Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Thursday, 03/12/2026 at 01:07 in the afternoon. So we're here to hear an amendment from House Appropriations on H6784, which is the sister state bill. And we have with us Representative Stevens from appropriations who is going to walk us through. Welcome to Commerce.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Board of Directors Office of the Chittenden District,

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: the member of the Appropriations Committee. So this is not a strike all the night

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: under your bill. So it's just really quick and simple.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: It pretty much explains some of the whys in the air force, I just were a couple of little things that appropriations had to do with the money.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I don't know what version,

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: if you have, that's the highlighted amendments on it or not. But the Thank you for bringing me down. I can't remember who presented this.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Michael was not sitting.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: And we worked, we took testimony from Michael and Lynn, who just had some questions. The first one on page one, line 13, your bill said diplomatic relations or something along those lines, which kind of stood out. And I just asked Rick to take a look at it and see if that was the proper phrase, because that seems so much more federal than state relations. And so Rick just changed it to educational cooperation. Then, just left with that, that was If it had stayed, it would not have been a deal killer for us, but we did check it out. And then at the other elements on page two, just a little

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: bit of

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: clarification on what the parameters of the program would be. And then line ten and eleven, just a little bit of a clarification that the committee shall not

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: send the governor an application that the

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: committee does not recommend be approved. There was a semantic or philosophical question about how it was written, so we just thought we'd just add that. At the bottom of page two, number five, termination, wanted to give, again, after conversation, we felt like this was implying that the committee shall have the sole authority to terminate and act with the Sisters Ape Program partnership on a majority vote rather than give it to whoever's the governor. It wasn't clear, but we wanted to make sure that the committee passed the authorities that were named. Page three, line eight, just a clarification on where the per diems are coming from,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: same thing with line 12, and that was the only change he made to your bill. And was approved, the amendment was approved, final nine zero zero vote. Question for Rutland? So there are more pieces to the amendment, but am I correct?

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: More pieces? What

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are you looking at? Zero seventy four. Yeah, I think the wrong one. Yeah, that's the one.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: The Ireland?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so you would rent a branch? Yes, that's

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of that.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Yes. Oh yes, that was yep. Did we add that?

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Yes, the

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: last two seconds. Oh no,

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: we added the Ireland part that you suggested as an amendment. Appreciate that and if you get

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: questions you can yield to it.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Oh I would definitely yield it right back. Think we just took it, suggested that we bring it in as part of that. Plus I'm reading it on my draft. We had no editorial

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: changes to that at all.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Thanks for reminding me, I'll remember to mention it tomorrow. Thank

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you, thank you, appreciate it, enjoy. And good works on the ticket, Thank

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

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Siegel with the Office of

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the Council.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Stephen did a pretty thorough job of explaining what the appropriations committee did and asked questions about that and do want to clarify that the last two sections of the amendment include the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission changes that were suggested by chair and vice chair. I'm happy to walk through those. Maybe I should because I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: don't know what we did.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so any questions about the first the ones that broke Steven to go through? Any other payroll legitimate, pretty good addition to the bill? Okay, so it's on page three of the House of Appropriations Amendment, there begins an amendment of the Vermont Island Free Commission, which was passed last year. So this amendment would amend the Trade Commission by adding two new members of the Commission.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Currently there are seven. You would add the Commissioner of Economic Development or designee and the President of the University of Vermont or designee to the commission. So the purpose of that was more, didn't This trade commission is supposed to be economic development, And there's also an educational component to that. We understand that UVM has a reciprocal agreement with Ireland on students, so it made just made sense.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, because the previous commission or the current law has four members reconfiguring this language in subsection C that certain members have four year terms. Well, if you're the commissioner or if you're the state treasurer or if you're the president of UBM, you don't really have a term. You're ex officio, I believe is the term, legal term, so those members don't get appointed, they are serving in their capacity in their office. Okay, on line 19, the members shall be may be reappointed upon the expiration of the member's term. Again, just cleaning up things here, language, they serve with the pleasure of the member's appointed authority. Again, language shall not consist of not more than two members of the general assembly. Again, not changing the intents of the bill,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: just formatting the language to make it flow. Yeah. Okay. It's not.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Not. It's difficult

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: to get out of to get

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That That would make my job much harder. Okay, so we have some more substantive changes here in subsection F. The Commission now in coordination with the State Treasurer, as you'll hear, the State Treasurer manages the fund or the account that the condition maintains, issues a written report every year that one) discloses in kind contributions, that's current law (two) online 14 is new, detailed accounting from the State Records Office of the Department Expenses that have been paid with funds raised by the Commission and funds raised and donations, grants, and bequests received by the Commission, including the name, country of residence, and amount donated of each contributor. G1 is current. The Vermont Ireland Prairie Commission is authorized to raise funds through direct solicitation or other fundraising events, alone or with other groups, and accept donations, grants, and requests from individuals, corporations, foundations, governmental agencies, and public and private organizations and institutions to defray the Commission's administrative expenses. So striking out the current language and to carry out its purposes as set forth in the chapter, the point of the amendment overall is to really narrow how this money is used and looking at ways to remove any ambiguities of how money can be used in the Commission's fund. How then will the Commission carry out its purposes as set forth in this chapter?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, it's,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's maybe not a question for me to answer. I don't know if this makes it impossible, I wouldn't say that, but So how,

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I'll say it's this way, how then does the commission target its purposes unless it is strictly an administrative entity?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So if they're bringing over someone from Ireland, that could be an administrative expense. Having a reception? Yeah. Holding receptions for dignitaries coming from Ireland, that type of thing.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It's broad term.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, we're about to define it further. What it does not include. So maybe take the whole So the funds, donations, grants, or requests received pursuant to the Supreme Subdivision shall be deposited in a bank account and allocated by the State Trade Office moving annually, didn't think that was necessary, to defray the commissions and administrative expenses for striking out carrying out its purposes. Any money so withdrawn shall not be used for any purpose other than the payment of administrative expenses incurred pursuant to this section and shall be itemized and tracked for reporting purposes by the State Treasurer's Office. Interest earned shall remain in the account. The State Treasurer shall include the balance of the account in the annual reporting required pursuant to subsection f. For purposes of the section, administrative expenses does not include any expenses related to I campaign or election activity, double I food or beverages provided at official commission meetings, or other expense, any other expense that is not specific to the administrative functions of the commission.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: When in a point out of social events per dignitary account as an official committee meeting? I didn't think so. We're talking about

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Just the administrative community, not any

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: social or social work. That's the way I see it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's the question? I guess the question

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: is well, really, it might be an interpretability question is if official commission meetings is the

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: traditional meetings that

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: they have, or do particular events, like if they're hosting somebody from Ireland and are doing a reception, would that count as an official admission meeting?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me double check the statutory because we're not admitting their meetings. Okay, so we're in the statutes. Okay, so because, so there are no official meetings in this commission, so it's not really anything that is, so the administrative expenses may apply to anything they do, if that's considered administrative. I can't tell you if a perception would be considered an administrative expense because it's not defined, right.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think the thought is to make sure that you're not getting together, going out to restaurants and having drinks and supper.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Yeah. Right. Right. It has to like, it has

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: to be has some official capacity as members of the commission Yeah. What they're doing. I mean, think there are characteristics to a meeting. I mean, you typically call the meeting to order,

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: you have minutes, you adjourn, things like that. So if I was looking at this, would say, well, are they following meetings? Do they have an agenda? And that's how I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: would judge whether it was a

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: meeting or not. But the statute is looked at as no Nothing. So, is this articulating something that doesn't? Is it

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: controlling a thing that doesn't occur?

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Official commission meetings. This is too unique to exist if there is nothing, if there are no official commissioning units in the Indian owned statute.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they would be subject to the open meeting's law

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: because they are a group

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and they have a chair, they select a chair for a statute. But because the statute is silent on a majority constituted quorum, there are some standard, that's kind of what you'd assume, instead of majority of them together you have a forum and now you're having a meeting. But it's a good question, maybe you want to think about providing structure to their meetings that it may decide to be taken or because it's not currently present.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Feel like that whenever any of those governor members are, anytime there's a joint assembly of the whole, there's six, two people in the speaker's office, two secretary committees, two of

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: governor, and Three others.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Three others, then maybe six out of nine would we be looking at, unless we have something about when their meetings occur.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me correct, so it's just not, it might not be a

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: That's not how meetings work. Just because people happen to be in the same space together doesn't mean that it's a meeting of the body. You have to actually be discussing the work of the body, of that, so there, yeah.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I mean, a topic in which we're very solid. So

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: one correction, it's very, this is not typically how things are structured, it's focused. This is a strange law. It's been strange from day one how it's been structured. The subsection E that is set forth, the chair is selected. You may have subcommittees, a majority constitutes a form, So you do have some language, but you don't really have more standard meetings language that you find in other task forces, commissions.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right. You're gonna have to meet to put a report together to submit to the governor there. We just wanna make sure that yeah.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Seems to me that when you

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: structure or carry out the purposes, that's a significant change because it's really narrowing that purposes for which they use any donations. So, way I'm reading this, administrative expenses are really kind of a narrow scope of what they might otherwise do. And they might have contemplated originally, I don't know, that they could use those donations for other things other than administrative expenses, that's no longer needed.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Also, the donor, if they are taking donations or if they're applying for a grant or whatever, they actually might have specified uses for those monies. Does that put them in conflict if it's the specified use and the reason why the donor wants to give it is not for administrative purposes.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I recall thinking about this room, last time with this, that we may end up having

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a pot

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: of money for which there is no indiscravent, difficult to use, which I think I sort of asked him, Do you have that in zip code? Last time, the answer is yes, all

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: over the place. But that gets complicated

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: holding funds that, and I guess a lot of it depends on who is interpreting administrative, that would be the members themselves of the commission, or that would be legislature?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Be the legislature. Legislative members are on there, but they can't, they won't receive a per diem.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Well, the state treasurer has to make an annual pass, and this must specify administrative expenses.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in the report, you'll have details, and

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: then you can take action. Yeah.

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

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection H clarifying that members should not receive any compensation signing up for any for compensation and then saying that not just from the State of Vermont, but clarifying that, or from the fund that is managed by the State Treasurer created in this section. Section 2A requires a report of in current law the Trade Commission has had to be repealed automatically on 07/01/2030 June. So before that, on December, they will submit a report to this committee, the Economic Development Committee with a summary of the accomplishments of the Commission since its inception, a detailed analysis as to how the Commission has served its legislative purposes, and an accounting on funds raised and details on gifts received since the Commission's inception. And that is meant to inform literally trying to refute that, would you ever feel, because if you don't take any action it would disappear or stop being commissioned on June 2030, so

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: you have to take action to serve it.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: All right,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that is the event.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Questions?

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: So can you tell me how this process is gonna work since I'm supposed to be reporting on this bill? And and I'm not sure I'm gonna vote for the amendment. So how

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: how will that work? This is an appropriations amendment. Okay. So okay. So they will put it out there. They'll put it out there.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: I don't even have to talk about it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll report the vote of the committee. We're thankful we've ordered the member from the appropriations board Appropriations Board of six seventy four, then I should vote on whatever, straw vote, okay, commence. Pass it or don't pass it. We haven't voted. No. Right. Right.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Clarifying that in my mind.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: That was the last section that we just talked about appropriations amendment,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: or was

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: that language of the previous

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: This is all in the appropriations amendment. If there's any discussion on this piece, it'll be An amendment to an amendment? No. Not if you want to buy. Right,

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: because the appropriation amendment incorporates an amendment that we've seen before. Right. Yep. And we took

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: a vote on? Kevin voted, yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, we need to vote on it. We were gonna take a vote then.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Okay, and then it was correct. And I know that some folks came in and had some concerns about the amendment. Those concerns been resolved? Or is it gonna be a contested

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So the biggest issue was we were repeating the Irish provision, the American on Irish commission. We drafted language and worked with people that were in favor of keeping it, and they're, my understanding, that we're okay with this. So

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: from an understanding of how language shifted on our page, we have Friday, February 27, the granting Marcotte amendment, which contains language that I guess is not part of a real amendment until it came out of appropriations. Okay, so it was just sort of language that it's not yet.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thanks, I'm up with it. That's my

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: fault

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: for probably going explain it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Any further discussion? Obtain the motion to report favorably on the appropriations amendment to H671.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Make a motion to report the following date.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Mister Matt, so I've I second.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So it's been motioned by representative, seconded by Carris Duncan. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your hand. Pose. It's 1100, Michael. You write that down.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Forget it. Thank

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you, committee. Okay. Onward to should do a live car.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Are you gonna be here? So I

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: have a few variety. That's good. That's good. Since it's very close to you, I think I would

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: like to go over my full report with you. Great. Okay. 211. Good to know. Okay, once again Rick Siegel with

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Office of Lips of the Council, and I'm going to do a walk through 7.1 of the amendment to two eleven. I may have to run to the set of block keeping an eye on it, the build there, but for now we're good.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: It's on that committee, Mitch.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay, so on this graph changes are

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: again highlighted and I will go over those changes, first

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: change, the John

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so no change to definitions, so let's get into the definitions, Moving to page

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: 21

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the bill and this is the data broker security breach definition. This is a change, but it's more technical and I'll explain why. So this bill and the statute currently in statute in Vermont law has a definition of data broker security breach. At some point during the process of spill that definition was removed because this new section is kind of creating this data broker security breach area of law for data brokers to abide by. However, what I've done here is 2a is new, but this is word for word with one change, the definition that is currently in statute of a data broker security breach. I put it back in because if you read this section on security breaches, it keeps referring to a Data Broker Security Breach, right? In my opinion, it's helpful what a Data Broker Security Breach is. We can read this and I'll give you the one time where I need to change the wording. So as used in this section, a data broker security breach means an unauthorized acquisition or a reasonable belief of an unauthorized see, is that right? Yes, sorry. Or a reasonable belief of an unauthorized acquisition of more than one instance of perfect personal information maintained by a data broker when the broker personal information is not encrypted, redacted, or protected by another method. So the change is there. There's more than one instance in the current statute it's element, and that's because brokered personal information used to have the word element included in it, that it was one of these data elements. We aren't using that definition anymore, the word element. So in this case, if there's more than one instance, which could be your address, be your name, could be you know, one of these things that's considered broker and personal information. This is a policy decision. It doesn't have to be more than one. It could be just one. However, right now the breach notification would require at least two. So it'd be your address and your name or your address and date of birth, right, something that is considered birth confirmation. I just went with what's currently in statute, which is more but happy to have that pulse and discussion with you all.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: just mostly want to rely on your expertise on this, because I

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: know.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe we'll be done with this for now, then you can think about it and

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: see if it makes difference.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Continuing again, this is word for word in the current statute, any data broker security breach does not include a good faith but unauthorized acquisition of broker personal information by an employee or agent of the data broker for a legitimate purpose of the data broker provided that the data file of the brokered personal information is not used for a purpose unrelated to the data broker's business or subject to further unauthorized disclosure. In determining whether broker information has been acquired or is reasonably believed to have been acquired by a person without valid authorization, a data broker may consider the following factors among others, and again these are just

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: word for word from the current definition, so

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think I need to read it for you all, but it's currently in statute.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Yeah, it's

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just moving into the assumption. So again, just to go back the definition I'll try to show you what it is, if you go to page six, you'll see this definition is defined in the subchapter because under current law this is referred to as once later on in the statutes about if there is a data purpose security breach. At some point this was removed because of this new section, but in my opinion, I think you still want the definition of what a data purpose security breach is,

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: and it was a mistake to strike the road.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Moving along

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to page 26. This is bringing over the telephone notice that DFR requested in the Security Breach Notice Act and putting here the same language that if there is a data broker security breach for consumers for whom the data broker has a valid phone number provided that the telephone contact is made directly with each affected consumer and not through a prerecorded message and further provided that the data broker makes not less than five attempts to contact the consumer for a live conversation before the data broker may meet the agreement. This is word for word with DFR wanted an entity security of your notice act. I think it should be consistent. Why should data represent different responsibilities than data collectors? Questions about that? Okay, on the next page 27, this is in the still the same data broker security breach notice. This is a suggestion from the attorney general. In this section, the data broker is able to basically tell the AG that we don't think misuse happened. This happened, like the the breach happened, however, we don't think misuse took place and therefore we don't have to identify it in Zohr. That's in the Security Personality Act, and it's also in this act. We can request a language that says, if you submit to us that you don't think the appropriate information was misused, we will review that notice and the Attorney General may request additional information from the Data Broker and may accept or reject the Data Broker's determination. If the EAG rejects the Data Broker's determination, data broker shall provide notice of the security breach pursuant to subsection B. I'm sure Todd Daily has talked to about that, but sure, if he we're here to explain to you this is something that they won't be able to request more information if needed

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: in the depth of gravity.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, next change is on I believe the exemptions to deletion. Page 37. What page? 37. Okay, these are the exemptions just to delete a consumer's information. You may remember that consumers are going to have the right to request a data broker delete their broker's personal information. So going back up to page 34, introductory facts. A data broker, line three on page 36, a data broker may deny a consumer's request to delete the consumer's brokered personal information to the extent that A is the same, B the broker's personal information is any of these exemptions we have seven which is new, if it's used in connection with underwriting, issuing title insurance, or completing that approval.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Okay. So why can't we put in that section for organizations that are regulated by financial agencies? Somebody help me. Well, okay. The thing that I've been complaining about is that I don't think this I think it's messing with an ecosphere of companies that use these products, use the data, the brokers. And it has an impact, and I get that it's hard to explain because I can't fully explain it. I can only tell you the end result.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: There you go. Oh, sorry.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's okay. I'm be back, though.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Let me say that one

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: more change and you guys have discussion. It's on the last page of the appropriation, it is set to 50,000, page 43. That state of almost requested. I'll be back. I'm gonna run and then happy to answer any more discussion.

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

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Michael, continue. I don't know

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: how to word the exemption. I I know the end result. And that's where my problem is, is I can't articulate it properly.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Also it's the exemption in that language came from talking to Fatek's team. So Becky from the DRM team connected me and the other side of consumer reports and Rick and their government affairs person, but also their lawyer. And so we were able to have a call. We were just, like, basically hashing this out this verbiage out with the lawyer, doing a lot of back and forth in email. I just forwarded you my memo that I sent last night that goes through all of this stuff because they wanted to add hold on. They wanted to so the original one that they tried to propose was used in connection with underwriting or issuing title insurance, completing an appraisal, issuing a mortgage loan, or providing related financial services to a financial institution. So we dropped it. We basically went back and forth with them and dropped the end, the issuing a mortgage loan or providing related financial services to a financial institution. I would say that I would be happy with the banks, insurance, everybody to get on a call with the lawyers rather than just working through government affairs folks. No disrespect. I value your expertise at this. But it is really helpful to be able to cut through the noise and talk to the lawyers for because of just what you're saying. You are proposing an amendment change that we aren't able to nobody on this committee has the full expertise to dive into the pros and cons of how that data is used. The exemptions were crafted in order to try to protect the banking and the insurance and the legitimate uses of things under the regulated space of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Here, I'll just read the things. Page 34, line eight. So a data broker may deny a consumer's request to delete A in there as the retention of the consumer's brokered personal information is required by law or is required to comply with a civil, criminal, or inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons by a federal, state, municipal, or other governmental authority or B, the brokered personal information is, I, used by a consumer reporting agency to furnish consumer report pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so the regulated credit reporting agencies that have those profiles that are used. Two, necessary to investigate, establish, exercise, prepare for, or defend a legal claim. I'm skipping three because it's not really into this. Four, use to prevent, detect, protect against, or respond to security incidents, identity theft, fraud, harassment, or to preserve the technical integrity or physical security of systems or investigate, report, or prosecute those responsible for any such action. The concern is that if you're looking at things like the mortgage data and using third party data brokers that are in an unregulated space, then you're getting this whole trove of things that include medical debts, marriage history, all of your debt history, your employment history, all of that kind of stuff. But if you're using this unregulated information, one, it could be wrong. Two, what's happening to it. And then three, how is that being used in decisions that could be discriminatory? And not by the banks. I'm just like, in general, this information is being passed along to all these different entities. Unregulated data, there are regulated options. And as Eve testified yesterday, there are also other verification methods that can be used. And the knowledge based verification authentication methods that are reliant on this third party unregulated data broker data is not good for the consumer. But from talking to folks in this space, it seems like it's also a risk for the financial institutions and all of the legitimate institutions that potentially it's wrong and they're turning down people that that data is wrong. Or it's also that data that is being selected and building these profiles with people that not only include all this sensitive information, but then include, for the data brokers, include social security number, it will include all of their security questions. And as that information continues to grow and expand and be out there on people, then those verification methods are no longer safe for people. It's actually putting the banks and all the login spots at risk because fraudsters can use that same data as the customer to access their accounts.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Have the banks said as much?

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So we did hear a testimony that this is used. Again, I would love to all due respect to everyone who has testified. Think there's a difference between hearing the information from I would love to hear from Bank of America's risk compliance person or data protection officer or Alexis' data privacy officer. Any one of those entities where they're the people doing the technology and or doing the legal compliance work. That'd be great. Yeah. So

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: this highlighted exemption, to me, is directly and narrowly focused on the testimony we had from the title folks. And what struck me that they had a point was that the previous exemption dealing with a business with whom the consumer has direct relationship. Well, the title insurance company doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship with the consumer. And from what I'm hearing, Monique, relating to us of what more they wanted, it seemed that they were going It seemed that their proposed amendment was getting into material covered by the direct relationship exemption. So I kind of like this because I think it focuses on the specific testimony we heard that, hey, maybe you got a glitch in terms of timeline trips. I think this covers a personal thing, we can hear from folks.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It's something that I'm attracted to understand more is if we make a pie, understanding that this pie of data is growing, it doesn't stay static. There's portions of it that are governed by existing federal law. How many, what is the share of that pie that has those governing elements through over top of it, whether it's stuff from DMV or things of, and I get lost in the alphabet soup of it all, but is that becoming a minority of the amount of data that's being swapped around the globe? Or is that still equal? Are these, we want that slice to maintain its to continue operating actively or successfully, and we're looking at how the rest is our minnows just fly through whatever nets we're trying to make. And that's in your work, have you found that there's an understanding that that's becoming a smaller and smaller amount of the data that this legislation is sort of positing?

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: I don't

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: know if I'm following. I'm so sorry, Jonathan. Literally dropped.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: No, no, I'm not gonna

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: All right, some of the stuff,

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I think, as we know, is data that has restrictions around the way it could be used, the way it could be shared. Totally. And I don't think that that's all of the data. I think there isn't there's not always. And so that's what I'm wondering, Those seem like different animals to be. I'm just I

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: get you, exactly. Yes. I think when we're just dovetailing this with the Privacy Act, we had the legislative council and we were trying to figure out when we didn't continue to hyper focus on the insurance and like Grand Leach Wiley and that kind of stuff. Because we had had the legislative council do basically a chart that was like, what are all the existing state laws? What are all the existing federal laws? And where are we trying to go with protections for the Data Privacy Act? They did a whole chart to be like, actually, the state laws generally cover a lot of stuff. As far as the data broker space, there is these we want to protect the things like the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Those are a regulated space. When it comes to the reliance on the brokers that are guess reference to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Eve had mentioned yesterday, where they were they had put out a memo basically saying that there's this whole there are regulated data brokers, and then there's this other unregulated market of data brokers. CFPB had done this rule. Like, I don't know if it's rules or if it was a notice or a recommendation or whatever. That, like, was not taken out, Saying that all of those need to be considered under the same pool so that they are all regulated. But that's not what's happening. So now the states are basically left with this whole unregulated space that the feds are not regulating. Sent out a link to a report that shows basically the number of complaints that people were making because there's inaccurate data affecting things like their financial loans and stuff like that. Basically up until while CFPB has basically been gutted over the last year, up until that time, the numbers were totally askew. But since that time, everything's been cutted. Don't know if it I think people are watching headlines, now it's just like complaints are skyrocketing and people are not able to access the same thing. So we're I think in general, just like privacy, the states have to step in to try to fill that gap that the feds are not serving to protect that whole pool and still only doing it on a slice, I guess. Does that

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It's yeah.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Sharpie. Okay. Sorry.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'll leave more language that they asked me put in, so language that wasn't.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: What I just read, yeah, which is from the memo.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, so the reasoning for that is?

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: The reasoning was the broadening of what, for them, they were able to explain why the title and appraisal space was a safe space, basically, and that it was regulated and we're able to talk about the sensitivity of the data that is used and that kind stuff. Once it got beyond that, we less able to explain that it wasn't a risk to basically have those pieces so broad. Issuing a mortgage loan and providing related services to a financial institution, which Rick had, without even discussion when that had been proposed, Rick flagged that piece as being potentially a really broad sphere in general of data, Mostly providing related financial services to a financial institution. And

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: assuming that what that additional language was getting at seemed to be covered for me anyway, under the previous exemption.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Under the exemption, yes.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Because those institutions do have a direct relationship with the consumer. Exactly. So, you didn't need to add. I mean, I'm sort of replaying it to make sure that I understand it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: You didn't really need to add anything additional in connection with Ramanova. So, because you already competed at six.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Totally. That was the gist of the conversation in general. I feel like that largely, our expectation was that they're already exempted anyways for even the stuff that was added. But we did have a gap on the title insurance. That was one, like I said, that they made the case for. Yeah, for sure.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: But that's an example. There was a gap in the title insurance. We added that in there. And I'm telling you that or suggesting that there's a gap in the financial industry as well. And that's just my personal opinion. And I'm clearly I keep saying it and that's okay. I've stated it multiple times, I'm just sticking back, I guess.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Good for you.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: In this instance, this legislative approach is one that would necessarily sort of be open to a continued refinement as those cases can be made a compelling way or as more.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Definitely, think the kind where we left the conversation as far as going back and forth on this was that one, the amendments that came in were super last minute just because as the drafts changed. And so it was a lot of it. Basically, I always started off that conversation saying, we're kind of at the end of the time here. We want to do what we can. So let's go back and forth as fast as we can, which their lawyers were great at. And just really, really fast calls late at night, early in the morning, and to try to hyperfocus that. And so when we got into basically, it came down to this is a proposed language, pushback as far as saying this is too broad, but open to continuing the discussion, especially as it goes to the Senate. But if there's additional use cases that can be made a case for that are not putting consumers at risk and the institutions that are also reliant on that data and that everybody has basically a safe ecosystem of data that they're relying on to make really critical decisions and let's keep refining it. Yeah, for sure.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Got two questions. The first one, directly to Michael. Do you feel that gap that you're concerned about is not covered by the Yes. Credit reporting act requirements and or the direct relationship?

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Correct. I don't think that the gap is covered. I feel there's still a gap.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Then my second question is, does this language have any history in any other states? And it's just cut from bull plot just for us, or is it Yeah. Used elsewhere?

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. So so this is so this is unique to Vermont. So Vermont was the first state to do a data broker registry to begin with. So everybody's been copying And us that was 2018. And we still Basically, other states have since implemented and are trying to also catch up with how this market is evolving as well and how the technology is evolving. I will say that one of the most poignant foundational moments that has happened over the last couple of years of trying to do this work is I was at an event where I was speaking. It was a room full of 100 of the top internal and external lawyers in the world, including some of the representing the entities that have been engaging on this bill. I'll just say that. It's Chatham House rules. I'm not going go into exactly who that was. So I'm basically going into a room full of sharks, I am learning.

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

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: terrifying. And the first question I got from one of the data broker industry folks, lawyers, was why do states keep copying each other's data privacy bills rather than thinking about the outcome and the problem they want to solve and then tailoring their language to solve that problem rather than just binary copying each other all the time. Because basically, the discussion end up being, as states, when we're not veering away from each other and learning from mistakes and also learning from the lawyers in the field, the compliance officers in the field, the technologists that are building these structures, if we're just continuing to copy the same thing and we're not listening and then trying to adapt our rules to fit that, we're just exacerbating problems rather than actually solving for both the consumers and the industries that we're trying to regulate. It's just not in anybody's best interest that we don't do that. As far as the data broker space, most data broker regulations so far have come after privacy acts that are serving both first party and third party, as Eva mentioned. And they are trying to basically just cover everything without thinking, actually, we've got data brokers in here. Why aren't we taking another step to think about exemptions and regulations that specifically fit that little piece of the data industry. And so 2.11 and a reason it is needed on top of that is the data privacy is covering everything. Most of it is first party relationships between the consumer and the fields of all of the things. Data brokers have often, as repeated over and over, a third party relationship that people don't necessarily know what's in those profiles. And these profiles are in the data broker records, is what I'm saying. So one broker might have my social security number and my birthday and my address from ten years ago. Another broker might have my marital status and my debt history and all this kind of up. All of this data across all of these data systems, the data brokers, are adding up to when they are referenced in decisions that are often like mortgages and loans or education or employments, our dynamic pricing in the grocery store, our airline prices, whatever. All of this is being continuously fed off of these profiles that people don't know exist on them. Right now, Vermonters have zero access to request to see that data, to edit that data, to request to delete that data. And so this is a first step of trying to look at the most sensitive information that is shared on people and say Vermonters should have a right to delete that information, as long as they're not interrupting federally protected and state laws and business. Like I said, the exempted stuff we're trying to get at. But they should be able to delete their data and have it removed from marketing profiles that are targeting older people with Alzheimer's that think that scammers can use to send them a text message with a phishing link that then they click because they don't know any better and they have Alzheimer's. Or the marketing profiles that are saying, oh, you just took out a student loan from a private company. And you just lost your job. And maybe will click on this payday loan advertisement. And so we're going to do this predatory ad in front of you. Those are the type of things that I think consumers should have the right to have some kind of agency over.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Oh, know. I'm just answering Dave's question.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, where I was headed,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is there a trust record?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Does

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: it actually

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: work in the real world?

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Yeah, yeah. Survive tests?

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. So although our law is slightly different than what exists in other states, like CalPrivacy and other states that do have the resources to go after this field, I can send you as many links as you want on the cases that are happening all the time. For sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure. Yeah.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Is it fair to say that information collected about others in some of the circumstances you described previously considered a trade secret? How identity impression.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I have no idea, Jonathan.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: I would have to hear from somebody on that.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: That's never come Not

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: in the data broker space, no.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Yeah. I'm getting ahead of that. Yeah. I think they have a product, and if

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: it works, they don't even tell you how it works in that. That's what just wondering. If said that people cannot have access to that, they can't see it. And I'm wondering if they're protected as trade

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: If they come up, then probably not.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: And think in the privacy bill

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it did, but I don't

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: think it has come up in

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: the database. Because again, it's, yeah, they're not, take that. Sorry, Mike.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Let's hear from help my people. Chris, maybe you can help us if you'd like to better understand how the financial world uses third party data, how that works. You

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: don't want me to talk about that trade mentioned

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: in a little bit this phone? Are

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: you going? Yeah, I'd like to try to. For the record, Chris D'Iglia, President of the Vermont Bank Group's Associate Dean. I am disappointed to hear a member of the Commerce Committee is not interested in hearing from people that are in this bill who represent their industries or clients who communicate with those folks on a regular basis to bring the answers as best we can to you. That's shot

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: to me.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I don't think that's what I said, Chris.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Please Let don't me just say what I've got to say. We passed away at any point. We have communicated with you and we've shared information on this bill and concerns that we have. And those concerns were met with several people testifying, telling us how we should run our business, how we're antiquated, how we're this, how we're that. If we were doing things wrong and we were antiquated and weren't keeping up to date with policies and procedures and guidelines, etcetera, I think our regulators would have one hell of a problem with this.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: I

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: will remind the committee that obviously we collect and process customer information. That is a requirement. It is necessary in order to provide access to financial services. That information is protected in two ways. Under brand leaks by law is the federal law, it actually separates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as Vermont's unique privacy regulation that I had mentioned before, which applies to all financial institutions at Duke and Virginia for Monters. That is an opt in provision, meaning we can't do anything with your data unless you give us permission to do so. I will remind the committee that those requirements go to entities that we work with, that we rely on if we're pushing data to them to provide a service to us or if we're getting data from them under a contractual relationship, those requirements push to them, which means they can only use the data for the purpose that we are asking them to use the data for. They can't turn around and reuse it for something else. If they do, that is something that they can be held accountable for. So when I hear about the rationale for not wanting to do something and it showing up in different drafts, etcetera, I am thankful for the conversation you just had, which at least shares with the rest of the committee what the proposal was. And you have the debate whether you think that's appropriate or not. Not, I don't think it's appropriate, next draft, dumping a scorpion, next draft, or whatever it may be. Our industry is not a data broker, but we rely on entities in the marketplace to be able to serve our customers. And the concern that I had with those downstream entities that we work with is if you have a consumer that says, I want you to eliminate all my information, Mike Marcotte. And when Mike Marcotte comes in our door next week, Mike Marcotte does not exist from a data perspective in the world that we may need that data to work with. This is totally different than credit freezes. Credit freezes are so easy. You put a freeze on one day, next day I wanna go buy a car, I take the freeze off. You delete the data, you are gone. So that is the concern that from our perspective that yes, we have a customer relationship, but we need information in order to provide services to that customer. That information that we get or push out is covered under existing state and federal regulations. And therefore, if we want to continue to provide services on the marketplace, have concerns about where this may go and the unintended consequences. And if things don't work out, we come back. If things work out, great, we were wrong. But I have a fundamental disagreement with representative Priestley in the way our industry operates or rationales for not wanting to allow certain information to be utilized. It's as simple as that. It's a fundamental disagreement. So I'm happy to take questions. Hi, Chris. Hi. Question about accuracy. Actors. Yeah. Guess what I do

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: can see in a gap analogousness to our credit reporting system, right? So if something gets put on your credit report that is inaccurate, you have the ability to test that.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: You as a consumer? As a consumer, yes. Have the ability to test that in positive development risk. If you, or if

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: the vaping industry is using information of mine that isn't accurate in making judgments and profiles on me, that is blocking me from the ability to get a loan or to

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: get a house or

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: to rent or whatever, that's a problem,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: but I have no way out of this out

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: to fix that inaccuracy.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Well, we use a credit report, we'll stand on those lines. So if we get information I need from a credit reporting agency and we go back and say, so our decision was based on a credit risk and your credit score was not at a level that we feel comfortable with. We're giving you the information to go back to the credit reporting agencies and raise the issue that you just spoke about, that your data may be inaccurate. Aren't we doing that? I mean, To a degree, sure. We have to give you information as to why we're not promoting the launch.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Right. Whatever. But also, as a consumer, that's a pretty opaque system. I don't know what information you really

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: are going and looking at. I have no

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: idea how you guys make your decisions.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Well, first of all, again, we're collecting your data and if we make the decision favorable, obviously you're great, we move on, but if it's unfavorable Even if it is

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: favorable, some information in there could also be inaccurate.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Okay, so I think as I've stated before, information that we have, if you request of our institutions, you can go to us and say, I want to know what you base this decision on, what information you based it on, and we provide that to you and you disagree, it's inaccurate. Aren't we fulfilling your goal or your objective of knowing what that information is, finding out whether it's accurate or not, and then you have the opportunity to go and correct a batch. Is that something that most people do? Well, our customers receive the negative decisions if she will. Yes.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: I guess my other question is, financial institutions these days are

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: pretty big, but in theory, right?

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: So I guess my point is part of the work, you noticed too, part of the work that we have to do is not just we're not out to regulate people that are doing good business, those individuals who do business. This is about regulating folks that are doing less than upright business. And I guess I'm just kind of swirling around and trying to understand if we had this information ecosystem where there are inaccuracies floating around, not just this is not a financial institution's issue, this is like our information is replicated about so much at this point. And there are inaccuracies in that, and there's so much of it. How are we as consumers supposed to be able to grab control over the vast amount of data that's out there that may or may not impacting our lives?

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Statement and a question, I'm gonna have a question. The statement is simply my impression, certainly from my perspective and from what I see, you know, other legislators that take what you're saying very seriously and do think about this stuff. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that I would say.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: My statement was not a broad statement. What's that? My statement was not a broad statement.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Well, okay, but to the extent that it maybe was, I just wanna tell you Sure, thank you. And that's the same for other folks that come in. Like you guys to let us know how it's affecting the folks you represent and to give us good technical information. Respect that of you and others. The other part of what you said, I'm not I don't quite get. I mean, I understand there's a real difference between creating a an entity kinda exemption for deletion purposes, right, from a use case. You know? I I get that. And it always seemed to me that the form or the entity base just might be too broad, whereas the use case might be too narrow. But that's that's the disagreement, I think, or, you know, philosophic over policies

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

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: My question is, I had always assumed that some BI, I think it is, around the Yeah. For so if you have a direct relationship with the consumer. Yes.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: And I had already started that that dealt with your folks' need for data. So if a data broker is a processor for you guys or other entities, and you have the direct relationship, it would seem to me that you still have access to the data they need. If the language isn't clear enough about that, that'd be good to know.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: We have expressed that. We've talked about entity level exemptions, I just heard you, Jubara. We've talked about data level exemptions. We've also talked about if there are bad practices that you're trying to define, which I have heard, it's not you guys, it's the other entities that have the GLBA exemption, then be surgical in the approach to deal with folks.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: I'm just saying that my impression, you

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: have to think about quite

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: a bit, that BI, whatever we wanna cover is your need for data in order to do your job right.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: And you're saying no. Covers the need for data, but as that data is eliminated downstream when you come in. You don't have that customer relationship, right? You go out there and want to eliminate that data. You want to come in and get access to financial services. We're going to collect information, but if we need to go out and do comparison vetting, whatever it is, and we don't exist, how are you gonna get access to the financial services? I know you're shaking your head.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Well, no, I'm sorry. I think maybe it's the relationship and I can find the direct to consumer relationship. But if I'm coming into the bank insurance company, whatever, at that point when I'm filing an application or starting to do business with you, you have it maybe even before you do the application, you have a direct relationship. And at that point, the way I'm reading that exemption, you can rely on a data broker as your processor to give you the information you need.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That alright? So I think, what I'm hearing is that the direct relationship with a consumer or the financial institution has continues on in a contractual agreement that they have with a third party broker.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: That's actually

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Is that where you're Well,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: the third party broker does not have the direct relationship with the consumer. Correct, but I'm wondering The protections of the data and information that is shared with the third party broker, those flow to those entities. In other words, our regulations and the protections that we need to comply with flow to those third party entities. But we had that relationship, not

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And so the issue is that if you have, as a consumer, deleted fast for your information to be deleted and you go trying to gather information that you need in order to make your decision is not out there because you've deleted your information, then what happens? It happens. No loan happens. Is that what we want? Do we want to stop?

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: I think it's also really dependent, right? Because we don't, I mean, a person goes to the least

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: of May, then that's probably going to stop

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: the transaction, But if they happen to go delete an old address or something that was inaccurate,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: then will that stop the transaction? I would assume they're

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: gonna have another address. Right.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Right, right. So, and are we saying that a consumer can go, like,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: just goes in and confessing, but all their information is just white from the internet. I don't think we have that level of powder, but I think it's like Well, think so. That's what's giving consumers the ability to Well, we were studying.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Does that, I mean, my

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: one question for you, I don't know

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: if you know this, is like for financial institutions that are operating in California, how is this functioning now?

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Well, keep in mind, you had a California privacy bill, then you had the bill that's dealing with data deletion, and it was very clear to me from a California person that it was their intent to not hinder the relationships in the marketplace between consumers, financial institutions, etcetera. So this is, what you're doing is, because you just heard from Representative Priestley, more unique to Vermont, are there large institutions like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etcetera, who working in California? Sure. But you also just said that there are institutions getting larger and larger. And I'm also concerned about the Mastodonas, the Brattleboro, the Bennington's and how they're able to navigate in their marketplace and still remain small independent organizations without further consolidation, because of the pressures on the industry. And that's just not related to this book overall.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So there are a lot

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: of rabbit holes that I could go down, but there was one point when the two of you were talking, and the bank makes a determination to not give a loan. And the customer says, you have incorrect information about me, and disputes it, can the bank, can the financial institution be required to share where they got the information back to that consumer about the consumer?

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Well, let's use the credit reports, because I don't

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Whatever third party, my question is, is these third parties that are unattached to the consumer have nothing to hold them accountable back to the consumer unless the institutions that are using those share who they are and where they got the information from that is incorrect. Incorrect. We don't do that. So that's another gap that this law is trying to give the consumer back a little more control over their information. So if I get denied, will you give me back, will you tell me why? What's in the detail that I can correct it in the world? And I don't think that's happened.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Let's say we get an erroneous, try to think of what would be a good example for you beyond the credit report, because we're looking in the case of providing access to a loan, credit information that we're looking at. So that's the credit reporting agency. I'm trying to think,

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: of what other third party that you

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: can So let's talk about, I'm trying to think of a criminal report would be analogous to this discussion. Yeah, glad to, okay, so we're doing our research, we're looking at loan activity or account activity. We check an OFAC list, which is a list that's at the federal level that deals with criminals, money laundering, etcetera. You show up on the OFAC list, and it's an erroneous report. Is that something that we're gonna share with you? We're denying you for a reason. You showed up on this list. You apparently appear to be a criminal. You then have to, and I don't know how to figure that out, go deal with the old fact that, well wait a second, there wasn't any criminal, trying to do this on the fly, give you an answer that's gonna be reasonable for you to work with. Explain your fetal fat list. Oh, I'm sorry, okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Did you have a question?

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: He was looking at

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I thought you were judging.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I do. I'd like to get

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: back to the bill for a minute. Sure.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Understanding of what you're saying is that you're obviously concerned that deleting data is gonna make it make it difficult for you to make an informed decision on whether to do this on to a a person or entity. I look at the bill, the section seven, where the deletion does not apply if it's used in connection with underwriting, which is loaning, lending, issuing title insurance or completing appraisal, a lot of real estate related things there. Is it your feeling that this is not sufficient that this because to Rutland's point about just a blanket over all regulated industries, That's kind of where I'm trying to go at. Are you feeling this is not sufficient where if we give you this carve out, that is not enough for you to that you need more to make an informed decision.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: It's sufficient for the underwriting title piece, for sure, the world that you're familiar with from a real estate perspective, but from a product perspective of mortgages, servicing, access to financial services, no, no. That's why even with the exceptions that were listed in the field many weeks ago, we suggested either an entity level or a data level exemption for entities that are regulated under the federal and state privacy regulations. Which is essentially

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: wrap up on what you were suggesting.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Right, and the reason we're here is because you've taken a slice out of the broader privacy bill of data deletion and you've put it in the data broker bill. If this weren't in bill, we would wait till the discussions go on with the broader data privacy bill, but we're here now because you put the deletion provisions in your drafts. Otherwise, clean as in years past, a cleaner data broker bill does not have an impact on security privacy.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Next question. Switch gears. Take this up again.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Yeah. Sorry, Najee.

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'll say first, Chris, I did not intend for you to think that I did not respect the experts in the room as far as representing your clients. And that is not something I have said, and I did not mean for that to be intended. So if that came out of my communications, then I apologize for that. At the same time, what I was getting at is that there are certain cases where we are hearing from people who represent groups of people, and that is great. But the most helpful is when we can go a step beyond that to actually talk to the clients, especially the client's legal counsel. So if it's Mascoma, for instance, Bennington Bank that you would just give, talking to their risk folks or their compliance folks, I'm saying that that is an added level of communication that we had in the case of trying to make this exemption, which we have not had in the other cases. In the absence of having that over the past mean, this entire bill, but especially over town meeting week, I'm gonna say something and then ask you a question that something that I asked over the course of the week. So I put a very public that signal out on LinkedIn saying, am trying to find I'm trying to understand this identity verification space, the insurance space, the bank space, the broker space, and how this all comes together so I can better understand it so we can craft. We can be sure that our exemptions are not going to interrupt business. So as a course of that, whenever I do that, I end up getting referrals from people all over the place where it's like 20 people and I might get one that can go on the record, which resulted in Eve. In the process of doing that, I was speaking to people that just cannot go on the record because of who they're representing. Maybe you can help me get to them in a more appropriate fashion. That ended up being people who architected the systems of the data brokers that we're trying to look at, that I ended up talking to. And I always start this conversation saying, I'm trying to regulate the data broker space. And in one case, I ended up talking to a data broker who was like, well, we vend for most of the banks in Vermont. So this is like an awkward discussion, but let's have it. And I'm like, great. I don't want to Yes, because I don't want to interrupt the relationship between those entities where I can. Right? So the question I asked him, which I would like to ask you, and in general, the CEOs of FinTech companies, which is a different space, understand, but they're often getting VC capital, which allows them to do the next level of things that a smaller bank does not have access to. So I totally respect that. So things like, they were talking about the technologies that will keep track of how fast I'm typing in my password, whether I copy and paste it, if I'm doing weird things in my phone as I'm entering my bank password and then triggering fraud alerts. Totally understand not every bank is going to maybe have access to that technology, even though that's where it seems like the market is going. But I did ask him. He said, The banks are reliant on our data and the other data broker vendors in this space. So great. I said, so what happens if I ask some questions about knowing your customer and stuff that Eve was talking about yesterday as far as NIST standards and not relying on knowledge based verification stuff from data brokers? And so I said, we don't want to interrupt consumers from being able to get access to loans and things like that. So if we away, if we somehow interrupt the banks being able to rely on things like third party brokers who are not in this regulated space. Does that mean that the banks will just cease to offer loans to people? The response that I got was, no, they'll just switch to documented. There's non documentary stuff, which is the data broker space. And then there's the documented stuff, is your ID and matching your face or passport and the credit records that are regulated. So he said they will switch to this, which is a more manual process in some cases, and they will have to do extra leg work. And in the case of being able to rely on third parties, it's a more streamlined thing, which makes it faster for everybody, but also has its downsides. And there are other methods of verification. So I guess I would ask you, consumers actually be denied loans because the initial software reliance on the data broker vendors, if somebody is deleted, will a bank really say, you can't have your loan. Sorry, you don't exist.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I'm not gonna answer a hypothetical because

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Sure. Multiple

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Those are the type of questions I wanna explore We're to do

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: collecting your driver's license. We're getting that visual. If you don't have your driver's license, there's other documents, your address, etcetera, tax returns, whatever it may be. We collect all of that paperwork. That paperwork is still valid and used in the discussion of vetting the individual making a loan. It isn't that we just sit there and puncture function information in a black box and that's what comes back. It's multiple layers of information that entities look at. Put this in the context of AI discussions. I'm not aware of any of my institutions yet that are using AI as the final decision making tool, it's always, okay, we'll use it, but it's not that you even trust it, but you gotta verify it. And there's always that manual process, there's always that hands on person that ultimately at the end of the day is making the final decision. It's just not a black box in

[Rep. Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: or So I guess like, Chris, the piece that I'm trying to navigate here with you is we're not taking away the entire toolbox. We're taking away potentially a screwdriver. But in not having kind of the insight with your clients to talk through all of the ins and outs, like we don't know if we're removing other tools. And that's the piece that's helpful to explore. So

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: please, that's what we do behind the scenes. Yes. You expect me to come here with the information that's going to be useful, that's transmitted through me from my business, from my banks. Right. So that's what I what I have done in in multiple committees and conversations. I do apologize for this. I gotta get to house general on a

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I have this. Bill. So We'll speak back before mister Nora. So do you wanna speak tomorrow?

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Yeah. Need to do corresponding.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Jamie? You're all the one month. Okay. Very good.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Jonathan, can you pull the door?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Hi, Pedro.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Hi.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll be with you in one second. Okay, so we're switching gears. We're continuing our discussions on the amendment to to point four five. So we have Rachel Windham with us. Rachel, good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. Well, you can Yeah. Give us some

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Do you mind if I jump in and start talking a little bit about employment of teachers in Vermont public schools?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, that'd be great.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, all right. So look, I think the statute that you all are focusing on now is a potential amendment of 16 BSA section seventeen fifty two. And it is the statute that governs the hiring and termination of teachers. Under the statute, Vermont teachers only have to teach for two years in any Vermont public school, any Vermont public school before they become tenured. And tenured teachers under 16 VSA section seventeen fifty two may only be terminated or disciplined for just cause. So, there there is a very significant job protection for teachers once they've reached two years of employment. If and and one thing that I would add is that that teachers even with less than two years of employment in Vermont schools are entitled to just cause for immediate termination. So you can never terminate a teacher without just cause. You can non renew a teacher without just cause if they have served less than two years in any Vermont schools combined. So lots of job protection, but there is something and every year under the statute, schools are required to issue to teachers by April 15, a new contract. The the teacher then can choose whether to continue on at that district or to leave and go somewhere else. What what I understand this committee is grappling with is the question of whether we should allow teachers to break their contracts with districts at any time and leave. And what I my my response to that is the statute already contemplates they they can break their contract, before they sign the new contract. But but if they don't, if they choose to stay on, then they are committing for another year. And the statute currently says in section a, that if they do break their contracts, and they leave during the course of the one year contract, they can't work any in any other Vermont public school. And I suppose the question for all of you is why would it be that way? Why is that desirable? And the answer is this, there are, it is very difficult to hire new teachers in a hurry. So for example, if teachers leave in July or August or even September before school starts, schools are scrambling to find qualified applicants by the time July or August rolls around. Most of almost all of the qualified applicants have already found jobs somewhere else and schools are scrambling to try and find someone qualified. But that's that's not even the issue here. The amendment that's being offered would be would allow teachers to leave mid year and to go to some other school during the course of a school year. And you can imagine whatever difficulties existed during the summer months to find a qualified replacement for a teacher who at the last moment left the district, even though they were under contract, that is, exacerbated and that is multiplied exponentially when it is mid year. And what we see practically speaking is that if teachers leave mid year, generally speaking, it is nearly impossible to find anybody who is qualified because of course everybody is already under contract at other schools. Now there may be an argument, well, know, just as somebody has been lured away by some other district from you, you can do the same thing to someone else. But the real practical impact of this kind of change to the statute is going to be that poor districts, districts that have lower salaries because their communities have less money will be cannibalized by the larger districts. That the the larger, wealthier communities can afford teachers and and people will be dragged away to those schools leaving poor communities scrambling mid year to find some replacement. And and generally speaking, those communities are not successful in finding good teachers for kids. Now I understand that that one of the arguments being raised is that in some ways, is non competition, right? And telling teachers you can't leave your job and go somewhere else, and it's being lumped into a a bill having to do with non competition. I would suggest to the committee that there's some really significant differences between non competition agreements that are signed at for profit companies and and schools which serve students, which teach where continuity of instruction is incredibly important to effective learning and that those differences are meaningful. So you know, let's think for a moment about non competition agreements in the private sector. It is a way for employers in the private sector to make sure that when people leave, whether they're terminated, whether they quit, whatever those circumstances, that they are not able to do the same kind of work in the same area and siphon away customers from that company. That's not what we're dealing with here. What we're dealing with are school districts which are in the business, which are nonprofits, right? We're not looking to make a profit in a school district and which collaborate generally with one another. And what they are trying to do is just assure that our children have the continuity of instruction for the year after a teacher has been given the opportunity to leave if they want that they remain in the district for the remainder of the year if they want to continue to teach in a Vermont public school. And so I guess that the concern is when I had a conversation this morning with, with one of my superintendent clients, and she was deathly afraid of what would happen if this language was allowed to go forward and became statutory. What she foresaw in her district was teachers leaving mid year, them that community which is not affluent, never being able to catch up, never being able to maintain high quality learning for their students and asked me to not mess it up today. And I'm doing my best to communicate to you how dire this could be. Now the South Burlington's of the world, the Essex of the world, they're gonna be fine. But the rest of the state, the states where the salaries and wages are not as high, those are places where as soon as an opening comes in these larger, more affluent communities, they will suffer the consequences. And so I would suggest to all of you that the system we have in place is one that balances these concerns fairly. It gives teachers an opportunity in the spring to decline as a new contract under collective bargaining agreements, they generally have several weeks at a minimum, months at a maximum to make decisions about whether they're going to sign the contract. This is something that is collectively bargained. And if they want a job at some other community, they generally take those jobs and those jobs are available and offered within the timeframe that we're talking about and for the upcoming year. Nobody is disadvantaged by that. So I guess I would suggest to all of you that this is not the time to make changes. And if we do, the people who will suffer are our children. Are there any questions?

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: Thank you for your testimony. My name's Representative Abbey Duke from Burlington. So my question is about, would it be better for these provisions to be in the collective bargaining agreement and not in statute? Yeah,

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: and I guess what I would say to you is that we have for many, many years collectively bargained around the issue of how long do teachers have to hang on to the contract that's offered on April 15. And sometimes they negotiate it back into March, right? So you may get even a statute says April 15, we'll issue a contract to you. But sometimes it has to be earlier by virtue of the CBA. And how long does the teacher have is something that is collectively bargained and part of a process. And what I would suggest to you is that if individual communities that is, you know, if there's some communities that don't value an ability to understand who's coming back and who's not, then they can collectively bargain more and more time. Communities that that know that that this is going to be really hard if they have to fill spots in deep into the summer, and therefore need to know earlier can collectively bargain around those issues in a different way.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: So thanks thanks a lot, mister William. And maybe you answered this already in connection with Addison's question, perhaps in Jude's question. But in terms of collective bargaining, I'm trying to understand what the scope of collective bargaining would be about these issues even under the current statute. In other words, can the parties bargain about the you know, what constitutes just cause? An undefined term in in the statute. Is it would it be permissible notwithstanding the statute or consistent with the statute for the parties to bargain over the details of what that would constitute?

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Do I understand?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, no, that's a really smart question. And you know, like for somebody like me who does this every day, I kind of overlook that it's, but this is what I would say. The term just cause appears both in the statute and in all of the many collective bargaining agreements in the state, both for teachers and support staff, it's there. And the districts are not entitled to engage in disciplinary proceedings against employees without just cause. Now the question you raised is, is it defined? And the answer is, don't know of a single collective bargaining agreement. And I know the statute does not have a definition. But this is a concept that is well developed under the law. Most of these disciplinary matters like terminations and the like, if they are disputed, go all the way to arbitration. That's where they end up. The arbitrators use a definition that has been used for years by the Vermont Labor Relations Board. And this concept of just cause is determined based on 12 different factors that are used by the VDLRB and have been affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court. So is there a precise definition in either the statute or the collective bargaining agreements? No, but we know what it is.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Okay, thanks. Hi, Emily Carris, Wilmington, Windham Halifax. Maybe just to follow-up on what Herb was saying, because this was also my question too, is though it has been like deeply litigated and it's very well established, does the general kind of reconcile educator know what just cause means or what sort of parameters seem to cover that concept?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, so let me put it to you this way. Under US federal law and Vermont law, whenever there is the potential for discipline, the employee is entitled to have with them in every interaction with the administration, a union representative. These are people who either work at Vermont NEA in Montpelier, or have been trained by them in each of these local buildings to fully understand the rights and responsibilities that flow from the collective bargaining agreement. And they are there to make sure the process is as it should be under the law and under the CBA, and to make sure that the employee is fully educated about their rights. So I, you know, do I think that every person working in a school understands what just causes? No, but the people who are guiding them through the process, who are advising them every step of the way, they know with certainty what it is, and they have the kind of experience and resources available to them through Vermont NEA, which is an extremely professional and capable organization, to make sure that the rights of the workers are protected.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Thank you. Hey,

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Pietro, how are you doing?

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: Hi.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: You won't be getting emails from me anymore. Question for you regarding putting a, lack of a better term, a no compete clause into a collective bargaining agreement. Can you explain how arduous that process would be?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Oh, yeah. I mean, what I know for sure is that, based on, I've done a lot of collective bargaining in my life as a school lawyer. And I guess what I would say to you is that, I know that that there is not a single association in the state that is the people representing the local employees in in bargaining that would ever accept a non competition agreement. And I'll be honest with you, I don't think there's a school board in the state that would want one. I think school boards are made up of people who are fair minded and care about their teachers and other employees. And generally speaking, all they want is a balance that is fair, that supports learning. And what we know and what I hear from administrators all the time is that this concept of continuity of instruction that is making sure that the same person is providing instruction from start to finish throughout the course if you want the best possible results that that is something of value. And so the idea that that a teacher could leave mid year and then we're scrambling trying to find someone else maybe we won't find somebody else. So we end up with a substitute for months and months who has never taught the course before isn't licensed for this specific course. That is not something that your local school boards would want. It is not desirable for student learning.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Thank you very much. I think this is a quick question. The term tenure came up earlier in your testimony. Is that the equivalent of a non probationary teacher?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, so all right, now I do these trainings all the time for administrators. And I guess what I would say is that what we know is this, that there are really two sources of teacher rights under the typical circumstances in Vermont. One is seventeen fifty two is this statute that you're looking at now. Under 16 VSA section seventeen fifty two, there is tenure after two years of teaching in any Vermont public school. So what that means is I could do a could do a year in, Champlain Valley, and I could do a year in Essex, and then I am tenured. And tenured means I can only be terminated with just costs. Now, the collective bargaining agreement, most of them also have a two year provision where you have to be with that district before you are tenured. And so you may be tenured under the statute but not tenured under the collective bargaining agreement which is confusing and weird. But what all that means in practical terms is that you're not entitled to follow the grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement if you're not tenured under the CBA. What you can do is get a louder mill due process hearing a mini trial in front of the school board. If you are terminated under 1752. It gives you full louder mill rights and opportunity to litigate to cross examine to offer witnesses to have a written decision. All of those things are present only with two years of service in any school.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: The reason for my question for tenure not to be here in the statutory language I was looking at in 1752. So I was just trying to make sure that maybe use the term tenure as a shorthand for just that's the non probationary teachers.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: That's right. Sorry. Yes, I didn't answer the question. I apologize.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Got it. Thank you.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Edye? So, Pietro, I'm struggling with the most neutral way to ask this question that isn't going to take us down an enormous rabbit hole. But if a person were wanting to update 1752, would you simply take A out or would there be other things that would need to be adjusted as well?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Oh, would leave A as it is. I think that's the part of the statute that frankly is most meaningful when it comes to making sure that kids get a good education. You know, we need teachers to live by their promises and that's what a contract is. It's a promise. And so I would ask that that part be left alone. Are there other parts we can change? Yeah, I think it's confusing when it comes to questions of who has the right to suspend teachers as opposed to terminate. If you read it, you know, like I think it's unclear whether board has to do it or whether a superintendent can do it. I'd like greater clarity around that. I think that there have been some recent changes that make it more rational, the process at least in conjunction with collective bargaining agreements. It's a very old statue, right? And so, you know, it's not a bad thing to take a look at it from time to time and tweak it, not A, A is the part that matters the most for kids.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Not what I was expecting you to say, thank you.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: I'm sorry. No.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions, Abbey?

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: The more I've looked into this, and the more I've talked to people, I certainly understand your point about midyear. I don't think there's anybody on this committee who's interested in creating a system where that increases midyear resignations. But from what I understand, the real tension is that time period from April 15 until the contracts start on July 1, when after contracts are signed and then jobs become available. And then the statute to me is a little vague about when the contract starts. Does a contract start when you sign it, but it hasn't started yet? Or does a contract start once it starts? And so what understand is in practice, using the superintendent code of ethics and using sort of how people work in practice, is it is a superintendent talking to each other and kind of making determinations about whether if somebody wants to apply to another district, making determinations about whether to say, Okay, you can get out of your contract. This is my understanding about how it works in practice. It just seems to me that it doesn't I guess it's kind of a question. It's kind of me saying what I think, which is other professions don't have it in statute about how that works. I would imagine that in the ideal situation, would be, this is gonna come to a question, that would be in a collective bargaining agreement like other states around us have, so that the district and the NEA have a negotiation and they work out, this is when the contract starts, this is how you can get out of it. You've ninety days, whatever it is, June 1, July 1, maybe this deadline. And so then the next tension is, if we were to go to that system, how do you go from how we are now to having an inflected bargaining agreements in a way that is fair to all parties. And so I guess that's my question. If we were to go to a system where this was negotiated in collective bargaining agreements, how do we get there from here in a way that empowers both parties? And is fair.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, I mean, I guess, let me respond. I mean, there was a lot there. So let me respond broadly. The way it works now is that these contracts are issued at the latest by April 15. Sometimes they're issued earlier because that's what's been collectively bargained. Generally speaking, universally the collective bargaining agreements contain provisions for how long the employee has to decide whether they're going to sign the new contract. And that's the window of opportunity that exists for that employee to look around and to see if they want to accept another job. The applications aren't in that period. The applications are well before that schools know in advance, generally speaking in the fall who's leaving and who's not. So hiring season begins early, early in the new year. And so generally speaking by that time period between April, May that in that time period, the offers are going out and people are in a position, teachers are in a position to accept new jobs if they want them. And so what I see again, I have never, you know, like everybody has a horror story, I'm sure about when it is not done the way I'm about to present. I can't tell you it has never happened. But what I know is that generally speaking superintendents, if you come to them as a teacher and say I am a finalist for a job in St. Albans at BFA. Can you give me two more weeks? I will find out then. The answer in my experience has been universally yes, of course. So so there are extensions routinely given. And this is a system that works. People move from district to district for a variety of reasons. And let me say one other thing. The statute has written does allow somebody to leave mid year and work somewhere else for good cause, right? So it's not like you never ever can do it. But you know, if you have a spouse who has become very ill and you need to work closer to home or there are a variety of reasons why that might be the case. And so this is one of those things where the statute says the language that's there, there are collective bargaining agreements that are built around that statutory language in a way where people have bargained for the amount of time that they get to decide. And this is not something where I look at it as a practitioner and I go, wow, this is super unfair to teachers or unfair to districts. We have a system that I think largely works. Nobody's been prevented from moving around. People do all the time. It is a fact of life. Now, you're asking me, you know, do superintendents have conversations when people under contract try to leave? The answer is of course, because they know that it's bad for students if people break their contracts mid year. Once you're signed up and people are relying on you and you have committed, you've made that promise, you're gonna stay for a year. I suspect there are conversations all the time about is this person under contract to you? If so, is there a problem me poaching them away from you? Not because there's some personal reason, but because ultimately, it has a dramatic negative impact on what learning is going on in the classroom.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Yeah. Thanks. You say something that caught my ear or whatever brain, and you talked about extenuating circumstances and the teacher coming to the superintendent and saying, you know, this is what's going on in my life, blah blah blah. And the superintendent says, yeah. That's funny. Are those extenuating circumstance forget about just cost for a minute. Are those extenuating circumstances can they be subject to collective bargain? Everything

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: that is not inconsistent with the statute is subject to collective bargaining. You'll see in the statute at the very bottom, it says everything in here is engrafted into contracts, whether you know, as a matter of law. But if you know, if people wanna collectively bargain the reasons why they could you know, what constitutes just cause to leave a job. I assume they can go ahead and do that. But these are you know, but the reality is most of the time the reason people want to leave mid year is because there's the job opening that pays better. And that's not me castigating their motives. I mean, we all wanna be paid better for doing the same work. But what I'm here to argue is that the dislocation that is caused by that is prejudicial to what schools are trying to do.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: That's very helpful. And and what I took away from that, was that, you know, the local association and the school board, in fact, can negotiate the circumstances under which it's okay to leave the job mid mid contract. Yeah.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: What constitutes just cause under the statute is something that could be the subject of collective bargaining. I mean, look, all working conditions are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. And there are things that are negotiated in these bargaining sessions all the time that have to do with how long you work, whether you work, when you're done. I mean, these are lengthy processes that where there is sometimes very contentious bargaining.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Yes, thank you.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Perfection for me. I was curious getting back to the union representation. So when educator's having a of more casual conversation with their superintendent about their decisions on whether they're gonna leave or not, is that the type of situation that a union rep would be present for? I'm just trying to understand.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: I don't fully understand. Well, mean, look, no, no, no, no, that's good. So there's this US Supreme Court case called Weingarten. And Weingarten says that every member of the union is entitled to union representation where there is going to be communications around matters that might lead to discipline. So anything where there could be discipline union rep is present. Now if teacher comes to the superintendent and says, hey, I'm a finalist for a job in St. Albans, I need two more weeks. That's no discipline is gonna result from that. So no, a union rep would not be present but the member is always free to seek advice and to ask the union to intercede with a superintendent that and that does in fact happen.

[Rep. Emily Carris Duncan (Member)]: Okay, and that gets me back to my previous question, which is that question of if Frank and I'll educators know about what just cause means, if in our statute just cause is being applied, not just to disciplinary action, but to their ability to justly move from their position at the end of the contract.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, no, I mean, I don't I don't think there's anything about 1752 that is a mystery to members of the associations throughout the state. Vermont NEA, again, is incredibly effective at communicating with members and making sure everyone is aware of their rights as they should be.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions? Pietro, are you aware of any collective bargaining agreements that that any of the school that or any of the school districts and the NEA have have in their contracts that discusses just cause and and the length of the reasons why a teacher can come to a superintendent and say, this is my this is my problem. Can I need to move to another district because my husband or my spouse is sick, or I have a better offer? That has that ever happened in in in the collective bargaining agreements?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, it's fascinating the question. It's a good question. And the answer is no. But I think the reason why the answer is no, is because look, I've been working with school districts for twenty plus years. And what I can say is I've never met a larger group of well meaning people and I've never encountered superintendents where there is some compelling reason to leave the job mid year who are gonna stand in the way of an employee. In fact, my experience is that mostly districts are incredibly empathetic, compassionate, supportive of their employees and they go above and beyond what the law requires to support people. And in fact, sometimes I got to sort of rein them in and say, well, wait a second, think about the precedents that you're creating, because the impulse is always to help. That's my experience.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So if there were if there was a district that superintendent was holding people back, wouldn't allow them to interview, was telling other superintendents not to interview them, Seems to me that the next collective bargaining agreement that came up that and that superintendent is still there, that some language could be developed that would allow those teachers to be able to to interview to go and to make sure that that superintendent allows other districts the ability to interview.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah. Yeah. And and so it's always the one of the push pulls that I routinely see in this collective bargaining is how long do do teachers have between the time the contracts are issued and the time they have to sign them to interview and see what's out there. That's always part, mean, it is continually coming up and sometimes districts are pushing to make it shorter because they they're having difficulty hanging on to people and planning if people leave. And sometimes, employees, associations are trying to make it longer. And, you know, it's just part of the bargaining process. And if it is a priority for either side then you know they can hang tough and try and win during bargaining around that issue. Mostly my experience is it's not a priority for the association that they are focused on other things like wages and benefits and working hours. And this is usually a secondary or even tertiary issue.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Yeah, so beyond just the time period given to sign the contract,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I'm thinking more

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: extenuating circumstances during the actual contract here. And what I heard in response to an earlier question was that bargaining about those extenuating circumstances could be subject to collective bargaining during a subsequent session. Is that correct?

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Yeah, that could be. And by the way, just so I'm crystal clear on this, the districts don't really have any ability to enforce in court seventeen fifty two. I've never heard of anybody getting sued under seventeen fifty two. The agency of education has an ability to enforce it, they never have. And in the end, it really is it's an honor code.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great, Rachel, thank you. That was very helpful. Thank you.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: Oh, it was a delight. Thank you all for having me.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Pietro J. Lynn, Esq. (School Law Attorney)]: All right. Take care. Bye bye.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Bye bye.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Thank

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: For the record, Jeff Bennington, Executive Director of Vermont NEA. Interesting to follow Pietro, who I've had very good relationships over the years. First off, I applaud the committee for its work on H2-five, the underlying bill. I know it's taken a long time. I understand seven years wasn't something we're watching. So thank you for your work on that. What was down here, and I appreciate that. As to this specific issue in front of us, I do support what the chair has tried to do, which is find a middle ground. We do support that effort. Is it perfect? No. But it's something we do support in this particular moment. Nobody is wanting to see people leave mid year. It's not what we're talking about. We certainly our kids every day, our students are served by my members every single day and they show those kids with dignity and honesty and integrity and part of that is making sure they're there for them every single day. They do that every year, year in, year out. I understand there's this belief that know, there isn't a problem. That's not clear though. There is a problem, truthfully. I think negotiated the settlement, excuse me, the amendment that the chair has offered makes it an obligation of the parties to bargain this. I think that's the right approach. Whether it's an obligation, they will all sides will figure that out and bargain it. I do appreciate it. I've heard the school boards and superintendents and principal associations say this is a difficult time to do this. There's a lot of change going on. Could not agree more. I mean, sympathetic to that, it's changed from my folks as well, that this is something that should be done. We can take care of this and put the clock on this one as far as the shares amount goes up to $20.29. There's everybody ample time in which to figure this out a little bit, grab the contours of the road, and then bargain it in a way that works locally for schools and school boards and teachers. That's what we're talking about. And I'll be brief in that. I'm happy to answer any questions that might be on your floor. Questions?

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: So as we talk about bargaining, do you know how many of your members are on school boards that would be bargaining this? I do not.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: They don't serve in in where they work. They serve on another school district. Mhmm. But I don't know the exact number. But they're entitled to be there for citizens. They're entitled to be on school boards.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good question. I see something grew.

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I I

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just I

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: may have missed something, but I didn't see another proposed amendment, like the voting.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's the dispute. No. We haven't put it

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: The witness talked about appear to remember

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: something we talked about. Some idea. So

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: I didn't miss anything.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: No, she did. The concept is that the public the obligated to collectively bargain these the people coming and going and their teachers leaving in May. And you've talked about it here already with Pietro. So it's an obligation that the sides do that. Two prospect folks have seen this. I've seen it with school boards, superintendents, principals. This chair's notion of an idea, we support that. I guess it's not an amendment fair enough. Apologize.

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

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: But it's the idea is both sides would have to bargain this and it would be put out until your contract expires or no later than I think 2029. So it gives everybody a long runway to figure this out, bargain it, and have a conversation that works with teachers and school boards locally.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Well, that that's helpful because, you know, from the time this issue came alive, you know, I had always thought, jeez, you know, that's what collective bargaining is about. And so I don't even understand why we would need to change the statute if collective bargaining are already permits negotiation of Emily's interests, frankly. I don't know why you need to repeal it to in order to bargain. But

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: the statute is the floor. Right? You can go above it. Minimum wage, for example, you go above it. And the same here, $17.52 operates as something they can't bargain away. They can't Alright. Bargain away the statute.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: I I understand. But that was why Pietro's I thought testimony was was important, and maybe you don't agree with it because he I think what he was saying was that, notwithstanding the statute, the party can still bargain about, you know, what should be extenuating circumstances by which under which Chittenden would be able to leave mid contract. That's what I heard him say. So I I don't know what.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: But I think they're running up against the my my side is running up to the fact that it's seventeen fifty two a. That's the problem. They're running into the statute.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: And that's what I don't understand.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So maybe we'll talk about that later.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Because I I don't understand why even if 7,250 is left in place, you can't actually bargain about them. Now, but the issue is a teacher wanting to leave somewhere mid contract. You can bargain about those terms, from what I can tell.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Right. That's what happens in other states that don't have actually, other New England states don't have seventeen fifty two a type of language.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: I I hear you. It just seemed like the statute was irrelevant to your ability to bargain.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I think it's operating as a restrictor, if you will. But besides think they can bark.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think they can bark. Well, I've already spoken to Jonathan.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. So, mean, ultimately, if we if a school board wanted to have that in the bargaining agreement, they would have to bargain with it because currently, it's not in any of the agreements out there. So that would require a school board to give something up because that's what the whole bargaining process is. It's you give something up, but they're already a school board could legitimately look at what it currently is and say, well, we're already giving this up. This is something that we currently have. So how That's problem that I think the SBA is in, is that it's technically there in the bargaining agreement with it not being there. So by taking it out, we are effectively taking a piece out of a bargaining agreement that's not in there, know what

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: I'm saying. Right. And you

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: said your own legislative counsel said 1752 conference is a non compete clause. Correct. So if you were to take that out, 1752A, I think it's the advisable way to go, and then obligate the parties as the chair proposes an idea, I think that's the right approach. It obligates the science to give and take. And to your point though, I may be arguing against my own self interest, my members own self interest, but that's something they would see as okay, that's something we want. That a school board might be able to leverage that to something they want and that's the give and take of collective bargaining.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: So if legislation stated that if the collective bargaining would put it into, then it would not apply. I'm sorry, I didn't talk. So what you're doing is you're putting the power to remove it on the school board. If there was a clause in this to state that if the collective bargaining unit puts it in, then that statute would not apply. It puts you guys at a disadvantage because it puts you at a disadvantage and puts the school boards at an advantage, because currently they have it in there. But if you want to be exempt from that particular statute, you would have to bargain it in versus the school board having to bargain it in.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Right. Or just bargaining it out in that I

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: don't think, you said earlier to represent Olson's question, you can't bargain something less than the statute. And then so if, you know, minimum wage, for example, you couldn't bargain by agreement. We're gonna

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: have to pay people a

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: dollar now because that's just not permissible under law.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Well, you could same here. You could if you put it in statute that this statute doesn't apply if it's bargained into

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: You could. Collective bargaining. Under seventeen fifty two b, for example, it says just cause doesn't under c and d doesn't apply if the if the future is subject to a collective bargaining agreement that provides just cause. So we don't follow the statute. We filed a collective bargaining agreement, assuming Carrisun, as to just cause under seventeen fifty two b. It says specifically. See, it doesn't but it doesn't say that is the a. So it's not permissible under a. It is under beats specifically. It says, you know, that c and d, they're seventeen fifty two, don't apply. That's the process that, Pietro spoke about, non renewal, discharging teachers. That does not apply if the teacher is subject to elective bargaining. And it doesn't say that to SAA.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I'm in the Southwest corner of the state, the Southwest is Massachusetts, the Northwest is New York, not really which state has an interest in seventeen fifty two AAPC, and I'm just wondering to what extent what we're describing has to do with Vermont's own principal school districts having an impact on other teachers and other spread of Vermont. 17b2a is meant to limit teachers being pulled from leaving schools in the lurch because they're somewhere else in Vermont. How often are teachers leaving Vermont? Like how much does Stanford school? Because they're gonna actually have to think about this for that. How often do you see teachers leaving the state? Because you know, an extent that LTP can happen in state. The answer is yes. Think that's right.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I mean, Jim, was one time superintendent of Bennington, I once heard him describe his district as the, we call it the farm league for New York.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Where is that? The politicians

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: are fake.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I'll leave that to you. So I think the answer is people do seek employment where they can get a better wage. It's understandable. Where it works better for their family and their lifestyle and those sorts of things. They might be a poor position. They don't want to teach facts. They wanna teach them live. That's not available in their district for whatever reason, and it is down the road.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I was sort of wondering if there's an understanding of here's when we see that happen, here's the appropriate if there's an understanding, boy, April's pretty tough in those border districts because that's when they start getting job offers elsewhere, or if it's May or something, to try to inform what might be an appropriate understanding to come to, between employer and representation around how to manage this calendar?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I hope.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: That is why I think collective bargaining is so important. I do think that's a way for Vermont to retain good creatures, which is something I think I hope we want to do and not have them leave to go out of state. So I think that we could and should require them to bargain over this issue so that we don't have people fleeing the state. It's not in our interest and not be subject to not competing to this. I also believe not in our interest.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: I guess the comment that I was trying to make for clarity. So what I'm wondering is whether or not Section A, it says a teacher under contract to teach There we go. Teach a public school who fails without just cause to complete the term for which the teacher is contracted to teach shall be disqualified to teach in any other public school for the remainder of the school year. And if we had a clause that said, unless the collective bargaining agreement has a clause to address teachers breaking contract, that would do what the statute does and also put it into the collective bargaining that you can work it out or this Well, you could work it out. But you would have to get something.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Right, that's what happens in the other states in Cleveland. It's collectively barred. There's some no other state in New England has this sort of restriction on changing jobs. But to completely remove that do define the hows and wants.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Right. But to completely remove it would be a disadvantage to the school boards. I mean, I'm

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: just Right. And that's why it was for the chair's notion to say, yeah. It's not amended, but but to require the parties to bargain. Your way

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: is a different way. But but the way that the chair's suggestion puts the open puts the it's on the school boards to make it happen, not the teachers' unions or the union to make it happen, which which is that sets the school board back. Right. We've been dealing with

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: this for years and years, decades. I've at the Montney for twenty five years. This has been a perennial problem. This is nothing new. We'll say that. And I think if the state's moving to a policy that noncompete costs are not favorable, see that, they're they're unlawful, I think that should apply to features. I'd like it to apply now, just to be honest with you. But I'm aware that there may be time and need for space for parties to bargain this collectively and figure this out. And so if that means 2029, we are dealing with a law, by the way, that is 140 years old. 1886 when these words went into effect. And I think that we are willing to say, let's bargain this and make that happen a little bit over time for both sides. And but also consistent with the notion that the state's policy is gonna be, we disfavor non compete clauses for all employees in the state.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: I'm not a fan of 02/2005, so but I get what you're saying, and I agree that if we are saying that it's not good, then it's not good for teachers as well. I'm just saying that the idea of doing this will take that struggle that the school board will have to deal with and put it where it belongs, where it's a level playing field for them. And it's up to you to bargain it out, it's not the school board, just to bargain it out. If you guys wanna bargain it out, that's you. But it's it's currently there. It's currently there. And if the school board allows them to be bargaining it out, that's that's on that.

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I I just don't think they can bargain with it.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: They they can't, but if if there was a clause on that would say Understood. You could do it, and if you did, then the statute

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: won't Could you be then treating some employees, teachers, differently than every other employee in

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: Everybody the has the right to bargain it out through their collective bargaining. The NEA has plenty of money to bargain.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Do. That is okay. It's

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: sort of which side? I think we have long believed the problem, the state's needs are not something the state favors. We think that should apply to teachers as well. But giving them space and a runway which should prevent the harmony.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So so what I'm reading is that seventeen fifty two a has got to come out at some point.

[Rep. Michael Boutin (Member)]: I think it makes

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: sense if we're gonna have a non compete prohibition in the state, that is your counsel has said it operates as a non compete, that shouldn't be allowed to stand.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We get a federal question.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: Real quick. Real quick.

[Rep. Stevens (House Appropriations)]: Well, if

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: we're gonna do that,

[Chris D’Elia (President, Vermont Bankers Association)]: then let's just get rid of something. Or at least revisit the whole law of something 52. So we're looking at the whole thing, not just a subsection on that. In isolation. That's not appropriate either. You're absolutely right that this definitely puts administrators, superintendents, and especially school boards in a very bad position. For the record And most importantly, kids. For the record, Jay Nichols

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: from Hunt Principal's associate chain.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So what I'm hearing is there's really no flexibility on your part to move this bill without either removing or repealing seventeen fifty two a Because the discussions that we're having continue to go down holes that we need to explore that we don't have time to explore. So if we don't remove it, then we're then there's gonna be an issue. You're not in favor of putting a placeholder in there that talks about a working group that then the Senate can work on. It gives them the ability to work on language that maybe everybody can come to an agreement on once it goes over to the Senate. And you're not in favor of that? I just don't see how I appreciate the effort,

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Mr. Chair. I do. But if the state's going to pass a law that's not going be sort of impermissible, we think it ought to apply to teachers. I'm willing to extend that deadline, if

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you will, as the

[Jeff Bennington (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: teacher. But before we were in here, Chelsea, Jay and I were all concerned, we were talking about previous efforts to solve this. We've never gotten any, I would say, we've never come to an agreement. That's obvious. I would say we've gotten someplace, but we're not in agreement. And I don't know that a study group is going to do the thing.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm just saying that there's a proposal now to take a look at the whole '19 1752, all the all the subsections in there. I don't have time I don't have I don't have time to deal with that. Yeah. I understand. And I don't have any more time to deal with anything. So I think at this point, we're just gonna pull the bill back into the debate tomorrow. I'm kind of out of of tricks in my head to try to move this out.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Member)]: It's both. I still think of well, I'll talk to that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. We have to go. We have to go on the floor.