Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Welcome back to House Education Tuesday, March 31. The committee is continuing to discuss its required CISA map and its guidance for districts. We're feeling okay for the moment on the CISA lines that we have. I appreciate people's input and the changes that are coming from them in our work. I think for sort of some of these outstanding kind of discussions on the guidance map that might have us just sleep on it, but we can't sleep on it too much because we do need to have a vehicle out. All right, getting back to the discussion on CESAs, the areas that we have missing in our language are what school districts are assigned to the CSAT and how much money to put up front. We had testimony from the Vermont Living Collaborative, CISA, if you recall, and they said, there's a $10,000 grant that's already existing in state law, and that they talked about $5,000 startup cost. That seems a little low to me. I'm not sure about everybody else. So I think, but anyway, that gives us, we are looking currently at having seven CISAs, so that's 35,000 Those startup costs. Again, I think that that's low. Now, that cost does not include that we don't make it. It's not mandatory necessarily, I don't think, on the cost of hiring an executive director. That would be paid for by the membership of the fee. We're ready to make that. So we need to like, we need to pick lines. We need to pick numbers. So do people have anything they'd like to weigh in on that?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Worth the cost also, I'm going back to the presentation we got in March 19, our existing one, the $10,000 grant for development. Right. Which is in law. But then they had listed out $200,000 for salary and benefits.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I didn't hear that number in here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, what I said was that we are mandating the creation of the CESA, but we're not necessarily We need to let council on this, but we're not necessarily mandating when they hire, who pays for the executive director. I

[Emily Long (Member)]: don't. Well, we need to pick

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the executive director if we don't want an unfunded mandate.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I mean, a cease is gonna be an unfunded mandate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But hopefully it'll be one that pays more than pays for itself.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I guess the initial hire, the ongoing then would be, do we need to hire the executive to pay for the trajectory or the facilitator?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Or pay for the I was just going to ask for examples of what the expenses would be, but I can see that it would be for personnel mostly. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, so what they gave us was the initial phase of program development to be covered by the $10,000 proceeds grant program that we have. Now that needs to be since it's mandatory, it needs to be funded fully. So I think there's 70 right there. Then they said startup consultation, membership fees, all that, 5,000. But what that leaves out is the hiring of the initial executive director. Maybe we could do a fiftyfifty. I would just remind us that there was a lot of money appropriated and set aside for education transformation, dollars 4,000,000, not all of which was appropriated. And even what was appropriated can be appropriated to this work as well.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: There's a little bit left in the redistricting, I think it's like 60,000 or something. Is there anything left from the commission fee? Don't know, with a large No,

[Emily Long (Member)]: we did

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: spend that much. I don't know how much we were appropriated.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So I recognize that there was a very grassroots startup of the current seaside. But when they became or chose to really get organized enough and then look at the policy's model and decide to hire an executive director, they would have to tell us exactly how much each SU who participated had to kick in when they became a number, essentially. But it wasn't overwhelming, even for Earth, because there were so many of us. There were eight of them. You could raise ten, fifteen gram each, and you can get up to quite a higher number. I'm not as hung up on the executive pay for the executive director. I do want to make sure that, because there was a growth process that the first CISA happened, they were already collaborating in that same model. And there may be additional costs of trying to pull together a cease of multiple supervisory unions and supervisory districts that have not worked together. And so we should really be thinking very seriously about that part of it, less I think about the executive director. Because if you're going to use it, you're going to have to buy in. We're seeing benefits from buying in.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We could, for the first year, we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: could cover half. I just think some kind of seed money for that effort, especially if our goal is, like, part of that. So is that an estimate then

[Emily Long (Member)]: of, would it be 700,000?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, 100,000 each.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just think something has to be like 50 each. It's got to be something that's substantive enough to start. I don't know. It matters if it's 100, it's 50, but

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Maybe Yeah. A number of people could move through a little more time. Sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We just have to think about when in the budget cycle for school districts they would be able to build in that buying

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: in costs. What I would, as I was sort thinking about this, I would foresee potentially is there's no mandate that anybody hires an executive director right away, but we can say that when they are feeling up and ready enough to do that, there would be a 50,000 startup grant, the first executive director. Something like that. Hope to get a little more clarity from Lunch Council about what's required and what's not. So that would be essentially if everybody took advantage of it, you'd have $70,000 at BOCES grants, that's seven BOCES, we call them BOCES grants now, maybe seven CESAs, take advantage of that to do articles of agreement. Then another 5,000 each based on just what we got from UTLC. It did come from like redistricting, that's where I guess. Sure, yeah. So let me know the 35, so you're up to 105. And then first year executive director, those are ready to go. That's another $3.50. Suspect RV is available. The agency may not be terribly happy, but it's not necessary for that. The three fifty would probably stay with them. Well, it all would. And they would throw it out as soon it's gone flying.

[Emily Long (Member)]: We've had a facilitator conversation around facilitating conversations around redistricting. But I'm also wondering whether there could be a resource for new CSAs with a facilitator type plan to help set them up. Like two or three people

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So who could in the presentation that we had from VTLC and the startup costs, they said consultation and membership from National Organization, dollars 5,000, then consultation offered by VLCT.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: think to me that implies that they're ready to be consulting. Because what you're saying is there needs to be a resource out

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I really think there needs

[Emily Long (Member)]: to be one. However, I'm not suggesting what it should be, but I think there needs to be, because again, the other one was very organic and started seven years or something before. We could say

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that that's part of the $5,000 startup cost that speak estimates here. And there's no requirement who they get that help from.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I guess I'm just not sure that that would get them off the ground. I saw where it got bars off the ground. I'm not sure. I'm not saying

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it wouldn't, but I just feel

[Emily Long (Member)]: like that part, getting the CISA up and operational, is critical. And I don't mean just an executive director. I mean collaborating, getting together, becoming a unit. And there needs to be support and help for that. And I get all of what they've said and agree with that. I'm just not sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Pretty short time frame.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Open to suggestions on what that could be.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, had a question. One thing to consider would be, is there a way we can create a little capacity at our existing CISA specifically to do this work around helping the other CISAs across the state get up and off the ground? I mean, they're sort of the holder of the contract for the facilitators, but is there a way to sort of build in that support for CISA initial implementation?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Don't know the answer to these questions. No. I mean, you're essentially saying

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: am saying it's But

[Emily Long (Member)]: you're being very specific around it, and that's fine. I'm just don't

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just wondering in my own head, what in this These are questions

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that need to be answered. I can't answer them. Okay. And we've

[Emily Long (Member)]: got

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: time. We don't have time.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I was just gonna say, what?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's our struggle. So whatever resources people can bring to bear to answer these questions so that we can actually have a bill would be great.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Question on the appropriations fee cycle again. So, have you put in there yet paying for the facilitator?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, that's the other, yeah, we have your time to help with facilitator funding.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Broad strokes here on numbers, it's Well, I guess we don't need to do anything from the 10 ks each, right? Because that's an existing law? I don't know if it's appropriate.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would be appropriate. I guess on the whole, we're looking at about $500,000 right? A little under more than

[Emily Long (Member)]: 55,000 but if we want to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: deal with somewhat round numbers, So if you say 500,000, then take out what's left of redistricting task force, and if anything is left from the commission, and then from there, we have one patient.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. Now the facilitators are a

[Emily Long (Member)]: whole other thing. And it's a pretty hard The

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: facilitators are a little hard one too. They're a little bit hard to calculate because, for example, up in the Chittenden County area, we're not really talking about much of the way merging. So it would be good to have the conversations. And in other places, you know, I think that there is going to be a hard look at it and a no, which means there wouldn't be much need for a facilitator after that. But maybe we should just go with optimists and say it would be yes. Maybe we'll ask around about some consulting numbers and bring them back to a table.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just got some preliminary information from the School Boards Association going back to Act 46. So obviously, process has changed. That it was, like, 150 an hour was sort of the rough. Now how many hours? That's it. And then going way, way back to Act 153, districts were reimbursed up to $20,000 in legal and consulting services. It's also a transition grant.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Also, in the process, wonder if facilitator's only gonna get paid to be not able work with somebody who does. So process, if they go, we want to be an advisor, all that kind of stops. That's the right report. Other areas, I think a facilitator brings everybody together, helps them have the conversation, but at a certain point, they almost take over themselves. It seems.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So $50,000 per facilitator. That's what we had in Act 46. Remember the grant was 150, you got 50 up front. And if you were successful, you'd get the extra 100. But the 50 was for the facilitator parts the legal and what you just described. I'm pretty sure that's what it was. It was 150, but 50 was for

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right, the but we're talking about a facilitator group on trying to manage multiple study And we're talking technical.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Great work done in commission, the more they got to- they Hilarious. Is there a way to set an overall amount, but not It's just gonna vary widely. Some places they're gonna use, if it's hourly, heck, they might even need to more than one in some places, or there might not be as much. Can we just set an overall pot and let that be worked out with I don't think we're HR here. We be

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: appropriating to the Bot Learning Collaborative, whose job it would be to hire brain facilitators, send them out, supervise them. They're gonna want that piece of the action to do that. Yes. Let's let's maybe return to that. We gotta change gears here in a second. Alright. Why don't we break here