Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Tuesday, 03/10/2026 at 09:05 in the morning. It says 08:05. So we're back from our break, that meeting week break. The whole committee had a restful time and was all charged up, because the next few weeks will be interesting. Let's say in a week. So to begin our day this morning, we have an amendment proposal on h two zero five by representative Hendrick. Representative, good morning. Thank you for joining us this morning. My pleasure. Thank you for

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: having me. Thank you all to the committee members for hearing me once again. For the record, Troy Hendrick's hit Representative 15, which is a section of Burlington. And yes, the amendment has been amended. So it's a little different than the last time we spoke about this. Before I talk about it, and I'm going to talk about it briefly, I just want to frame this as becoming consistent with what the goals of H-two zero five are doing. Again, I'm a huge fan of H-two zero five. I'm really appreciative of the time that the committee put in to creating these protections against non compete agreements very simply. I think the non compete agreements should extend to teachers. Right now, seventeen fifty two to the latter 16 states they would act as an effective non compete agreement. We have just under 75,000 students in our 2,012 public schools in Vermont. If one teacher, for whatever reason, needs to leave District A and go to District B, that number doesn't change, or still serving just under 75,000 students. I will acknowledge that, yes, there is a workforce concern about shortage of teachers and how hard it is to get in to new teachers. That is not the product of the teachers themselves. And I don't think we should be penalizing teachers by turning them to a district. So that's the amendment, the new amended amendment gets rid of the conflict that was first identified in section two of the bill. Act two zero five is intended to limit non agreements, non compete agreements as a matter of worker mobility. Again, fundamentally, I think that should include entire the entire workforce, not carve out teachers. So let's go through this. It's three instances of amendment. The first instance just gets rid of in section two, twenty one BSA B1B. It's rid of that subsection three, which refers to seventeen fifty two. And the reason we're getting rid of that is because the next instance of amendment, second instance of amendment strikes or appeals the section of seventeen fifty two that was in conflict with age two zero five, and then subsequently protects teachers just as any other workforce, people that was protected, fire departments, nurses, engineers, whatever. That's the second instance of amendment is the Repayment seventeen fifty two, Section A. And then the third instance of amendment is the effective date. This section becomes January 1.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, thanks for saying it. I get the big picture. What I don't understand well, I understand second one, what you're trying to do now. There was an explicit reference to the statute and what non compete agreements do and do not encompass. And so I can kinda understand in the drop on that, what is it? Because we had a section later on that said, would play a valuable section, And I said, well, you know,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: this doesn't apply to collective buying.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I'm struggling with why that doesn't do the trick and why you think it's important to repeal a statute that frankly we haven't So

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: I hope you might be able to explain that. Yeah, so 1752A, the second instance of amendment that appealed, is a de facto, not a paid agreement. That's why it had to be mentioned in that first instance specifically. It doesn't get rid of teacher contracts. It just gets rid of the process by which those contracts are enforced. And that has been in the books for more than one hundred years and tied to, I I would have encouraged you to talk to me at the UNEA and things like that about why that is such an antiquated section of statute.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I totally understand your disagreement with that statute. I quibble maybe semantics, but I don't see it as an a non compete agreement, it's a statute, right? And we're trying to deal with non compete agreements. You know, and I totally understand where you're coming from, but when you talk about the statutes of agreement, there's a little dissonance, I guess, so logical, maybe smack.

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Yeah, I would encourage you to hear the testimony again from NEA and they can give you talking stories of how 1752A is used. So if we're getting rid of non compete agreements, and I'm grateful that we are, you have to include teachers in those protections. Right now, of how statute is, you point to it, you point to it in triple I, you say, except, we have to remember that this current statute exists. The reason why section two points to 1752A is because it acts as a not completed grant. It just does. Whether or not it was intended to, don't know. It was written a long

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: time ago,

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: But it does act as the fact

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: that non competed.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Thanks a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: lot. Yeah.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Abbey? So thank you. So I guess my question is how, so if this amendment is added to the bill and this goes into effect, am I correct that then essentially it would fall down to the collective bargaining agreements to how, whether and how a teacher could get out of a contract, for example. So then it I would be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: imagine yeah, yeah, I get this probably will shift. Right.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Maybe a question for someone else who's here. But that's because in the bill, specifically did agreements. So in a collective bargaining agreement, there can be limitations on how contracts can be gotten out of.

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Bargaining agreements, though, have to pay account from the current existing statutes. Understood. And the existing statute's problematic in the context of age school.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Yeah, I understand the conflict in statute.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hello? The application for the week.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Have any thoughts?

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Haven't talked to anybody.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions? Any thought when given to existing contracts, collective bargaining contracts that this is repealed? How do you then deal with that?

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Yeah, I think there's room in the effective date to manage that. Now

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You have contracts that maybe are just getting signed that are three years. How do you deal with them?

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: The contracts are going to continue pre signed, right? Even after

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, looks like it, sure. Right now they're relying on the statute, right? So if that goes away, then it's open season, they can

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Well, I mean, so we started, the amendments started by perhaps considering shifting the effect of shifting, So contracts are put in place by statute on or before April 15. There's this two week window where before those contracts are signed, We contemplated pushing that out. To the oppose

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of regular teacher contracts, But the collective bargaining contracts, the agreements go on, they're they're two or three year agreements, that's where where truly the discussion should be had is when those agreements are made. I

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: mean, statute is still gonna be in the way.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: If the statute's repealed, then there's nothing there that backs up because it's not been it's not been bargained for. So what happens to those contracts that are still existing?

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: Two things, I'm gonna defer to the folks who know the contracts better, so NEAs in the room. But that question will always be part of this process, right? If we identify, and I do identify 1752A as problematic, there will always be a funky time to address the problematic nature of 1752A, right? And that's always going be in the midst of an existing contract. So if you want to put something in there about existing contracts, I don't know how to statute that, but the question you're asking is always going to be asked if we ever consider 1752A. It's currently in conflict with your bill two zero five, which is a great bill. I'm saying that if you want two zero five to be equitable, then we have to look at

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the fact that teachers are not going to apply. So how do

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: we do that? When do we do that? Right now, the opportunity is here. I don't disagree that it would probably have an impact. I would defer to the folks who those contracts better than I do to answer the way they're on that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Michael? Do you know any other industries that might have collective bargaining unit that would have a non compete clause such as that.

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: I will also state that we are the only state of New England that has this sort of sexual teachers, which if you want to talk about the process by which we improve the climate, which we attract more teachers, think you're going to look at a lot of things. Hey, I think the answer is proving those conditions and miss one of those conditions. Right now, a teacher knows that they accept a job in Vermont, wanna move to Vermont, will accept a job, that this is part of that, this effect of not competing. But no, to answer your question directly, I don't.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Good morning. Thank you for providing the opportunity to testify. I am Sue Sieglowski. I'm the executive director for the Vermont School Boards Association. You all probably know, the SBA represents the locally elected school boards that are responsible for ensuring that Vermont's public schools are staffed, managed and operated in a way that best serves the students of Vermont. Our members take seriously their responsibility to recruit and retain qualified educators while also maintaining stable learning environments for students. At the outset, we would like to express concern with the process by which this proposal is being considered. The amendment addressing teacher contracts represents a significant policy change affecting school district staffing practices, collective bargaining agreements, and the statutory framework governing teacher employment. Changes of this magnitude should not be made through a late amendment without sufficient time for testimony from affected stakeholders, legal analysis, and a careful review of the potential unintended consequences. School boards, administrators, and the agency of education should all have the opportunity to weigh in on how such change would affect staffing stability, contract law, and student learning. We respectfully urge the committee to allow adequate time for analysis and input before advancing a proposal that would fundamentally alter longstanding employment practice in Vermont's public schools. It is also important to clarify what the current statute actually does. 16 BSA section 1752A is not a non compete provision, rather it establishes the legal consequences that may arise when a teacher breaches a signed employment contract during the school year. This is consistent with basic contract law principles that apply across many professions. When two parties voluntarily enter into an agreement, both parties assume certain obligations and responsibilities. The statute recognizes that school districts rely on those agreements when planning staffing for the academic year. Characterizing this provision as a non compete misrepresents its purpose and risks obscuring the practical realities that school districts face when a teacher leaves unexpectedly. When a teacher departs after signing a contract, the district must quickly find a qualified replacement in an extremely limited labor pool. In many cases, districts are forced to rely on long term substitutes, redistribute students among classrooms, or reassign staff in ways that disrupt instruction. These disruptions are felt most directly by students who lose continuity in instruction and relationships with their teachers. For smaller and rural districts where staffing tools are already thin, the impact can be even more significant. The existing statute helps provide a modest level of stability by encouraging parties to honor the commitments that they have made. The amendment under consideration also raises an important issue of fairness and mutual obligation. Employment contracts are agreements between two parties and their enforceability depends on both sides being held to their commitments. If the legislature ultimately determines that teachers should be permitted to breach their contracts without consequence, it is only reasonable to ask whether school districts should be afforded the same flexibility. It is difficult to imagine that the legislature would consider allowing school districts to terminate teacher contracts midyear due to changing financial circumstances, enrollment shifts, or the availability of a more desirable candidate without any consequences. Yet that is effectively the imbalance that could be created if one party to the agreement is permitted to disregard the contract while the other remains bound by it. A contract system that holds only one party accountable undermines the very purpose of having contracts at all. Finally, we encourage the committee to consider the broader constitutional and public policy context in which public education operates. Vermont's constitution places a clear obligation on the state to provide education for the children of Vermont. And the laws governing public education should be interpreted with the best interests of students as the guiding principle. And I would note, I didn't hear the previous witness mention students' thoughts. Stability and continuity in teaching staff are critical components of that obligation. Students benefit when they are able to build sustained relationships with their teachers and when their instruction proceeds without disruption. Policies that increase the likelihood of mid year staffing changes or that weaken the reliability of employment agreements risk undermining that continuity. School boards across Vermont work diligently to recruit and retain qualified educators, And they understand that teachers like all professionals face changing life circumstances and opportunities. Districts already work collaboratively with educators to address those circumstances when they arise. However, the statutory framework must balance flexibility with the need to maintain predictable staffing for the benefit of students. The existing provisions of 16 VSA section 1752A reflect that balance. For those reasons, the SBA respectfully urges the committee to proceed cautiously with any proposal that would modify the current statute. At a minimum, such a proposal should receive careful study, full stakeholder input, and a clear understanding of the implications for schools and students. Thank you very much.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you, Sue.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Michael? So the way that two zero five is set up is that it will nullify current contracts that are not teachers. And this are there any other that you're aware of that have this type of situation where the contract will be nullified for lack of a better term. Because what we're doing is we're saying that non competes are not in Vermont. So even though it's not set up as a not compete, I think the intention was to be non compete with the statute. That's the way that I would look at the statute, is that it would be set up as a non compete. It's just a statute that way. So are there any other organizations that you know that have this type of arrangement?

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: A similar statute in place?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Well, there's definitely no similar statute in place, but that have collective bargaining that would Similar to the question that I asked representative.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're asking about other professions.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Right. Are you aware of any that would have collective bargaining that would be similar to this situation?

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I'm not aware of any similarities. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Representative Hendrick testified that other states in our region do not

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: have provision like this. I'm interested if you can share how other states in our region manage this issue with teachers and contractors. I don't have information to share with you this morning on that. I'd be happy to look into that for you and get back to you. Some other witnesses today may have some insight on that, particularly superintendents.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Jonathan? Yeah.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Hi, Sue. Has 1752A been the subject of bargaining agreements or negotiations for bargaining agreements in the past?

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Has it been the subject of negotiations for bargaining agreements? It's been, it's bargaining agreements have assumed that 1752A was the law in Vermont and have proceeded based on that.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: And at no time has its existence or has, I'm trying to understand, has this ever been a subject of negotiations between parties? Has it always been treated as a gift?

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think we would need to ask either a superintendent that question or an attorney who works with school boards in the bargaining.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I could be wrong, but Jonathan, I'm following up on what Jonathan was saying. I guess the question was, it seemed, I don't know, this is maybe why it needs more study. But seventeen fifty two, it doesn't look like it preempts the field, just says, it just talks about consequences if a teacher fails to complete the term without really defining the nuances detail around what that term might be. I don't want to put words in your mouth, and maybe this is just an issue that needs more study. It doesn't look like it preempts the whole field at all, to me, or it might not, might not preempt.

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: Yeah, I think that you are correct about

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: that. Thank

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you, so you're talking about the fact that there is kind of flexibility contracts should educator need to switch positions or move or something like that. Can you share what that looks like and how educators are, is that something in contract? Culture?

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: I think the flexibility is actually within the statute because it talks about, it has the words without just cause. So the administrator is looking at whether there's just cause or not. And I think, each situation is different and each situation needs to be looked at based on the facts of that particular individual.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you. Sophie?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think there's some questions here that maybe you can help answer.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sophie, I have a question for you. I keep reading back through little I and little double I, I always call them something else, but I can't answer the romanettes. So the second, so anyway, two eyes says that a non solicitation agreement between an employer and employee, provided that, so it is not included, something that is separate from this bill. Right. Provided that the limitations set forth in the agreement are reasonable in time, geographical area, and the scope of the activity is restrained. It seems like 1752A hits two of those three, perhaps, not all three of them, and is in line with the other pieces here, because it's pretty limited. It's just The non solicitation agreement is that you can't really be an employer, you can't go out and solicit that employer's customers

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or their employees, so it doesn't really apply in the school setting. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a teacher leaving a school is not a nonsensical teacher for them. Right. It's an artist. They're not. So I'm not sure that this is relevant. What, right, we're talking about completely non solicitation.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So what is she when you're removing three. Yeah. I understand. So this states, this doesn't get removed. It's just so this would be the amendment. This would what would stay in in the bill. Right? Yep. Okay.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Questions

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: for Sophie?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Thank you. I just

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: wanna just double check. My understanding in two zero five is because we're exempting collective bargaining agreements, a collective bargaining agreement could put in there a you could have a non compete clause essentially in a collective bargaining agreement.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the language that's in

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: That the was my understanding, thought, the one that

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the language that's in the proposed bill essentially just indicates that nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or to modify the terms, conditions or provisions for collective bargaining agreement entered into between an employer and a labor organization representing employees. So again, I think what the purpose is of H205 is really to make sure that there's equal bargaining power, so again if you're dealing with an elective bargaining situation, there's a relative equal bargaining power there, so it's really more dealing with those situations where you have what's called an adhesion contract, whatever it is, where an employee doesn't really have the ability to negotiate with the employer.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just cause. How does that get divided or outlined in the scope of law?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so yeah, just cause has a lot of lore around what constitutes just cause. Typically it comes up in the disciplinary context under the Labour Relations Board, for example, under their decisions, there's a list of and they look at the federal, what's being developed at the federal level and the National Labor Relations Act, but there are 12 factors that typically are considered around just cause when you're thinking about a disciplinary action. I think here when you're thinking about just cause in terms of somebody choosing to leave, there aren't those same factors, but I would understand it to mean that a superintendent or whatever or the administrator would be trying to determine what the justification is for somebody choosing to leave mid contract and whether that's, you know, they feel that that's a reasonable and justified reason for leaving. So again, some of the examples of the car, if someone's moving out of state or whatever, that could be justification for that. But just cause normally is a term that's used when you're talking about whether, when you're terminating someone, whether there's just cause to terminate them. I do want to just clarify a little bit, because I think there's a bit of a mismatch. Seventeen fifty two, A on its face, is talking about teachers leaving sort of in the middle of the school year. And I think the testimony that the committee heard previously was around the sort of catch-twenty two that occurs when you're not talking about someone leaving in December, you're talking about somebody who signed a contract in February, March or April for the following year and then wanting to not fulfil that, maybe take a different position. So just to the extent there's a little bit of confusion about when we talk about leaving mid year, I don't think the goal here of the proposed amendment is really around teachers leaving in the middle of the school year and leaving folks in the village. It's more of prospective year that's coming up.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So when you're talking about collective bargaining agreement being on equal terms with an employer, how does taking 1752A impact those terms? Does it change the balance of

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the bargaining possibly? Yeah, I mean, to a certain extent. So when something's if you have something in statute that's going to trump what's in collective bargaining agreement typically, so the parties, when they're negotiating, if they understand this is what the law is, what's in 1752A, then they're not really gonna bargain around that. I know that there was previous testimony that some some collective bargaining agreements, instead of April 15 being the deadline for signing contracts, they could have negotiated a contract where those appointment letters are sent out in February and they're signed in February. So there's been some, right, bargaining around that. But if seventeen fifty two are able to remove, then when the parties are negotiating, then

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: they're not going

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be bound by that. Like they can actually have a conversation around it. Whereas right now, both parties understand that it's the law, then they're not really going to bargain over it because it's a done deal. I think anytime a law is passed, it could favor one side or the other, and again, the parties are going to adjust to that as they negotiate. That happens all the time. And then,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so if we take out 1752A, what we're saying is that one side can break a contract without consequence? Is that an accurate read?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that could, I guess, again, it all depends on timing and stuff. You were to say today that teachers aren't bound by contracts they've signed for the upcoming school year, then that's going to have a significant impact, again, by that lack of equal bargaining power. If done in an anticipatory way, sort of ahead of the next school year, then I assume the parties could, you know, figure out how they're going to deal with that moving forward. But, yeah, I mean, I think it's problematic for something that's done sort of in the moment because that would have a significant impact, by the way. Okay. Thank you, Sophie.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So we have to move on for next, but we will come back to this this afternoon. We will delay action on 02/2005, and we'll have more discussions this afternoon. We removed h one sixty for discussion this afternoon. I think at 03:15, we'll make this up. So I ask Jeff,

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: I don't

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: know if you can make it. I hope you can. Sue, if you can make it, we'll certainly invite Jay and Chelsea as well and Sophie, and we'll continue some discussions. I have some thoughts on how we might be able to move forward. So, let's look at the notes that for now and we'll move on to 05:12.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Who does he need, Rick? He was just here. Cameron. Cameron. Oh, Ian was just in here. Cameron did all of us and showed up. We are still live, both.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thanks for reminding.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And are these on our website, Herb? Probably as well on our website. I

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: just emailed 35 and 64, and Cameron

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: has done the correct ride at twelve. I had five point one

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: two scheduled for nine point four five. Yeah,

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: we were just, we had six.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We five minutes off from nine point four five, so. We don't have already.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Yeah, I think they missed the clock. I think I'll

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: put some light though. We're in the sister state, where's Cabana?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Mike Sedgwick, Cameron is next. We are live, yes. So he said we're gonna do five to four. So, Cameron, you can join us. I don't know that we've seen the amendment yet. And Anne, do you want Anne to do a presentation?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: However you all would like to proceed, I have your pleasure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Since you're there, why not?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Give me a few brief comments. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'll walk through quickly an amendment to H512. Just waiting on Zoom to get them up. I do. Anyone

[Unidentified Committee Member]: following along should be able to find it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, I'm just

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna wait on Zoom if they or cannot stop to worship me. So I have an amendment. It is H512 from Representative Donohue, draft 2.1 here. It has two instances of amendment. The first instance of amendment is to the definition of reseller. And so if you recall in the bill that came out of this committee, the proposed rule of the amendment, the reseller is a person engaged in the resale of tickets. And later on, you have certain statutory prohibitions that apply to someone who's reselling an event ticket. The first is the cap. Individual price, you can't resell for more than 110%. And then later on, there is the prohibition on selling speculative tickets. What this amendment would do, it amends that definition to say that the reseller so the definition does not include an individual reselling a ticket purchased for personal use for a single event. So it would exclude from the definition and thereby exclude from those prohibitions that individual who had purchased a ticket for personal use. So that is the first instance of amendment that you have. The second instance of amendment is sub C3. And if you remember in subsection C, that's where you have the price caps themselves. So C1 is reseller shall not sell for greater than 110% of the price of the original ticket. C2 was the secondary ticket exchange shown on authorized for sale on the exchange, a ticket priced at greater than 110% of the cost of the original ticket. And then the subsection C3 was if the the section doesn't apply when there is a contract, a written contract between the ticket issuer and the reseller for the resale of the ticket. And so what this amendment would do is it proposes to strike that subdivision c three, and instead it would insert some slightly altered language. Let's say that the subsection shall not apply to the resale of a ticket under a written contract with the ticket issuer at a price greater than 110% if the written contract is executed prior to 07/01/2026. So it's basically removing that exclusion but allowing contracts that are currently in place to continue in effect. So essentially striking out that exclusion so price gaps would apply moving forward Whether the original ticket issuer wants to have a contract with a reseller or not, they would cap at 110%. But it has language in there saying, we're not going to impact contracts that are currently executed as of the effective date of the act.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And Cameron, so I was mistaken when I asked you to testify first, so would you mind vacating the chair and let's have Rep. Donahue share her intention for this, and then we'll bring

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: you back to her questions? Perfectly fine. That gives me a

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: chance to do my

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Zoom. Thank

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: you very much, Representative Boutin here. And I've brought a couple of copies. I know you're a committee that usually does all online, right? But if anybody wants,

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll have a couple of issues.

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: So I really appreciate this opportunity. Was really excited and positive seeing this bill coming out. I think it's a real problem that needs to be addressed and I'm sure you're glad to see

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it being

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: addressed. There were two pieces that were a concern, one actually much more important to me than the other, but both are both. They're very divisible as two very separate pieces. But just to start with the second one, which I think in some ways is more familiar in terms of the language that was presented on the floor and so forth, which is that exclusion for resale when there's a written contract with the ticket issuer. And it struck me as not being clear at all as to why they would be exempt. And an initial explanation was, well, it's sort of like a different thing. It actually is a sale. And I thought, well, maybe we should just change it to say it's exempt if it's a sale through a contract and not term it a resale. And then, I mean, I was really looking to try to understand it better. And as I got more information, and it turns out it does, it is resell. And it's not so much that there was necessarily an interest in completely exempting, but there was the ongoing contracts and so forth. So I worked with Ken Warner to write it just directly saying, you've got an existing contract before the bill becomes law, it doesn't touch it. But there's no reason in particular to exempt these new contracts that would allow for the sales at more than 110 percent to exist after the bill goes into effect. All right, for new contracts after the bill goes into effect. So that's the first one. The second one much more near and dear to my heart and I think a really important issue of principle in terms of when we decide to interfere with individuals or monsters and when it's necessary to do that or not. And I would hypothesize that if somebody had brought a bill that focused simply on individuals who have a ticket they couldn't use, wants to sell it to somebody else, that bill wouldn't even have been taken up, let alone pass. I mean, that's not a problem you'd be wanting to go after. It got included here because it's part of a much bigger picture and the rest of the picture is what's really important to address. And I think when we kind of stick our noses as a state into something, it should be because it's something we think needs to be enforced, should be enforced, that there's a concern about. And I feel as though this is something where providers are gonna say, what? Why are you If I can't use my ticket, actually there was something just this weekend by chance on Front March Forum in my community, somebody actually who's on the reverse end of a hoped for transaction, who wrote and said, You know, my four buddies or myself and three buddies, we were going to the Norwich, we wanted to go together to the Monroe hockey game. We realized we tried to get our tickets too late, they're only single seats and we want to sit together. By any chance is there somebody out there who's got four tickets that they're not going to use that we could get so that we can sit together to watch the hockey game. And that was all fine and good, but I thought when I looked at it, well, if they said, we really wanna do that, two of my friends are coming up from Massachusetts for it, We'd be willing to pay 100%, 150% of what you paid for the ticket if we could get them for this coming weekend's game. Well, now that would be illegal under this. I just don't think when it's individuals feeling on that level, a neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, that we want to really inject ourselves into that or there's really a need to inject ourselves into that. And it really, I think, would make it offensive to a lot of a monarchs who just see this as an individual thing. They're not in a market. They're not trying to exploit people. They're not trying to make this as a business. They've got some tickets that they bought for themselves and they wanted to

[Sue Ziegler Sieglowski (Executive Director, Vermont School Boards Association)]: see if they

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: can get their money back in most cases, but maybe if it's become a sold out advantage of that to get a little bit more if somebody wants to buy it for that. I just don't think we should be intervening with that. So that would be the purpose of exempting that tiny carve out of an individual who bought it for themselves, personal use, But it's for one event. They're not in the ongoing bits of study.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Thank you. Appreciate the explanation. I'm wondering if you considered the scenario of an individual who, let's say, they have two tickets to a concert at the Flynn, and they paid $100 for it, and they want to resell them, and so they go on to, say, StubHub, and they create an account, and they post them for sale, dollars 300. Would any kind of would that be allowable, I guess? And if so, how would there be any kind of enforcement mechanism to know what is legitimately being upcharged on sub hub and what is not legitimately being upcharged on sub hub?

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: Yeah. I mean, I think any kind of enforcement on any kind of law involves some degree of investigating whether or not people are in compliance with the law. So would you know right off the bat if it was a violation or not? No, you'd have to check the background on that. You'd certainly, if there were multiple sales, you certainly would raise your eyebrows, one would investigate further. If it looked limited and that name may have never came up again, you'd probably okay. It would be a little added layer of having to look into it, I which think would be worth the trade off.

[Abbey Duke (Member)]: Right, statute. I I get your point with where you're talking about front porch form, you're talking about neighbor to neighbor sales. It's just where it gets really muddy for me is how then does that, because a lot of these sites are who is selling it is not transparent. It's not like eBay. The sub hub is going to aggregate all sorts of people who are selling tickets. And so that's my concern, is that I think what you're identifying is, I think, a compelling I think you've got a compelling argument for the neighbor to neighbor sales. My concern is how that applies and how that could really muddy the situation for the bulk of ticket really, a lot of tickets are resold, which is through larger anonymous platforms.

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: So, yeah, this is not a field I'm familiar with. And my intent in trying to have the language this way was to keep it very narrow. If it needed an extra line saying, and are not sold on a large commercial, I don't know how it's stuff. If they're not sold on a large commercial platform, maybe it needs that as well, because certainly if that's a platform that combines people who are selling into them, then that would hide the person who was exploiting it. So I would agree with you, that would be a problem and it might need to be specific. It's not something I'm familiar with.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Okay, thank you. This actually may not be a question for you, but I'm wondering, would it apply to deep bidding platforms? Because because that's different than reselling. That's a like an auction because eBay is, you know, this it's an auction, which I don't think any of us were, thinking that we shouldn't have auctions on. That's a different Your scenario is somebody is asking to pay more, whereas what we were trying to avoid was somebody coming out of the gate charging $600 for tickets that are $100

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: Yeah, no, I didn't mean to exclude what you're describing. That was just an example that happened to be a But person yeah, it could be somebody saying like, yeah, and I ended up having to go to Florida for my mother in law's funeral so I can't use my tickets. Boy, now that it's filled out, if I can make pack a little of the money from my kids to Florida, that'd be great. If somebody's willing to pay $150

[Unidentified Committee Member]: for the $100

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: ticket, I'd love to get that. The key is that you purchase it for personal use. You wouldn't purchase a bunch, you wouldn't be selling a bunch if it was a personal use. That's the real focus. Yeah,

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: and I think that's a gray area which would be difficult to put into the bill without I mean, you can put it in there like that, but it does I'm thinking that the way that that's worded, it allows Step Up to sell it. But there's a way to build it in there so it doesn't apply to bidding platforms. I feel like that's different. And that would be

[Rep. Troy Hendrick]: a question for Legg Council, I think.

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: Yeah, it might be a matter. But when you talk, is StubHub selling them now?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Well, no. StubHub What StubHub is, is that upload whatever it is and say, this is what I'm selling it for. StubHub is just like the middleman that collects whatever fees that they collect, but the person that's selling it, the way that I understand StubHub is, that's the way it goes. So the person that is buying the ticket or selling the ticket is what we're regulating.

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: They're not being merged in, they can't be identified individually. Correct. But if there's a fee involved, that might be a way to distinguish it. You can't sell it on something where there's a commission in effect. Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. We have to go with the floor. So we're going to delay action in this one day. Take some more testimony this afternoon at 02:45. We'll take this up again. And you're welcome to join us if you're

[Rep. Anne Donahue]: I think you've understood and I appreciate those questions. Think you understand what the goal is and if there's a better way

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to craft it, I'm certain it's important. Thank you very much.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So, committee, we're on the floor at ten. Caucus is lunch back here at one, take up to eleven. I have some testimony there, and then at 02:45, we'll take up 05:12. At 03:15, we'll take up 02:05. Hopefully we come to conclusions on both of those and move those to the Senate. Any questions? Okay, so we can go