Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: This is House Education, March. The committee is working through language on committee bill 26 dash zero eight zero three. We're really just gonna begin with a walk through of the language and then figure out next steps. Turn it over to legislative council.

[Speaker 1]: Morning, Beth St. James, office of legislative council. Just pulling up my own language.

[Speaker 0]: Why don't you go ahead and share your screen if you would?

[Speaker 1]: So we're looking at draft 4.1. This hopefully incorporates everything we went over last night. If it doesn't, it means I just overlooked it or forgot about it. It was not a on purpose omission.

[Speaker 0]: I'm gonna be reading along. So if anybody's got a wants to stop and ask a question, just do it.

[Speaker 1]: So yellow yellow is changes from the last draft we've looked at and green is outstanding policy decisions. Basically, the green is dates and any sort of boundaries, whether they be proposed school districts or CSOs. So I think we can There's nothing in the CSO language itself. So jump right to

[Speaker 2]: see. It

[Speaker 1]: does, page seven. Yes, thank you, shall offer. I think we went over that last time and I forgot to not highlight it.

[Speaker 3]: Can I suggest that we change the order of those three things and put the Union School District Creation Consultation as number one?

[Speaker 0]: Without objection?

[Speaker 3]: Set up.

[Speaker 0]: Why? Because

[Speaker 3]: that's the first job, and it comes with things like dates when you have to have it done by and all of that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. This is where I I don't think it really much matters what order it goes in because they're just offering it to menu. So I just want to remind everybody, as things are envisioned, that the CCs are going to take some time to get up and running. Before then, we're going to have facilitators in the field already starting this work. And then we sort of perhaps need to work on the language of what's the or or not, but that's gonna be the sort of facilitator who created CISA relationship.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. Emily? I'm not I agree with the statement that it really doesn't matter what order they're in. But this CISA, these CISAs, which we're mandating, are designed to be a long term administrative unit that's supporting the field. And I literally see special education as incredibly important to the CSA and the work that we're going to be doing. Not to say that the other two pieces aren't important, but when we change the order in a graph, it almost seems like they're not elevating it to the level it needs to be. I think number three, which we're all agreeing needs to happen, is going to be a process that's going to come in an end at some point, probably. But for special ed and business and all the other things that may be offered through a CISA. I guess what I'm trying to say, can we do it in a better way? The CISA is a really important administrative unit that's going to be supporting a ton of work in our school districts long beyond redistricting. And I don't want to lose sight of that as we're having this conversation.

[Speaker 0]: Might be the one money saving thing that we have to do, right?

[Speaker 2]: And benefit for me is great, especially, which is why it's on the first three. Not our meeting, but We'll put

[Speaker 0]: that at the parking lot to think about for the time being.

[Speaker 1]: Would you like green highlighting to call you back to this section? Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So where did that, was there anything more often? Provide, I think. Provide?

[Speaker 1]: Yes, just provide. So we're gonna jump to page 19.

[Speaker 0]: With all the rest of this, it's just name change? Correct.

[Speaker 1]: Four changes we've already gone over. And we're jumping to page 19 just to get into the CISA, the non sorry, we should really jump to page 20, the study committee language. So the first change is on page 20, line 11. A facilitator shall have knowledge of and experience working in Vermont's public education system.

[Speaker 4]: So yesterday, Peter, you said Vermont's educational landscape. The difference in language is very different because Vermont's educational landscape is broader than just looking at it through the public education lens. So I think it should be your language from yesterday, not that language. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: this is a word choice, I think, that Beth may have made for any particular reason.

[Speaker 1]: Because you're forming public school districts. I suppose I did not make it as a political statement. It was more of practical statement. But technically, that is a policy choice you can make.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, sort of as I was looking at this very quickly, I saw that. And am We're wordsmithing here to things that may or may not be particularly important, but I am sympathetic to the idea that this is not about private childcare. It's not about independent schools, whether they're recognized or approved independent schools. This is about creating school districts. So I guess I would on the side of being more specific.

[Speaker 1]: Subsection b, study committees, on or before x policy choice there that we have not ironed out. Each facilitator is required to group school districts within the CSAS member SUs together to form study committees to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district.

[Speaker 0]: So, Beth, one of the concerns I have is up up above, it says that the facilitator will be hired by the CISA. We've lots of facilitators out there before the CISA's probably even formed. So the new what what the language would have to reflect that?

[Speaker 1]: You need to make a choice and tell me who would be hiring the facilitator if it is not a CISA. That's not language that I can come up with on my own.

[Speaker 2]: So just for the

[Speaker 0]: committee's purposes, one of the challenges that we have here is we need we would like to have a fast we'd like to have this be fast action. Beth, you got your screen up. Yes. The So sort of going through the usual state bureaucratic processes takes a long time. So anyway, that's something we're trying to figure out is who can we appropriate money to to hire facilitators and get in the field as soon as possible, probably even before the ceases are up and running. So that's something we're trying to figure out. As opposed to somebody ceases choose who fit send best as a facilitator? The problem is that it's speed not you know, in other words, the cises will take time to create. They are you know, because they gotta come up with their own articles of agreement. They they've gotta get together on form. They gotta figure out the financials. Whereas in the meantime, we would like people out making these conversations happen. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: The facilitator shall have knowledge of and experience working in Vermont's public education system. Suppose there's someone from out of state who's very knowledgeable of CESAs, and is there a possibility they could fit into this, or do they necessarily need to know Vermont's system if they know CISA systems very well?

[Speaker 0]: So the facilitator is not about creating a CISA. The facilitator is about creating the merger study committees. So knowledge of a CISA then is not important. That's right, that was important. That would

[Speaker 3]: be good for an executive director. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So I know it totally works, what if we just took a public editor? Vermont's education system. Because in some parts of Vermont, it's not strictly paid to

[Speaker 4]: go back. It goes They utilize

[Speaker 0]: back much more than the public education system for their district. I guess we are kind of What I would say is that in the case of areas that utilize independent schools to provide their education with public dollars, that's the public education system that exists in that area.

[Speaker 4]: Well, that's why I go back to your words yesterday. I think we're great on educational landscape. Think it fits.

[Speaker 0]: Really are, this is not an independent school versus not independent school. I never said this. This is about creating public unified school districts. When I think

[Speaker 4]: of educational landscape, I'm not saying independent school versus public school. I'm thinking of how each community, each town, each region does education, right? And have that depth of

[Speaker 0]: different Probably in public education.

[Speaker 4]: Right, but like, one town needs to do another. I think educational landscape, right? Even in public education, the landscape is very broad. That's So why I think that wording is better because you will be able to address things that others may not be thinking. Like you might have these big seas of regions here, and you may get the persons from down here, but they don't know what's happening all the way up here. So I think this educational landscape, I think, is a especially for the general public.

[Speaker 0]: It's a little I mean, ultimately, the right people are gonna be hired with the right depth of knowledge. But this, you know, this is really about how we educate our students, whether they be a public school or independent school, public. So, you know, it's more comfortable being clear that you need someone who understands how school boards work, how supervisory meetings work, how supervisory districts work, because that's where the that's where the stuff gets really complicated. Let's continue.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. I've made a note that the contract holder for facilitators is a policy choice TBD. Yep. Okay. So back to subsection B, we have on line 15 that call out of their unified union school districts. And I tried throughout to use that specific phrase of unified union school district. If I have missed a place, please don't hesitate to let me know and I will add the Unified. Line nineteen and twenty, subdivision A, the grouping of school districts to sit on the study committees, The total average daily membership of school districts forming a study committee shall be a minimum of 2,000 students as practical. That's a change. Keeping contiguous, keeping different supervisory unions, keeping the requirement.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, Mr. Contiguous?

[Speaker 4]: That's where I'm going. How do we just remove that?

[Speaker 0]: I'm gonna argue against that for two things. One, we are trying to create K-twelve districts that can operate together in a unified, fully operating system. I I find it it would be seems to be common sensely practical that they be continuous because, you know, trying to create transportation systems and all of that. You know, I think that I'm not sure the advantage of having an errant extra one out here but we could say, you know, we could say school districts should be contiguous, but not sure what the value is of creating a district where somebody's not contiguous. Again, it goes back to different cultures around the state.

[Speaker 4]: You could have this layer of towns and districts, this layer in between. But this group is very much like this group over here and how they do things, how their culture, way of living, way of educating. And this might be different. They could still work together across that line. Also in its simplest, taking it out doesn't say they can or can't be. Most of the time they're going to be partakers. But if there is a reason that they can find as a group together in one of these, the study group, they can make that decision for themselves if it best fits them. We're taking away something that they can use in their toolbox to decide on if it works for them or not. Most of the time, they're going to say it's contiguous is my guess, if not all the time. Wouldn't it be better?

[Speaker 0]: Emily's next. Go to Chris.

[Speaker 2]: So I'm I'm in agreement to keep it in, but I will just say, and I guess this is a question for you, Beth, in the process of approval in the end of our the process in the current language that is existing now and what we're trying to follow here. Is there a a space, for an appeal to the state board of some special circumstance that might arise in the formation of a school district. And I'm not I deeply believe the statement you just made, and that is that most of them will be contiguous. But there could possibly in the future be some district who might, and I think we should get confused, but where there might be a school district that has some special circumstance of why they want to be part of a district but aren't contiguous, would there be a process where they could

[Speaker 1]: have think a conversation? It depends on at what step in the game that happens.

[Speaker 2]: I guess it's talking about the end final approval.

[Speaker 1]: The final approval by who? Well, I

[Speaker 2]: guess that's a question for you. We haven't gone down through that

[Speaker 1]: So the formation of a union school district goes study committee, state board approval, voters. So once you get to the voters, there's no appeal. You can't appeal a vote. I don't know that you need an appeal process. I think if your goal is to allow, This is just about the grouping of the school districts on the study committee, not what a new school district would So look

[Speaker 2]: that's helpful.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. I'm gonna now argue against myself because I'm very good at that. Because, you know, frankly, there I can think of one particular circumstance where it's a non con it's Montpelier Roxbury.

[Speaker 4]: I was actually gonna just say that.

[Speaker 0]: You know, where a long running historical tie, not all that long running, but might necessitate that. So, you know, I would be okay with school districts should be contiguous as practicable, something along those lines? I wouldn't go as practicable. No, that's actually if I was gonna suggest something like that, but I just If we make it necessary to be contiguous, are we already hampering the ability for districts to join and create efficiency, which is a big part of what we're to do. I'm flag this for the moment so we can continue on. I thought Erin needs to first answer what we're doing up at Race and Means at 10:30. So we'll put this as a to be decided. I think, about You

[Speaker 2]: know what?

[Speaker 1]: You wanna see any language changes for the next draft or just highlight it in green?

[Speaker 0]: I I don't know the answer to that question yet.

[Speaker 2]: As much as we

[Speaker 3]: can make decisions around timeline things Yes.

[Speaker 1]: That is particular That's not ways and means. Yeah. Yeah. And so You haven't made any decisions about that.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. Exactly.

[Speaker 3]: That's fine. That's

[Speaker 0]: So let's let's keep let's keep plugging through here. We'll save the contiguous issue for Yeah. Another bit, an hour.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. I'm gonna in the interest of time then, I'm gonna skip over anything that's not highlighted. So if you have questions about that, you'll need to stop me. Are Subdivision 3, a study committee is required to adhere to chapter 11. And then the subdivisions that follow Subdivision 3, A through whatever it is, are where we talk about some processes that deviate from chapter 11. So you can see on line 21, I've added unified there. And then line 21 used to say the feasibility of a contemplated new unified school district, including a regional, middle, or high school, or both. And I didn't like that word choice, so I just changed it to operating because that's what school districts do. They operate schools. I have May I ask why you chose that? Because that is what school districts do. They operate schools.

[Speaker 4]: I'll necessarily like the word change.

[Speaker 1]: Talk to him.

[Speaker 0]: Well, when you we're not gonna wordsmith it, but tuck it away and then explain why that you say that. How do you think it through?

[Speaker 1]: Oh, I okay. I understand why that is a more political word choice than I envisioned. We have removed we have removed any reference to school district to school closure. That was the direction. Right? Okay. So Subdivision DI is or D Little one is highlighted simply to note that D was a sub a subdivision that was something different in the last draft, and that was the school closure language. So that's not in here. I added the unified union school unified modifier there to a type of school districts. Line 13 is that addition of unified. Line 20 is that addition of Unified. Oh, there's a Unified on line 15 I didn't highlight. New stuff starting on page 23. So to orient you, we're talking about what needs to be in a report from a school district, from a study committee, if the study committee determines that it is inadvisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district. Adding to that, members of a study committee that determines it is inadvisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district may form a new study committee or committees and may pursue any union school district formation option available under Title 16 after the committee members vote to dissolve the study committee form pursuant to this section. I don't think you need this language. I think that is just an option that remains open to them under current law. But if you wanted to dispel any ambiguity about the ability to keep going after they determine that it is inadvisable, then I think you should have some language. And if you don't care if there is any ambiguity, then you can just leave it silent.

[Speaker 0]: Fine with keeping it silent.

[Speaker 1]: So on or before X, each study committee shall complete its final report and transmit it. So this is one of the milestones that's a policy decision. I think it's a policy decision if you even want to put a timeline on there. And then if you do, what is it? So on or before acts, each study committee shall complete its final report and transmit it along with proposed articles of agreement as applicable. As applicable because not every study committee will have come up with proposed articles of agreement, but they will all have done a report. To the school board of each school district that the report identifies as either necessary or advisable if the study committee determined it was advisable to form a new unified union school district, or to the school board of each school district participating on the study committee if the study committee determined it was inadvisable form a new unified school district. Secretary review. If a study committee determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district, the study committee is required to transmit the required report of proposed articles of agreement to the secretary pursuant to seven zero nine. That's current law, but I think it's a nice lead in to if the secretary fails to submit the report and proposed articles of agreement with the secretary's recommendations to the state board within thirty days of the secretary's receipt, the study committee shall transmit the report and proposed articles of agreement directly to the state board, who shall then take actions regardless of whether the secretary submits a recommendation regarding the proposed school district. When we talked about this option, we didn't talk about who would be submitting, who would make sure that the report and the proposed articles of agreement go to the state board if the secretary misses that thirty day deadline. To me, it makes sense that it's then the study committee that does that. But I suppose technically that is a policy question, whether you just wanna direct the secretary to stop work and move that along. It seems cleaner to do it the way I've proposed. Vote to form a unified union school district. If a study committee formed pursuant to this section determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district, the voters of each school district identified as necessary or advisable shall vote whether to form the proposed union school district in accordance with parent law, not later than parents. Study Committee Results Report. On or before X, the agency of education in consultation with the facilitators shall submit a written report to the House Committees on Education and on Rays and Means and the Senate Committees on Education and on Finance with the results of each study committee formed pursuant to this section, including the following information. And this is just stream of consciousness. You can modify this however way you see fit. So we gotta have the name of each school district member, whether the study committee determined it was advisable or inadvisable, and the results of the vote to form a new unified union school district if the study committee determined it was advisable. There's an errant and on line 21 on page 25 or on 24. And for a study committee that determined it was inadvisable, information on whether any member school district formed a new study committee to study the advisability of forming a union school district that differs from the union school district configuration studied by the study committee formed pursuant to this section. And if so, the status or results of any such new study committee. Later on, you have a report from the facilitators about the details of the study committees. This, I believe, was meant as a kind of a report back on just status of where your study committees are.

[Speaker 3]: So should we fill out some dates there?

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry, Kate, couldn't hear you.

[Speaker 3]: Should we fill in some dates there?

[Speaker 0]: Well, think we'll go through this and then, yeah, we only have two more pages and then we need to fill in. Just a quick question. Yeah. Once this the region is done, do the facilitators go away, or do they They get nothing left to facilitate.

[Speaker 1]: Sorry, I wasn't listening.

[Speaker 0]: Go ahead, Sarah. No. I

[Speaker 1]: should have said this is on I have received the edits back, but I didn't receive them before we went live. So there are typos. Section 13, I've highlighted guidance because it used to say something else. It doesn't get much more policy TBD than this. This is where you're going to have words that represent a map.

[Speaker 0]: That's easier almost than dates. Let's see.

[Speaker 1]: Facilitator reports, impact, influence, and recommendations on or before X, the facilitator. And then we'll change that employed by depending on policy choice you make about who's holding that contract. She'll submit a written report to the House and Senate committees. None of this has changed. This is about the barriers to formation of new unions. Supervisory union and seesaw boundaries. This is the report back from the facilitator with recommendations for SU boundary adjustments and CISA boundary adjustments that take into account the new union school districts. And I don't know that that needs to be a facilitator report back. I think that could be state board, it could be AOE, it could be all of them in consultation together.

[Speaker 0]: What about the study group?

[Speaker 1]: I mean, you can certainly have the study group make that recommendation. I was trying to have one person responsible for a holistic view of the entire state. I think if you have the study committees recommending this, you're gonna get a bunch of piecemeal recommendations. But you can certainly whoever is the the entity responsible for the report back, you can certainly have them consult with whatever entity

[Speaker 0]: This seems to be a good this is a good AOE report back. Okay. Because they certainly should be be watching what is going on. Yep. And involved.

[Speaker 1]: Do you want Do you want to spell out who AOE should consult with or? Yes. Who should that be?

[Speaker 0]: They should consult with, I would say, of the chairs of each study committee or with the study committee membership and state board since ultimately it's a state board that adjusts supervisory union boundaries. And again, just wanna make clear and definitely this clear all the time. In this case when we are talking about supervisory unions, it is the blanket term for any form of the joining of school entities together.

[Speaker 1]: Okay, I've made that note. I've started a funding and appropriations section, which is just a bunch of green Xs. So an appropriation for facilitators. You've got to think about how much, where the money's coming from, and who it's going to. Study committee budget grants, same policy determinations, how much, where is it coming from and who is it going to? And I just have in total green, CISA startup appropriation, because I think we talked about, do we wanna modify the current startup grant program? Do we wanna have new appropriations? And I didn't have anything in my notes or memory that we landed somewhere. No. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. So there's stuff to fill in here. We're gonna have to make some assumptions as we talk about timing. All takes So place on 07/01/2026. Let's say there's an immediate appropriation to an entity that can hire facilitators to go out and do work. When they would then get hired, that's probably all a six month process, three month process, anybody want to weigh in here? Facilitator? No. I don't think it's great. That's a

[Speaker 4]: good goal.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, legislative council.

[Speaker 1]: If it is a state entity holding this contract, we're gonna have state requirements for RFPs, etcetera, and that timeline takes a while.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, which is why we're trying to find an entity other than just gonna try to we can avoid the large and slow bureaucracy that is avoiding RFPs through the agency, that would be quicker. Then you're gonna have to see some forms. Correct? Well, no, because what we're really trying to do is find an entity that could hire the facilitators, hire some facilitators, let's just say, for conversation's sake. They would then immediately go out, report back to whatever the entity is, and sort of be hired by them to start. And then depending on how the thesis come together, I think that they would continue to stay in that position until the study committees are formed. I I would like to see this expedited as quickly as possible When you think about sort of just mandating newer, larger districts, that's also a long process. So is it realistic? Let's say we have an entity. Is it realistic to have a facilitator report facilitators report at least on their status by the December 2026. One more time.

[Speaker 4]: To have there.

[Speaker 3]: Could we change the effective date on passage?

[Speaker 0]: Sure. It won't make that much of a difference because the governor won't sign it till, you know, by the time we get off through our whole processes, it may be delegated by mature. If it gains a month, a month is a month.

[Speaker 2]: So on the question that you were asking about the timeline in December, I really would like to continue to explore this with the field. Facilitators will be facilitating what's happening down the ground. And those conversations with school boards and supervisory unions and administration, I don't want to be unrealistic about the work that's already going on in those districts across the state right now. I feel sense of pressure to get doing this as quick as possible. But I also recognize that they're under an amazing amount of pressure as the field is already, even school boards. And I would say that they're probably starting some of these conversations anyway. Keep hearing about, Oh, we're starting to talk about the supervisor meeting next door. I just want to be realistic. I don't think December 31 is off the table. I think that that's a possibility. But it's the formation of the study committee and getting people involved. It literally is going to have to be talking to communities on the ground. And at some point, we have to be sure.

[Speaker 0]: Can I have you just sort of walk through for us, okay, here's your date, here's your date, here are the dates you need to decide on? Sure. Do

[Speaker 1]: want me to pull up the language?

[Speaker 3]: Sure. Yeah. Whatever works. Okay. I'm not I I think

[Speaker 1]: when I'm not in the hot seat, I can work on a a timeline that is consecutive. I think we jump around a little bit in this draft because of different sections.

[Speaker 0]: And parallel we've sort of things we're trying to accomplish too. Reading CSUS and reading merger study.

[Speaker 1]: Oh, do you want to start all the way back up at CSUS or do you want to stay talking about the school district?

[Speaker 0]: Let's do school district first. Okay. I guess for those of us who are having lunch with superintendents today, these would be good questions to ask.

[Speaker 1]: So I think your first date is, what's the drop dead date for a study committee to be formed? And then we don't have this in there. I think I flagged it as a potential policy choice and maybe I skipped it or we just didn't really focus on it. But once the study committee is formed, do you want to have a specific date by which they have their first meeting? Because I think those have the potential to be two separate things. What I am trying to think through, and maybe it is being a little paranoid, but I'm trying to think through each place where if you don't put a date, then you have Technically, someone who does not want to participate in this could just not. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Although

[Speaker 2]: that's possible Yes,

[Speaker 1]: because we cannot control human behavior. But so I think maybe we add a line in here that talks about the first date of the study, the first meeting of the study committee. And then assuming this work takes some time, do you want a report back this fall That's not in here.

[Speaker 0]: This fall?

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. So that you know what's happening in the field. Actually, the AOE Let's see. Study committee status report. Okay, I do have this in here as AOE submitting a written report. This is for the results of each study committee?

[Speaker 0]: No, that's exactly

[Speaker 1]: I think this should be the check back.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Speaker 1]: That was probably just me not understanding that the status And then I think it would be a policy choice as to if you wanna get prescriptive as to what they need to report back or just an open ended, like, what's the status of all the study space?

[Speaker 0]: I think if we're talking about this fall, I think it's just gonna be status, because the status may not be much.

[Speaker 1]: You don't have This is a total policy choice as to whether you want a status report and when you want status report.

[Speaker 0]: Status report would be important in December for the education committees and everybody to understand the landscape at that point.

[Speaker 1]: You would at least, depending on the date you set for formation of the study committee, at least you would have a report back with what are the study committees, which could be very valuable information. Okay. So I will modify that accordingly. Then do you want a date by which this draft contemplates that, but a date by which the study committees have to have completed their work? Yes.

[Speaker 3]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So I

[Speaker 1]: think that would be the next date.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Does that need to be a date or can that be within three months of their formation, kind of?

[Speaker 1]: Absolutely. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: All right. So we're not gonna answer this question right now, but we are gonna do some work as to how long should we give a study committee to do its work.

[Speaker 1]: You've already got the timeline trigger for the secretary to do the review. I'm just going to point out that there could be a bottleneck. Yes. You've given the secretary thirty days from receipt. If AOE gets 15 recommendations within two days of each other, that's a tall order. Right.

[Speaker 0]: I I think would just say when I saw that, I thought thirty should be sixty. Yes. Me too. Same thing.

[Speaker 1]: That is not a choice I made on my own. No, that is what you told me to do.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, so to catch up here, facilitator brings people together. People form a merger study committee. We have that as required and so who are a little fuzzy on who's required to be there. We're using guidance, which is probably as good as we're gonna get, And, you know, some folks may refuse to be part of a merger study committee.

[Speaker 1]: I mean, you can't human behavior, but you do have language in here that says a school district shall participate in the study committee it is assigned to. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: We have a conflict between guidance map and who's assigning anybody to a study committee.

[Speaker 1]: I don't think so. I think it depends on your ultimate goal. The language is, here, sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Is it a coalition of your willing or is it a

[Speaker 1]: The facilitator makes all assignments. It's totally within in this draft. And as you have been talking thus far, it is totally and only the facilitator's decision on that initial formation.

[Speaker 0]: And

[Speaker 1]: the facilitators have power to change study committee membership, but it's the facilitator that can change that membership. Either someone cooperates at the table or not, we're not going to be able to control for.

[Speaker 0]: That's right. Right. And the whole thing could fall apart, but it will fall apart within the mandated Correct. Board of Study Committee.

[Speaker 1]: And you have the facilitator organizing the study committees as the school district grouping is contained in section 13, the guidance map as guidance, and then the further guidance of the 2,000, etcetera. So I don't I see I think this is totally a policy choice.

[Speaker 0]: It is, I, you know, I appreciate that. And I'm fine with the great work we've already done.

[Speaker 4]: Should the facilitator seek input from the boards prior to making assignments?

[Speaker 0]: I think I I I would hope that

[Speaker 4]: would not happen naturally. Since we're prescribing other things, should we prescribe that too?

[Speaker 0]: Can, but let's keep on dates for the moment. Don't lose that thought. I won't. We know that.

[Speaker 1]: Want me to keep going in the list or you want Okay. To So we've got we're at the secretary we're at the secretary's review now.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. We'll just change that to 60.

[Speaker 1]: Just change that to 60. Do you want to give everyone a date by which they need to hold the votes? And some of this is going to I mean, election law comes into play here with warnings and all of that, and then it's going to depend on when the state board issues there. So we haven't given the state board any timeline here. So some of these dates are truly dependent on the policy choice before it.

[Speaker 0]: All right, so what's our next, So how long does the study committee need to before it issues its final report? So then we go to the I'm sorry. With a quick review.

[Speaker 1]: And then the

[Speaker 2]: state And board. Then the

[Speaker 1]: have not given the state board a timeline.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: So if you require in law a vote to happen and the state board takes longer than you anticipate them to, you're going to have conflicts there.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. So the vote should take place within But usually, you know what we had on in 'forty six about all this.

[Speaker 1]: Well, within, there was no timeline. I mean, I'm happy to pull it back '46, but at '46 didn't cut off people's ability to form union school districts. There was accelerated timelines for incentives that votes needed to occur. And then there was a cutoff date by which the state board could take action, but that cutoff date was the vote had happened or that a union school district was in process. Maybe the vote hadn't happened yet or there was something happening. So Act 46 still let voluntary things play out on their own timeline. It was the folks who were not going to merge that had the drop dead date. And so And the time limits on votes were tied to incentives.

[Speaker 0]: Right. So the challenge here, again, it's great to a bottleneck with the State Board of Education, which only meets monthly, I suspect it is to set up a committee for this. We just say sixty days from receipt, the state board needs to issue the decision?

[Speaker 1]: Sure, you can say that. I have no idea if that's doable.

[Speaker 0]: And our next step is voters. So hopefully, a wrinkle that will occur, which is something that ways of means talking about, is incentives. So how to The process laid out in chapter 11 that we have today is

[Speaker 3]: I like the idea that a vote has to happen by a certain time if you want the incentive.

[Speaker 0]: Right. I totally agree.

[Speaker 3]: But that we don't stop progress if things are moving along, but they're not gonna happen within that timeframe.

[Speaker 0]: Right, I think that's the challenge. It's the state board bottleneck. So that, you know, if we're saying you gotta have your vote by this date, but the state board is the holdup, in order to get your incentives, you need to account for that. So we could have language, I assume, that would say, must hold a vote within sixty days of state board approval? Yes.

[Speaker 1]: Let me let me just double check that there's not already a timeline in.

[Speaker 0]: Probably isn't because there's no incentives at stake here and it's all voluntary.

[Speaker 2]: There's

[Speaker 5]: got to be an information meeting in

[Speaker 2]: a thirty to forty day voting period. And

[Speaker 1]: you've folks who need to get on the ballot for initial school district board members as well. So I'm not seeing a specific timeline.

[Speaker 0]: So articles of agreement and new board members will vote around the same time for the act board consent process. Yep.

[Speaker 1]: So I think you could put anything after forty five days, but then from an elections law standpoint, maybe, but the practicality of how fair that is to the field, can't comment

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, on so 90 Of

[Speaker 1]: state board approval?

[Speaker 0]: After state board approval. K.

[Speaker 3]: Do you want to keep working backwards? Want to keep working, period.

[Speaker 1]: Do I want to keep working?

[Speaker 0]: No, I said we want to keep working, so backwards, forwards, whatever.

[Speaker 1]: Uh-oh, okay.

[Speaker 0]: Where are we in the time? How far is this timeline now?

[Speaker 1]: You haven't made a choice as to when the first study committee meeting

[Speaker 0]: So we don't have a starting date, so we don't know how long Once we start, where are we how much time is passing at this point? Before the vote. So, well, that's gonna be, still haven't made decisions, like how long does a study committee get to do its work? Which is gonna be a big one, because and that is gonna be a chunk, a significant chunk of time, gonna need to be. Yes. Yeah, and so that's again a question we may take advantage of at lunch to ask the field about. All right, so where are we? We just did, We

[Speaker 1]: had a vote, you've now mandated the vote. So the dates after that are related to report backs to you. Do you wanna talk about that, or do you wanna go back up to the start?

[Speaker 0]: Let's go back up to the start.

[Speaker 1]: So I suppose the first date would be, is there a drop dead date for hiring a facilitator? None of this starts without a facilitator.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. I hired facilitators by 09/01/2026. I'm just gonna start a quick step out there.

[Speaker 2]: It's a bit helpful to just have

[Speaker 0]: a date back react to it. Okay.

[Speaker 1]: And then what's the date for the facilitator to have made the study committee groups assignments? December?

[Speaker 0]: Would you say December?

[Speaker 3]: Two months? That's three months.

[Speaker 2]: Which I think The holidays Let's do two months. Months. So it's September after November.

[Speaker 0]: The timing's all not great because school districts are Put in the middle of

[Speaker 1]: a number in there and we can adjust it, right? A date it. So November 1, November 15, so it's May 30.

[Speaker 0]: Bob, do have an opinion? First. November 1? Sure. Give us something to react to.

[Speaker 1]: Do you want to

[Speaker 0]: I mean, one thing I will say just from the legislative process point of view is this is the time when we hope our Senate colleagues will be on board and getting more feedback even on the dates.

[Speaker 1]: What about a first meeting date of the study committee? Formed

[Speaker 3]: on November 1, so.

[Speaker 2]: Can you say again what the November 1 date is?

[Speaker 1]: The date by which the facilitator needs to make study committee assignments. I think you can have them be one and the same.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah, I just think we need to be really clear about that.

[Speaker 1]: But I think if we don't specify the date by which a first meeting needs to occur, it could get dicey.

[Speaker 6]: Okay. Two weeks later, same date. So November 1 is his assignment

[Speaker 1]: date. Okay. And?

[Speaker 0]: And first meeting. Okay.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. That's Paul's choice. That's

[Speaker 0]: great. Yeah. And then I think day would be, let's just say six months.

[Speaker 1]: So within six months?

[Speaker 0]: Four months, people.

[Speaker 2]: I'm just going to say, I think all of these dates are ambitious, and I would caution us to be very thoughtful of this. I know we can change these, and we will, and we need to get some feedback. I don't want to send a message from this committee to the field, even before we vote it out of here, that we are setting unrealistic expectations. So I'm just putting that caution. I just remember the amount of time it takes. I mean, we're talking about citizens in Vermont having to volunteer to be sitting on these things. Mean, it's

[Speaker 3]: a lot to have. Well, and also all of this, as we said before, I'd say again, it's during May school year while they are doing other things as well, running the current system while having these conversations. Six months. In six months from now, I think that's ambitious.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not overly optimistic that many will opt to go in this direction. I'd like to be wrong about that. I think the end result here will be there will be a couple of things hanging out there. Hopefully, incentives and probably a foundation formula that everyone would like to be prepared for. So I hope those will be motivating factors. Period. I guess we'll see. Alright. So now we've done six months to to issue a report.

[Speaker 1]: And then the reports go to

[Speaker 0]: The report includes articles of agreement.

[Speaker 1]: Correct. So if the report is Advisable. Advisable. So bear with me a second. So reports and proposed articles of agreement, we're just gonna focus on the advisable because those are the only The one more report has to go to the school district boards next. And the current law says each board may review the report and proposed articles and may provide its comments to the study committee. The study committee has the sole authority to determine the contents and to decide whether to submit them to the state board. There's no timeline in there. So do you want to build in a timeline for going to mean, that the report has to go to the school district boards within a certain amount of days and then give the school district boards a certain amount of time with them for the organic process that you are all envisioning for community engagement around the review of the study committee's work.

[Speaker 0]: So I'm just thinking to myself, or is that taking place within the six month period that they're working on them?

[Speaker 1]: You have given the six month period is tied to the report. And the report is then required to go to each school board. And then the law says each board may review the report and proposed articles and may provide its comments to the study committee. That's it.

[Speaker 3]: Right. So the question is, is there a time limit or a timeline for that comment? Is that what you're asking?

[Speaker 1]: No, do you want a timeline

[Speaker 3]: for it to come back?

[Speaker 0]: Because that's Sixty days for a review?

[Speaker 3]: That seems Wait. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, the whole I think I'm You wanna see about when they meet. Of course, the whole six month process, hopefully they'll take three months, but the whole six month process will be public.

[Speaker 3]: Right. I'm just saying to get the review, if the school boards want to make comment back to the study committee, how much time does that board, you say sixty days?

[Speaker 0]: So they may not be needed.

[Speaker 1]: Then you've got you go to the secretary review, and the secretary has sixty days. If the secretary does not make recommendations within those sixty days to a state board, then the report automatically goes to the state board. So that could be going to the state board sooner, depending on when the secretary transmits it. And then the state board is required, based on our conversation, to issue its final findings within sixty days of receipt of the report, either directly from the study committee or from the secretary, depending on how that transpired.

[Speaker 2]: So I'll just say that all these dates are essentially especially if we tie them to any incentives, they will mean that all of this will meet the bottleneck of the school boards, the secretary and the state board. So I'm saying it only, staying the obvious, because needs to, if we're going to accept that, there needs to be resources and support for that. Because there's no question it will all be all at once, because we're setting deadlines to make sure it will, and it's very tight deadlines.

[Speaker 0]: Well, of course, the beauty of legislation is that if it turns out that it's all going quicker or it's all taking longer, dates can be adjusted. Either way, I think that we're still mandating that it all happens at the same time.

[Speaker 2]: I'm not trying to say that's so insurmountable. In the past, with Act 46, it was pretty much anybody could do anything anywhere. And we're trying to put boundaries around it this time so that we have larger catchment areas, which means less reports back. That doesn't mean that's going to happen, but I think in this case, that's what we're trying for. So I think that will help, but there'll still be a lot of information.

[Speaker 1]: You don't have to put dates on any of this. That is a policy choice.

[Speaker 2]: And we're making the choice to do it. I

[Speaker 1]: just don't want you to get the impression that I am encouraging you in either direction.

[Speaker 2]: It's the other way.

[Speaker 1]: Then you've got ninety days after state board approval to hold the vote. And then after that, current law takes into account all of the transitional processes. You don't need to touch that unless you want to deviate. And the only other dates would be report back dates.

[Speaker 0]: And of course, I guess, think we've talked about is support, financial support for this sort of path.

[Speaker 1]: Yes. The appropriations are all policy.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. So that was that part, that when you talked about CESAs and timing and making them happen.

[Speaker 1]: We have some transition language. Let me find it before I share my screen. Go to page 19, section 11. Current transition language requires within thirty days following the passage of this act, each member SU board of each seesaw created in subsection six zero three a shall appoint a person to serve on the board of directors of the applicable CISA. And then within forty five days following the passage of the act, the superintendent of the SU with the highest aggregate average daily membership of each seesaw shall call the first meeting of the directors. And then they're off.

[Speaker 0]: And that's kind of it that CISA created.

[Speaker 1]: I think so. I mean, I I

[Speaker 0]: haven't created bylaws yet or have

[Speaker 1]: No, they have to do that. That's their work to do.

[Speaker 0]: And is that spelled out? Or is that

[Speaker 1]: Yes, in 06/2003, subsection A lists the membership of the seesaws, and then subsection B addresses bylaws. Each seesaw shall establish bylaws to serve as the operating agreement of the seesaw. And then you list what needs to be in the bylaws. This is because the statutes are not meant to be for a point in time. They are meant to be in perpetuity. It doesn't say by a certain date. So if you want to build in a date by which the bylaws have been created, we can just add it to the transition section. Great. So what I did for the transition language is let me show you. It borrowed from the supervisory union statute. Within thirty days from the date a supervisory union is established by the state board, the secretary shall call a meeting of the school directors of the board together. And then within thirty days thereafter, the secretary shall call a meeting and elect a chair and other necessary officers until the first regular annual election of officers. And there's nothing more prescriptive about what the SU needs to do to get up and running. And so that is the model I borrowed for the CSAL language. But you can be as prescriptive or not prescriptive as you want as far as the milestones your new state created political subdivisions have to meet.

[Speaker 0]: I am not feeling strongly about being any more prescriptive of what we have. I sort of forgot that we already had language that we call post its language.

[Speaker 2]: I'm just reading down on the state law where it says the Director's Supervisory Union Board shall serve for one year terms. Where are you? What age I'm am fifty six two still, chapter seven. I'm back

[Speaker 1]: Oh, you're in that. The law that you were What's that section?

[Speaker 2]: Under 262C.

[Speaker 1]: This

[Speaker 2]: feels very much like it's talking about supervisory unions as they're born today.

[Speaker 1]: It is. This is supervisory union law.

[Speaker 2]: Right. I get that.

[Speaker 1]: I didn't borrow this language regarding supervisory unions. The say saw language has its own language about board member terms. Okay. Thank you. All I borrowed was subsection I'm A about not sure that we're not Okay. Thank you. Yep. CSO member terms are Oh, persons are appointed annually. So that's

[Speaker 2]: a policy Yeah, that's fine. Okay, helps.

[Speaker 0]: So the question that keeps coming to mind is at what point do we have a complete package? We have you know, then they can take they can take an entity, let's just say a of districts that wanna come together to form a unified meeting school district of a larger size, have we now created a point a to point b process, understanding that we have not talked about money, we have not talked about incentives, we have not talked about some other things. But absent that, do we now have a full process to go from study committee to newer, larger district, if that's what the voters so choose? I think we do.

[Speaker 1]: Is that a question for me?

[Speaker 0]: It is a question for you. I just wanna make, I wanna go like, yeah.

[Speaker 1]: I think that is a question for you. Chapter 11 gives you a complete process. So you don't have to do anything other than say form these study crates.

[Speaker 0]: And we've adopted a bunch of that. So we have the Chapter 11 process now in this Yes.

[Speaker 1]: Whether you are happy with the deviations you make, the dates you have set, that is all a policy choice.

[Speaker 0]: But the process is there.

[Speaker 1]: I believe so. I believe so in that chapter 11 is a complete package. I cannot speak and I am not speaking to whether chapter 11 should be the process or whether the process is complete, meaning

[Speaker 0]: No. I I assume

[Speaker 1]: what I'm trying to say.

[Speaker 0]: I do what you're trying to say. Yes. I just wanna make sure that yes. Thank you. Yep.

[Speaker 2]: We've chosen to use that process, and I'm in total agreement with that. I I guess I'll say two two things where for still trying to wrap my head around. And one is the facilitator and the power of the facilitator to choose who gets in

[Speaker 0]: and out.

[Speaker 2]: And I'm not questioning it. I'm just saying I think we need to make sure that we're clear on that. And maybe the more important second item that is of concern for me, and that is that while I recognize all of these dates and the whole package that we're trying to create here is still under development with timeline. I feel really strongly that we need to make sure that we get some feedback from all throughout the field, whether it's the secretary, the superintendents, whatever, the organizations that we often work with to make sure this is doable. Because outside of that, we have engagement with Vermonters that has to take place. And as much as I feel intense pressure from the law itself and folks who are trying to keep to it moving fast, I also don't want to damage the volunteer work that we're asking Ramadas to engage in this process. I don't want it to set us back. I want it to be doable. And so that just keeps pounding my head. I want to make

[Speaker 0]: sure that we're good on that. Josh?

[Speaker 4]: I'm a little frustrated, so I'll try and say this as well as I can. I'd like to cordially ask that we don't say we as a committee when it comes to this because I don't think there's a we here at the moment. Think there's some, but not all. And I think that there have been I think there's conversations about, like, what's everybody feel? How do we do this? And suggestions from some really get glossed over. So I I just would prefer that we don't call it we bill. We call it whoever votes yes science or whatever. I get it. But I hear her say, we agree on this. I don't agree on some

[Speaker 0]: of it.

[Speaker 4]: I'm saying I hear we a lot, and I don't want people to misconstrue the we as everybody. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: So you have an issue with pronouns?

[Speaker 3]: Oh my god.

[Speaker 0]: First, you. Alright. I am thinking about what more we can ask of legislative council at the moment. Not hearing much more. So why don't we break? That will get us to the superintendent's luncheon, which nobody's required to go to, but just wanna make sure the option's available for everybody. A good chance for those of us who are there to get a little bit of informal feedback.

[Speaker 2]: Let's re let's let's put on

[Speaker 0]: the agenda. We're gonna come back here at one, understanding full well that the floor is full of action today that we Maybe come back to. Will people like to be on the floor for the first half hour to do announcements and things like that? We'll shoot to come back here at 01:15. We will sort of see where we are. We'll have a few more folks here because we can't let down these two out. And then sliding around. Mhmm. I can slide your what time it's gonna be. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]: Are we gonna be back down for the amendments as well? Or just We

[Speaker 0]: do nothing in the amendments, right, that we have.

[Speaker 4]: No. But it's yeah. I think you're asking if we're gonna be on the floor to see the amendments.

[Speaker 3]: Are are some of the amendments roll calls?

[Speaker 0]: I bet somebody's amendment.

[Speaker 1]: If there's a roll I guess my question is if there's

[Speaker 3]: a roll call on an amendment, we will be alerted.

[Speaker 0]: As we are here, to the extent that we have things to talk about, Matt will keep a very close eye and tell us what each building is up and what's going on. Okay. So people who want to go to floor, go to the floor. And I'm sure there'll be many roll calls. Alright. Everybody okay with that plan? Yep. That is plan Ben. We'll