Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right, House of Education, 02/18/2026. Just some time for the committee to regroup, pick up from where we left off yesterday, take into account some of the testimony we've heard today. So maybe we could talk a little bit further about CISAs. We were discussing yesterday sort of the big question of how to fund, whether to fund mandatory versus voluntary. What the governance would be, accountability within that. Would like to start us off. Why don't we talk about, first of all, is this a sort of map we want to draw or do we want to say that CISA should grow organically? And I'm using both CISAs interchangeably. I think given what we heard today, maybe we just need to change it to CISAs from now on. Just one thing, sounds like we could at least agree on one thing.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's something we can agree on that.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: So we hear from some other quarter that says, no, don't call it that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, BOCESS has been a challenge because in York State, that's CTE and other states, it's a location. Yeah.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: And that's what happened, I would say, the school redistricting task force, or because we had originally called it the BOCES proposal and changed that to CESA.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Who wants to say something about CSAs?

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I can start.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Since we just started discussing OCs in this committee last session, I've always been in favor of them. I think they have a place. I'm still trying to figure out their place in the whole discussion that we're having

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: now. And I

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: think there is one, but

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't know where it is.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So I'm still kind of lost on this whole thing. I see that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: they will have a benefit, but I

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: also need to understand the underlying, or any other lack of word, map that we're talking about before I can really grasp this whole Pulsi's concept. But struggle, I guess, is

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: what I'm throwing out there.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah. The time frame, doing that, Jacob's thing, I've heard that it can take many years to develop one to be functional within a system is the concern.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But we have no experience other than the one in Southeastern Vermont, which is seven years in the making, but it didn't start off with the OSI's enabling legislation, which does now exist.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: How did the OSI's enabling language help them get it done?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, I'm gonna answer a little bit, but then Emily, I'll look to you. Here's to me the advantage of most these enabling legislation is previous to that, what you really had were cooperative agreements, but one school district had to be the umbrella entity housing all the paperwork, the money, the writing out checks. And I know in my area, we've done cooperative things like this, usually to start an all dead program. As soon as one district doesn't feel like they need it anymore, they drop out and everything falls apart because they don't have any obligation to stay in. So that's how enabling legislation helps because it's sort of as a you join, you're in, you're all in, you can't come and go as you please.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Please. That's exactly everything I did with everything. And I'll just say, vocally, I'm speaking from my interpretation. I was not a part of the work that's been going on for seven years because I'm not an administrator down there. Was really led by, my sense was it started with the Southeast Superintendent Association organization, which is essentially what the map you see when you see a map around that. And based on Meade and when the legislature passed the BOCES legislation, the cooperative down there, Southern Vermont Cooperative or something, recognized that they were a good fit and started the process. But as we corrected last year, to actually really go into it, they needed the money upfront from the start. We made that change last year to have that $10,000 grant not happen at the, what I call it, the implementation of the BOCES, but at the start of the process. And I think the seven years wasn't the amount of years it took to create a BOCES. I think that's important to know. This BOCES in the way it functions today really only has been created since the law passed. But the cooperation was happening for seven years successfully, but not as intentionally as the legislation allowed them to be. So I think that's kind of the summary of my interpretation of it being sort of once removed. I'm grateful to be once removed because I really do believe, as I've said before, this is really to help the administrative functions of our transducers to make them more efficient or our districts to make them more

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: efficient. Jana?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I was taking another look at the task force report. So they propose a map or a mapping concept for CISAs. So I don't know if it's helpful for us to take that as a starting point for the discussion.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Any starting point for discussion is a good starting point.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah, well, and just refreshing my memory, because it's been a while since I looked at this report, just it be helpful for the committee to revisit that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So the map they proposed, what's the superintendent's regional map?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I'm not sure. It's five maps, but I like I've seen so many times I don't know how they all compare to each other. But folks could pull it up. I can email the link out.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Chris, go ahead. At some point,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: maybe a lot of walking around

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: the posters or any of

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: the other places. I'm just trying to

[Emily Long (Member)]: test my memory right now.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: If I remember right, you didn't have to join and volunteer. Could pay a

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: fee for service to any boast. So it doesn't matter where in the state, like somebody down in Brattleboro could pay a fee for service to a BOCES up in Franklin County if that were the case. Right. Yes. And does that model still work with what we're talking about now?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, first let me get to your first question. Yes, thank you. Would a walkthrough of the BOCES act be possible?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Right now?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. And just a quick question. While you're setting up, Joshua's next, then Rob.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So Chris Taylor said, you could opt to do fee for service. CVS, you can ask wherever. But if you join the CISA now, you're gonna, if you join it, you're gonna, but if you don't join, you can pay for services if you'd like.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Assuming that they're willing they they're under no obligation to provide those services. Whereas if you are a member of it, there's Obligation. You. The post is down in Rev Long's area, were they the ones? He knows last year. He wanted the $10,000 to Yeah. That's right. And that was to create their art. Yes. Right. And they right. Because there was that flip flops, like, we need it now. So as we run through this, we sort of created it from a very voluntary point of view, but we should decide if we want to make up regions and make it mandatory. If we make it mandatory, we have to define what that means. Everybody's got to come up with money to fund an executive director. If so, proportionally, how's that going to happen? All these things to flesh it out. Representative McCann.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It's really hard to have to come up with an answer. When you're looking at it in isolation. Kind of see like districts created and then the seesaw is being shown like umbrellas that are kind of held over a few of the districts. The seesaw is being, so you're under their umbrella. Mean voluntary or not voluntary, we gonna make districts voluntary?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. Are

[Kate McCann (Member)]: we gonna make them mandatory? I need to know that answer if I'm gonna answer the question you just asked.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. Okay, all right. But I will tell you my discussion, can't help both. But my discussion strategy here is to, is there something we can agree on since we can't seem to agree on districts and maps at the moment?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: That's a question. Mine is very similar. It's again that chicken and egg thing. Because if you create a CISA map and it's mandatory, if you're then after that create districts, do they have to follow the lines you've already created for the thesis? Or would they move to a different one?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Your question. You have a question? Oh, okay.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Can I just Yeah? Sorry, don't mean to interrupt, I am am mindful of what everyone's saying and recognize also that there is a seesaw put in place without restricting. And I'm not hung up on the topic of the idea of expanding or shrinking either in the future around new mines. I think it could happen because it's a model that you buy into. And I think the legislation, which we're gonna hear about right now, would allow.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'll be very honest with everybody. What we could, you know, right now, as I keep joking, the map that I put forward would be voted out of here on a zero or a one ten vote. So in a way, I'm saying if we're never gonna get to an agreement on this, what could we agree to with CESAs? Because we seem to be in agreement with CESAs. I totally respect Kate's point of view here and frankly agree with it. For me, it's more just a matter of us trying to come to some consensus on something other than H802. Wake us free. Wake free. For a little break, if you wouldn't mind.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I'm just

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: getting signed in. I'll walk through the law as it stands now, and then we'll look at the Act 168, which is the enabling act for BOCES because there's some transition language that's in session law that may be germane to your conversation. And I know you all know this, but I feel as though I need to say it for my peace of mind. You can call them whatever you want, but it's not going to happen unless you ask me to draft

[Emily Long (Member)]: something.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So right now, these are BOCES.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Maybe we'll settle one issue first. Could you provide some language for our miscellaneous Ed bill that would It's update the

[Kate McCann (Member)]: gonna be a lot

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of language. I'll talk to my colleagues. There is a large chance that it's just strike throughs of all of, so like multiple pages with that being the only change, just so you're not horrified when you see multiple pages. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And we are going with cooperative educational service agencies. Is that the full correct? Thank you.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask you a question about that?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Is it seesaws or seesaws?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's a personal preference. The Task Force have a ruling on that?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It is supportive education.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, I'm only talking about this. ESA or SEASAW.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: E S

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: G and R, seesawers.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Share with

[Emily Long (Member)]: everyone what you shared with me.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Seesaw? Seesaw. We didn't get into the whole thing. Like I said, originally we were using the term BOCE because that's what was in our language. We heard from, I believe it was the special educators organization that we just heard from this morning and said it has this connotation that's linked specifically to special education in the field. And if this is going to be a broader thing than just providing special education services, the term BOCES should probably be replaced because of a historic connotation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And we said, Oh, darn, because we already had a cute acronym to describe the plan using the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: letters in BOCES. Now we're

[Kate McCann (Member)]: gonna go three for another presentation. But that was really the reason for changing it to cooperative

[Emily Long (Member)]: education. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: your cooperative education services language lives in Title X in Chapter 16, starts with some policy. And the first line here, I think, is a really important policy piece for you all to keep in the back of your minds. And that is that it is the policy of the state to allow and encourage supervisory unions to create boards of cooperative education services. All of this legislation, all of current law, it has supervisory unions as the members. To create these boards, to provide shared programs and services on a regional statewide level, formation of a BOCES shall be designed to build upon the geographically focused cooperative regions used by Vermont superintendents as of 07/01/2024, to write in your policy. Maximize the impact of available dollars through collaborative funding, reduce duplication of programs, personnel and services, contribute to equalizing educational opportunities for all pupils. So we start with some definitions. I'm going to skip over these. Largely educator has to do with tying into teacher bargaining and retirement plan. Here we have definition of supervisory union, which again, is an administrative, not a governance structure created by the state board that consists of two or more school districts. This term also means supervisory district. And this is for this chapter. So we're not amending the overall definition, we're just saying there's no confusion in this chapter. There's always confusion, but that's the intent. Creation of Board of Cooperative Education Services Organization Secretary approval. So how does a BOCES form? Well, this is very similar to how a Union School District would form. The boards of two or more SUs would vote to explore the advisability of entering into a written agreement to provide shared programs and services. And then the interested boards would meet and discuss the terms of any such agreement. Then at this meeting or however many meetings it takes, if everyone decides that they want to form a BOCES, they would enter into a proposed agreement to form an association of SUs to deliver shared programs and services to complement the educational programs of the member SUs cost effective manner, and that association would be known as a BOCES. And it would become a body politic in corporate with the powers and duties afforded them under this chapter. That is a fancy way to say that they're a quasi governmental body. They're not I think we were talking before about what happened before this law was passed when there were education cooperatives, and those were private organizations. This is now a arm of the government. Articles of agreement. So this is their governing document. Agreements to form a BOCES pursuant to this chapter shall take the form of articles agreement and shall serve as the operating agreement for a BOCES. Agreements shall include a cost benefit analysis outlining the projected financial savings or enhanced outcomes or both that the parties expect from their shared services or programs. No agreement or subsequent amendments shall take effect unless approved by the member supervisory union boards and the Secretary of Education. Secretary shall approve articles if the Secretary finds the formation of the BOCES is in the best interest of the states, the students, the member SUs, and aligns with the policy in section six zero one that we walked through first, subject to the limitations of subsection D of this section. And that's where you limit BOCES to no more than seven in the state.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, can I ask you a question? The word of compliment taught me.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: What does compliment use in this aspect? Are we talking because to me, BOCES weren't created to do the same thing as the district or a supervisor union already is. It was supposed to create something that can be used regionalized. So was it adding the same service? Does complement mean?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I just, where is it? Up top. Up bottom. Here.

[Emily Long (Member)]: About four lines up from the bottom of paragraph A. There are shared programs that serve as a compliment.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The educational programs, right? So I can't breathe legislative intent into this language. That is the job for you all. I read this language to mean it's not complementing the duties of the SUs. It's complementing the educational programs, meaning they're not supplanting the educational programs. They're providing It would support the educational programs.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Thank you. Scott, I got hung up on it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's fair. And as with anything, if you're opening this up, now is your time if you don't like some of those terms, but you want this to be legislation that is used robustly, great opportunity to clean some of that up. Okay. So what do the articles of agreement have to include? So no brainers, the names of the participating SUs, the mission, purpose, focus of the BOCES, the programs or services to be offered. This, I think this is interesting. I've been listening to all of your conversations, and so I would just pay attention to some of these as areas where you may want to fine tune depending on what your ultimate goals are. So the articles of agreement have to include financial terms and conditions of membership, including any applicable membership fee. It's not spelled out that there has to be a membership fee, but it's also not spelled out that there can't be a membership fee. So this is going to vary depending. And then five is the service fee is for members and the service fees for non members. The detailed procedure for the preparation and adoption of an annual budget, the method of termination of the BOCES and withdrawal, procedure for admitting new members and amending the articles of agreement, the powers and duties of the boards of directors to operate and manage the association, including and then A through D, and speak for themselves, And then any other matter not incompatible with law that the member SUs consider necessary to the formation of the BOCES. BOCES is managed by the board of directors, which is composed of one person appointed annually by each member SU board. Another area for you to think about for fine tuning. Appointed persons shall be members of the SU board or the superintendent or designee of the member of the supervisory. Each member of the board of directors shall be entitled to a vote. No member shall serve as a member of a board of directors or as an officer or employee of any related for profit or nonprofit organization. The board of directors has to elect a chair, and then they can provide for other officers they determine necessary. Board of directors is empowered to establish subcommittees and create board policies and procedures. They're required to meet not fewer than four times annually, and each member of the board of directors is required to provide updates on the activity of the BOCES on a quarterly basis to the members appointing SU at an open board meeting. And then here is that limitation. So the secretary is required to approve articles of agreement if it meets the criteria in subsection A, I believe, subject to subsection D, and that is that there can't be more seven BOCES, and SUUs can only be a member of one BOCES, but they can seek services as non members from however many BOCES they will.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm just gonna bring something up for people to ponder.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So let's say there were five BOCES, and

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the biggest one has 20 SUs in it, I'm using SU in the legal sense, you could have a board of directors that's 20 people big.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: We could only have a certain amount of supervisory unions inside your BOCES that are members. There's no more than seven BOCES.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's limitation on the number of BOCES statewide, but no limitation on how many SUs could be a member of a BOCES. And I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: will say, I think about it, if there are 53 central offices, the chances of there being something that high are probably pretty slim. Now that I think about it.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Adding to that each SUSD, because they're interchangeable in this case, gets one member. So it doesn't matter how large your particular SU is within the BOCES, you still get one voting number, no matter your size. It's not proportional.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What can a BOCES do? So in addition to any other powers granted by law, a BOCES shall have the power to provide educational programs, services, facilities, and professional and other staff that, in its discretion best serve the needs of its members. BOCES are required to follow all applicable state and federal laws and its provision of services, including Section five zero four and IDEA related to IEPs and special education law. This is basically saying, figure out what your members need, and then you can provide it. It's not a prescriptive list. BOCES may employ an executive director who shall serve under the general direction of the board, who shall be responsible for the care and supervision of the BOCES. The board shall annually evaluate the executive director's performance and effectiveness in implementing the programs, policies and goals of the BOCES. The executive director shall not serve as a board member, officer or employee of any related for profit or nonprofit organization. BOCES shall be

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: a body of politic and corporate and shall

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have standing to sue and be sued to the same extent as the school district. BOCES may enter into contracts for the purchase of supplies, materials, services, and for the purchase of leasing of land, buildings and equipment as considered necessary by the board of directors. And then section five fifty nine applies to bids on contracts and the limits related to those. So we can move past that. The board of directors of BOCES may apply for state, federal or private grants for which a BOCES may be otherwise eligible to obtain funds necessary to carry out the purpose for which the BOCES is established. Nothing in this chapter is intended to create an entitlement to federal funds distributed by AOE to local education agencies. Financing, budgeting and accounting. A BOCES shall establish and manage a fund to be known as an education cooperative fund. All monies contributed by member school districts and all grants or gifts from the federal government, state government, charitable foundations, private corporations or any other source shall be deposited into the fund. They got to have a bank account. Treasurer, both these shall appoint a treasurer who may be a treasurer of a member school district and who shall be sworn in before entering the duties of the office. The treasurer may, subject to the direction of the board of directors, receive and disperse all money belonging to the board without further appropriation. The treasurer shall keep financial records of cash receipts and disbursements and shall make those records available to the board of directors upon request. The board shall ensure that its blanket bond covers a newly appointed treasurer. So this language borrowed from the Union School District's chapter. In lieu of a blanket bond, they may provide suitable insurance. Board of directors may pay reasonable compensation to the treasurer and shall evaluate the treasurer's performance annually. BOCES shall use the uniform chart of accounts and financial reporting requirements used by supervisory unions as its financial accounting system. Annually, BOCES is subject to an independent audit of its financial statements consistent with generally accepted governmental auditing standards, and shall discuss and vote to accept the audit report in an open meeting of the board, or shall transmit a copy of each audit to the boards of its member supervisory unions. Annually, BOCES has to prepare financial statements, including a statement of net assets and a statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in the assets. And they're required to adopt a budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which the budget is adopted. And then subsection G allows them to negotiate or contract for loans. Annual report to the public. BOCES is required to prepare an annual report concerning the affairs of the BOCES and have it printed and distributed to the boards of the member SUs. The report has to include, at a minimum, information on the programs and services offered by the BOCES, including information on the cost effectiveness of such programs and services, the progress made towards achieving the objectives and purposes set forth in the Articles of Agreement, and audited financial statements in the independent auditor's report. BOCES is required to maintain a website that makes the following information available to the public at no cost: a list of the members of the Board of Directors of the BOCES, copies of approved minutes, copy of the articles of agreement and any subsequent amendments, and a copy of the annual report. Employment. A BOCES shall be considered a public employer and may employ personnel, including educators, to carry out the purposes and functions of the board. Annually, the board of BOCES shall conduct an area survey of the salaries of the educators and staff employed by the BOCES member as used in school districts. No person shall be eligible for employment by a BOCES as an educator unless the person is appropriately licensed under Chapter 51 of Title 16 by the Standards Board. A person employed by BOCES as an educator shall be a participant in the State Teachers' Retirement System.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Back to the license, does that negate anybody on a provisional license?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the question. I don't know the answer to that.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I mean, a provisional license is still a license.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: A

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: person who is employed by BOCES and who is not an educator shall be a participant in the Municipal Employees Retirement System. Educators employed by a BOCES shall be entitled to organize pursuant to Chapter 57. And employees who are not educators shall be entitled to organize pursuant to 21 BSA Chapter 22.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask a quick question?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: A BOCES wouldn't hire any thinking on the line who's not an educator should be a participant in the Vermont Municipal Employee Retirement System. A BOCES wouldn't be a hiring level for like a paraeducator or other people that fall under the teachers system right now, would it? Like no one would be moved to another retirement system?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, I think it's just to keep the retirement systems in line with what currently exists for.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: But no one would like get bounced from the system they're

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: on now. Not without choosing to.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Educators and employees who are employed by BOCES shall be provided healthcare benefits pursuant to Chapter 61. The intent of this, I shouldn't say intent, the purpose of this language is just what your chair said, is to keep employment opportunities related to retirement, collective bargaining and healthcare on par the same as those provided by a school district. It would still be an independent I don't know how to say this correctly because I'm not your employment attorney. There's no provision in state law under the BOCES chapter for there to be kind of like, okay, you're a member of the school district and now you are an employee of the BOCES. It would be someone applying for a brand new job and all of those provisions starting however they would start for a brand new job. There's not a transition mechanism. So it's possible that if someone is licensed under Chapter 51 and part of the State Teachers Retirement System, they apply for a job at the BOCES, that they would not qualify for the State Teachers Retirement System by virtue of the position itself. So it's all dependent on the specific position.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And whether or not the BOCES employees collectively bargain, which they are not required to do.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that is yes. But as far as the retirement system, if you were eligible for the state teachers retirement system in your school district, then you apply for a brand new position in a BOCES. And however that position is structured, you would actually be eligible for the municipal employees retirement system. You don't get into the teachers retirement system just because you were eligible in the school district. It's dependent on a specific position. That's the BOCES chapter. But there was some So this is Act 168 of 2024. You can see this is the language we just walked through here. And then so section two of this bill was all of Chapter 10. And so then there's this transition piece. So on or before July 1, each SU is required to consider and vote on the desirability of establishing a BOCES. Again, no more than seven statewide. SU boards that do vote to establish a BOCES shall hold an organizational meeting on or before 07/01/2027. And then on or before 07/01/2028, AOE is required to kind of give you all a report of the lay of the land. What BOCES exist or are anticipated to exist as of 07/01/2028, and then on or before 11/01/2028, secretary is required to issue a report to you and the state board with, again, the number that exists, who are their member SUs, what services do they provide, the number of SUs that are not boards, not members of BOCES and information on why they have not joined a BOCES and recommendations for any expansion of the membership and powers of BOCES, including recommendations for whether membership and such boards shall be mandatory. And again, this report is not due back to until 07/01/2028.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Appreciate the reminder that school districts are supposed to vote on whether they want to be part of the BOCES by 07/01/2026. I

[Kate McCann (Member)]: have a quick question, and I'm sure, Beth, that you answered it at the beginning of all of this. But I don't understand why we use the language of supervisory unions, And Beth Quimby said it doesn't really matter in this case, they're the same. SD is an SU. SU is like the overarching term, and under that term, you could be an SD or an SU.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You are high. This is a great example of why I hate using the term SD. Yeah. Some people think that you mean school district. Some people think you mean supervisory district. Those are two different things. That's a policy choice. Who's the member? Part of what I remember is how big and unwieldy do you want these boards to be. If every board has a seat at the table and there's 25 school boards, then you've got a 25 member board. This is all policy. This is all policy.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: But what if we live

[Kate McCann (Member)]: in an area where there aren't SUs in the Hold

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on, let me share my screen again.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: While Beth is pulling up

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the language that clears all this up, we just say that under the plan that I have proposed, we would have one definition.

[Emily Long (Member)]: And I'll just say regarding the one that's currently in place while you're pulling this up, Springfield is part of it as well. I think it's a separate district. And my SU is part of it. I think you're a total of 14.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Here's the key set,

[Kate McCann (Member)]: it's right here. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for this chapter, supervisor union includes a supervisory district. So if you are a school district, I always pick on Burlington because it's Burlington. Burlington is a supervisory district. It is also a standalone school district. It is a supervisory district because the school district is large enough that they would dominate the central office. So the central office is only responsible for Burlington.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: So it qualifies as a supervisory district, but it does not qualify as a school district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is, Burlington is a school district.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I mean, doesn't qualify as a supervisory union as a school district. It qualifies as a supervisory union as a supervisory district because it doesn't consist of two or more school districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: School districts and supervisory unions are two different things. So Burlington has been assigned to its own supervisory union, But because there's only one school district, it is not a union of anything. It is its own district. And so for the purposes of forming a BOCES, Burlington can join a BOCES. I'm trying to think of some other standalone school districts. Milton can join a BOCES. Holchester can join a BOCES. What about U32? U32 is a

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Supervisory district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If it's a supervisory district, it could join a Right. But it is So, every school district in the state has been assigned to a supervisory union to provide administrative planning, central office and special education services. Some supervisory unions only have the capacity to serve one school district because the school district is so large. And if it is serving only one school district, then it is a supervisory union. But we call it a supervisory district. They are one in the same. I didn't write this. I just want it for the record. I didn't, I did not write this. I will say this session, I have spent more time talking to folks on the policy committees that are responsible for making these decisions about the difference between the supervisor union and supervisory district and a school district than I ever thought possible. So you are not alone in your frustration or confusion or how silly you think these distinctions are.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The way I think of it is an area that a superintendent oversees a supervisory union.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Whether it is just a single school district, a supervisory district or a supervisory union.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Whether we call it that or not.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They're all supervisory unions. It's hard to just use one term throughout the legislation.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: All SDs are SUs, but not all SUs are SUs.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a great way to think

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: about it. So we're superintendent. So

[Kate McCann (Member)]: in this situation, for this letter, we're just like, you all count as supervisory unions for the language in this stuff.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We could just say super That's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not a term that's defined in Title 16. People are gonna ask you questions about it. I mean, as you are undergoing this education transformation thing, if you do away with the concept of supervisor unions, we no longer have to have this conversation. If you keep the concept, then maybe this is a term that needs to be updated.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would just, again, point out that what I put on the table would only have school districts. All the other terminology could go away if that's a motivating matter for you. I'm taking the conversation, right?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I can give up more with it.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Had two meetings.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Any other questions for legislative council concerning the BOCES bill that we passed? That's a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: question, because again, everything's a trade

[Kate McCann (Member)]: off, because this language is all voluntary and each BOCES, each CISA, whatever, that forms has to write their own articles of agreement, and they could vary widely from state to state, or if it were mandatory, one of the trade offs would be there could be a single set, perhaps, of articles of agreement that cover all the ones formed in the state. Of course, there's a trade off for that, well, this is, because then you lose your flexibility across regions perhaps. There's that trade off of everyone making their own and going through legal fees and figuring it all out versus here it is.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I would say yes.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: And if we went voluntary, fortunately we now have one who has done it. Done it, right.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So perhaps there's a model articles of grieving sitting out there. Yeah, Leland. Why

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: seven? What's the magic number with seven? Did that happen?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think anyone who was there for the discussion wanna to answer that honestly.

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: Not too big, not too small. We advised to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: not make them too small. And so don't allow for 20 of them out there. And so we were sort of wrestling with five or seven, and I think we came up with fives to seven. Just a random number. It was somewhat arbitrary, it was based on some input about they sort of lose the ability to build scale if you have too many of them.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: It was sort of starting again, like the task force from the superintendent's region's map, but acknowledging one region has a lot more students and schools, and so there might need to be more particularly around Chittenden County.

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Or break that up some.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Arbitrary, but not completely arbitrary. Thoughtfully arbitrary. Yes. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's definitely language the Supreme Court has.

[Leland Morgan (Member)]: Like it though.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Leanne, you're up.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I'm just wondering what's the number seven? This is probably way too simple, but with 14 counties, could we just give each county a budget buddy? And I mean, just pair them up, maybe that's too simplified.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Is a CISA that is Essex County, there's not enough fair there to create a CISA,

[Emily Long (Member)]: I would argue. And in fact, there wasn't even ours at

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the same time. Right, yeah, mean, you're multiple counties, two counties. And

[Emily Long (Member)]: Windsor is a pretty big county.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Do the numbers of students in the CSAT, so I know, in looking at supervised reunions, are like, okay, two to 4,000 students or four to 8,000 students, depending on who you ask. Is there that kind of a specific number for CSAs? No. Mean, nobody has mentioned that to us. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We've heard from a lot of CSAT experts at this point. And so we did have some language and the stuff I put on the table that We're not necessarily thinking about if we're going to be mandatory or not mandatory. What are we demanding that they do? So, we had provided a list of that to offer at least one of these services. You know, maybe all they're gonna offer is transportation. Not sure where I was going with that, except to say At least some flexibility. Yeah. Okay. Or more importantly, it's not necessarily something that's based on number of students. You know, if they're providing back office payroll services. So I guess I would say that if we chose to go a mandatory route, there's gonna be work involved and maybe it doesn't have to be done this session. But when you're mandatory, you have to really define the parameters of what each season is going be doing.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: But maybe this season is mandatory doesn't necessarily make merger, merged districts mandatory. Theoretically, towns could still have some autonomy about the future of their schools if we did mandatory CESAs?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The CESAs have nothing to do with governance of schools. I mean, what we're essentially exploring here is the recommendation of the redistricting task force. Yes.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: And so this would still work and this would still save money even if we don't mandate consolidated districts. Mean,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: in theory, would save money.

[Emily Long (Member)]: We hope it would save money. I mean, but we're

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: not seeing that consolidated districts would save any, I mean, no one's gonna know that it was with a number there either.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: That's

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: a whole other discussion.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I mean, isn't this all one big discussion, Matt?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, I mean, we could break out the evidence that consolidation could save money just based on the fact that we would have, under the map that I put out there, half the number of subpoena offices that we have today.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I guess I'm wondering whether did we ever see I'm looking at the memo from the secretary to BOCES that's now in place. It's 26 pages long. Did we ever see that as a mini? Because I actually I mean, we might not want to read the whole thing, but frankly, think it's really helpful.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Would you send a link to that route?

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'll send it to Matt and send it to us. It was on the sector website.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: I mean, would it be possible under this plan to still consolidate central offices by, like, saying every county gets one superintendent or something. I mean, I guess, right, then that'd be making county SUs. I'm just trying to

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Or think of same SDs. Or SDs. Right.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: It seems like you could still consolidate the number of central offices without consolidating the number of schools and save at least some money.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say, nothing in Act 73 talks about consolidating schools.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: We do keep saying that, but that's true.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's because you said, if we do that, we won't have to consolidate schools. I'm just saying, it doesn't say anything about consolidating schools.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I can speak to the county position because I

[Emily Long (Member)]: was the one on the task force that looked

[Kate McCann (Member)]: at county map. There are a lot of supervisory districts and unions that cross county lines, more than don't. So going by county was abandoned rather quickly. And people always ask about counties. There are a lot of school districts across counties currently, or supervisory unions and supervisory districts.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: And that was because we didn't want to change any

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Well, existing you want, you'd have to break them all apart to go by count. We've had a long history of the harassment, Representative Brady?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Going back to the PSA testimony we've gotten a couple times this year, probably obvious to all of us, but they were supportive of seesaws, that alone is not the solution to affordability and equity challenges. In their testimony, they said Act 73 proposes to restrain spending. Patrick Green talked about a grocery budget via the foundation formula and without significantly addressing the inefficiencies that exist at the school level. And that leaves the decisions about whether to create efficiency or not up to local communities, I guess, a bit of between what you're both saying in terms of whether or not this is about schools. But they're, once again, very clear. SDs will save more money and be more equitable than SDs.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we have discussed. CSAs. Further discussion on this. I'm not asking anybody to make a decision on anything.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I really like the idea that you can be a member of one and you can pay for services from another, and that there's gonna be all this stuff out there and your district can get what it needs.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Assuming that the CISA that you are not part of has the capacity to provide you with what you're looking for, yeah.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Or that another one can.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Correct. I'm going go back to my original struggle. Is

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: CSU's a later conversation

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: after the difficult

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: SDSU conversation and the map conversation?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, I think so. But sensing strong consensus around the concept and its potential, I thought we'd go for some positive thoughts. I appreciate it. Same with school construction aid, which I feel we've got strong consensus on. Yes, we

[Kate McCann (Member)]: did We did consensus on maybe regional middle and high schools from yesterday. That was pretty good to talk about that, and then we heard it again. It's an East, Kingdom East.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: One thing that we probably need to be cognizant of as we talk about that as a priority is what we've already set in place for the school construction working group to develop their criteria. Their criteria, I would very, very generally describe as fewer and newer. But I don't think we said anything about high schools or middle schools. Just about that. So we find ourselves back To maps and. Guiding language to go with those maps. And where where we are as a committee. I would say aside from like, oh, I think Waterford needs to be put with this instead of that, these guys need to be put over here. We're still talking about the concept of That I have, but we are, as you all know, we have a clock ticking really loudly behind us. I do not believe we have made any progress other than entertain various ideas. I think many people remain very torn over what to do. Many people would like more information that may not be readily available. So, given all of that, what do we do? And don't porn yourselves.

[Emily Long (Member)]: You looking for feedback? I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: don't know how

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: we're going to, but we need to get by the SDF conversation. That's the conversation I'm dreading having. I think it's going to be not the most difficult, but one of the most difficult. We can't get past that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But we can always get past things. Tau. Yes, exactly. It'd be great to get past things by consensus.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Emily? I was, yeah, just lost my finger for a second. But you said something about, many of us want, I didn't paraphrase something, but many of us want information that isn't readily available. That's a pretty significant challenge for me. Just mentioning it, I'm not sure what you were referring to. I've got things in my head, but that's a hard when you're being asked to make hard decisions that really impact not just the folks you represent in the schools and school districts, but the state for now. And I will always seek more information wherever I can to help inform decisions.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We do have our constant round robin here of, I'd like to know what the impact of the foundation formula is. Response, can't really tell you that until you decide on districts. Don't really wanna decide on districts until I know what the impact is. I'm not quite sure how we do that.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Well, that might lead

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to my question, because I think it's kind of a process question, but carry around my lovely little timeline, I see a clear bullet, 2026 session, general assembly intent to enact school district boundaries, updates to CTE, updates to pre K, begin process of voting boards, and report on regional reappraisals. But it's, I think, not just about don't want to do one without knowing the other. What I want to understand is process for us here at the legislature. If we pass if we could agree on all these things and get a map and enact new district boundaries this year, do we as the legislature under Act 73 have to, are definitely doing further work on or a sort of check back on the foundation formula because there's so many outstanding questions in the foundation formulas. So I know that districts, there's an interplay there, but there are also many other really big unanswered questions in the foundation formula. And I know that lots of good work will go on between JFO and the committees and the consultants, but as a legislator elected from my district, do I get a say again or an opportunity to impact the decisions of that foundation formula? Or is it basically once the map is done, yes, all that work is supposed to happen, but it's not necessarily within

[Emily Long (Member)]: Are

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we locked in if we pass maps this year?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That question for me?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, if you feel comfortable answering it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you're never locked in because you can't buy in the hands of the future legislature. So regardless of the language we're about to look at and anything else I say, if you don't like it, you can change it this year, you can change it next year, you can change it up until it's implemented, right? And even after it's implemented, you can then enact new law to bring you back to where it was before.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I guess absent us changing something now or a new legislature changing something, the interplay, obviously, I've been bringing this up a lot and just increasingly concerned about what I know here versus what I know on the foundation formula side of things. And they are so directly tied to each other and, in fact, future of our schools.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is the contingency. So this is Act 73. We're in Section 70, the effective date section, and subsection F is the contingency language for the foundation formula. And it reads, The following sections shall take effect on 07/01/2028, and then everything after that is the contingency, provided that the new school districts contemplated by this act drive a bus through that, right? Depending on the new school districts you enact, do they meet that contemplated by this act requirement? But it's not just that the boundaries are drawn, it's that those new school districts have assumed the responsibility for the education of all resident students. That means they are operational. And so that's number one. Number two is that the expert tasked with developing a cost factor foundation formula has provided to the general assembly the report pursuant to section 45A. That's the report that JFO has been talking about that they just went under contract for, that's two. And then three is that you all have had an opportunity to enact legislation in consideration of the report. So that contingency may not be met if on 07/01/2028, we have another global pandemic and you aren't meeting and you haven't had an opportunity to enact that legislation, right? Or there's some other act of nature that happens to prevent you from having the opportunity to enact that legislation. But if all three of those things click into place, then the foundation formula goes into effect without any further acts of the legislature.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: We have an opportunity to, but we don't. But the legislature, whoever that is, that has an opportunity to, but does not have to enact legislation. Don't understand.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Related to the 45A report, which would be updating the foundation formula. Wait. Right. But again, sorry, it's like we have to enact or we could? No, we have to enact. An opportunity to enact.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Appreciate that. I'm not missing something too. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah, that's definitely a point I've been pretty interested in recently as well. So the general assembly having an opportunity to enact legislation, it seems the political whims of this body. So the fact that we potentially can't come to agreement in the future around what those final pieces of the foundation formula are is not going to stop the foundation formula from becoming effective. So I think it's really important, and Beth, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's important for people to understand we have a default option, which is the foundation formula that is currently written in Act 73. We have an opportunity to update it. But if we can't functionally, as a legislature, update it or come to agreement, the default is what we have written in the law.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. What is written in Act 73 would contingently take effect on 07/01/2028.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I think not sure that's clear to everyone.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I was trying to say, I did not fully realize that. It sounds like everything we've been doing.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I mean, did I have my blood pressure right?

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I thought it was actually not an opportunity, it was a must. Right. It was a challenge.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right, so given that, think about if that is a change that could be made that would make you feel more comfortable. Right now, rather than sort of saying what's wrong with everything, let's be all about how can we fix it and make me more comfortable with it and you more comfortable with it. Yep, or is that McCann?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Again, I think I just need a repeat. Did we just say that regardless of whether we draw new maps or not right now during this legislative Gotta

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: have maps. That is definitely a strict contingency. If we draw maps.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: If we don't draw maps, then the foundation formula won't go in effect in 2028.

[Emily Long (Member)]: There's also an option to draw maps at any point between now and then as well.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just as there is, we can adopt the foundation formula and draw no maps.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: The

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: legislature could say, we're just gonna do the foundation formula, period.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That'd be a different bill. Yeah. And

[Kate McCann (Member)]: not just the map, but all those new units, governing units, I'm just gonna call them that for now, are operational.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm gonna say that I'm so hopeful that maybe we can come up with a hybrid map with SDs. Fewer districts, larger districts. I'm holding out hope. Okay. We need we need more than that. For you. Getting us nowhere. Okay. If you guys are sort of committed to these models, then you need to put together a presentation. You don't have to draw any maps, but you can talk about how it would work and why it is the better way to go.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: You still have a very large tree, especially

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: as we sort of relitigate some of the sort of governance side of things that if we have any hope of doing this right, I do think we have to come back as a legislature to the foundation formula and use that information, not just consider it, not just have an opportunity, but have to make a decision based on it. And I think we should go back to the original House timeline. It would take one more year too. Is point 28 is very strange. Going back to

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Patrick Green's Money, you talked about what

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: it took to merge essentially changing nothing a mulch, from It took eighteen months to get five boards down to one, but really nothing else changed structurally. I can put those both out there separately, but those are things I feel strongly about at this point in our process.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Could you explore the concept of some sort of check back outside at some point? Absolutely. Discuss that. The timeline, I would just remind everybody, is contingent on meeting all the deadlines within it. And if you don't meet those deadlines, the timeline is off.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That makes me think that if we

[Kate McCann (Member)]: went ahead and went with a map, that we could use that, whatever's going on during that time, to get with the program to figure out what's going to happen with the foundation formula. Right?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: But if we don't go with a map, then we're just delaying what the foundation formula will look like under a new map.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Which essentially is same.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: And we can change the map if we don't,

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I mean, if we don't want

[Kate McCann (Member)]: to change it too many times, since they're going to be doing their thing. It might turn out that one time it's just like, yeah, it can't be.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Jana, do you have something more to add?

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Well, I was just going to say, and anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think in order for the consultants referenced in Act 73 to sort of model out these foundation formula pieces they need, I I think a map is necessary to at least start to do that work, or at least to play out a scenario that we could then come back and consider.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So we asked this question the other day, and I can't remember who we asked. We've had so many people cycling through this room, but I remember us asking the question and hearing that we couldn't model this until we had a map. My question related to that is, does it need to be a map we've folded on, or does it need to be a map that we're considering?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Could it be You see

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: what I'm saying? I'm going to

[Emily Long (Member)]: go back to my first comment, which is I need data to be able to speak to my communities and say, this really challenging step we're taking to change Vermont's education system, which is going to really impact you in many ways, has benefits as well. And here's what they are. And is what I've been trying to get at all along while we've been talking about BOCES, while we've been talking about school construction, while we talked yesterday about regional middle and high schools. And I say that also about the impetus that drove this legislation in the first place, which was, how does it reduce your property taxes? I'm going to narrow it down to that, reduce spending, reduce property taxes. I'm not seeing any evidence that we've had yet that that's going to happen. Maybe some of this will help define that to some degree. I'm open to almost anything, but I need to be able to say the goals of what I've been talking about for years and years and years are on the way to being met. And that fires some data and modeling.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Added to your original question, we need to have can they do modeling without us voting on districts? I suppose the answer is yes. My concern would be that that would be like, well, how about if we do 26 districts that look like this? How about the schools?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Totally understand. That's what we heard. So I get it, chicken legs. Do.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Hi. We all hear, I think, in testimony with Julia Victor from JFO, the foundation formula that's in, or the analysis that helped create the foundation formula in Act 73, I think, is based on 14 or 15 districts? The SBN. I think it's important for folks to understand that was that piece of work.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I do not remember her saying that.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I don't necessarily remember her saying that,

[Emily Long (Member)]: but I do remember what

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: you're saying. I agree that that 14 or 15 was

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: think we need to understand And I do mind doing

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: some clarification, because I've always thought it was based on current spending.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: These are current portfolio schools. Right, but I

[Emily Long (Member)]: think the

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: district concept For people who are interested in evaluating what the current foundation formula is and what we might ultimately land on, I think it's important to know how far we are or how potentially how far we are from what we've been looking at.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right, so let's get that information. Yeah.

[Emily Long (Member)]: If I could just say one more thing related to that. In my many, many conversations with my district and the legislative district, it has become very clear to me that the foundation formula is sort of like a two letter, two word concept that almost no one understands. And boy, they understand maps big time. And so the focus goes on the maps and not on the impact of a foundation formula. That is a significant shift in the way we fund our the way we provide I'm not even going to say fund, because it's actually bigger than our funding the way we provide education in Vermont. And this is one of my worries about not having modeling and better data behind it, because I don't, I can't stand up and defend it and say it's going to meet what I'm hoping, what everybody's telling me that want.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I will put it right out there. I don't think anybody's gonna tell you it's going to make property taxes go down, except on average, we have to say that on average, or cut spending, is to bend the cost curve and provide some sort of state level oversight and control of the money.

[Emily Long (Member)]: It's not gonna be- Exactly what people heard when we were working with this game last year. Whether language was said that way, think the understanding was that we needed to do this to reduce our profit taxes. That's why I'm trying to say it's, I don't think there's a full understanding.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Going get some data's going to look at some information. Erin's going to talk about language for check backs. What else did we throw out there for I

[Emily Long (Member)]: sent that, so let's add it now.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What was the Got

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: to figure out some stuff

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You out guys are going to basically we're going have debate society talk about the SUSD thing.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Which also includes non operating

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: choice like we've talked about. Yeah, yeah, positions have to be fired up. If legislative council has time, I would recommend not having necessarily legislation written up, but might say, hey, what are some of the questions that we might get asked? Or what are some of the flags that if this were legislation, we should be aware of?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What legislation? Your ideas?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Just ideas. Oh, okay. Yes. What I think is this is not to write legislation yet, but if we're gonna discuss it here, I want everybody to be as well informed as possible on the position that they're taking. Legal consultations.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Gonna put a deli ticket thing. Exactly. All

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: right, do people wanna talk anymore or shall we take a 50