Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Everything in there?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Hard work. Welcome to house education, everybody. It's Thursday, March 12. We are discussing our miscellaneous ad bill as soon as everybody's ready. Alright. I think what would be helpful is if legislative counsel kind of walked through it for us again. I think we could be very quick through the You can sort of skip over the compact language, but also, as you go through, point out the areas that have changed.

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

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: James, Office of Legislative Counsel. We're going

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: look at draft 4.1, which you have posted. Remind me which one's Which one? Which It's 753.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. The other one's the 2 0.1, Addison T.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Unfortunate coincidence that you're on the same page.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 0753. And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can already tell you that I have failed to update the statement of purpose to add the only new thing in here, but I've done it in the Word document, so we're ready to go. It's just not on your website. Okay, so section We're gonna focus on reader assistance headings and not so much section numbers. So approved independent school moratorium is your first reader assistance heading. There was a change here, and that was the highlighted language on page two, lines 18 through 19, adding that clarification that this exemption to the moratorium when there is a change in ownership of a therapeutic approved independent school only applies if the school will remain a therapeutic approved independent school after the change of ownership. Otherwise, the rest of the section remains the same as you've already reviewed it.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right, so I just want to pause here. Are people comfortable with this language? I think it's very narrow. I think it's sort of It's something need to hit, but if there are any questions for legislative counsel or concerns to be brought up, let's take care of it now. Yes?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: It seems like this solves the problem that we brought up that if you bought a therapeutic stool and then undid the therapeutic part, you can't do

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that, right? That was the intent of this language. Okay.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I must have been out of the room when that language was brought up because I hadn't seen it before and it's very helpful. So thank you to the rest of you. Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's still an open question for me if the folks that are charged with interpreting this language are going to interpret it the way you want them to. But if you are confident in that, then all that matters.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we'll remain the therapy.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I don't see. How do you think it could be interpreted differently?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or don't say it on live. I think this solves the problem, but I'm not the one who is tasked with reviewing the applications and the right trigger language to make sure that things flow correctly. I think I brought this up at the very beginning of this discussion a couple months ago now. I'm just bringing it up now. I think this works.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I think so too.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's important that we also review the background here. This went before the state board. The state board made a different decision. Said because it's creating a new corporation, that that would be in violation of the moratorium. So then the request came to us to narrowly define this as not being part of the moratorium. And then we have also received testimony, I think, that has said, if we can prevent more of these services from going offline, that would be helpful until we create a better statewide system of providing services. That's right. Peter?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's all for that reader assistance heading. The next reader assistance heading is the interstate compact for education. I have made no changes here. So we are going to jump to Page 15, line eight. The next reader assistance heading is cooperative educational service areas. I have made no changes here, but I have highlighted the word educational because the last time we were here, there was a very heated debate on the difference whether it should be cooperative education service areas or cooperative educational service areas. And my notes do not indicate if you have landed on a decision. Education sounds better than educational. Why?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It reads better to me.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I like educational better.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think what we determined through some Googling, so take that for what it's worth, is that this is perhaps a term of art and not The a term is not used 100% of the time, the same every instance. There may be a majority and a minority, but I see this as a policy choice for you all. And I'm just highlighting it in blue because I don't know if you decided.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: My concern is creating a floor fight once on the floor.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, no. You never know.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Really depends on it says educational. It depends on whether we're not we're trying to modify a service area as a noun or create a noun of educational. Oh my gosh. That's what it comes to. Too deep for me.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just actually

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: So do you lean one way or the other? I'm just understanding the grammar. Can you say more, please? Can you clarify that a little bit? Well, is it a service area that we're describing as an educational service area or are

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we creating a noun of an education service area

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: is what I think it would be. That's how the language works. Not swaying one way or the other.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Let's go with educational services.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yes. As an education. Why don't you

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: request the floor amendment changing this? I will lose my mind.

[Unknown Committee Member]: You're not voting in moment. Right? So let's see if you

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we'll go with doctor Google on this.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: What the service area does. It's not I think it's important. In

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all honesty, I'm happy to make this change at any time. Okay. We'll move on. Okay. So so many pages, like half of this bill is this change.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Oh, just changing the term

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: over and over and over So and then we have to go all the way. I did make a change on page 26, line 18, section five. I had failed to update the BOCES grant program to the Seesaw grant program. So I did make that change. So it's highlighted in yellow. I'm sorry, what page is that? 26.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: You change it everywhere else.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, had just missed that one.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Again, I think it's important to review why we're doing this. I think that we're doing this because BOCES is a term that, because of our proximity to New York, means something pretty specific, and in other areas, has also more of a specific definition. And what this has been going for is something that falls more to the general term of CISA. It's just a confusion thing. In New York, I think BOCES are all about CTE centers, and BOCES means strictly specialized in other areas. I am reviewing the context here because this has multiple sections and there will be multiple people reporting this bill. So it's important that everybody understand why we're doing this.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And pronounces it the same. And

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: before we rush over, which we already did, the Education Compact of the States, Education or Educational Compact of the States, that is sort of our desire to rejoin, but to rejoin, we need to have the compact language. We have been paying dues anyway, sort of sporadically, but in the past couple of years, more consistently. And so we don't really have the right to all that they offer if we haven't adopted Compact. So this is to sort of get everything cleaned up so that they can invite us to all their programs because we are dues paying members, and we can have a voting power within the compact. Yes.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Going back to BOCES just for one second. This, I assume, if passed in the way we've changed this language, it doesn't matter which way we use it, but it will change the one BOCES that we already have voted on. Is that true?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It wouldn't I mean, not automatically. If they use the term BOCES in any of their incorporating, they would have to do that on their own.

[Unknown Committee Member]: So that would be a requirement for the Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Understand. It's an automatic change.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Certainly, the law does not change any of their No, I understand. Organizational documents there. Depending on how they use the terms or how they've named their organization, I don't know that there would be a need for a change. Okay. Thanks. It would be up to them to review this change and decide if they need to make any changes. Ready to move

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: on? Yes. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So these are all conforming changes. CISA. We're going to go to page 33. The next reader assistance heading, class size minimums, line 10. Again, I have not made any changes to this section. This is that hold harmless language on page 34, essentially saying that a school's failure to comply with class size minimums does not count towards the three consecutive years of non compliance that you need to enable the secretary to make a recommendation to the state board until the state board adopts rules to update the EQS rules to reflect the class size minimums or 07/01/2027, whichever date comes first.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This is probably one of the pieces in here that we've had the most discussion about. I think that just to review, we have in statute class size minimums. That's the supreme governing rule. Class size minimum statute can The time starts July 1. So the question, I realize we're talking probably about a difference of months here. There is guidance that goes with the statute. So the question is, do people feel strongly about having this or not having this? Period, that's the question.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I don't know that I feel strongly, but I think it's good that it's in there just because of the date conflict that's in act 73 now. So it cleans that up. The the clock doesn't start July '26. It starts July 27. '20 '7 or when rules are made. So I think it's just a cleanup. It's good to have it.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Representative Harple?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Well, so if we don't have the funding for new buildings, I see how enacting the class size minimums and triggering sort of this closure process will even work in some of the areas where there's not a building big enough to explore the school. So whichever comes first doesn't even really make sense to me. Like, it seems like it can't be triggered until we've figured out where those kids would go if they're supposed to. That makes sense?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The statute says-

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's screen.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I think Tom wants to still open the screen.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You've already solved for this next Saturday period.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's in the statute already that you can't force a school to close due to class size minimums if it results in needing to build or add on to another school. That's already in there.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Plus the waiver process.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And the

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: waiver process. Haven't been made for all of them.

[Unknown Committee Member]: That is the issue.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's right.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ready to look at some new language? Sure.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Do you have new language?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Background checks? Background checks.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Well, let me just make sure I just wanna just get as we go section by section, make sure everybody's comfortable with what we have here. Okay. So this is new.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is new. I have not I've spared us. I have not highlighted all of the main language, just the section headings.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. And let me just provide for the committee some background. The agency came and said, would you please give us the power to do criminal background checks on our employees? And the intent here is really employees who may be involved with students. An outside organization asked if we could include contractors that the AOE may hire that would be spending time with students. No objection on their part, so that's what this reflects. Would this need to go to the judiciary, right? I suppose it could have a little flyby if necessary, this is

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: You wanna walk through it?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there's already actually, let's look and see where you're working in in title 16. So this is under we're in the are we yes. We're in the Secretary of Education chapter. Someday, we will rewrite all of Title 16 so that things live where they should live. This is a weird place to put this information. So subchapter four of Chapter five is entitled Access to Criminal Records, and there's already a whole bunch of laws on the books that is applicable to school district and supervisory union employees. And so what we're doing in the miscellaneous bill is we're adding You can see we've got two fifty one through two sixty. There's no wiggle room in there. So I have added two fifty four A, which is a requirement for the agents, which is regarding agency of education employees. So the agency of education shall request criminal record information for a person the secretary of education is prepared to recommend for any full time, part time or temporary employment or contractual relationship with the agency if such person will have or has the potential to have unsupervised contact with the students, and we're going to refer to that person throughout as the applicant. After signing a user agreement, the secretary shall make a request for criminal records directly to VCIC. A request made under subsection B of this section shall be accompanied by a release signed by the applicant on a form provided by VCIC, a set of the applicant's fingerprints, and a fee established by VCIC that shall reflect the cost of obtaining the record from the FBI. The fee shall be paid by the applicant, and the release form to be signed by the applicant shall include a statement informing the applicant of the right to challenge the accuracy of the record through an appeals process and the Secretary of Education's policy regarding maintenance and destruction of records and the applicant's right to repress to that record or notice be maintained for purposes of using it to comply with future criminal record check requests. Upon completion of a criminal record check, VCIC shall send to the secretary a notice that no record exists or if a record does exist, a copy of the record. If a copy of a criminal record is received, the secretary is required to forward it to the applicant and shall inform the applicant in writing, again, the right to challenge the accuracy of the record by appealing to BCIC pursuant to rules, and then the maintenance policy for records. I'm on page 36 now. The secretary shall request and obtain information from the Child Protection Registry maintained by DCF, from the Vulnerable Adult Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation Registry maintained by the Department of Disability by Dale, for any applicant for whom a criminal record is required under subsection B and DCF, the registries are required to adopt rules governing the process. And then an applicant convicted of a sex offense that requires registration pursuant to 13 BSA Chapter 167 shall not be eligible for employment with the agency. I am going to quickly show you Oops, sorry.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You got to think about to answer my question.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Going to quickly show you what So this is all new language in 254A. I'm going to quickly show you what two fifty four, which is the record checks that need to be done for superintendents, and it should look exactly the same to you. Did that answer? Was that your question? So I just modeled this language after what we do for superintendents in the field. Makes perfect sense. And I shouldn't say me. Don't remember if that was the agency's recommendation or it was my genius idea. I don't want to take credit for it. I see Torren in the room. Someone had that idea.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So again, whoever might be presenting this section, it was a request from the agency. The language is the same that already exists in statute for school district employees or for superintendents. Great.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, and I will say there's one more section. So continued validity of criminal record check, maintenance of records. Again, you'll see this is all current law we've just added in. So this requires anyone required to request a criminal record check under the subchapter about a person who previously has undergone a check, yada yada yada. We're just inserting here that the agency is also subject to these requirements. Of maintenance of the record. Yes. Because now they are involved in doing these record checks where before this subchapter was really only applicable to the field. And then your effective date for this entire bill is 07/01/2026. So nothing tricky about which section is taking effect when.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We'll come back to this, and we'll let it sort of percolate for this afternoon. But any questions for now? Any discussion for now on this? Will people be prepared to vote once we have a clerk to take the vote?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Today?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Could be today or tomorrow, but that's our those are our deadlines. Alright. So this is one bill. We're gonna talk about chronic absenteeism probably tomorrow because there's still something to be worked out among people outside of this room. Period. So with that, we will adjourn for lunch.