Vermont Legislature House Commerce - 2026-03-12

Meetings

Opening and agenda overview (00:00:00)
The Chair convened the Commerce and Economic Development Committee, confirmed the date and time, and previewed returning to H.650.
H.650 Educational Technology Provider Product Bill (Draft 3.1) – Counsel walkthrough and committee discussion (00:00:23)
Legislative Counsel reviewed the new draft, covering definitions (provider vs. operates), registration data fields, study scope, removal of penalties, and possible additions like pricing model and AI features.
Agency of Education testimony on H.650 (00:44:00)
Secretary Saunders introduced AOE’s EdTech Program Manager, who testified that the bill duplicates existing privacy infrastructure, urged targeted approaches, and described current district vetting practices and alliances.
Secretary of State Business Services Division testimony on H.650 registration mechanics (01:20:16)
David Hall discussed enforcement being with the AG, gaps if EdTech disclosures lack a separate penalty, data integrity considerations, and possible system implementation and fee implications.
H.733 Franchise Registration – Counsel walkthrough and implementation discussion (01:28:05)
Legislative Counsel presented the narrowed franchise designation bill and David Hall explained how the SOS system would capture franchisor/franchisee data and practical implementation details.
Scheduling and recess (01:39:18)
The Chair set H.650 for follow-up the next day and recessed for lunch and floor time.

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Brown House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Wednesday, 03/11/2026. Are we the twelfth today? I said Wednesday, and I had the date right for Wednesday. 03/12/2026 at 10:50 in the morning. So we're back from a break to have more discussions on h six fifty. There's a new draft. Point one. I'm see if I can off the council to look. Morning.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Segal with the office of leadership council. Graph 3.1 of H650 and this is the Educational Technology Provider Product Bill. I want to, it's been a couple weeks since we walked through it, so there's there's a few changes that I've highlighted, but actually kind of give you all the overview of the bill just so we're all on the same page because there was some confusion yesterday with seven thirty three, the franchise bill, including some of the ed tech stuff, but the decision has been to keep them separate. So H-six 50 would just be about EdTech and EdTech registration. July, which I think I'm talking about next, just for the franchise registration. So keep that in mind, make it easier to understand that way. So the bill starts out with a, again, kind of a tech correction, but it is substantive. I want to make sure you all understand. This is in chapter 62, the protection of personal information, where the data brokers, kids code, all those are in chapter 62. This is the student privacy sub chapter which has not been amended in several years. There is a technical correction that it should be the enforcement should be the sub chapter, not the chapter, which is the student privacy sub chapter, and then adding language to ensure the AG has that authority to adopt rules, etc. You don't have to do this, but I'm going to probably suggest that at least you pay B, I'm actually a juvenile court as the ability to basically do for the Consumer Protection Act gives them the authority to only do. On page two, this is the substantive part of the bill for EdTech. You are adding a new sub chapter in that chapter 62, adding an educational technology sub chapter. The definitions are pretty much the same, but I do want to go through them again. Educational technology product product mean any student facing software, application, or platform that may collect, process, or transmit student data and that is for teaching and learning purposes in a school in Vermont. A filing is an initial registration amendment periodic report or other filings with the Secretary of State as Secretary of State requires. Provider of an educational technology product and provider, meaning a person that and the previous language operates, and there was concern that is that maybe not the best term to describe a business that offers this kind of service. So the suggestion is that develops or provides an educational technology product that is in use at a school with or without a contract that

[Unidentified committee member]: was treated for school districts. Kirk, I

[Unidentified committee member]: think just provides. I think sometimes you have a developer that isn't providing it and once they develop it and walk away, I don't think that makes sense to include them in here.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's how it would look.

[Unidentified committee member]: I think that's the cleanest. Yep. Sure.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, a school is a public school or an independent school approved, assuming 16 DSA 166. Mandatory data reporting. So in addition to all the requirements of a person that registers with the Secretary of State, pursuant to state law, and I have that broad because a person can register as an LLC, they can be a corporation, they could be a foreign entity, so you want to make sure that we're not removing any of the previous requirements of a person that registers to do business. But they also, if they are a provider of an education technology product, they shall at the time of a filing provide the following: the name and primary physical email and internet addresses of the person, a link to the most recent version of the privacy policy and terms and conditions of each product in use. David, do we need thanks David.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: What David had said before about the link?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: URL. So this would be them providing the link. This wouldn't be the secretary

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Publishing. I think David's comments is that he does not want to be responsible for maintaining an active link that works. In this case, you could use URL, but in this

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: case Yeah. But I I'm just wondering if if this is information that's open to the public. And if there's a link and they get it and if the link is dead, then So push URL wouldn't change that.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it still could be a broken a broken URL. Right? It could be to

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. But then is does that does that provide the same issue that David had with

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so because that it's different. This is that the provider must give this.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other bill is the secretary must provide this to the people. So Okay. I think I'm happy to switch it, but I don't think it matters.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So number three, the name of each school or school district in which the provider is operating. So this I didn't catch this one, but maybe operating works here. It's a different context in which the provider is operating pursuant to a contract. I think that's okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm just wondering what if they haven't

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what if they're they're not

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: they don't necessarily have a customer here yet. They're looking to

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: market. So they wouldn't register unless they are aware of one of their, which is number five coming up, but if it's a free product, they may not have a contract. So in that aspect, they would still need to register because they would know, like, oh, our software is being used in Burlington or some town in Vermont. So they would need to register. But a company looking to operate here that only offers a contract software would not have to register until they actually are operating. That makes sense. That makes sense. Remember the whole thing like that Is that term

[Rep. Herb Olson]: appropriate? Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll think about it. Maybe we can continue and then come back to it. I think that the term up here that was pretty interesting that operates, That's, I think, not the best term that was used and it provides, makes more sense. But down here, are you operating pursuant to a contract?

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Doing business? I don't have any dates yet.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The name of each school.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, that's great. Which is using the product?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so the calling them providers made it a little bit complicated. Well, now that's Well

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: This should just be the distributor. I

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think it's

[Rep. Herb Olson]: It's not a huge thing.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Not. It just seems to be funny, you can think about it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Number four, the name and a brief description of each product operated by the provider. Again, operating. How these provided here make sense.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: What if they have a product they are using, but they have other products they're not using yet, but plan to use?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, then they would need to, I guess, update. In the next filing, they would need to supply that information. It is every time it is the filing is defined as every time they registration amendment or for the filing.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I just feel like they're going to be spending an awful lot of time on the site updating stuff.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, it's when they're required, when they are already required to re register is when they have to fill in the new information. So if you you know, it's not it's yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So during the doing this, like, year Okay. You yearly have Okay. Check ins with the Secretary of State's office.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would suggest this operator be turned to provide the name and the brief description of each product provided by the provider. Again, know it's kind of confusing, but I would suggest that makes more sense there. Number five, which products? You generally avoid contractions. Each of providers products. We don't use contractions. Okay. Number five, which products are known by the provider to be in use in any school or school district? And number six, an attestation that each product being used in the school meets the standard set forth in September 6, which is the Vermont Age Appropriate Design Code, and also state privacy laws, including the Federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. So if you were to pass a data privacy bill, it would then lock that in because you're citing all the state privacy laws, which can change. Okay, section and by the way, the previous version had penalties. You may remember the kind of like that a broker's word.

[Unidentified committee member]: They didn't break through, they

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: should be fined how many dollars per day that is no longer in this bill. This is just, and I think based on the Secretary of State's testimony, least this is they want to keep it fairly simple to begin with. Section two is the AOE study on EdTech. So the task, the AOE shall in consultation with the Secretary of State review all educational technology product provider registrations pursuant to and update this. That's from the old version of the bill, I will fix that. Two, in consultation with schools, a list of educative technology products in use across the state.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Three. In consultation with schools, does that mean that schools must cooperate with the AOEs?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's not any whenever you use that phrase, it's not really required schools to do it. They they kind of help them as much as you can, but there's not really a strict requirement here what schools have to provide. So if you want to strengthen language, I'm happy to.

[Unidentified committee member]: I was trying to be soft touch until we get more information and then strengthen it as we go. But this is a starting.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is the concern that schools will not cooperate?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's possible.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, of course the NAO would come back and say we do not get cooperation and you all would not be happy with that. Three, cross reference that information in one and two to determine the names of any unregistered educational technology providers operating in the state. I think there it makes sense, but let's think about it. Operating in the state and forward the names of such providers to the AG's office. Yeah, just gonna How can school refuse to cooperate with AOE with information? So I think the question is, does this law require anything? Is there some kind of for not providing the list of ed tech products and there really isn't. So, you know, what do you do when there's not cooperation? Submit a foyer.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think more of the attitude here is overworked. They have a lot to do and it's just not high on their priority list. So they ignore it. Another unfunded mandate.

[Unidentified committee member]: Exactly. I think it happens a lot, but I think that that's part of challenge of getting information. Just no one knows where to find it. Suddenly we reach out to the people, we didn't hear back, so I don't know, that's just the echo chamber.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm wondering about, I'm for the names of providers in the AAG, the purpose of that, because we're no longer having penalties for the failure to register. So would there need to be the AG's involvement?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: What is this? I guess we can ask David, but what does the Secretary of State's office do when they find out business is operating in the state and they haven't registered?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So the very least, I want to change this to the Secretary of State. And I don't know, they've piping around

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: mechanisms, I suppose. David will be at one. Back

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: to the end of consultation with schools, I have a question about the word use. It's not just, are we an active answer for what's the big name of product, or are we also tracking how often it is used? I'm wondering if that would be the information about a sales profile, just to the size of it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the bill would just require the list if you want to have that be part of the study. It's not just which ones are being used, but how long, to what extent. You'd want to add language that would require that information.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Yeah, I guess my thought is that that could be handy information because if our computers aren't, or if the school computers are being caught up with a bunch of programs that are not actually being used, know, save some memory these days.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, so that you're capture trying ones that need dormants.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Yeah, yeah. Or, and also on the other side of it, are we finding ones that are actually really good, and maybe other districts would

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: be interested in using them?

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: And I think just capturing the name doesn't really give you that depth of information.

[Unidentified committee member]: So we're in consumer protection mode, right? And the agency has plans to figure out the best ed tech for various curriculum and things like that. But in the consumer protection area, not even knowing what is being used in the state, it's really hard to make sure that the protections are there at all. And so we're in that weird zone, right, where there's a So we've been trying to walk that line. So 100% understand, and maybe we'll hear from the agency on how this will or won't help them to get to their end goal. And just keeping that consumer protection perspective will help us get there. Because again, this is one of those, we don't know the ecosystem. And so to get there with a heavy hand felt like we were asking too much of these partners. And so what is that right amount? I don't know the answer.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: You have a sense of what the districts are tracking internally?

[Unidentified committee member]: So it's super inconsistent across the state. There are some districts that are right on contracts and are very clear, and there are other districts that have very little information on what each class is using. We've heard from the districts who have a good handle.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Just follow-up on that, that was what struck me by some of the testimony from We heard testimony from some folks who were really on top of it, but it also struck me that they were all doing stuff on their own. And this sort of question, is that the most efficient way to do it? I don't know how that fits into the study issue. Maybe something about the cost effectiveness of doing things individual, district by district. I'm not sure how to capture that in the study. I'll think of it. Can I go back to one other issue? I see that the penalty provision was deleted, and I can't recall the rationale for that. This is in terms of registration, and we deleted that. It was it our thinking that the enforcement section would cover that? Or or there's something else in the secretary of state log that has a penalty of some sort. I mean, it's not huge penalties.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Might be good good to have something.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So there's no enforcement in the subchapter current. So it's in the student

[Unidentified committee member]: privacy, which is a different subchapter.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a new subtractor

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: in that's just for EdTech.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can add to it. I think the idea is you're starting something here and you're starting with registration and you can certainly have a penalty if you want to add that, but I my understanding is that this committee does not want to pursue the penalty. I should But maybe that's a discussion. I don't know.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: So Well, maybe that's a question. Are we gonna have other witnesses? Luke John's gonna come back? I'm safe. David Dave.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: He'll be at 11:30 ish.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: You know, I guess maybe I'd like to ask him whether he thinks, you know, even that my family is.

[Unidentified committee member]: On the participation piece,

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: I guess in thinking about the consumer protection of it all, do we have a sense of what is freeware versus what is actually the ownership of your contract?

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, so I think that was one of the next items. Right? What's what's being used without a counter? So

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so we're on two, three cross reference. So it's not thinking that specifically, so you have to register, when you register you have to provide an agent products that are being used in schools, but there's nothing in the study that has the AOE looking at that and checking to see if there's any products freeware that are being used that are not.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, right.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So hold on, the number three here I think gets to that where you're cross referencing like here's a list of things that are being used with the registration and maybe there's some rules and they say, wait a minute, these providers are not registered. The AOE is not charged for further investigating that as to which why is that for you or not being why is the provider not registering that state?

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Even if under this, if I have this correct, even if

[Unidentified committee member]: you are providing freeware, you still have to register.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, if it's been used in the state, correct.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: If it's being used in the state. I guess my thought is on the consumer protection side, freeware tends to collect more data, in theory, so it would be good to know if they're using that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Because y'all don't think it's free.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Nothing is free. Your data is currency.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So would you want to add something that gives them more power?

[Unidentified committee member]: I think it's worth looking into, not exactly sure how to approach it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you want a way to review the products that are not with fixing freeware, products without a contract and determine if they are harmful, like what's the goal?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I mean I feel like you know the freeware products like we just said nothing is free And I personally believe that freeware products should be under much stricter scrutiny because you gotta ask yourself, how are they making money? That's kind of my perspective on it. You all can add from there.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: That's my thought. So I'm wondering if it needs to be in the registration, actually, because they need to have something to reference.

[Unidentified committee member]: So what we're trying to do is get a list of what ed tech is being used in the state, free or paid for. And this is designed to get us that list. And then the question is, what happens with that list? Everybody who's got a product now has to attest that they're meeting our flaws at a minimum, pre or paid. So how do we And I'm asking because we've been trying to figure this out with this bill the whole time. And so we feel like we've gotten that, but that's what's here, I think. Plus, Ricky, tell me it's not here. The list is any EdTech product that's being used in the state on a list.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you'll get Yeah, so a company, of course, can't come to the bad actors, right?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: The bad actors are not registered like the data brokers.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But here, if an EdTech provider is aware their product is being used, their free product is being used in the state, they have to register. So ideally you would have this list and maybe it's like a 75, right? Because 25% will register, but you have that list of products and hopefully the schools will provide that information in the study and then AOB can say at the very least, this is how much is being These are the kinds of products we use in our schools. And then they can take further action if you want them to later on, but this bill wouldn't require further action, it would just require what's the state of things? What's the state of ed tech? What's being used? What's being And we're gonna get to the design features of the products when it comes to certification.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Does it make sense to add a field just from the pricing model? Is it free? Is it subscription based? Is it pay as you go?

[Unidentified committee member]: Maybe that's part of the report at the end.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You're trying to yeah. So we're trying to get the lay of the land. Right.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: No. And that's what I that's what I mean as far as getting the lay of the land. I think that that's Having a list of what the products are is helpful and doing that cross referencing is helpful. But I think that in the registration for the manufacturer or the provider, they should have to, like Tony said, say, What's your pricing model?

[Unidentified committee member]: We can ask David.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They might be able to put something in there. It a free product or is it contract based?

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Yeah, because I think the further information that AOV is gonna look for, that's a helpful reference to have to understand what features are actually being used versus what they're attesting to and what is happening in actuality.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So something I'm just going to type this one, I'm thinking I think we can change it, but this is the registration piece. So on number four, this is what the med tech provider submits to their registration. So the name and a brief description of each product provided by the provider including which products are offered at no cost. Yes, This computer. Something like that? Yeah, something like that. David can help you all in. All right, so going back down to the study, so cross referencing that information and then if there are names of providers that have not registered submitting those to the Secretary of State, see what they want to do about that. Number four, determine this is new and the task, the AOE shall determine where assistive technology should be included in an individualized education program. Five, Friday recommendation as to how the state should certify educational technology products for use in schools, including So remember the original bill had this certification thing where the Secretary of State and AOE would actually certify this product before they can be used. Now this is just a recommendation for future certification of which state entities should be involved in the certification process and what extent?

[Unidentified committee member]: Can put some back on four.

[Unidentified committee member]: Determine where assistive technology should be included in an individualized education program. Now does that envision a statewide approach, or is that just a compilation from each individual individualized education plan that is developed around the state? Because it seems to me that that's going to be the genesis of those, is what is going to work for this particular student in this particular circumstance. So are we looking at aggregating that to a state level, or doing something from the top down?

[Unidentified committee member]: I think we need language from the agency of education to help us with this. This came from that testimony that we have, and we need the agency of education to help us with the proper language here.

[Unidentified committee member]: So

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: back down to the recommendation for certification. B, the criteria to be considered in the certification process, which at the minimum shall include the product's compliance with scope written standards, advantages of using a product compared with non digital methods, whether the product was explicitly designed for educational use, design features of the product including any geolocation tracking, use of AI, which we can pause here to discuss that. I think the concern is that that's fairly broad and maybe we should provide a bit more structure. And the suggestion I had after I drafted this was use of AI and then including chatbots, generative content, and automatic grading was the other one I thought about, but this is something we can be flexible on. So I think the idea is that AOE will review how AI is used in the products themselves. So if a product is offering a chatbot feature, that's something that AOE would report back. It's like these products use chat box or it generates content or for teachers it would use automatic rates. This is a quick look by me, so happy to discuss additions or removals or anything else here.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: This might be a bigger question, but has AOE seen this draft? And they're okay with it or not? Or they're coming? They're coming. Oh, they're, okay, fine.

[Unidentified committee member]: We've had a couple of conversations with them, but we need to hear more testimony.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Yeah, so, I mean, I like the concept, the structure and theory about a state certification. I worry a little bit, given all the back and forth about AOE and what they're capable of doing, the data, and all that sort of stuff. So I mean, I'm not saying don't do this, I just

[Unidentified committee member]: Their EdTech program manager is hopefully gonna be talking to us today.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, that'll be fine.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Fine.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you for speaking loudly.

[Unidentified committee member]: Doing my best.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do lean in.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I'm not I'm not again against adding this stuff, Rick. Guess the question is, given that we're trying to do a back and forth on a bunch of trying to sync up gen AI and artificial intelligence definitions yesterday, would we need to define each of those elements? Because we also have definition of chatbot in one of the several of the bills on the wall. So I'm just curious, like, would we need to define each of those?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can. It's a study. It's session law. I don't think it's required.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But this is

[Unidentified committee member]: think it's

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's So use of AI, I think, pretty broad. We are narrowing it a little bit. I think you just want to let them know what you are concerned about. So if these are your concerns, then I think that works. But if your concern is like, they need a definition of AI, then you can add it. But I don't know if it makes sense here. But again, it's

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I'm like a little bit worried about narrowing the focus in this because we haven't had a chance to I feel like we haven't received enough testimony to look at the full scope of how AI is used in education. So I guess I'm a little bit worried about narrowing the focus of AI versus just leaving it broad since it could and, yeah, it could be used in everything, we just don't know. We

[Unidentified committee member]: did reach out to one of the experts, and we're waiting to hear back.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm gonna remove this for now. I'm assuming this is this.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Great. If that's okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is the current graph. Use of assistive technology, which is new, I'm wondering is that the correct placement for this? Is that it's maybe pushing for the programming base whether that is what is that a design feature? No. Okay. Then it needs to be its own category.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yep.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can we come back to that? Yep. Okay. Just these. The other ones have not changed personalized recommendation system, which could also be AI. That's kind of what I am concerned about is a lot of this is maybe not the same, but the kind of overlap of access to adults unknown to a student and features that would lead to

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: compulsive use. You've got the other way around.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Oh, sorry.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: My God. Yep.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 12345.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: 6. 6.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They didn't give me accounting tests when I got the job, so. What is it accounting or is it It's a foreign language.

[Unidentified committee member]: So

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then you have this is going back to what the criteria in the certification process shall include. It's five the data privacy practices of the provider of the product, but pretty broad again. C, the timeline needed to establish and implement the certification process and whether any third party services including internet safety labs should be utilized to assist in certification.

[Unidentified committee member]: So that would allow us to work in consult of any of these states or other states at large or any other jurisdiction. It wouldn't preclude that.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In their recommendation, AOE could say they recommend that, but the field would be right,

[Unidentified committee member]: so it wouldn't be an outlier if it's a red person.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then provide the general assembly with any information which are relevant to help ensure that EdTech products are safely and smartly using the box.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Rick, can we go back to see on the timeline? Can we put something in there that need timeline, but we also would need to know what the cost would be associated to provide the certification during the process.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Maybe that is where my thought goes. There's a cost right now for having each school district review products. And so definitely there's a cost to move into a more state based system. But it'd be nice to compare that cost with the cost that we've already embedded into the education system.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you repeat the ripples on that?

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Absolutely, you need to think about what the estimated cost is. I'm just saying it's compared to what? And right now we have some districts that are doing a

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: really good job, it sounds like,

[Rep. Herb Olson]: betting products, there's a cost to that.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Rep. Herb Olson]: I should suggest some. There's a cost to what we have right now in terms of some districts, not all, but some districts doing a real good job inventing stuff. And I just think if we talk about the cost, we should talk about the imperative cost of doing things the way we are.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is though unique to the certification process, right? This is a new thing that the state would be doing, is certifying these products before they can get used. So I'm wondering if that's

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Yeah, I think right now individual districts are performing that function, whether they call it certification They or are, before they allow any, from what I understand before they allow a product to be used in school, they scrutinize it pretty well. Some are and some are. Exactly, and the ones that aren't standardized, there's no cost like this, but there is a cost, and I don't know how that comparison of costs would turn out. I mean, there's two miles I I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: don't know that that would change in those schools. I think they probably will still have people there watching over the technology. I don't think they're just going to rely on the certification. I mean, they're looking for a certification for the state. It's not going to change what individual school districts are doing far as technology builds, I don't think.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Well, might be a different role, It might be a different kind of function, and one might be more intense or involved than another. I mean, there's just two different models that are trying to figure that out.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maybe you should do something potentially cost.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I see.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Basically schools will not be having to do this work, so you're wondering how that will save them time and money?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It could be estimated cost or cost savings. Yeah. But it could go either way, right?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you went back and see?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Or just keep it as separate? I think in see what we're saying is the estimated cost to establish a certificate project. So process. So that's more for AOE. In D, for ED, we're saying we also want to know what the estimated cost or cost savings for school districts could be. I'll fix this question. Something like that? Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: School districts, not schools.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Districts. Districts, I would say. Well, schools, I guess.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Adult use of the term school.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think the the actual cost at the district level.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay and then the other change in the report is adding the House and Senate Committees on Education in addition to the Economic Development Committees. The report would be due on 10/15/2027 and the effective date would be the same 07/01/2026. So there's no question about that part, just going back if there's been any more thoughts and I can let it sit, he operates versus provides, if there's been any more thoughts about that. We're happy to move on and let you all.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Thank you, Ruth. Yep.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are we doing 07:33 next or are continuing?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: No, we're gonna finish this. We'll do 07:33. Secretary Saunders, good morning.

[Unidentified committee member]: Hi, good morning. I'm here to answer any additional questions, but Josh Bloomberg will be giving this.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Okay, great. Josh?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Morning. Morning.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: So thank you for the opportunity to fill out a test panel on H650. The Agency of Education shares your committee's concern for student safety, data privacy, and the quality of educational technology used in Vermont schools. These are goals the agency actively works for every day. However, the agency has significant concerns with the Go As drafting. Mechanisms say the proposals would duplicate infrastructure that Vermont has already built. It places authority in agencies without the relevant expertise, creating operational barriers for schools. The agency gives us the opportunity to work with the legislature on targeted approaches that achieve the bill's goals through more effective means. As this committee considers the legislation that would fundamentally reshape how educational technology is selected and used in the Vermont classrooms, it's important to recognize that teachers and principals are making daily professional judgments about how learning is happening in their classroom. It's the agency's responsibility to ensure that district selected and adopted curriculum and educational technology are aligned with the Vermont Educational Quality Standards and evidence based practices. The agency is now at work on the process to lead the review and vetting process within supervisory renewals from districts based on those state standards. It's a partnership and that partnership promotes common understanding and appreciation for the role of technology in the instructional process and encourages a collaboration between the state, local educators and local voice. The district level testimony this committee has heard reinforces the multi step processes districts use to vet educational technology, the way they process the feedback and the professional judgment of teachers as being integral to the process. At statewide level, we currently vet technology for safety, security and privacy through an existing infrastructure. The effectiveness of a technology tool can't be the value in the abstract. The way the tool is used in people's classrooms, how it's integrated into the instruction and the way teachers scaffold its use, how it serves diverse learners, all of that is integral to whether or not the tool is gonna be effective. The state certification process declares a product certified or not certified without the context of how it's being used in the local school and that provides a false sense of assurance while stripping the educators of the professional authority they need to serve their students well. Vermont has not been standing still. Starting in 2018, the state has built a robust system. We created the Vermont Student Data Privacy Alliance. And the nice thing about that alliance is it's part of a collaborative of 28 state alliances. We partner with tech to administrate that alliance and most of our school districts use tech in order to negotiate those digital privacy agreements. So tech supplies the lawyer infrastructure for those negotiations. And tech represents currently 13 states, about 14 because Colorado is added on. And so that gives a lot of leverage when negotiating the digital privacy agreements with each of these districts. Instead of those districts standing alone negotiating it, it's a collaborative. So when a district is looking to sign a digital privacy agreement, they're able to piggyback and check-in the student data privacy alliance database whether or not another district or another state has a digital privacy agreement that covers what they're looking for for the Vermont standards. And so all of that's built out of that National Data Privacy Consortium's standard agreement and then states have what's called their strategy of that agreement and that's additional regulation. So for instance, New Hampshire requires that if an educational technology company is gonna sign an agreement with New Hampshire, they have to protect staff data in the same way that they protect student data, where they want the same data to apply. And typically we kind of benefit by the fact that this negotiation is happening as part of consortium. So the current legislation that's proposed, it bundles data privacy with kind of educational technology effectiveness in the classroom and our system splits those out. You can't get in the door if you don't have the data privacy, right? Like that's the groundwork. And so having, we have a database of what all those data privacy agreements from every district is. A number of districts actually post that on their website. So you can go to their website, see that list of what agreements have been signed. So that all creates a good foundation for in the door. And I think we need to consider how these things are used on the ground. A lot of these technologies provide accessibility needs and I know Patricia, I've been able to hear testimony in the pilot, but we need to be able to meet these students and these are legal requirements for the accommodations, for those students to be accessed to curriculum and a lot of times that educational technology is meeting that need. The other thing we need to do is prepare students for their careers. And so some of the technology that they're using, particularly in career and technical education, but also in high school settings, they're not built for education necessarily. Use Microsoft Office, it's not built for education. And the ways you can use it is what's important. So in school, it's a system for vetting all of that. So in terms of what the agency's been doing on the educational technology side, I think curriculum, educational technology, the lines between these things can sometimes be blurred, right? Some of the curriculum comes with a backbone that it goes with. And when Act 39 was passed around the eighth, Act 139 emphasized the need for evidence based literacy instruction. So in response, the AOE reviewed literacy screeners. If you see the screeners that would test students to see where they're at with literacy ability, and in K-three we collect information from every school about how that is going, so that report will come out pretty soon. So we gave specific advice in terms of which literacy screeners meet the requirements of Vermont standards because, and that's an important advice so each district doesn't need to do that research alone, right? And the nice thing in terms of educational technology and curriculum, on the curriculum side, there's some organizations like Ed Reports started this, but now network states are posting where they've done these documents into curriculum to see whether that type of resources are appropriate. Perhaps that one is, are they appropriate? Also because they have the same curricular standards that we have in Vermont, that's what's necessary here. So we're looking to provide a little bit more comprehensive advice but it's a district decision whether or not they pick that curriculum. And in terms of educational technology, ISNI, which is International Society for Technology and Education, as well as Common Sense Media have been doing more educational technology interviews, but they tend to review only a subset, right? It's just huge, the breadth. So there's gonna be some things that are not affected by these things that are still very appropriate. And what the schools are gonna need to ask is, is there research that you've conducted on your product in terms of whether it's effective in the classroom? And is the way that we're gonna use that product aligned with what we know is good evidence from teaching research that is gonna work with our students? And the more we disconnect that at the state level, it's hard to do that in terms of how it's going play out in your individual district.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So thank you for your time.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: I'm happy to answer questions as well. I hope this testimony made it over. Thanks

[Rep. Herb Olson]: very much. You

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: said a very, very knowledgeable, Bob.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: I appreciate that. You know, I always you look at any legislation, you think, well, what's the problem that we're trying to solve? From the testimony that I I was hearing, I sort of focused on two different areas. And one is that it seemed like some districts were doing a super job, and they did mention the consortium, you know, as sort of the basis for their being able to do that work. But my also sense was that there were lot of districts that, you know, were doing that, whether it was cost or inclination, you know, I'm not sure. So the folks that were doing a good job, they did a good job, apparently. And then the districts that, you know, don't develop those resources, you know, they're not getting into some of the issues that they have, what's appropriate, what's not. And the other problem or the issue that I was hearing was that you did have a bunch of different districts that were devoting, seemingly doing a pretty good job at devoting a bunch of resources. And so I guess the question in my mind, and it might be built for, but the question in my mind was if you had, if you wanted to make sure that all the districts were performing that function, is that the most cost effective way it don't get there? So those are the two issues and I was wondering if you could comment on both of them.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: Yeah, so I think when the pandemic happened, a lot of teachers were reaching towards these tools, right? They needed stuff fast and that led to differentiation, right? Like different teachers defining different tools quickly, and those districts need to get a handle on that, and a lot of them were doing this, maybe the more, the kind of larger districts who had larger IT departments before COVID. I think almost all of them are now where they're using systems like a ClassLink or Clever. When the students sign on, it handles the single sign on authentication, but the other thing it really does is it gives a menu of choices, like what are the choice tools that a student at this elementary school are allowed to use? And so it drives people to that and it drives teachers to those tools also, so really keeping it to that approved list so that people aren't finding tools that the district IT department didn't realize that someone was using, because in all of these districts, the teachers know they need to ask the IT department to change this link, right? But at state level, we're a bit detached from that, right? Like we're not gonna know what an individual teacher in the classroom is using. But we actually have some districts that install software to monitor that and some of the more advanced districts can find that out. Some of the smaller districts have needed to rely on something like the ClassLink or Flutter to drive people to those solutions. On the data privacy side, we fund every single district's membership to the Student Data Privacy Alliance, the Vermont version, and we'll have some regular meetings throughout the year. I'll invite all the tech directors. They said how many was in my role before ran the previous ones, so I'm gonna in the role. So this would be my first time on that. But in terms of like, what are the issues we're dealing with in terms of data privacy so we can speak with each other and talk about those issues, I think one thing that a lot of districts can do that's gonna help them, we have about 40 of the SUs and large district units, how many do we have with the large version of 52? So 44 out of 52, I apologize, is in here, one of those did, are using tech services. That is the lawyer team through tech, they pay $1 per student and they have someone they can call and be like, hey, we're looking at this vendor, is this on your approved list? And you negotiate with them and you navigate this and tech actually vets all of these. So that's on the privacy side, they're not vetting for educational effectiveness, just for data privacy. And so I was in a meeting with tech lawyers two days ago with state leaders around the country and districts around the country that use tech services of those 13 states where they were dealing with an issue with a vendor and we were learning about what the issue was and the lawyer was stating where they're gonna hold the line in terms of those contract negotiations. So that gives us a lot of power that we wouldn't have if these districts are standing.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member]: The first question I have is, I think the easiest one. I didn't catch your name or your agency. I'd probably jump right in. My name's Josh Lambert, I'm

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: the Educational Technology Program Manager in America, coming along one year.

[Unidentified committee member]: The issue I wanted to talk about had to do with what felt like

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: sort of saying, well, there's a,

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: may have one product, but

[Unidentified committee member]: it may have many different potential uses based on the age of the student, the needs of the student, etc. One of the things that seemed kind of compelling when we heard previous testimony had to do with where's the research for this particular tool's effectiveness? Is the idea that because there are so many different potential uses, they cannot be researched and so we can't take that sort of research first approach, or am I misunderstanding sort of

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: the No, but I think there's two classes of research. So if we looked at a product like a mirror, Khan Academy, I think it was kind of familiar because they saw a lot of people use it in their, with their kids in the spare time, even more so than the schools you do. But Khan Academy's a big nonprofit, that are all around the world. They have a lot of research studies that they've brought on the effectiveness of that product and how much time is it effective? How should you break up your classroom? Because you don't want to be doing all your math instruction, using that as your tool, that would be detrimental. So what amount actually works well? How do you break this thing into small groups? But then if we're using another product that's very similar, that same research applies. And there's a lot of research in terms of best practices in the classroom that you need to apply. So if I'm splitting a group of people and teams, what's the best way to organize group work in the classrooms? That may not be the research done by that organization, but it also applies. So I think both classes of research needs to be looked at.

[Unidentified committee member]: One of the elements of the legislation that I thought was good language to me or made some sense, had to do with comparing it to the unplugged in status quo of times tables, pencil and paper, and that is the way in which we all hopefully became functional adults in society. And I'm curious where in your role, you see the limits of the universe, you might say. Yeah. And how, could you speak a little bit to where you see a circumscribed boundary to ways less advantageous to the outside of the digital world? Is that part of what your job entails?

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: Definitely in terms of advice and training. So I think two spots, one, distraction's a real thing, right? And so reading a tangible book, it's hard to get distracted in a book. When people are trying to read bubble things online and I can't, I can't. I'm trying to get these to ebooks, but I got a little bit of number of pages I can read on a screen before I'm like, I even read a search and it's real. And we want students to learn by taking away that distraction, letting them focus. So there's value of books. The other side is there's a cognitive offloading also. In our recent AI guidance, we built deeply into this. We use tools because it makes us efficient, but we're choosing to offload some of our thinking to the tool. So in your case with the calculator, you're choosing, you know how to do the multiplication, but you're able to focus on what you want to focus on because you're letting the calculator do the math. That was a wrong tool for a third grader, right? Like this is the last thing you want a third grader to have is a calculator because they need to memorize that, they need to practice it. There's drilling that needs to happen. So we need to be really aware of what is the purpose of the lesson and then you backward design and only then do you figure out, is this tool appropriate or is it getting the way? AI work and how people rewrite.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: I mean, it's an amazing editor,

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: but I would not want that in the way when I'm teaching middle school writing. I want them to learn the craft of writing. So yeah, does that get edited? Yes, thank you.

[Unidentified committee member]: So thank you so much for being here today. I know we've had a couple of conversations about this and with the agency, and we're trying to stay in our lane of consumer protection and using the business registry to know I'm going to back up, sorry. I'm not at 100%.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: That's the math. So

[Unidentified committee member]: we have a dozen districts that are not members of the mapping source, no. They're all members of

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: the Student Data Privacy Alliance, and any of those members, they can simply go, every tech director has to log into the website, and if any other district in Vermont or state in that network where they have a similar agreement with a lot of specifics on Vermont so we can piggyback on like a New York agreement or a New Hampshire agreement, they can quickly set things up with a vendor. So if it was a new vendor, they haven't set up an agreement before, then it's on that district to negotiate. Now there's

[Unidentified committee member]: But you said there are 40 of the 52.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Yeah, and

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: I actually have a number in here.

[Unidentified committee member]: Which means that there are a dozen that are not participating.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Correct.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: Probably. Yes. Okay, so that- We can count. These districts can be so strange because it's contextual. So there's about, there's 2,438 privacy agreements, the last I looked, that cover Vermont. And so if any of them are within that 2,001, That is super quick for them to just simply add.

[Unidentified committee member]: And these privacy agreements are with paid for products and free products?

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: I don't think you should let anything store student data unless you have a digital privacy agreement. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not. So for instance, Khan Academy is free, right? But you shouldn't have it stored in your students' data unless you have a privacy agreement. Some vendors may signing the agreements unless they have a new contract, and some don't have, they'll sign it at the free level as well.

[Unidentified committee member]: So we agree with you. We don't think that student data should be out in the universe without a privacy agreement. What we're trying to do is set up a system that infers that. And it's not opt in. It's just It's

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: not opt in because it's federal law. Like it's federal law requires what you're effectively doing. You can't give student data to anyone who's not authorized. So, the janitor in the school can't have access to just private data on the student, it's who's relevant. And so that part of that privacy agreement is you're trusting that vendor with something that would violate Kirk a law if you don't set that up. So that's part of that agreement.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm gonna defer to Brett Priestley, and

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: then I'm gonna come back after, because I saw- There's three questions.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I guess the first statement, which is also a question, is in leading the Data Privacy Act type stuff, I had become aware of a software vendor that was operating in Vermont that is based in the European Union. And it was a great example for me to be able to talk to a software company that is providing services to Vermont, that is based elsewhere, that is then supportive of strong data privacy because they have to do it in the EU. So that software vendor told me that they had active agreements, contracts with five schools before a school told them that there was a Vermont State Information Practice, like student practices, like act that they were supposed to be complying for. They showed me, in that case, sent me the agreement that they had been sent by that one school that was actually adhering to law. So I guess my first question is how often does that happen? How do you track that? Who else has visibility into that if we don't have It's some kind of

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: not a visual privacy agreement that isn't informing what Book and Mock Data Privacy Alliance is important, is. There's a standard template that's set up, but they could have a privacy agreement that's still technically conformed to the purpose. So not

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: saying that

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: there's Yeah, I'm asking about federal state law,

[Unidentified committee member]: not federal though.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: It is a federal law. I don't believe it's state law. I believe we're talking federal law in terms of FERPA to have that digital privacy.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Thought Vermont had its own student information practices, like student data law, that they had to go through a vendor, which is actually like a Massachusetts vendor, which was interesting to me additionally, but

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: Yeah, but they didn't know that. Based in Massachusetts is tech, which is a nonprofit, and that's who these both us, as well as 13 other states, are using texting lawyers as that negotiator, so that might be what they're here. There is a Vermont data

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah, that's what I thought there was, okay. For students, yes, okay. Yeah. So basically, software vendor was saying five schools allowed them to be out of compliance with this law before a school said they prove had that they wouldn't be out of compliance with this law, basically. So part of the interesting piece for me from this registry is that the AG would have better insight into what's going on. The Secretary of State AG and AOE hopefully would have a more consistent list of who is operating across all of the different schools, especially when it comes to, I guess, a related way, which is another one of my questions, we passed the age appropriate design code last year. And if if the secretary of state in the AG, like, don't have access to a registry that the AOE just, holds and it's, you know, deciding that it's, like, already covering this amongst itself, but they don't do that, then how does the AG how effective can the AG be in actually enforcing the age appropriate design code? It feels like it's in everybody's best interest to collectively keep an eye on what's going on.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: I think really good practice with these districts is to post on their website all their privacy agreements. Harvard makes this really available.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Each on

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: data privacy and they click on a link to the Vermont Student Data Privacy Association filter down for Harvard and see all the DBAs. I think that's a really good place to be. Something that Bislaw prodded me on, coming forward, is because I was taking on student data privacy this year, like I hadn't initially picked it up, but did I really mind that is? That's how I figured out, okay, there's 44 SUs and districts actively using it because I was looking for, okay, who signed agreements recently in the database? But this also then lets me call up the others and have a problem along with what's going on. Is it the personal lack of knowledge or is it what's getting in the way of being able to leverage that system forward? That's the

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: last one. So I guess it's related again to like, I think there's an importance of having in the very least a registry that people are looking at is, so I had a parents of a school district loop in the principal's association and share concerns that their students was being the teams and the schools were being expected to use GoFan, which actually just has a 1,100,000 lawsuit from Cal privacy for violating Sherpa and COPPA. And so that's being used in Vermont. I don't, unless this parent was very active and paying attention to like, I actually think this is sketchy and reached out because it was like, they were following our work and saying like, could you look into this? To me, it was like, can you look into this because I know you're tracking data brokers and you're tracking data privacy. I, as a parent, would like to know more if I'm like if our school is forcing us to be our students to be put at risk and, like and then this all, like, came out. So again, I guess, like, would love your thoughts on that. But this also feels like a big case for the state to is keep an very

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: important, and so we're needing to network with each other. One district will get aware pretty good about emailing each other.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's the type of thing that

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I guess related to that, it seems like a high burden to ask school districts, the teachers, all of that to be the ones keeping track of this four, basically disconnectedly forming this type of talking to each other registry when there could be the onus on the software providers to register so there's transparency for everyone. So that is a resource that everyone can look at.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: Yeah, it is tough though to make sure, as you're hearing examples of someone, you're trying to track what's actually happening in a classroom, but what we need is systems where we funnel both the students and teachers to those approved tools, right? We're

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: trying to get transparency.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: From a statewide, because we transparency on all the digital privacy groups. You go on, you can see the database, open them up, see when they were signed, when did they expire, but that's not transparency on what's happening on the ground in the classroom. I think, districts need software tools and they have been putting those tools in place like in ClassLink and Clever are used to drive people to something like GoTeacher is being used by districts to actually monitor every single thing being used in the background to track it and also, so they can see what are the students using, what are the teachers using. And they're using those tools like Classic Library, GoTeacher for other reasons than safety, right? If you're paying for these services, are you getting your money's worth? Are people using them? Maybe you're just renewing that contract each year, right? And so they're getting paid on that back end, which lets them make a decision, wait, it won't be using this last year, let's push back on those teachers. Do we still need to be paying for the service? So that data is important. So that data is at a district level.

[Unidentified committee member]: So I just wanna back up because I know that you only had less than twenty four hours to even look at the newest drafts of the bill. What the bill does today, the way it's listed right now, is the Secretary of State will get the information from all of the registered businesses that are providing technical education,

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: protectional tech ed, yeah, look products,

[Unidentified committee member]: and share that with you, or someone else in your office. And you can help to make sure that that list is available for schools, and you can confirm with schools who's using what. And that's our starting point to understanding the ecosystem in Vermont. And we've asked that you come back to the body here with how to make sure that those products are effective in where they're effective in providing

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: the appropriate, I guess, education to student And we were hoping to get more testimonies from you on that report back to us, what makes sense and how we can make that work for you and for us both. So there's two vehicles, they're just very different vehicles than the approach the legislation takes. One is what's called Article G of the data privacy agreement. That specific clauses to the states, let's say like that, to say, hey, we're making a constitutional privacy agreement, you want to get in our state, here's the extra clauses. And there are, like I mentioned that one from New Hampshire that you had to cover the stats purposes, but Colorado has one around ADA accessibility of the tools, right? And that they comply with ADA requirements. So that's one vehicle that just fits in the current structure. Then the other vehicle I think is really us putting more guidance out around things like the selection of curriculum, the selection of SIS platforms, These students have to pick what your student information system. These are bigger platform choices where we can put out that guidance, but if a career and technical education teacher is looking for a program for a specific topic, we're not going to have the expertise in the state agency to be able to review all of those to say, is this, should put us in perspective, is your classroom for what your silhouette says? That's gonna be hard to do.

[Unidentified committee member]: Did did you get a chance to look at that part

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: of it? I did. I appreciate, one, it's lighter weight in terms of some of the Yes, right. For the vendors to register. And I did have some questions because a lot of these vendors, it's not like they typically do business in Vermont, right? So I don't know if they're used to that process of registering, but I'm not in that world. Yeah, if they're doing business in Vermont, they're required to register here. That's part of one of our laws, which I

[Unidentified committee member]: wouldn't expect you to know.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: And then the other piece that I appreciate is kind of agency providing clearer guidance and one thing that I think we've done a lot better is I think there's a natural reticence to say, oh, product, this other product, a feeling from the agency like that's not our role. But the truth is it fits a tough domain for districts to navigate. There's so much out there that providing that care guidance has been really helpful. I think we're doing more of that on the curricular side and I think the literacy screeners is a recent example of that. And I think we'll need to think about that in terms of which SIL systems are going to work well with the data systems of the state. I don't think it's going to cover every nook and banging of EdTech. It's gonna cover certain domains.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: One last question. So it strikes me that you might be, and I know you haven't had whole trying to look at it, but the scope of the bill is much narrower, much more discreet than it would have maybe you looked at private before and the report in my mind is asking you for input on those details. Yeah. You know, it's not setting up a certification system saying you need to do this, that, the other. It's looking for feedback and consultation with a bunch of folks on, I would say whether or not, you know, to set something like this up and give us your feedback. So just I mean, I think you were identifying a lot of issues that might happen if something would have. It's a study to try to get more information from folks who know what they're doing.

[Josh Lambert (Agency of Education, Educational Technology Program Manager)]: No. I appreciate it. Thanks. I mean, this is some pain and stuff. Thanks.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you. Are you good? That is everyone's lunch, if you cut into lunch, I'll back out to the floor.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hi. Hi. Good afternoon now

[Unidentified committee member]: to all of you,

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: glad to be here. David Allope, Director of Business Services Division. How can I help? What do you want

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to talk about? What can I do?

[Unidentified committee member]: We've had specific questions for you.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: Okay. What were they, Herb?

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, I had one. In a prior version of

[Rep. Herb Olson]: the draft, it was a little penalty section. I think it was $50 each day, you didn't register or whatever. And now it's taken out of the bill. And I'm wondering whether you have any other mechanism or whether you need any other mechanism should someone fail to register.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Good question. So, I mean, there's the underlying construct already of you required to register if you're doing business and you know, if you don't, there's some enforcement pieces to it. I mean, are nuanced and it is the 50 per day, but just a year, there's also you can't access, blah blah blah, but that stuff is, you know, your question reminds me that it's an imperfect fit. There's a gap, and here's what the gap is. That language, the $50 per day, the civil enforcement by the AG's office, inability the to access our courts for either, you know, affirmative filings or defenses. It's applicable to domestic assumed names, partnerships and UNAs. It's applicable to foreigns. That is not applicable to domestics for whatever reason. Never has So the consequences there if you fail to register, well, if you fail to register, you get captured under the I can explain why, we don't need to go into it. The bottom line is that you are relying on the underlying framework for any sort of enforcement capacity. It is not a separate violation that you fail to answer the EdTech questions or supply the EdTech information. So if you want a separate basis for that failure, I would put it like.

[Unidentified committee member]: And is it through your office or through the AG's office?

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Yeah, so all the enforcement's committed to the AG's office.

[Unidentified committee member]: So we still need the report to go to the AG's office.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the list of companies that are not registered? Yep. Okay. Do you want both of them or just the

[Unidentified committee member]: You don't, do you need the list too? Anybody that isn't registered or does just the AG need choice?

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: I mean, how would that list be generated? How are you going to determine that somebody's

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, we find out from schools.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They're gonna, you know, they'll Sure. AOE survey the schools and find out what software is there. They can match it with what you have. Fair. Yeah,

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: mean, that seems like part of enforcement to me, and that we don't try really hard not to take that role, because that's committed to civil enforcement's committed to the accused office. I mean, we have expanded on the last case legislation around a little bit of our administrative authority to try to deal with cases of express fraud or, you know, intentional consumer harm, because that's more expeditious than trying to go through a lawsuit. And it helps us react positively to the false information in our records. But we're not in the business of writing people nasty letters or demands or investigations or enforcement actions. We just don't have the staff for that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Sense?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions for David? Emily?

[Unidentified committee member]: I have a question about

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: tracking whether the product is free or not, and if in the registration it's appropriate to ask about their pricing models? That

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: is a pure policy question that I don't have a position on. I I think it's a good question. It is something that you But we are, I mean, substantively,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have to

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: say, like, we are completely agnostic on what goes into it. Our job is to build something that aggregates the data that you, that would be useful to A and B and A team present that in a reasonable format. What that data is, I'm the least qualified person in the room to tell you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions for you?

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: I wanted to, if I can take one minute to talk about the constructs, this bill has gone in maybe a big circle, and began as sort of a freestanding registration requirement, which I interpreted to be yet another module. And then it became substantively, and I think we got a little gun shy on being people responsible on part for the substance. I appreciate you hearing our concerns on that and stepping back from that. And now we're to this place where it's part and parcel of the registration process. And for me that works. At the end of the day, I'm not sure if those implementation questions really matter all that much for you. We do it matters quite as much as what we do based on what you tell us, which is all fine too. So what I had pitched, and I'm losing track now if it was in seven thirty three testimony or six fifty testimony, is that at some point if we think this is a regular occurrence and there is gonna be universe of additional sector specific mandatory data and possibly optional other data, then we might wanna treat that within our system holistically. And so this is a good construct for that. I think it gets you and us to where we want to be. I think it may be possible that our system could be smart enough to charge additional fees for certain affirmative responses in that additional workflow. But I'm not prepared to be able to tell your firm really good that technologically could work, so I'm not going to ask for that right now. But I just want to flag it in case it's somewhere in the next two months my vendor tells me, turns out if you check yes, I'm an ed tech provider and give me all this extra stuff, we can tack on whatever dollars to help offset that additional build cost. So I'm working with them on that, and I'll just want them to put a plug in for a reservation there. Great.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Anything else from David on? Let's see. Great. And then we'll switch to 733 real quick.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Once again, Segal with the Office of the Legislative Council. Seven thirty three is a two page bill now, draft 3.1. Left the zoom to save my battery, and now retwenty zoom. Okay, so this again yesterday seven thirty three had all the EdTech stuff in it that was separated, it was separate, so seven thirty three is once again a bill specific to franchise registrations in The States. It's similar to the EdTech registration bill. You'll see some language that looks similar. We're gonna zoom to the pull up.

[Unidentified committee member]: And there's a little technical thing where the link on our website doesn't take you to the right place yet, so we're working on

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: The back end.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, I got Phil on the screen. Here we go. So, like I did with six fifty, I'm going go through the whole thing just because if there's been some movement in the bill for the language, it's mostly the same. So now we're in title 11, and this is a new section in chapter 15, chapter three. This is the franchise designation. So, and I thought David might testify to this, but he didn't. I'm gonna clarify what I'm doing here. The earlier, the seven thirty three yesterday had the franchise and the ed tech in the same section entitled 11. Once we separated it, I think the thought is that the ed tech stuff will grow into more of a privacy regulation area of law. This could also grow, but this to me, designating yourself as a franchisor or franchisee, belongs in Title XI, then maybe you don't care, maybe I'm just talking for the sake of talking, but this is how my brain works. So I think here you may eventually regulate franchises more and that's something that can be addressed later, but for this specific bill, to me it makes sense in Title I. Okay, so franchise designation as used in this section, a filing means an initial registration amendment, periodic report or other filings with the Secretary of State as the Secretary may require. Franchisee and franchisor have the same meetings as in federal law. In addition to all the requirements of a person registering with the Secretary of State pursuant to state law, a person doing business in the state as a franchisor or franchisee shall at the time of the filing indicate that the person is operating at the franchisor or franchisee. Two, and provide the name of the franchisor if the person is operating as a franchisee. The effective date would be 01/01/2027 to allow, maybe we should talk about that for six fifty, to allow for the secretary's office to update their system and then updating the title

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of the bill to reflect the

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: narrowing of the bill to just designating the franchise relationship. So that's seven thirty three draft 3.1.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you, Rick. David? Yes, yeah,

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Herb? Yeah. Rick, so would they have to file to franchise or shall it indicate the person, then B, the name of

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the

[Rep. Herb Olson]: franchisor, if the person is operating as a franchisee, would in some cases, the filing be made by the franchisor?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They would probably both register, right? Franchiseor would register as maybe a

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh, so that's why you need the name of the franchisee? Is that what? If

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're a franchisor, you might just be McDonald's or Subway or something. So your franchisees would have that name, right? Theoretically? Well, they won't. Because I don't, they're

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: not allowed to use, I don't believe they're allowed to use the name of franchisor in their business. So there would be like Michael Marcotte LLC, but I'm operating, I'm running a subway. So it's not in my business registration.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But the franchisor is the large entity. Franchise and sell, it's business. So I think what we're at.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Okay, get Yeah, a franchisee will have

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: to divulge the name of the franchise. Just because of the project. Right, in the file. But it's not Paradek there. Their registered business name. Because you wouldn't, I mean, register it as anything. If you're operating a franchise, it's not part of your business name. Nobody would know that you're a franchisee. Right. Franchisee.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could add the branded name if you want

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: to be more specific in that, not up to

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the branded name of the franchisor if that's what you want. I think David may testify as well. There could be many type of name. It may not be consistent in how

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: they

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: spell a franchise or anything.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think the point is that you can pull up stuff of records just looking at size OR and you should be able to see all the franchisees that have turned themselves on.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: David? David Hall. Manager of Business

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Services Division, and now we're

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: age seven thirty three.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Okay, so we're talking franchisors and franchisees.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do want me to get the screen sharing, David? Sure, thank you.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: So I think this is pretty straightforward and it would be a comparable mechanism or construct in our system that would be part of the business registration module. I appreciate your definition of filing that's very helpful, and I think it helps you get better data. We wouldn't implement this literally to mean that every single time you come to us you have to repeat this information. We construe that to mean tell us at an initial juncture, and then if you file an amendment, update the information. But

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it stays with the filings, and as you re register it's still there.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Yep, and when you come back to file your AR update your data just like you would anything else. It's amendable, it's updatable, so that's good.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Timeframe is tough.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: You know, the law can So, go ahead and take effect whenever. I think January 1 implementation would make logical sense, and I'm pretty sure I'm feeling really confident we can do that. You know, January 1 always makes me nervous just because that's when the AR season opens, we get about 55,000 literally in three months. But I think that that's manageable. I submitted some written testimony about three points and one has already been tackled. The second one is really, I think the point I made was about the sort of the integrity of your data. And it's just a flag that it's going to be inevitable that when they enter the franchisor information, it might not be consistent. I think what we would probably try to do would be that you would search for a registered business that's a franchisor, and if it's there, McDonald's Inc. Is there, then you would select that one and that would give you consistent data. But it's possible that they're not there or that they want to do it a different way, and then they're going to enter it as McDonald's Incorporated, the McDonald's Corporation, I don't know. Just to flag it, it might not be uniform, but just given the vague values of how people respond. Flagged that, obviously there's a cost associated with doing this work right now. We're not asking for an appropriation. I've already touched on the point where we might consider additional fee, but we're not wedded to that either. So right now we're okay as far as our operating revenue goes. And this is probably work that we're gonna be able to cover, all of that stuff is way above my pay grade and is in the end part of our, they have to look at the agency as a whole and sort of continue those conversations just like the money committees will be doing. So I just wanna be fully transparent about that. It could be the case that we suggest a surcharge for the franchisee disclosure or for the EdTech provider.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan]: I don't know that yet.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: And the last bit, the fourth piece of the testimony that I added was, again, like one holistic place in law, but I think that the construct that you've got is good to have this one here, to have the privacy there, it's fine, all ends up in

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the same

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: place. Okay, other questions for David? Great. David, thank you.

[David Hall (Director/Manager, Business Services Division, Vermont Secretary of State)]: Okay. My pleasure.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think we will schedule this for tomorrow for about 06:50.

[Unidentified committee member]: We'll be

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: back at 01:00. Sorry to take half an hour to get lunch, but you'll save it in the end. We'll bank it.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh, I mean, you'll bank it? Yeah. We'll bank.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'm I'm into my bank account right now. Remember, it's a two for one. Right? Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I get a two and you get one. No. No. I can't. That

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: will

Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

House Commerce - 2026-03-12 - 10:50AM

Meetings

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

Meetings

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

Share