Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Welcome to House Education. This is Tuesday, March 31. The committee continues work on its education bill. We are looking at draft 7.1 this morning. We're gonna do a review of the whole thing rather quickly and then talk about some new language that's in there with legislative council. Rest of the day consists of, we'll do this till 11:11. We're gonna do a walkthrough of the pre K language lunch. Back here, we'll have the head mapping guru here with us kind of as a resource. Think it's time we put some finalization on some boundary lines and that would allow Legion Council to start plugging in maintenance stuff into this bill. And then we're gonna keep working for the rest of the afternoon on this. And then again, it's in repeat tomorrow. So with that, let's turn it over to our legislative council to do a quick review of what we have and a review of some new language dealing with facilitators.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. So draft 7.1, the major changes in this draft is language around the facilitator position in the second half of the bill. Otherwise, there aren't really any changes because what we were working on last week at the end of the week were the dates, and you guys had kind of coalesced around the dates that were in the last draft. I think there is one date that I have not changed, but I'm keeping track of it. So do you want me to share my screen?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, please.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so draft 7.1 of your committee bill. Starts with, again, I think the breeder assistance headings are particularly helpful in this bill. So the first several sections are all the BOCES to Seesaw language change with some updates to account for the fact that you are now creating Seesaws in state law, it's no longer a voluntary process. So that language is not highlighted because we've been over it many times already. But let's see, so we've added a definition of cooperative educational service area here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I just want to say to the committee, just jump in. It's okay. Even though we've been over this 100 times, if you have like, wait a second, I don't understand how this has happened, if that happens, please just jump right in.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We've got a definition of corporate educational service areas, and then section six zero three starting on page three is where you see the major changes here. So in addition to the name change, BOCES to Seesaws, we're striking all this language about voluntary formation of seesaws. And we're jumping to line 15, It just says supervisory unions are arranged to the following cooperative educational service areas. And so you have off of this green highlighting on pages three and the top of page four to represent policy choices that are TBD, and that is your seesaw memberships. Even the number of seesaws is a policy choice. Seesaws are required to form bylaws. So, what you see that's struck is language about formerly when it was a voluntary process, there needed to be a cost benefit analysis when they were getting together to decide whether or not to form a BOCES. All of the member SU boards needed to sign, the secretary needed to approve, but we're taking all of that process off the table because you are creating. So each seesaw shall establish bylaws to serve as the operating agreement of the seesaw, and then at a minimum, what needs to be in the bylaws remains largely unchanged, except we have no method for withdrawal in the bylaws because you are creating membership in state law. So only you can change membership. The procedure for, again, admitting new members, that would be done through a statutory change. But the rest of what needs to be in the bylaws versus articles of agreement remains the same. Board of directors remains the same.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Can we just run through the board of directors?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So a seesaw shall be managed by a board of directors, which shall be composed of one person appointed annually by each member SU board. Appointed persons shall be members of an SU board or the superintendent or designee of the member SU. Each member of the Seesaw board of directors shall be entitled to a vote. And no member of the Board of Directors of a Seesaw shall serve as a member of a Board of Directors or as an officer or employee of any related for profit or nonprofit organization. They're required to elect a chair and then any other officers they deem necessary. They can create subcommittees or policies and procedures as deemed necessary. And they are required to meet not fewer than four times annually. And they're required to provide quarterly updates to each SU board in its membership.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I know I've asked this before. Why do we keep using supervisor union?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because the membership level of your cooperative education units, both when they were BOCES and now under Seesaw, is at the SU level, not at the district level.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But what if there is no SU?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is always an SU. If it is a supervisory district, then the supervisory district is the SU.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: District can be a supervisor, but a superintendent can't be a district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: An SD can be an SU, but an SU can't be an SD.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Correct.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Emily? So

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'm thinking about this membership. To me, CISA is not a governing board. But when think about so I'm thinking about the current, this postseason, that we have. There are no board members appointed to it. They're all, I believe, at the supervisory, administrative level. I don't know if they're all superintendents. I know in my SU, the superintendent is the member. Given that these are going to be taking on a whole different Being mandated makes them different. I'm just wondering about if they could become very political if they were all made up of board members. And I'm trying to align that with the function of this door. So I guess it's not really a question for you. It's more just posing some thoughts here about the role of the CISA. And I see in my region, board members would play a very little role in this board. So that's why we're not part of it. And yet, we actually have language here, which is current. It is current in the Bosons bill, but it literally could be made up of school board members and not administrators, which can make me very worried in the way we're using it today. So I'm bringing that up for us to think about, not suggesting it would be any different week.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There was no question in

[Emily Long (Member)]: my region who was going to be on it because literally it was about administrative work

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: and an educational goal. I think membership's definitely a challenging Here are my questions that come up when we talk about membership or the board of directors. So, at some point, it may become a bargaining unit. It also is creating a budget that must be paid for by the other districts if it's not supported by fees alone. That would be an argument to have school board members be part of it.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Absolutely. And I'm not suggesting support members shouldn't be a part of it. I guess I'm just wondering about I don't want to move into something like this without having this conversation. And I'm not trying to anticipate horror. I'm trying to anticipate making sure that it's functional and that the CISA is able to work in the way it was intended. And I'm already seeing some questioning about the use of it. The difference is that we're mandating membership, but we're not mandating the services they purchase. So I guess it's The back of my mind is laughing at me.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think what we have here is sort of middle ground that says that the SU can appoint to whichever they feel most comfortable appointing, whether it's a board member or Yeah. Or not. I I also sort of wonder about depending on the CISA. I wonder if we should have a minimum number of board members. Yeah. I see a CISA with four board members, you know, whether they're superintendents or whatever, but that's a small

[Emily Long (Member)]: that's a small number. Oh, we also have a this is gonna have to be revisited because we also have a voluntary process for merging in the future, and if the merging doesn't happen, it could be exponentially larger. It won't

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: be any different than what we have today, but yes. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think I'm understanding your concern that you could end up with all board members

[Emily Long (Member)]: as members of this board. I guess I'm not saying I'm concerned about that. I'm just thinking about the function of this board and what it actually does. And you need administrators on this. I mean, there's no question you do, in my mind, from my experience.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't know about, so I guess, I think there's arguments for both styles of membership, but one would certainly hope that the operation of both sides of that membership would be heard from. What if they're funding it?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What if we suggested language that started with the superintendent instead of member of supervisory union board, and then said superintendent or designee of the member supervisory union, including members of the supervisory union board. And let the superintendent be the one who's choosing who on the board.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I don't think

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: so. Yeah, I think what we have here is probably about as best of a path as we're gonna have in allowing the flexibility of each supervisor to sort of

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, I'm not arguing anything about it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Really don't I'd say it was on my mind as well, but almost for different reasons than yours, a different membership.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, I can see it going in any different way. I just didn't want us to just walk by this without actually having this conversation. And it may need revisiting depending on I mean, really does the law was written for a voluntary process, and now it's not a voluntary process, which means we kind of need to see it differently. And it may be perceived differently out in the field, whether it's boards or schools or administrators, whoever's perceiving it, might be looking at it differently. And this was written to serve a voluntary process, which was why it was so easy in our case because we got into it. I don't know if that's going be the same. So anyway, thank you for indulging me.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, I was just I agree it was a conversation worth having. You would like to continue it?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Powers of Seesaws. In addition to any other powers granted by law, that Seesaw shall have the power to provide educational programs, services, facilities, and professional and other staff that, in its discretion, best serve the needs of its members, including professional development, curriculum, coordination, development, and transportation. CESA is required to file all applicable state and federal laws. And then at a minimum, on page seven, line four, ASCESA shall offer services in the following areas to its members: special education, business and admin services, and union school district creation, consultation, and facilitation. And then the rest of the language remains relatively unchanged other than BOCES to seesaw change. We haven't made any other big substantive changes to the Seesaw Enabling Law?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So if people go to page 13, the Seesaw Grant Program, they're gonna have to perhaps provide better funding than that since the 10,000 was really just to create the articles of agreement. This is probably going to require a little more facilitation than that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I flagged this as a section that needs some policy choices, unless you want to keep talking about that right now. And then we get into, starting on page 14, most of these are Actually, all of these are just the Seesaw to BOCES. Anywhere there was a reference to BOCES, we've replaced it with Seesaw. These are all of the amendments that were made in the original BOCES bill to allow for BOCES, now seesaw employees, to be part of the various different, whether it's bargaining process, retirement process, health care process that school district employees would be part of. So section 11 on page 19, seesaw transition. Within thirty days following the passage of this act, each member SU of each SU created under section six zero three a shall appoint a person to serve on the board of directors of the applicable CISA pursuant to whatever the law says. 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 CISA shall call a meeting of the directors of the CISA at which each CISA board shall elect a chair and other necessary officers and then their officers. I believe Let's look, just to put everyone's mind at ease. I believe that in the definition section, which we have not changed at all, we do explicitly call out that supervisory union includes a supervisory district in this chapter. And then starting with section 12, page 20, line five.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, everybody. So just a little background here. I think one of our goals was that, just to get the work moving as fast as possible and getting people in the field who can bring murder study committees together to meet and talk. And if we have to go through a standard RFP process through the state, that's a many, many month process. So we have a CISA who can operate more quickly and has said that they are willing to be the fiscal agent and the agent to hire and deploy the facilitators. It's the Vermont Learning Collaborative, the seasympathetic system in South Eastern Vermont. They had a board meeting last week at which they brought this concept to their board and they enthusiastically said, We would like to help in any way possible to do this work. So that's where this language comes from here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'll note, I think I understand now that they refer to themselves as BTLC, so I'll add a T in there for the next draft. But on or before 10/01/2026, the Vermont Learning Collaborative shall employ or contract for the services of not less than ex Union School District formation facilitators. She shall be responsible for organizing or facilitating study committees to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. We're gonna have one facilitator for each CSOP, that's the plan.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's concept that's floated here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's read it together again.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, well, that's because it's floated here. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what this says, and you'll notice there's a green, so one entity is required to contract for the services of not less than x. So I have made zero determination of how many facilitators you are requiring VTLC to hire.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: So it could be one for all of them. It could be three for all of them.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It could be one per totally depends on the number you put there.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. So the concept that I was thinking is that it would be one facilitator per CISA boundary, and they would then be working as facilitators for those groups within the CISA boundary. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we would wanna change line 13 to say, VTLC shall assign not at least one, but one facilitator to each CISA?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Under my concept. So again, I'm saying my concept because it's totally open to discussion by the committee. And when we have John Adams in here, you'll see I did my best to break the state up into seven CESAs.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So I do have some mild concerns having been through Act 46 and knowing how much work it is. And when the process is ongoing among different groups, it's really demanding. And I'm not trying to say one can't do it per CISA, wherever the boundaries are, but I'm not sure I am comfortable with moving on it strictly to one, if there's a need for additional support and help, we're on a timeline that is incredibly aggressive at night.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Will have to just find numbers at some point.

[Emily Long (Member)]: In order to budget it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But we're setting a minimum, right? Not less than X in at least one. I'm reading Isn't that what we're looking at right now, Beth? We've set a floor, a minimum.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: I mean, that's is all a

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: policy choice. You could have VTLC, maybe I should have put an X on line 13 to help this conversation. You could have VTLC assign no facilitators. You could have VTLC assign one facilitator for the whole state. I mean, it's all policy. Just

[Emily Long (Member)]: to be clear, I was only reacting to the perspective that there was going to be only one. This language, I'm not as concerned about the language that you're suggesting. I'm not saying it won't work, it might. But I'm not sure I want to be bound by that. When you say only one,

[Kate McCann (Member)]: are you meaning only one state person?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I said only one person. Per Per CISA.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So you think only one person is not enough? I'm saying that I have concerns if there's When a lot of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we look at the map, I think we'll have a better discussion because some of the CESAs only have maybe two or three possible district merger study groups in them. Some of these different merger study groups may not last very long. Possible. And then some of them have even fewer because you move into Chittenden County, you're at scale in so many places.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a follow-up. So do we contemplate a CISA region where there's multiple study groups or we may There's this issue of whether we need more than one. Are we contemplating that it's possible to have one facilitator facilitate more than one study group? That would Can you say that again? So one CISA region facilitator, say you have two or three study committees within that region, they could facilitate running one. That happened in Act 46, too.

[Emily Long (Member)]: There were facilitators who might have more.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Leanne? I'm just wondering how the sorry if this is in here. Am I missing it? How is the facilitator themselves chosen? Is it someone with local ties to that community? Is it all people that will work for VLC?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, they would all work for VTLC. They would be in charge of doing the hiring. Can add in.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: So what is that hiring going to be based on? What are the qualifications?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Whatever we put in here, we have in here somebody with

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: broad knowledge of the public school system. And then my other question is the study group themselves, once your facilities start putting together the study groups, how are the members of the study groups who are local to that district, how are they chosen?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Here, that's under, sort of following, 11.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's proportional to ADM as far as how many folks from each school district have a seat at the table. And then, again, we're getting into, is it a unified union school district or an elementary school district having a seat at the table, but it's all board members from the school

[Emily Long (Member)]: boards. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. Let's get to the floor here because I think Beth is gonna have to skedaddle a second.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if it's a second. My understanding is the bill before I'm needed is many amendments. Oh, okay. All right. It's about to back.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Given that, so our next hour is supposed to be doing pre K. Will Kate be able to?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Unlikely answer your questions. Her focus is on human services, not on education. So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We'll just puddle through.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Study committees. On or before 12/01/2026, we've pushed that date back a little bit. And then I think we can play with this wording, but for today, this is what I came up with. Each facilitator shall group school districts within the facilitator's assigned CSAR Regents member SUs. So depending on what choices you make up here, far as how many facilitators are assigned, we can provide even more specific direction. Form the study committees, and then the study committees, form the study and the facilitators form the study committees using the information that they're required to use here. So they're required to consult with school district boards prior to finalizing study committee membership, and they're required to use the suggested school district groupings that we have yet to nail down as guidance, And then the following criteria. So average daily membership, aggregate average daily membership of the school districts forming a study committee shall be a minimum of 2,000 students as practical. School districts are required to be contiguous, and school districts on the same study committee may be members of different SEUs. And then we haven't made changes to the large substantive policy decisions you've made regarding the work on a study committee. So subdivision 2 says each school district that is assigned to a study committee is required to participate. And the study committee is required to adhere to the processes and requirements of chapter 11. The subdivision A here on page 21, line 15, allows the facilitator to make changes to membership as that process unfolds. You all are gonna give study committees in subdivision B money?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So, I wanna just go back up to line 15.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would be lovely if there are folks out there watching who think they might be interested in doing this work or did this work and have comments on the language, if

[Emily Long (Member)]: they

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could provide those comments before the bill hits the House floor, that would be helpful. Not next year when you come back and you are being told that the language was impossible for them to do their job.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can I share a concern?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Does that have

[Emily Long (Member)]: to be a question?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's what we're doing.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, well, I have concerns that both the board of the seesaw could be all school board members. And then I think you just said that these study groups are formed by all school board members.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yes, that these are required by law, all school board members. Where in all of this are the educational leaders?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, hopefully providing the information that these folks would need to make their decisions.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But perhaps they're just disgruntled people who got voted on to their school board and have zero interest in the work that we'd like them to move forward

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: on. So it is up you know, I think I would not want to adjust Chapter 11 of Title 16. It's done. And this is clearly a government's job because what you're doing is you're not, this is not about, it's about forming new governance. So it's a governance job. So, this particular one, democracy is democracy and you get who you get. I'm not sure if there's a solution to that. The CSA

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I guess the solution is that when they come up with nothing, we make them do it anyway.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That could be in the future, or if they come up with nothing, then they may be ill suited to handle whatever financing changes we make with a foundation formula or whatever the future may hold. But these are, you know, this is we have to come up with a holding process. We've got one of the law that exists that's been, you know, used and better. But I I don't I don't I for me, I don't see how you can take clearly governance decisions away from people who are voted to get to be doing governance.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yeah. Okay. So provision B addresses budgets. You all, at least right now, have language later on where you're giving each study committee a budget to work within. So they don't have to go to the voters if they can work within that budget. But if they need more money, then they would follow current law, which requires going to the voters if they need $50,000 or more. So if you give them 25 and they need an extra 25, current law says they don't need to go to voters for that. Give them 25 and they decide they need an extra 51,000, then they would need to go to the voters to approve that. And when I say the voters, it's the voters of the members of the study committee. And then costs would be apportioned depending on Here you have your regional, middle, or high school, or both requirements to include consideration of in the new Unified Union School District. And subdivision D is some addition to what is required in the final report of the study committee. So you've got two different requirements here. Subdivision D is if a school board determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new union school district, Then they have to follow current law, which is Section seven zero eight, subsection C for their report requirements, and an analysis of the following: the educational advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the new Unified Union School District, the financial advantages and disadvantages, the likely operational and financial viability and sustainability of the new district, and then any other advantages or disadvantages of the formation of the proposed Unified Union School District, putting any advantages or disadvantages to the students and taxpayers of the region and the state. That's what needs to be in the study committee report from a study committee that finds proposal of a new Unified Union School District advisable. Subdivision E on page 23 is the requirement for the report if a study committee determines it is inadvisable to propose formation of a new study committee or a new unified union school district. So in addition to what's required in current law, the study committee has to prepare a report that includes the following details, the names of the school districts participating in the study committee, whether it was formal or informal participation, an analysis of the strengths and challenges of the current structures of all necessary and advisable school districts, the reasons why a formation of a new unified union school district would be inadvisable, with specific references to any state law or rule the study committee found to be an impediment to the formation of a Unified Union School District, with a specific analysis as to why such rule or law was an impediment. If the decision of the study committee was not unanimous, an analysis of the minority view of the committee outlining the ways in which a unified union school district promotes the policy set forth in section one of this chapter. And then the study committee, we're still in a study committee on page 24 that has find it is inadvisable to form a new union school district. They're required to transmit their report to the school board of each school district participating in the study committee, the secretary of the state board, and the facilitator or facilitators assisting the committee. And then here you have that language on line five that says, if members of the study committee determines it is inadvisable to propose a new unified union school district, they may form a new study committee or committees and may pursue any union school district formation option available under current law after the study committee members vote to dissolve the study committee form pursuant to this section. So that's the language that was basically meant to say, if you dissolve after you're required to participate in a study committee, then you can do whatever you want under current law. So then we're back out on or before December of the subdivision that was just about inadvisable recommendations. So on or before 12/01/2027, each study committee shall proceed its final report. It doesn't It's

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: up right there. We've now given them a full year. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So it doesn't matter if your study committee is barreling towards advisable or inadvisable, you got to finish up your work by 12/01/2027. And you are required to transmit it along with proposed articles of agreement as applicable to the school board of each school district that the report identifies as 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 if it was determined to be inadvisable. And then pretty much from here on out, we're just talking about study committees that found it is advisable. To honor before 02/01/2028, the school board is required to complete its review and provide comments to the study committee.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: In other really than dates, this is all Chapter 11 language. Is that fair to say?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. School boards don't have to provide comments, but if they're going to, you're tying them to this 02/01/2028 date. Secretary review. This piece here, so lines through I'm on page 25 now. Lines three through six are current law. I basically just cribbed it as a lead in to the end of line six. You've added six on regarding limiting the period of time the secretary has to conduct their review. So if the secretary fails to submit the report and proposed articles of agreement with the secretary's recommendations to the state board on or before 04/01/2028, then the study committee would transmit the report and proposed articles of agreement directly to the state board. And then the state board would take over. And then the state board is required to issue its findings on or before 06/01/2028.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So they have April and May.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If everyone waits to the last minute and completes their work on the last possible day, then yes. And if they don't, and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they do it on, everybody does it when they're supposed to, So maybe you have another month.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you a study committee that votes February 2027 to propose a new Unified Union School District, then that's several extra months potentially.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But not if it gets held up at the agency.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You only give the agency That's true. That's true. Previously, you gave the agency sixty days, which tied the agency's hands no matter when they received the report. Now we're tying it to a date specific, which doesn't necessarily help if someone is completing their work early. Correct.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: That also could mean that if someone submitted it on 03/30/2020, the agency has two days to respond?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, required to be submitted early.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, okay. On February 1. Right, okay, got it. So

[Kate McCann (Member)]: they would have at least four months.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if someone turned it in January or even December, it could still be held up at the agency of Addison.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: if we were to change this back to sixty days

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you could do Yes, that's a policy choice.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Or we could do both.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's say for the state board within sixty days of receipt or 04/01/2020, whichever shall come.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Let's do yes. I'm driving up that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Can I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: ask a question?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Kate, good point. Yes. So it

[Kate McCann (Member)]: was the articles of agreement. Those basically, when these study committees get together and start working out what they're going to do, it validates the currently existing articles of agreement, but study committee is making new articles of agreement. And so theoretically, they could just go back and adopt the articles of agreement they had before and put them in place again.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, would be more than just who originally created those articles of agreement, because you now have bigger picture. Right, it

[Kate McCann (Member)]: would be new people and more. I guess I'm responding to one of the concerns I'm hearing is, well, this plan undoes all the articles of agreement we had. But if those particular articles of agreement were really important to people, it could be really temporarily and then just put them back in place.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: This is a process driven by the study committee. If they want to, they can put whatever they want, the articles of agreement. Just the

[Kate McCann (Member)]: study committee is gonna be made up of local community members. I mean, they'll be board members.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. I need to visit the Senate for a little while.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will be back.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right. Okay. Questions, comments, conversations for us to have now? I'm not hearing I think we'll continue to go through. We need to come up with some money numbers. We've we've been some of us have been talking with folks in the field about, like, how much money is needed to make this happen. Money exists because we have put aside $4,000,000, some today or some elsewhere, to do this kind of work so that the money can be appropriated. It's just more like what's the right number. And so we're going continue to get some help and get some numbers on that.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That will include if there needs to be additional resources of the state. That there were no

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That is not currently

[Emily Long (Member)]: in here. I'm just saying it's Yep. About Buffalo. Right? Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They have to be an appropriation when it gets closer to that year. In other words, there's no role for the state board until '28. All right, why don't we take a break and then we will return when we get legislative council back for the pre K portion of this.