Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. It's the House Appropriations Committee. It's Friday, 02/27/2026. It's about 09:20, and we are back. And we are going to have a conversation about the bill we heard yesterday, age six sixty, which is the Opioid Abatement Special Fund appropriation. Heard proposal to use, it included a proposal to use some of the Substance Misuse Convention Fund. So there's the opioid one and the substance misuse. The substance misuse comes from funds from cannabis sales. The opioid comes from the opioid settlement from, well, Sackler isn't one of them, the other ones were involved in the opioid ban. So, to have some similar purposes, some different purposes. And then Tip had us an idea about how to do something differently between the two funds versus what has been proposed in the bill. And Nolan's going to explain it all to us and give us our options. Just, the purpose of this is to help educate us all and then just try to figure out which of the options we want to go, which direction we wanna take based on what we know. But we don't know everything yet, that's why we have no

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: one who's gonna tell us anything.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Great. For the record, Noel Langwell, the Joint Fiscal Office. Before I start, yesterday, we were, Representative Wood had talked about a spreadsheet that I put together for the committee that talks about, that compares the different proposals from the health department and the special fund committee. I did send it to Autumn. It should be posted, I don't know, yesterday or today, but it should be on your website just for your reference. So I thought that I would, the reason I'm sitting here today is to kind of help frame the conversation. So if you recall, the House proposal or the Human Services proposal has money from the opioid fund, and they have four pieces carved out, 640,000 that would be taken from the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. The Substance Misuse Prevention Fund has been, all the money that's in there has been committed under the governor's recommendation. So you as the Appropriation Committee can choose to say, no, we want this money to go in there instead, and then some of the money come out of some of the governor's other proposals. So the three options as I see it are one, you could go ahead and pass the bill as recommended by the Human Services Committee, which is to leave it in the bill, have the opioid settlement stuff in the bill, the substance misuse stuff in the bill. However, you would still have to address that $640,000 in the budget because it's in section B313 under special funds, which is the health department substance use. So you still have to do it in the bill and you still haven't addressed it in the budget. The second option would be to strip out the money from the bill, from that $6.40 out of the bill and put it in the budget, in which case you're doing it all together.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Take the special, this

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, you can pull, so pull the 640,000. So if you go to my fiscal note

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Just it strict opioid. Just keep opioid. Put the other stuff in the budget. Yeah, pull

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: out section seven, which is Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund appropriation, put that into the budget, and then deal with that as a budget piece. The third option would be to keep the $6.40 in the opioid special, where there is money, and then not make any changes to the budget. So again, your three options are: pass the bill as recommended by the Human Services Committee, in which case you still have to make some modifications in the budget of Section B13. You could strip out Section VII, which is the Substance Misuse Fund, put it into the budget.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So keep those proposals in that fund, but put all the substance misuse in the budget.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So amend the bill, further amend the bill to pull that section out. Or your third option would be to say, no, let's just use the opioid abatement special fund because there's money there. So those are your three options.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Lynn? So the issues that are raised, the four issues that are raised in section seven that are prevention, are those the things that are in b three thirteen that the governor recommends, No. These different things?

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. So you'd have to amend what the governor has. I mean, his is just lumped into section B313. It's under It's special

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: aggregate number.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's an aggregate number. So you'd have to specify what your, you'd just have to specify that this has to be out of that, and there would have to be a reduction in some of the other things. We can work on the wording on that, but we do have a breakdown of what the governor's proposal is spending that on. And we got something today that's a little bit more detail, and I haven't actually looked at it yet from the health department. So you could say, well, we'll look at it in the context of the budget, and we can cut back on some of the governor's proposal to make sure that there's money in the substance misuse funds to pay

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: for I think our first decision in terms of order of operations would be whether these four items should be in the opioid fund, as was originally proposed by the Opioid Settlement Oversight Committee, whatever, or whether those four items should be under the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund, which is what human services recommended. And that's where Tiff came in. She's been very involved. This has been her area. And I know you were living in human services for a while and that's part of July. Do you want to explain what you're thinking? Do you understand what I've said so far? Is that all making sense? First, we have

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: to decide where those four go.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So you talk.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Sure, I think that, well, when the bill came out and I saw the fiscal note and realized that, because they actually voted when I wasn't in the room. And when I learned that this money was already budgeted out, that concerned me. And so, Nolan and I and Theresa talked about different options. I mean, I think that it would be, given the fiscal note, I think there's something different that we need to do. Because, I mean, we need to suggest that we read the fiscal note and that it said that actually it's this money that's been permitted. I think that there's real concern that the prevention money that is spent not, hasn't been evaluated in terms of its effectiveness. And that is a separate issue. I think it's partly what's behind the suggestion that they just take money from that fund and cut whatever was in the governor's recommend for that. Remember there's 3,000,000 more dollars from cannabis that is flowing into that fund. That was projectionally projected. So all the things that were funded are getting more money. And so human services rationale is, well, they can cut back by 600 ks what they're planning to do, because it's not as if they are, this isn't gonna jeopardize the programs on the whole. I'm a couple, I could see different ways going forward. Joel and I have talked about this. I think the Human Services Committee feels strongly that these are prevention, these are kinds of things that ought to be funded through prevention money. And that one way or another, we should acknowledge that and not take it from the Opioid Salmon Fund, which as was described yesterday, is slowly diminishing in the balance that was available to us to fund the various things that we committed from it. I'm comfortable with putting it in the budget and stripping it out of this bill. We could also develop language that would recommend that these things be funded and note that this will mean making adjustments to the governor's recommended prevention budget from that fund. But you are advocating keeping it in

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the substance misuse fund? Are you advocating putting it back? I'm

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: expert on this. Nobody's done the full review of the prevention programs. But I've heard enough from human services folks, both on the Senate and the House side, to feel like they need to really look into that, perhaps, it is a reasonable place for these things to come from.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: From a

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: sub species? Yes, okay. Think there were other questions over here, Tom, and then John. Okay.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: And Tiff, can you clarify the statement just about how no one's reviewed the effectiveness of this program? Like whose job is that?

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Let's say just they would say that they have reviewed and have, but that has not really been shared to the satisfaction of the Human Services Committee.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What do we pay it for? I've got Wayne, Marty, John.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: Yeah, you know, I have concerns. I do think the money should come from the right places. But overall concerns is having this money thrown in this way. I'd like to see it probably what we're talking about here is we have all these asks from the public hearings, we've got from the committees, all these asks. I'd like to see them lined up like we did last year on the big spreadsheet, including these, so that we can assess each one of them against the governor's record so we can see it systematically. Because I look it on one page, we've got money coming out for advisory.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So, Wayne, I'm going pause you for a second. This is not general fund. This is the special fund. You I just want to be sure we're clear on that. We're not we're not competing with other projects.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: I know that. Okay. We're we're competing with the funds here. Right? So if we looked at it, we got two different funds. And as I see it, the opioid fund is going to run out. Other one has to In few years. In a few years, other one's going to have a sustaining capability. So, you know, if we had decisions to make looking at one where they both could be used either way, If you use the opioid one for vampire things, it makes sense. The other things for ongoing things would make sense. You logically looked at that, so we set it up so that whatever you set up was going to be able to persist through time and be funded, then that would be wiser. I hate the idea that the Russian meant to this and voting on the bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And we're not voting it today. We'll vote it out next week. I mean, this week or back, not. So Nolan has a spreadsheet which will give us some of this information. Do we also have what the administration proposed to use? I know I saw something that TIFF had yesterday on what their proposal was for the substance misuse front. It was kind but of maybe you have some

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: updated information. Yeah, got an email yesterday about it. I haven't had a chance to dig into it. But they do break it out. For instance, the Vermont Provincial Lead Organizations, there's 5,000,000 there. And so they broke it out. There's like 1.5 go to mountain communities, 1.2 goes to Northeastern Vermont Regional, 950,000 goes to Rutland Regional, and 1.6 goes to the United Way. So they did break it out, like each of those increases.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: If we can get that a little more detail on the immigration policy.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: if you want to, we can make copies of that.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I don't think that we're the ones that decide whether these prevention programs are effective or not. I feel that that's the job of the two committees. And actually, in response to you, Wayne, I have a lot of confidence in the recommendations that were made both by the advisory committee and by the Department of Health in terms of what is funded. They're kind of for, and I don't even know what all the limitations are on substance misuse prevention funding, but I think they're very appropriate uses of that money, because they create the system, they undergird the system that is needed to address addiction and treatment and recovery at different stages. And I think a lot of thought has been given to that by the Department of Health and by the advisory committee. So I wouldn't want to put any The recommendations that are here from the Opioid Settlement Fund, I feel very confident about their, many of them are things that we have invested in over a period of time and are consistent with the strategic plan that the Department of Health put out this January, I think, based on all their interviews across the state.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But the good thing is the, but I think you're also getting at, which Teresa mentioned yesterday, is the evaluation of the program. So, on the other side of it, and so we want to be sure that we should check the language again what's in there for evaluation. Because at this point

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: in time, no one has come in here, in any agency or anybody, and showed us things that have changed in a positive way based on any particular program or anything that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: we've And that wouldn't come to us for that. They would go to human services for that.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: Maybe so, but human services comes into us and they could explain to us what Well, does

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: that's why Theresa had in her memo that they want to pause so they can get some evaluation done. She's very big on evaluation.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: And I'm concerned if she's spending the money it's not doing anything, we'll keep it on spending it or trying to figure out what we should be doing, then we'll get money

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: about it.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So there is language in the bill that says each ongoing funding proposal considered by the advisory council shall include a sustainability plan from the applicant to ensure consideration of future expenses and available resources apart from the opioid abatement special fund. So it's not an evaluation per se, but it's a sustainability plan.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I think there's also some evaluation.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, in section six, it talks about spending appropriations in the coming year, except for those it's made a commitment to on an annual basis to review the outcomes of programs and initiatives funded through the Opioid Abatement Special Fund to assess effectiveness And long term we

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: could ask of that in the other fund as well, something similar, maybe not pausing, but something similar in terms of evaluation for the other fund as well.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And of these programs, if you decide to put these programs in there.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: Right. So we just have a little time to think about what we should ask.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, no, we'll vote on this when we get back. So, but I wanted us to follow-up because stuff's happening. Then we can all think about it.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: Well, my confusion, my concern was just this chart that I've just now seen each note start because I was concerned that because the governor had suggested something and the committee suggested something else.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And so let's have the comparison. And

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: if they've been funded and what bills they've been funded in the past. Right,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: is really great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, John, would you have a question?

[Rep. John Kascenska]: Yeah, well, to include all of the three options we have. Yeah. Was just gonna go here at some point. So what's the downside of thinking of being as is versus, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't different than what you described.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Taking the bill as is,

[Rep. John Kascenska]: just

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: overcommits the substance misuse prevention fund, which is noted in the fiscal note, and I think as an appropriations committee, we would need to write some language that would acknowledge that that would require a So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: we could reduce, I assume we have the authority to reduce what's in this fund.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, we have to work on it, yeah.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: As is, it's overcommitted, we'd be in deficit. That's why

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: I wanted to make sure.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right, so that's one of the things. So we would have to address, we should choose to address that if we wanted to do this. The other thing, by keeping it as is, is that the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund now is going show up in two places, one in the budget and one in this bill. And so that gets a little confusing also. One of the options. Right. Right. So, yes. Wanted That's why I said sort of the first thing is, do we want to keep those four items in the substance misuse fund or back appeals? And then if we want to keep it in the substance misuse, do we want to keep it in this bill or do we want to put it in the budget so it's all in one place? And then if it's all, regardless of that, if we keep it in this fund, there will be a deficit in And that so we would have to probably go in and it would be prudent to offset, reduce some of the others, or say to whoever, you need to figure out how you're going cut that. So there's my Okay, Wayne Linn.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: See, part of my answer, I was looking at, if you look at section one, beginning of the year, 55,000 for 26 outreach or case management staff That's coming from the opioid abatement special And if you look on page six, to line 10, if you open an abatement special fund, each ongoing funding proposal considered by the advisory council shall be a sustainability point. But the thing is you've got 26 positions which you could assume would be ongoing to be high, Coming out of the fund, which is limited in time.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's only a part of their salary. So a lot of times you have Right. So they could reduce that.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: They're planning for 26 positions to continue.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Which is why there's a sustainability plan in there, the request for that. Also,

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it's one time, so there's always a risk.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's also one time. Liz?

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Yeah, I'm Dave. I'm This is your director. Yep. When I compare the numbers on age 66 proposal with the substance misuse prevention stuff on page three of the fiscal note. And I don't see where Are those aggregate numbers somewhere in here?

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So, yeah, that would be So, know, so number one, if you're looking at this decimal note, section seven, so number one, Elevate, would be number 10 on my list.

[Rep. David Yacovone]: Number 10.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You see it?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Community Care Network?

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep, no, Elevated Youth Services.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, it's number 11.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, you know what?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I have

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: an older version of it. I don't have an up to date for

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: So you have that under OSAC recommendation, but that's also in the Act 60, age six, age six sixty.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, this was the document they used to help make the decisions. Yeah. And then I've made this off of the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, so I should be looking at It's not in red.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: I'm just trying to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And solve all the

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: one way to look at and tell differences is if it has this little red stuff, it's lined with direct PDH prevention, that means I moved it to a different chart. So Elevate, Greater Falls, Interxion, and Winooski are all 11, They're twelve, thirteen, all in a row.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: I just wanted to see where they were. Okay, that's good. So these are the numbers that are

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 15. Yeah, they're all on the second page.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: All OSAT.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Well, it's all under this thing. But then if it's not OSAT, I just put the little blue thing because this is

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: but it's not under it. It's not under age 60.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, I just have a I just have a no oh, yeah. Yeah. Just have a little note.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: It's zeros. Yeah.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Because it wasn't gonna be they weren't recommending it as part of, the osecs. They're recommending it.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: I just wanted to follow where the numbers come from.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Got it. I can work with you offline if you still have questions.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Yeah, I'm just, I just, I

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: got it

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: now. Okay.

[Rep. David Yacovone]: We were informed yesterday that more money is coming from settlements. It could be one time, it could be spread out, so I just wanted to remind us that, isn't immediate, but it sounds like it's definite, the timing should. My question, Tiff, do you know what the vote was from the advisory committee?

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: No, it wasn't made explicit that way. It just was a letter that came from the advisory committee.

[Rep. David Yacovone]: I'll try to look into that then, thank you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Out of human services, it was a ten-one vote. Yep,

[Rep. David Yacovone]: trying to see the advisory committee.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I think that human services looked at these, in particular those prevention related proposals, and thought, well, we should be funding prevention as well. And that is why they made those recommendations from the committee, but took the funding from somewhere else. It's also an appropriate use of those funds. Yeah,

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: wasn't that there wasn't enough money in the fund, was that they felt it was a better

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: This fellow was better placed in a different fund.

[Noel Langwell (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That was the committees. Right.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. So I think I'm gonna end the conversation here because we have ourselves we're doing, but if you have more questions check with Nolan check with Tiff but I think you understand the questions we have to decide should these be in this correct fund or not and if we want them here we want them to go into the budget with the other same fund? And how do we adjust for their deficit? So we'll take it up when we get back. Thank you very much, Noah. And I guess we're going get another chart or something from Noah about these things. Let's say this passes misuse. Okay, we are going to shift gears again

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: and I

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: think we're back to a bill. Okay $5.48 we have Sophie, Pat and Reverend Kascen out here so welcome, sir. Yeah, think we've seen you again this year. We've seen you before, but not this year. We'll hear from Sophie. We'll hear the fiscal note, have representatives in the past now from General and Housing to answer questions or fill out the blanks if need. So welcome.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: Good morning, Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. Would you like me to pull up the bill or it looks like you're receiving Nope,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it's something else. Do you a copy? Do you like me to pull up your copy? People who are watching like to see what's on the screen and they don't have a copy otherwise. And I will just say that this has money in it as far as I know, so we will not be voting today. So everybody understands that.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: It is pretty much money related. Yes. You're going

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: to explain why it's money related.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: Yes. That's great. So, right. So this bill was to create a mediator position from the Office of the Labor Relations Board. The Vermont Labor Relations Board oversees seven labor relations statutes that we have in Vermont. And in state law, when the parties, the employer and the union reach an impasse in negotiations, they are required to go to mediation. And historically, what's happened is we've been able to use, the state has been able to use the federal mediation and conciliation service. It's a free service. It's been excellent for the parties here in Vermont. The mediators know the landscape. They've been able to help work through the issues. And then the parties are able to get to resolution that relieves the burden on the Labor Relations Board. They don't have to do hearings on the impasse, etcetera. What's happened at the federal level is that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was a victim of some significant cuts that happened. Some of those have been reversed, but not to the extent that they were before. And the mediators were laid off. They went from, I'm forgetting the number, something like 106 down to three. So they are in the process of being rebuilt, but the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is a service that's mandated by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act to assist private parties that are covered by the National Labor Relations Act. So it's anticipated that even if the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is somewhat rebuilt, they will not be able to provide services to the public sector here in Vermont that are covered by Vermont's labor relations statutes. So it's a significant loss in Vermont having access to that service. So the purpose of the bill was to create a mediator position within our Vermont Labor Relations Board. And just to be clear, the Vermont Labor Relations Board in Vermont consists of an executive director and a part time clerk. That's it. And so this would provide a resource within the board, within the office of the board, to help parties resolve any issues. The way the bill is structured is, first, to add a position, and it would provide collective mediation services both to public and private sector parties. So even though the privates would otherwise be covered by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, who knows how long it's going to be before that gets rebuilt, if it gets rebuilt, but particularly the public sector is the key. And then this would also provide that if the mediator has capacity, the mediator could also provide free mediation services on grievances and unfair labor practice charges. So those are not required to go to mediation. Often the parties choose to go to mediation to try to resolve the issues. But they are statutorily required to go to mediation when they're bargaining over a collective bargaining agreement. Because mediation, it's really important that it be confidential and there be faith and trust by both parties in a mediation process. This Section three requires that the board develop policies and procedures to make sure that any confidential information that's acquired by an in house mediator be kept separate and not be accessible by either the members of the board or by the staff that work for the board. So that's what Section three does. As this bill went through general and housing, there's also been a concern, and this has been a concern that that committee has heard repeatedly, is that, again, the staffing is so lean in the Vermont Labor Relations Board that there was interest in adding a staff attorney position to the board to help with the workload, because there's been significant backlogs. And there was significant testimony, not just on this bill but on previous bills, that the general and housing have on their wall relating to labor issues. So the bill, as drafted, also seeks to include a classified staff attorney position in the Vermont Labor Relations Board. And so they're asking for $250,000 appropriation for the salary and benefits of those two positions.

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: I actually just wanted to flag something, which is that my understanding is the Labor Relations Board asked for one position. I

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: believe that the mediator. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, you know, I

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So somebody would speak generous and I'm sorry. Had a left.

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: This could be clear and that not that I doubt it would be beneficial.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, of course. Always.

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: I just wanted to mention that.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: Yeah. I would say I think last year, they they had one position, maybe one and a half positions in the budget that got stripped out at the very end for the staff attorney position and for additional support.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: If this is being used primarily for public employees, public groups, whether departments

[Unidentified Representative (South Burlington)]: could pay for it, like

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: interdepartmental transfer or you know what I'm saying is that I'm trying to find money you know I'm just trying to be creative here and maybe not all of it but some portion of it is that even possible?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: It hasn't been in the past and it's been a very separate silo because of what it does.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So they can't go back and charge the governor's office for this?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: No, and especially not the governor's office. I mean, seeing we see this in the way that the governor's office treats the Human Rights Commission. They don't like people to bring suits

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: against them. So

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: this is the case where asking them to find something like that ruins the neutrality, perceived neutrality of

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the board. Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: And can I ask a question?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead and then Wayne.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: Michael, I know this is your case, portfolio. The testimony I seem to remember from the Director of the Liberty Relations Board was about needing more because needing another attorney, needing help to not only, and also in the not paid positions, having, filling out the board itself. But they've seen, but I hear that. I'm just curious, like when you say that they didn't request something, I know that she made a point of the mediator but she also mentioned the other position too of needing another attorney to help the board get through because there's a whole new you know the board changes the leadership of the labor board is new. But I'm just curious, what's your understanding?

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: And I think perhaps that might boil down to what they reasonably thought they could put into their budget request, because they had requested both the per diem increase, which was looking at the $25,000 increase, but they had also requested one attorney position.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: So they

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: might certainly feel they need them both and have only requested one.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Prioritizing, yeah. I'm gonna let rep who has no weigh in on this too, if you wanna introduce yourself.

[Unidentified Representative (South Burlington)]: Sure. Do you want me to Oh, you can sign on. Already said happy town meeting day, and then I forgot I was coming back in. Representative pros now, Chittenden, in South Burlington, for the record. The bill was introduced, by myself and others. Was, The request was for the mediator position in these very lean times. And, it was suggested by another member of the committee during the committee process that we also add an attorney position. There there's kind of differing opinions on what's a bigger priority. We did not ask that specific question of the board of which they would prefer after the testimony. I'm sure, they would prefer both, as would I, of course. But the original intent of the bill that was introduced and what my understanding in these times was for the media so representative is correct of what the process was. It's kind of the background.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: And this is state position, state

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: employee? Correct.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: So if it's a state agency or a state employee, the law requires a mediation. Is that correct? That what you're saying?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: So under the State Employee Labor Relations Act, and then this is true for the other, again there are seven of them for the other acts as well, is that when the parties are negotiating a contract, there's a multistep process because party this is pretty typical, but public employees typically can't strike. And so the process is that when you reach impasse, it doesn't mean that you've completely broken down, you can't communicate at all, at least under state law. At the federal level, that's a different situation. But under state law, you get to a point where you've negotiated some things, you're stuck on some things, you have a mediator come in to try to resolve that. And often the mediator can fully resolve it. Sometimes they can get the parties closer together. I understand this. Okay. Yeah. And then there are some additions.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: The basis of where I was going is if a private business goes before the Labor Relations Board, would that mediator be able to required? It's not required, but under what conditions would that they mediate between the two parties that were in? If this were to go through as proposed, because right now private employees are not covered by any of the state They never were. Right, right. So then my question would be, is there how much work? Is this a full time? Is there a mediation going on for the state constantly, such that you need the full position, or why don't they contract?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: So they could contract. It's just very expensive. And the testimony from the executive director of the BLRB was it's around $450 an hour for a mediator, and it can end up being very expensive. What would typically happen is that the parties would then divide the cost. But a mediator could be one day. It could be several days. It can get very expensive very quickly.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Having participated in school board mediation,

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: But we've a $250,000

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's two positions. It'd be 125,000 for one position. We'll get to the fiscal note in a second. Tom and Amy.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: I think the other thing to remember about state labor law is that there's several different labor laws and so having the state mediator who gets trained up and understands all the teachers can strike, state employees can't, municipal employees may not be able to. I mean there's a whole bunch of different nuances in state labor law and so one of the expenses when you farm it out at $450 an hour is if the mediator doesn't understand state labor law how many hours does that add to you know and yes they can be they can be regulars to keep coming back but it's just it makes sense to have an in state mediator who as much of an expert as possible on state labor role.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Who's next, Lynn? Yeah, I just want to say that school boards, I don't know how you can do it without a mediator. Mean, that is an impasse is not unusual.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Know, anybody who's been on a school board is probably living in the past.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Issue The is that you're talking about grievances. Sometimes there's a lot of grievances. The mediator always deal with

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: the grievances as well? Or is that just something that they could do? We haven't really So what's proposed in this bill is that that would be something they could do because that's not statutorily required. So the goal would be that their first responsibility would be to deal with bargaining in classes. And then to the extent there's capacity, then they could work with grievances and unfair labor practice charges.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Is that something that's been covered previously by the federal mediators?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: Yeah, I believe so, that when there have been issues on that, they've been able to reach out to the FMCS on that as well.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Was that common in your experience? What's going on with, let's say, grievances out of all sorts of

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: For me, what's more common is dealing with the collective bargaining is not us. My understanding Generally,

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: the likes of grievances they may have participated in in the past.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: That was all testimony in past general.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I don't know you can do

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: with that mediator. Right. A former staff attorney from

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: a Jew's office.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But the mediator would have to happen. It's a big deal. And we clearly know the cause of it. Totally understand that. Dave, we look like you

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: had a question. Do you

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: have a question?

[Rep. David Yacovone]: I did, are we through, Linda? I'm done, yeah, thank you. Thank you. Tom raised the point, and I appreciate it, greatly appreciate his value and his wisdom on this. But throughout state government, my recollection is various departments fund HR, they have an allocation. And sometimes HR rules for management, supervisors, and sometimes they don't, gee, there's a contracting misinterpreted that here's what we're gonna do. And I never saw them as being biased. Now I may be naive, I, so I was just going back to if there was some way to consider, I mean, fund the Green Mountain Care Board through hospitals, through insurance companies, through state government. I'm not quite ready, I could be convinced, to dismiss the notion of some type of cost allocation. Thank

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you. I'm not advocating for it, I'm just wondering, so we can continue to wonder about it. And we will be voting on this today. So if you don't mind staying there, and we'll get Patrick out to go over the fiscal terms. I know this is terribly complicated, but you wrote it, and you deserve to have it heard.

[Patrick Chittenden (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Good morning. So Patrick Chittenden, Joint Fiscal Office. To be honest, you've already heard the entire fiscal notes. I know you all have it in front of you. So there's a 250,000 appropriation to support the two positions that are created in this bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And so are they, can you divide it in half? Generally. You just wanted one?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: I believe so. That was

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: the concept. That was the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: general idea. Okay.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson]: Does anybody have

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: any questions for Patrick? While you're here, is there anything else you want to tell us about? How's the revenue ready? Yeah, okay.

[Rep. Michael Nigro]: You. Keep it to the agenda.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Tom, go

[Rep. Thomas Stevens]: ahead. So who would we ask

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: about your question?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's a who would we ask?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Council)]: I'd ask management.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, all right. Mike, do you want to do a little exploration of that of whether And I think we're in agreement that if we were to do this, we want the mediators. And then because that's the priority, there's a clear reason for doing this for so many reasons. But if there's some other way we can pay for it, that would be even better. So thank you both very much. Appreciate it. Nice to have a relatively uncomplicated field come our way. And so I think Mike's going to do a little work. I think we have a sense of what we're thinking of as a committee, and then we'll talk about it more after the break. Great. Thank you both. Thank you, Reverend Kascen. So, we're right on time. Break time, we are going to break till 10:15, and then we're going to hear, following up on Bill Day, the sister state program, and I think there's an amendment that we're gonna