I offer that as we work to transform education in Vermont, passing this bill is actually, one of the most will have the most immediate impact of anything we're doing to transform education. So I'm grateful to the house committee on education for taking this up and to the senate committee for adding it to four eighty, and urge the body's support.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

[Edward “Teddy” Waszazak — Representative from Barre City]: Nay.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to deliver house bill four eighty to the governor forthwith?

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to message the, our actions on h four eighty to the governor forthwith.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Pulteney moves that we deliver house bill four eighty to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for the question? So all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have ordered house bill four eighty to be delivered to the governor forthwith. Members, we Members, we have our final adjournment resolution to take up at this time. JRS 28 is a joint resolution relating to final adjournment of the general assembly in 2025. The clerk emailed this resolution to members at 07:39PM and paper copies are available at the main table. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives adjourned their respective houses on the June 2025, they shall do so to reconvene on the joint call of the speaker of the house and the president pro tempore of senate if needed or on the January 2026 at 10:00 in the forenoon, if not so reconvened prior to that date.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution and the question is shall the house adopt the resolution in concurrence. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and the resolution is adopted in concurrence. Members, that completes our order. That completes our business for the day. Member from Essex Junction, can you please offer us a motion to direct the clerk to inform the senate that the house has completed its business of the first half of biennial session and is ready to adjourn pursuant to the provisions of j r a JRS 28.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I move that the clerk be directed to inform the senate that the house has completed its business of the first half of the biennial session and is ready to adjourn pursuant to the provisions of JRS 28.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have directed the clerk to inform the senate that the house has completed its business and is ready to adjourn pursuant to JRS 28. Members, at this time, it is our custom to hear from house leadership as we approach final adjournment. We'll start with the member from Burlington.

[Kate Logan — Representative from Burlington; Progressive Caucus Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, in 2025, democracy in our country and state have been challenged in ways that we could not have imagined as we were adjourning last year. Our democratic institutions are our bulwark against tyranny. They guarantee our individual and collective freedom. I am even grateful for the inevitable frustration and disagreement that comes along with the requirement that our diverse legislature comes to agreement with our executive. In many large and small ways, I've seen my fellow leaders and colleagues stretch themselves and rise to the occasion. I thank all of my colleagues for their service and dedication to and love for Vermont. I thank all of our leadership for the significant additional work that they do for us. I thank the minority leader for her steady hand while shepherding a larger caucus with so many new members during a session with big agenda items. I thank the majority leader for her efforts to develop better communication and cooperation both within her own and among the caucuses. I thank the speaker for hearing the concerns of her returning members and making efforts to encourage collaborative dialogue on the most urgent issues before us this session. As imperfect as our process and even our results may be, we have kept the flame of democracy alive. I hope that next year, after a long recess, We will endeavor to build on the foundation that we've built with each other this year and continue to safeguard democracy for all Vermonters.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Holtney.

[Patricia A. McCoy — Representative from Poultney; House Minority Leader]: Madam speaker and fellow members of the house of representatives, I begin by thanking our incredible staff here at the state house. A sincere and heartfelt thanks to our clerk staff, very ably guided by house clerk Betsy Ann Rask, sergeant in arms Agatha Kessler, her assistants and doorkeepers, to director and chief counsel Bryn Hare and our legislative counsel, Katherine Benham and the remarkable staff at JFO, our legislative operations team, chief John Polway, and our competent capital police officers, our IT wizards under director Kevin Moore, and Mike and our custodial staff who made sure the people's house was always ready for us as well as our visitors and friends. A special thanks to representative Casey Tooth and representative Mark Higley who provided constant assistance and support to me as well as our caucus especially during my two weeks absence. Every member of the House Republican caucus has made important contributions and is an integral part of our team. I often think of us as the little engine that could, although we've added a few extra cars to our train this session. Your dedication and integrity are unmatched, and I am so unbelievably proud to serve the people of Vermont with you by my side. Speaking of a few extra cars, 50 freshmen joined the house this year. You have added much to the conversations, not only in your committees, but in the hallways and the house chamber. I look forward to working with you next session. Thank you to house major majority leader Lori Houghton and progressive leader Kate Logan for your patience and cooperation. It is an honor to serve in leadership with you both. As I have said in the past, the role of the house minority leader is not for the faint of heart. Our caucus often asks tough questions, proposes amendments, and debates the bill on the floor. Through it all, we remain respectful to the body, the process, our colleagues across the aisle, house leadership, and you, madam speaker. It is not always easy. However, I am so proud of our caucuses collective efforts to explain our positions on bills that will profoundly affect all of Vermont. Madam speaker, thank you for listening and taking all sides into consideration before acting. I am thankful and proud to work closely with you in addressing the challenging issues of our day as we continue to preserve the integrity of this magnificent body for future Vermont leaders. I am also thankful that you and I can share our frustrations without the aid of an anger translator. I noticed you have a new one this year. As always, happy birthday to those members celebrating their birthdays from now until when we return. And finally, I want to publicly thank the most important people in our lives, our families, extended families, and friends who put up with us as we commit to our doer to doing our jobs as public servants. It is not always easy, and it is demanding at times. So on behalf of all of us, I wish to publicly thank our home base, those people who we lean on and depend on on a day to day basis for making our jobs just a bit easier knowing we have your support. Take care everyone and stay well. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Now the member from Essex Junction.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker and colleagues, as we come to the end of this session, I find myself feeling deep sincere gratitude for this work and for all of you. We have passed impactful legislation this year. Housing, healthcare, kids code, and so much more. Legislation that will help Vermonters thrive here. We should all be proud of our work together. As we prepare to adjourn, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the staff who make this building run. You show up early, stay late, and carry the institutional knowledge and quiet discipline that lets democracy work. Whether you're drafting or editing bills, figuring out the money, staffing committees, keeping us on schedule and connected, feeding us, cleaning up behind us, or helping us on the house floor, you are the reason we can do our jobs. Thank you. To every member in this chamber, I wanna thank you as well. You've brought your ideas, your values, your life experiences, and your deep care for your communities. You've made tough decisions and sacrificed in an additional two weeks of your schedule this year. To my leadership team, this job is not easy. It can be messy and demanding and unpredictable, but having a team of steady, principled, deeply committed leaders by my side has made all the difference. Thank you. To my counterparts, Patty and Kate, thank you for your partnership and collaboration. Your commitment to this work, our members, and your constituents is inspiring. To our speaker, your calm and kind presence guides us, guides our important work. Thank you for your leadership. This session reminded me that while policy matters deeply, relationships are what hold this place together. Relationships are what allow us to listen when we disagree, to ask hard questions without closing doors, and to reach across differences to find common ground. They're what allow us to compromise without giving up our values and to stand firm without disrespecting someone else's. Relationships are how good legislation survives the hard part of the process. Some of the most meaningful moments I've had this session weren't in the headlines. They happened in conversations cafeteria, over a drink after a long day, or in quiet check ins when someone needed support or I needed support. That's where relationships are built. So as we head home to our communities, I hope we carry that spirit with us. The idea that relationships are not a distraction from the work, they are the work. Let's keep building relationships in our communities across the aisle and with one another. To each of you, thank you for showing up, not just as legislators, but as people. It's been an honor to work alongside you. Enjoy your summer and I look forward to what we'll accomplish together next year.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Members, we begin every session the same way. We step into this chamber with the promise to carry the voices of our communities and the responsibility to make our state a better place for Vermonters in all 14 counties. We don't start each session with blank slate. We inherit the work and the weight that came before. This chamber has always been the place where hard problems and hardworking people meet, where each class of legislators picks up where the last left off to carry the work forward. And each year we see the results of that legacy. In just the last few months I've met families able to send their children to childcare for the first time. I've met nurses starting their careers here in Vermont made possible by years of investment and workforce development. I've seen new homes built, new communities formed, made possible because of the policy crafted in this very chamber. Vermont has sent us here with a clear call to transform our education system to address the housing crisis and make our state more affordable for working families. This session, we have tested the limits of compromise and it's proved it's still possible that shared solutions can be reached even when the politics get stuck. Really tough. That's democracy. Messy, slow working, still delivers. That progress isn't always about perfection, but is it is about persistence. A shared belief that step by step we can continue to do the work to make Vermont a better place. So yes, we have made progress and yes, there's more work to do. But let's talk about what we've done. We have answered Vermonters call to make housing more affordable and easier to build. We've streamlined project approval, invested in repairing homes, supported first time home buyers and middle income construction. Those just aren't words in a bill, it's tangible change for folks in all 14 counties. We answer Vermonters call to improve our healthcare system. We're raising $100,000,000 in medical debt and we're not stopping there. We implemented reforms to reduce costs, improve access and help stabilize the system for the long haul. We answered Vermonters call to help our communities rebuild to be stronger and safer. In passing sweeping flood resilience legislation, we're modernizing our emergency response systems, giving municipalities more tools and supporting towns hit hardest by disaster. These investments aren't just about recovering from the past, they're about preparing to weather the storms ahead. And we answered Vermonters call to embark on the most significant education transformation we've seen in decades. We're putting Vermont students at the center of their work of this work because their future is our future. We acknowledge the growing burden on property taxpayers and we've recognized that if we want a fair high quality education for every student in Vermont, we need to build a system that meets the moment. Vermonters asked and we answered. We took up difficult bills and made them better, and that's not weakness, that's democracy. I am so proud that this house across party lines and and perspective chose to govern together. Let me be clear. I know we all have miles to go here. All the while, the dysfunction in Washington reminds us how important it is to let government get it right right here at home. To our governor, I hope this session has shown that what we can accomplish when we come to the table together early and often. By continuing our work together, I believe we can go even further to deliver progress for Vermonters. And to the majority leader from Essex Junction, from day one, you hit the ground running and never looked back. You've met every challenge with grace, grit, and focus. You are pragmatic, thoughtful, grounded in the work, and deeply committed to the people we serve. You're tenacious with to do lists and getting things done. I deeply appreciate you and thank you for being such a great leader and a friend. To our minority leader, the member from Pultely, my colleague and friend of over a decade at this point, your steady hand principled leadership and gracious approach makes it possible for us to lead by example even in the toughest moments. I appreciate our shared and unwavering commitment to respect and decorum and I am so grateful for your partnership and honored to serve alongside of you. And to our minority leader from Burlington, my district mate, it has been a joy to watch you grow in this role. Thank you for always showing up with compassion, open communication, and with energy. And to our committee chairs, you've guided this body through weighty issues and hard choices with determination and thoughtful compromise and a clear sense of purpose. I'm proud of the work that we have done together. And to the staff who turn our ideas into policy, numbers into programs, who keep this building safe and clean, Thank you. You've met every twist and turn of the session with patience, professionalism and tireless commitment. Your work is what allows ours to happen and we are endlessly grateful. Members please join me in showing them our deepest appreciation. And to my own team, I couldn't do this job without Connor and Molly. You've met this work of chaos some days with clarity and led with heart. And Connor, congratulations on your engagement. To our friends and family, you are the greatest support we could ask for and we will be forever grateful. So members, I'll leave you with this. It has been a session of real progress and a reminder that the work of governing is never finished and neither is our commitment to it. Vermont is better today than when we first walked through these doors, and it's not perfect and not finished, but better because of your work. This summer in the grocery store, at the transfer station, at school board meetings, just don't talk about what we passed. Ask your neighbors about what's next because that's the job. That's the promise we make when we raise our hands in this raise our right hands in this chamber. The promise to carry the trust of our communities with clarity, courage, and with care. So thank you. Thank you for keeping it, and thank you for your commitment to the work, and there's a lot more work to come. Thank you members. Thank you. Now member from Essex Junction, can you please offer us a motion for the appointment of a committee of six to inform the governor that the house has completed its business and is ready to adjourn pursuant to the provisions of j r h s 28.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I move that a committee of six be appointed to inform the governor that the house has completed its business and is ready to adjourn pursuant to the provisions of j r s 28.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have directed that a committee of six be appointed to inform the governor that the house has completed its business and is ready to adjourn pursuant to JRS 28. Pursuant to your action, the chair points the following members to serve on the committee. The member from Essex Junction, representative Houghton. The member from Pulte, representative McCoy. The member from Burlington, representative Logan, the member from Stowe, representative Lipsky, the member from Woodstock, representative Kimball, and the member from Burke, representative Kaczynska. We will wait while the committee escorts the governor to the house. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Madam sergeant at arms.

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, would the members please rise? It is my honor to present to you the governor for the state of Vermont, the Honorable Philip B. Scott.

[Governor Phil Scott — Governor of Vermont]: Well good evening everyone. Madam Speaker, leaders Houghton, McCoy, and Logan. It's only been about five months since we were all sworn in. In some ways, especially after today, it feels like a very long session. But in other ways, it went by pretty quickly. I want to start by telling you how much I appreciate the time and effort you've made this session and the effort the majority has made to hear my point of view and the view of the minority. This is especially true on difficult issues. In January, I asked that we focus on four areas, public safety, affordability, housing, and education. Because I believe those are areas that are impacting Vermonters the most. And within these areas, we've made some meaningful progress. We found common ground to make Vermont safer. And while there's still more work to do, this has been a good start toward increasing accountability and recognizing an area that needs more attention. I'm also appreciative of our work on tax relief so Vermonters can keep a little more of what they earn, whether they're a veteran, a retiree living on social security, a low income worker, or a parent with young children. And I'll continue to advocate for more relief so Vermonters can thrive in Vermont, not just survive. On housing, we passed much needed infrastructure support, Getting the expansion of TIFFs over the finish line. Something many of us, many of us here in this room have been working on for years. This will help level the playing field so rural communities with fewer resources have the same economic tools as larger towns. We still need to work on regulatory reform in the second half of the biennium because without it, we won't make the progress needed to make housing affordable and revitalize communities, schools, and fill jobs. On education, we found a compromise which will set us on a path toward a system that will better serve our kids and communities at a cost Vermonters can afford. I realize this hasn't been easy. And now there I know there are many who have and will continue to criticize our work. But our current system is unsustainable for students and taxpayers. And this is only the first step. And the work ahead will be just as, if not more important, than will be done this session. But good work takes time, and it takes courage. And I appreciate the work each one of you has done to contribute to this effort. What we've accomplished over the last few months is important. But what comes next will be even more important. We cannot make the mistake others have made to declare victory and assume our many crises have been solved. I look forward to working with you into the next session to deliver the results our communities are calling for and Vermonters deserve. I wanna thank you again and I hope you enjoy the summer with families and friends and you keep safe and we'll see you back again next year. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: Will the committee please come to the well of the house to escort the governor, please? Will the house please stand at ease while we wait for the members to return? You can sit. Will the house please come to order? Members, we are about to take our final vote in the legislative session. Member from Essex Junction, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn pursuant to the provisions of JRS 28?

[Lori Houghton — Representative from Essex Junction; House Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I move that the house now adjourn pursuant to the provisions of JRS 28.

[Jill Krowinski — Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Essex Junction moves that the house now adjourn pursuant to the provisions of JRS 28. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have adjourned pursuant to the provisions of JRS 28.