Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This is House Education. We're back here on 03/24/2026. Committee continuing its discussion the on What previous I'd like to do, committee members, is just kind of go around the table, get some reaction as to likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, but also a little bit more about like, here's where I really need some more clarification or I need more information or where I don't have testimony, that sort of thing. Brady, can you kick us off?

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Sure.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Everyone's going pick us up. Yep. I'll go to

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: circle around this way. I bet you can do that. I

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: don't have a huge amount to offer at the moment, but since I wasn't put on the spot, I'm happy to share just a couple of thoughts. One of them is how much I appreciate the ability of this language to engage folks locally. We've been asking. And so I think that that's There is nothing in any part of Vermont right now when it comes to education that's simple and easy. And I think pretty much general agreement that we need to make some changes. So I appreciate the direction this is going. I guess when it comes to specifics, the study committee, I'm probably more familiar with the study committee lender than others since I've used it so many times, but I like the shifts that have been included in here. I'm still trying to figure out about the facilitator grouping and what the lead up to that grouping is by the facilitator. Let me put it a different way. If I were asked to be a facilitator, I would really want to know a lot more about what my power is and what drives my power besides just these points, which are all really helpful. But I think this is always cut. So I just want to make sure we've got really good language around the role of a facilitator because it's quite a lot of responsibility. So I guess in that field, that's sort of it. I'm still looking at all of this and appreciate it so far.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. Beth?

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: I like the language you said at the beginning, Rodan. This is it's mandatory that you have discussions regarding mergers, not mandatory mergers, making that distinction. I need to read it a little more in-depth, but when the language was changed to offer instead of provide, one of those items was the union school district consolidation. Is it still language in here that makes it mandatory for you to be in a CISA and part of a study group having the conversations? You can't opt out of the conversation. You may decide not to merge, but you still have to be part of the conversation. What else did I have? The guidance, I think it's good to have guidance, but I think also some flexibility. Maybe like the contiguous thing. I'm not on the ground. Perhaps there are areas where being not contiguous makes a whole lot of sense. We have some now. Again, if it's guidance and not mandatory, I think that's good, because they would know better than I would. What else do I have? I think that's it for now.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No questions, no thoughts. I'll pass for now. Alright, Leland, you're on the spot tomorrow morning. Okay.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: What else?

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Member)]: Let's see, just a couple concerns with who are gonna be the facilitators, one. And I think that that kind of leaks into something I wrote down even before Josh spoke up was what happens when union school districts are formed to some of my schools, not just my school, some of the other independent schools as well. And you know, because we've seen a of emails from folks who tuition to public schools, and not just from the islands. And also, I'm just not sure where we stand with SUs.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would just, maybe if don't mind me answering some of those concerns. First and foremost, again, it's all voluntary. So, if you're in an SU, you're happy in an SU, all changed. Don't have to. Period. In terms of town tuition programs, it doesn't contemplate any change unless that is a sort of an intra decision within a district that has formed itself. I would imagine if people don't wanna change that, they would change it. Yeah,

[Rep. Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I think I definitely really appreciate where we are with this language. I think, not to repeat things that others have already said, but it's sort of responsive to what we're hearing from Vermonters. It pushes forward one of the core recommendations of the redistricting task force. I think it's really helpful. We heard from Vermont's first BOCES, so we've got a lot of local insight into what that process has looked like here in Vermont. We heard from national experts. I feel like we heard a lot of the right testimony to move us in this direction. I appreciate that we're using a current law structure to push the conversation forward. So I think it is helpful that it's a process that vadras are familiar with.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Ready? I think it certainly follows my hopes that we are on an incremental, realistic timeline towards changes in our system and leaning into voluntary collaborative processes. I think particularly in this time in our politics, that's an important way to approach hard change. And

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: I think, as I noted before,

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: we need to figure out hiring of the facilitators so that the creation of seasons doesn't slow that down. I don't love the pieces about school closures going to a vote because I worry about disparate results around the state, but I can accept that that is kind of where we are and that is important in some regions of the state. I also know that this bill will travel to ways and means, but continue to be interested in seeing some of the fixes to the current funding system made, because we will be in the current funding system at least for two to three years, if not more. And so those fixes are important. So I'm not sure exactly what the interplay between our bill to ways and means will be, but I continue to They're part of the package in terms of also how the BSA laid things out as incremental steps towards that 73 goals, so I continue to think those are important.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, I've not criticized my own proposal. Here's the things that it's lacking, but maybe it's fine to have it lack or for us to think about. One, there is no consequence to not doing anything. Under Act 46, if you didn't do it, you were sent the AOE, the recommendation of the not forcing mergers, it was then forced by the State Board of Education. We don't have anything in here that says if he got successful, so be it. I am reluctant to put that in. I, first of all, question the state board of education to really all of a sudden be handed a bunch of involuntary mergers to deal with when they've got plenty going on, they don't have the staffing and all of that. And the other thing I think about is, under Act 73, once we go to newer, larger districts and they're operational, that's the trigger for the foundation formula. Some may do stuff, some may not hear, is there a trigger? What happens with the foundation formula on all of this? I don't have the answer to that, but what I can tell you is the Senate version has said the foundation formula starts a year later than is proposed regardless. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far, certainly willing to have that debate if they were to take hours to go that far. But I think that we should all be looking at this as a moving towards a foundation formula is inevitable. And I hope that that is the motivation, that is a motivation for districts to really work together, because if you're gonna need to adjust to a foundation formula, you're gonna need scale to do that. So, I don't know how to sort of imply that or say that other than to just sort of say it out loud here, that I would hope that it is my belief that we are headed towards a foundation formula, whatever form it may take, probably won't happen until 2030 at the earliest, but I would hope that would be a main motivator for folks to really take it seriously. Yeah, we haven't gone away wrong, I'll just let you know. It's something I like voluntary better than sort of saying, here's the way it should be, but I'm not sure we really understand the implications of stamping on the state on that and making that all happen and what it would take. And we had all of the, we certainly have to be operating dual systems for probably a couple of years while everything came together. Not that it wouldn't happen under a merger like this, but at least it would be sort of voluntary and at a pace and at a sort of scale that people are comfortable with should they choose to do it.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: So I guess I need more time to kind of absorb some of it, but one thing I would like to see in it would be allowing for non contiguous, especially for like for like, if that's what people choose. My concern is it's another layer of your opportunity. It's not what it's intended to be, but that is always what things like this turn into if they're not done well. And probably most importantly for me is I would like to see the foundation for a decoupled from the current requirements around districts or new maps or whatever they are and make it so that a foundation formula happens regardless. Nothing else comes out of anything else. The foundation formula moves forward with even the current way we do things. It just changes our funding model, which would become more repeatable for our constituents. I'd love to see us put something in there that really does those things.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, think you're echoing what I said just in terms of the future of the foundation formula. Yeah, I would have to agree with that. I wasn't necessarily advocating for that, but if we don't do it, it probably would happen in the Senate because that's already the path they're going down. And by the way, I should say, there's a proposal within that committee that has not been decided off or anything. Yeah, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: You said it echoed what you said, but it actually wasn't what I heard. I heard you say that the foundation formula is inevitable down the road kind of

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: perspective, but that's a different Right, so we could intentionally decouple it, as you're saying. Yeah. I mean, it's sort of decoupled whether we do it or it happens next year or the year after. I'm not suggesting we do it, I'm suggesting that it's probably a big reality.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: But I think setting up the runway for that now, it's better than just keeping kicking that can until it happens two cycles from now.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I appreciate that input, everybody. Leanne, back Leanne, we were sort of taking a strengths and weaknesses, thoughts for more, thoughts for less, roundtable.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, actually did hear, I just listened to roundtable. I think that it's really important that we are going with the voluntary. I think that this would lose a

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: ton of support from rural

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: areas if it was to be mandated. I am a little bit worried about that three year timeline on a school for the voters to opt out after they've joined a district because perhaps voters might see a difference between joining a district and joining a regional school and want to join a district without necessarily having their school closed, but once they join that district, that's a

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: little out of their control.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: So I guess in my ideal world, that would be perpetual. But those are sort of the things that I'm thinking about. I think it's this is what Vermonters are asking for and this is a good compromise to moving towards those larger districts that I'm already hearing people, including superintendents, including superintendents within my own community, ready for without forcing it on everybody.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, thanks. So I think one of the philosophical things for us to think about that you just brought up is, okay, the school closure language will always be something to have to think about. What I put in there, would say, I suggested it as sort of a political compromise. Your comments though are making me say, does it become a disincentive to merge if we take away the right of self determination within articles of agreement to decide that on their own? I'm going to think about that. I don't get it, yeah. As much as I think it has been a real impediment to consolidation at the small school level, which needs to happen. You know, I was talking with somebody from big architecture firm that does a lot of the school stuff yesterday, and he was saying, you know, the real money savings, of course, he saw this in studies is when you start building elementary schools of two to 500. That's where the real efficiencies of scale come in. Two to five years, you can offer a full time version of full time version and all that.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I make a suggestion? I wonder if we could tweak it so that after that three year timeline is up, it becomes that a school that is meeting academic targets towards growth and coming in within some kind of parameter related to foundation formula would still require a vote by the people. So, if they weren't doing those things, then it would no longer require a vote. Three years would be up. But if they could argue that they are thriving based on parameters we set, that three year thing would not be over for them. Did that make any sense what I just said?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, yes. Yes, did. Yes, it makes sense. I would just say it would be us coming up with a long list of parameters. I would almost say I'd rather just maybe it's little conservative.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I mean, I'd be fine with that too. But if we move towards

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

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: end of the three years, I'd still would be looking for an out for those schools that are bright.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The problem is there's so many factors that make decisions.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: It seems like the big things we've talked about though, are students getting opportunities? And I think across the state, disagree about what those opportunities are. Like you pointed out before that not every high school has a wood law, and that's really important to some of the high schools I represent. So are they meeting those academic standards and the FAST? Those are the two biggies.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I wanted to go back to the funding things that both of you said. One, when you talk about consequences, I also think not doing some of the current funding system changes is removing a consequence that could be important now in terms of And decision I think that doing some of this, making some of these changes are critical to any on ramp to a foundation party. So again, I know it's awkward because these are ways and means pieces, but I do think this is an important package we're trying to construct here that's about incremental change, about cost savings, about carrots and sticks for some of the changes that need to happen on the ground, and to only do the CSIP part without some of the financing pieces, I think we lose some of the strength of what we're trying to do.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Yes, go ahead. So that is a follow-up. I want to follow-up on that because I was going to bring this up, I agree with that perspective. I also just want to mention that it feels to me when I start talking to my constituents and others around the state, that there's a great unknown about the foundation formula in this state. And I think we have a lot of work ahead of us to figure out how they all fit together. But I just want to say I agree with Erin's statement. The other thing I just want to bring up, and I know you want to follow-up on Erin's, but let me just say this, because it's not related and so won't. The study committee process, I think we need to define or at least think about the timeline of it. It is really deep and challenging and requires a lot of onboarding and commitment locally to participate. And I don't want the process to be too bogged down by a long time frame, because it would be very easy to get months and months and months into a study committee. So I think all I guess I'm trying to say is we need to think really hard about what the timeline needs to be so if you study committees, a realistic timeline, because you're not trying to rush people up. It is a lot of work and it requires a lot of organization. When

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we come back at February, we'll have one or two folks from BSA. That was going

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: to be my next thing. So we need people who've said something, who've done this work before. You. Yeah,

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Erin, I'm not trying to misconstrue what you're saying. It's more to understand. So are you saying that you do feel we need to keep the how we fund education conversation around foundation for them in play, not let it die off?

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I think it is in play. I don't think we No, I'm make sure sorry. It's didn't it's still in play, and there's work happening on it. And so I think that some of the changes in the current system are still relevant, even while the foundation formula is in play and whatever schedule that's on, then we'll probably disagree on when

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we want that schedule. You're talking specifically about tax changes.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yep. Weight changes, capital grant changes.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: You think more of those pieces, not necessarily the foundation framework in and of itself. Thinking more along the other things that are about tax changes.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, am thinking more about, as their sort of pattern is, fix us to the current system while we work on decisions about foundation.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep, well, thank you. All right, so first of all, you all for giving a deep thought and remaining sort of positive about continuing. Where are we at on the floor? Just at day to brokers? Yeah.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Did break for lunch? Yeah. They did. Okay.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I'd like to be able to give some direction to the legislative council, but I don't think I have it up there, unless we are, if we would like to talk about lines on a map. I don't if anybody's feeling prepared to talk about that. Not yet. Let's talk about questions about lines on

[Rep. Jana Brown (Clerk)]: a map. Yes, go ahead. So is BSA gonna offer us some insight onto where they think should be seen?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I've got to ask. I think the testimony we're gonna get this afternoon is more about the process laid out here is very similar to Act 46, what are our lessons learned. Yeah, right. And I think like Emily's, how long should we expect that we have? What resources need to be available to you guys? So

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: when it comes to the conversation around CISAs, I am still not sure what a good CISA map looks like or doesn't look like. I like I mean, your map, I think, is closely, if not, basically based off of the association. Correct. Do, for whatever reason, I guess I can't explain it extremely well. I do like Leanne's version of a CSA map around the CTEs. But I think that there's something to be said about something's got to happen in that Champlain region just because the population count is so high. So I mean, when it comes to maps on CISAs, I don't know why, but hers resonates with me for her.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, let me talk a little bit more about the decisions I made here. But first again, understanding that the groupings of people to form a study committee are based on the colors just because of that process and the facilitator would be sort of working within the boundaries of the CISA, those groupings, just to give us some structure. Okay, why I'm a fan of the CECL boundaries being somewhat based on the superintendent association regional meeting that is, these are areas where superintendents are already working together. It might be professional development, but it's where they're all talking together. And I'd sort of hate to lose that. So that was kind of one of my motivations. Now, as I look at it, some of the places are big. Leanne, maybe you can help out in the sort of center top, that green lunch there. Is that Lakes Region?

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Lake Region, yeah. You have both Lakes Region and Hazen Union High School. I don't know if the idea behind this is that goes with eventually be one high school.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This is really just people getting together to talk. So I'm wondering if it would be

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I think like we, I mean I would I guess want to talk to Cleveland Baker and Jackie Tolman before I have a real answer on that. But what I would say is that my impression culturally is like region and North Country have always been paired more than like region and Hazen. And that Hazen is more like a people's academy pairing.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So then that line that is there that kind of divides it is appropriate or? The seesaw line that divides the

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Oh, brain. See. Right. This is kind of confusing all the different options.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, we just have to

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, I would say that region and So that would mean region in North Country and St. Jay would all be talking to each other. So in

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, we have all the lines to

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: do, so perhaps Right. In

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: this version that you have, does that mean that theoretically, like a town like Blumber that's right next to the St. Jay District, District 12, could theoretically end up in the same day district instead of

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's actually Kate and East.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think that the answer to that is it depends. That maybe we shouldn't get too big on the lines until people have a chance to go home. But our language, I would say, needs to build at enough latitude if it doesn't already for somebody to say, hey, putting us here doesn't make sense. We need to be over here. We do say that that can happen.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Right, well, I guess what I'm wondering is for the dotted sort

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of the Thick, dark lines.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Thick, dark black and white lines. Those are the lines that indicate a group that will be the CISA group talking to each other about what the district should be, correct?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that dark lines would be a CISA, and that a facilitator would be working within those dark lines to group together based on the colors, what the study committees would be.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay, so a single study committee would be like Albany, Glover, Ironsburg, Barton, Westmore, and Brownington. Is that correct? Is that all? That's all the top half of the three districts.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. Right, well,

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: they would be meeting with the bottom

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: half of So the Greening I was saying that Greening up there is something absolved because we've got a line going on.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay, I have to say I'm not sure I totally understand your opinion. So,

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Member)]: Right there,

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Ethan. So, if you take the lines off of it, the thick lines, these are all places that I'm suggesting should be grouped together on a study committee where they would talk about whether they should form a larger district. So this entire thing,

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: This is one study committee?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no. The colors.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Well then this is the

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: part I guess, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound like so dumb. But like the part I don't understand is the colors are a study committee. So what is

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That line

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: is a problem that needs to be seen. That's what I

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: was asking you about.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So that thick dark line that springs that, that was simply by virtue of me overlaying one map on another.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And that's why I'm saying, I need help make changes. So that does not make sense, potentially.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay, so we have 27 different images on this map.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. Well,

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: yes. And that problem could be solved either by changing the color regions or the CISA regions or both, because five CISAs, said, is probably not enough anyway.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And I will say the other flaw here is that really Chittenden County Probably needs more. And is no study committee required because the districts are a certain size. But I hate to leave them out of the study community.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'm just confused about this line in here.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, it gets confused. I don't know how that ended up yet, but we've got these tricky interstate problems.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: Yeah, I guess the interstate school does. But there's this little black, this green part here. That's not an interstate school district.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: I think it's

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: just the way the map I came think you just

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: got to remove that line. This line right here. I think the

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: next one.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Under the language that we're looking at, you just said 27 study committees. I meant that. I'm just picking random colors here. What if these two decided they wanted form one study committee? So we're not necessarily saying 27 here, study committees. We're saying the lines on this map are not Because

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the term guidance in the language.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Because I think it's really important to make sure that we're going to

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: be allowing flexibility. We

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: allow broader conversations, because conversations are happening right now. I'm just saying, they really are. The work we're doing is actually creating conversations all the time.

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Member)]: And I wanted to kind of add at some point, like I'm not even sure we need your lines, we just say, Hey, here are the seesaws.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: I'm sure I know quite that far, but because I do think that someone needs guidance, I just want flexibility around some of the

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Member)]: Because Even though, right, you might be across the

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: way from someone you're talking to.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: I'm hoping not to have the flip side of what I'm trying to get at. Saying, yeah, well, okay, we don't want to talk to the people who are next to us. Want to have some boundaries around it.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think what you pointed out earlier, which I appreciate, is that we need to make sure whatever facilitator, they've got pretty clear instructions. There you go. And

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: reminder, once we've decided on lines and colors by the end of the week, I'm remembering correctly in the draft we had before, and it's probably still in there, we'd have to read more carefully, that you could have partners outside of your CISA if they made sense. Yes. So these are not hard and fast must do within these boundaries. Because you say, oh, you're in this lover, is in another CISA. Boy, we'd be a perfect partner together. So you still have the flexibility of justifying those decisions across these lines. Guidance, but

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Like I like to say in the papers. That's actually a very good reason to get these discussions going before CESAs are formalized, because they also say Change the CESA, Change the

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: thank you.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, you're welcome to weigh in. We started off by sort of going around the table talking about not I'm opposed or I'm forward, but strengths and weaknesses, concerns, compliments, and what more do you want to sort of know about? Since you just want the authority to participate like you don't want to. Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: One of the concerns I have, and I guess I want a little bit more information on the makeup of these study committees in this, both study committees. I think that's going to be very important that it's structured somehow.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, we were just discussing the importance of the facilitators, it's pretty well defined. The study committees, we're gonna have testimony at 02:45, we can ask folks who have been through this before that as well. Just an update everybody, H2-eleven amended and read a third time by voice book, and they are on H577 down. What was H211?

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: The brokers. And now it's $5.77? Yep, which is? Prescription Drug Discount Card Program.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Unlike all of you, I haven't memorized every one by half.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You haven't either of them.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Leanne? I haven't froze. Then

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: it's $7.18 that I

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: break for definitely. Yeah. $2.30.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: Sponsored by someone in my Yankee Woods. So Campbell's build out buildings and energy codes

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: in construction. Let me just ask, as everybody has heard, we have anything we would like to assign to legislative council between now and tomorrow at this point?

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That the lines on the

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Pronounce in decoupling conditions.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we can allow for non contiguous by taking out any reference to contiguums. Yeah, we could take that.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: But it is guidance, though.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It is guidance.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: So you could either put in as practical

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: or just take it out entirely.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Assume they're gonna do it anyway.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: I'll have to have this

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: conversation. I'm not convinced.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Don't want to make

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: sure everybody understands.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: See, it's nothing nice with the study committees.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, alright. Right. So, you know, I think we all just got the language, so they will be off to the street.

[Rep. Beth Quimby (Member)]: Digest it tonight.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'll come back. I'll summon you if we can reach a different census of what we'd like to have to do.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not St. James, Office of Legislative Council, hold my comment.

[Rep. Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Well, Robert, want to wait for the genie?

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Actually, I think that's counsel. In the seven zero six, is there I just pulled it up in my It's easier to just ask you because I know it's in your head and not mine. Is there parameters around the membership of a study committee? Which is the first step of the questions you're asking, not the whole. But I just wanted to make sure that I was remembering correctly that there's some language somewhere which I should have assigned.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is. Do you want me to

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: testify from here or come up at the table?

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: I mean, I'm stepping on your toes already. So we just

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Why don't you characterize the table, I guess?

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: Sorry about that.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Which one are you?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Today, I suppose I am Beth St. James. So the question is, does section seven zero six of Title 16 have provisions for who participates on a study committee? Is that it?

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, I was trying to

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So subsection B says, Each participating school district share of the budget and membership on the study committee shall do the same as the proportion of the school districts. We're going to substitute average daily membership for equalized pupils of all school districts intending to participate formally in the study committee.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: It's very helpful. Your question reptile really baked into my question too.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And I knew we had

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: some language. It doesn't answer all of your concerns or your questions, but it's the start, I think. And we can maybe work off of that. Because I'm not opposing that. I'm just saying that helpful to have a better

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: description. I will say that there are That is the general language. We have not gone down this road yet. It is something to be aware of, is that Chapter 11 is so specific and helpful that it has separate provisions for membership on a study committee for already existing union school districts. So if you are an already existing union school district, for the purposes of the study committee, all of the towns that are a member of that union school district are one municipality. And so apportionment for existing union school districts, it's the interests of the existing union school district shall be represented by its member districts on the study committee. Okay, so it's the member districts. Okay, sorry.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Got it.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Oh, that helps. Thank And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then it gets even more specific if a town is a member of a union elementary school district and a high school district, and it's not. So it gets very specific. So it may not be the same for every single town in Vermont. But Chapter 11 theoretically covers every variance that could exist and has specific direction for what membership on the study committee would look like.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Got it. Wait, sorry. That means if you already are an SDA, then that is your study group, you can't make a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: new study group? No, this is about Number 12. Yep, so theoretically, a long, long, long, long time ago, most everyone was a town school district. And they were forming these study committees to form union school districts for the first time. And so membership was really easy. This town, this town, this town, they're all independent school districts. They get together, they form a new union school district. But now we have had so many union school districts form that membership on a study committee could potentially be two union school districts and a town school district. And so Chapter 11 has language for each instance, each example of different types of school districts that would be participating in a study. So it balances the membership, basically. Sure.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The challenge here, I would just say, or think about, is that you don't want these study committees to be 25 people. And how do we, we may need to, it's not a, well, it is a legal entity in the sense that it follows the meeting laws. We can make representation be two board members from every board just get together and talk and not have it be proportionally representative, is gonna be meaning that, you know, we get 23 people. The job of this committee is not to create something without voter approval. Than just to really get together, talk and issue a report. So that is something when you think about, if you kind of look at, especially groupings in the Northeast Kingdom, there are so few people, but so many towns. They have representation. Or how do you represent a nonoperator? Anyway. We may just wanna come up with our own session law that says study committees shall consist of two board members from every district that is part of that grouping. Just to think about it.

[Rep. Leanne Harple (Member)]: Would it be helpful for

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you tomorrow if I did a very rudimentary chart, remembering that I am not a graphic artist, on what Chapter 11 has for membership on a school district or a

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: study committee. Be great. Thank you.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: These studies make recommendations. Nothing, right, are reported, basically. And then nothing can be, no action can be taken without a vote of the

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: votes. So the process would be study committee issues a report that is either don't believe we can get together and we don't see any advantages of doing it and here's why, or we would like to do it and then what they're really coming up with are articles of agreement. And it's the articles of agreement that are ultimately voted on by the public under the current language that we have in front of us today, which was change. The articles of agreement may sound like a real hard process, but we now have many, many examples of articles of agreement, plus an articles of agreement template that created, so it's not as burdensome as you might think. And you know, the key sort of contentious issue in Articles of Agreement is what we do about closing schools. Or we could be silent on it and let the people of those areas decide. That's a great thing.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: So it would be a vote of the two or three districts that are proposed to join the article of agreement, those districts would vote.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And the majority This is a good question. Chapter 11, if vote on articles of agreement among five districts, and not everybody goes for it within those districts, what happens?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Depends on if those districts are all necessary or if any of them are advisable.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So they're all necessary.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then the Union School District does not form.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: And in fact, that's exactly how it worked in

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Act six.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's Chapter 11. It's current law. Yep. I mean, Act 46 used Chapter 11

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: as well. Yes. Act 46, preached Chapter 11, the session law.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, the Act 46 gave you all some much needed feedback on laws that hadn't been updated since the '60s. So did 01/1953 prior to that.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Because the articles of agreement were used in 01/1953, and that was one of the reasons why my region had an easier time, because they had formed a 01/1953 study committee, and it failed. The vote was a failure. But they had those articles of agreement already formed and proposed. The communities who were involved were part of it. When Act 46 law came along, they actually formed the study committee to use the same articles of agreement. I don't think there were any changes made. And then it passed because they were incentive. I'll just mention happiness.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Am just myself thinking about the fact that one district out of five voting to merge could kill a merger. Right. So, you know, when you think about saying, but it's all voluntary, so one would imagine they wouldn't have dropped out. It'd become advisable, not necessary before it went to a vote anyhow. But yes, that is trying to predict the will of the voters.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will, as I'm making my rudimentary chart, I will, if I think it would be helpful to you all to do a rudimentary chart for the vote piece too, I will also do that. The vote is not each town that would be forming the new union school district. It's each school district. So you're going to have different potentially representations. Like, those votes are going to carry a school district that is a union school district that is currently made up of five towns. It's the vote, the majority vote of all of the voters voting in that school district. In a town or city school district or incorporated school district, it's just that town or city. So in the most basic terms, without any of the exceptions, if it's a union school district and a town school district, if the town school district votes yes, and a majority of the voters in the union school district vote yes, and those are the only two advisable school districts, then the union school district forms, even if you didn't commingle the votes, three out of the two towns within the Union School District didn't vote for the merger because the two towns that did vote for it outweighed the votes from the other three towns. So I would just be cautious on the use of the term town versus school district

[Rep. Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: when we're talking about this.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Which we will give you a general school district.

[Rep. Robert Hunter (Member)]: I've got an example and asked how that would fit.

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: What happens when a town is part of a union school district and is their own district for different grade levels? Yeah, that's It's two different entities in one town.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that depends on what district is part of the study committee. So it's possible, theoretically, that you have a whole bunch of high school union districts forming one new high school union district, and a whole bunch of elementary union districts forming a new union elementary district. And they're all the same towns as members of both districts. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Unfortunately, yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if that situation would exist in our current landscape.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There aren't that many situations.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But let me work on, see if I can come up with a chart. No

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: problems. Great. I guess I am tempted to say to the committee, let's go to the floor for forty five minutes, then come back for testimony. I'm sorry, 02:30 or 02:45? 02:30. 02:30. So, would there be like

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: a half an hour on the

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: floor before we come back?

[Rep. Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, and

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Chair)]: obviously, people don't come back and going to assume that there's