Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. This is house education on Wednesday, April 1. Gonna keep the ranks to a minimum. Yeah. High tension here. So yesterday, we left off continuing to look at the build that we have created, the maps that we have created. And I think So, sure, what's going on in the meantime is I have been going back and forth to get some better sense of what sort of planning we need to put in for facilitators and whatnot, and getting all that information squared away as best as possible. And then, the legislative council has looked at the map and how to plug in these boundaries into that, and then has also brought up a few points we need to discuss about the district groupings that are just some legal issues. That's all. Anyway, I'm going to turn it over to you to just kind of reorient us again.

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

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: By the way, if everybody refreshes their document list, you'll see the maps from yesterday as well.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Do you want to work with

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the draft that I did last night, or do you want to not have that?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Why don't we we have 7.1 up, and I guess

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That doesn't have any of the I think I sent you 8.1 last night.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. Do you have 8.18

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I just wanted the Pre K language.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, that's Pre K. Yes, we might just as well dive right into it.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: We're diving into what's 8 Point 0.1?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: 8.1, sorry, don't have it yet.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I have a quick question about the map.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: We put Leanne had suggested moving those areas into District 13, but then we didn't draw the seesaw map to include them in District 13.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: You know what I mean?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I have to open the map up. So

[Emily Long (Member)]: I have to receive feedback

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: from my town that wants to be moved.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If it's even remotely helpful, in order to help me draft, and I've just sent it, I did send an email last night at 11:00. I just didn't include Matt. So I'm not that crazy. In order for me to draft, I've put in the boundaries that you have been working with. In order for me to draft them, I found it helpful to make my own interactive map because I needed it had the towns, the map that you guys have had the towns, but didn't have any of the school districts or the supervisory unions, which is the levels that I needed. And so I could at least get one or the other. Anyway, it might be helpful to use the interactive maps to the extent that's helpful to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: you. Yeah. I mean, if you want put it up on screen.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Where do you want to start with? CISAs or what I am calling the groups?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Not districts, just groups. Let's do CISAs first.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Groups, I don't even think we sort of completed our work on.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. You have something to start with. So I think when we get there, I just take my red pen and I I help you with the map and then I x off what we're doing, and it'll be 10 times easier for me to bring you a draft than starting from scratch. So even if you're not set on the lines, I'm happy that you gave me what you did. Okay. We wanna start with CSAS.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Is that the CSOZ map 2.1 or districts with CSOZ map drafts 2.1?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I made my own interactive map based on CSOZ 2.1. Is that on our Yes. No, no, no. Okay. I am going to share my screen and I'm happy to send you the link. I used your stationary map, which was a PDF, and I just clicked around until I put everyone in the right places in what I am about to share. It's easy when you either change your mind or figure out that I got something wrong to change it. So

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: what's cool

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is that So Champlain Valley North Region. So what I did in order to draft So maybe we can just play around with the map for a second while Matt waits for the interweb to work its magic. So the Champlain Valley North Region Seesaw. You can go through all So seesaws are at the super The membership is at the supervisory union level. So ideally, based on the language that you currently have, all of these current supervisory unions would have the same colors here because they're only assigned to one seesaw. But you can see that some of these supervisory unions have more than one very few have more than one color, which means they were split either at the town or the district level. Okay. So it

[Emily Long (Member)]: looks like there's only One in mind.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's Caledonia Central SU with more than one color. Grand Isle SU has more than one color. Where do you think, Replog?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Windham Central. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: can't see the rest of it, but. I'm sorry.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Remember, I'm a lawyer, not a graphic artist.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So I don't This is different.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Forget it. Don't No. I think they're all in the same seesaw. Yep. They are. So two places where I found, based on the stationary map you gave me, Grand Isle is split. So Alberg School District belongs to a different seesaw than the rest of Grand Isle SU, which I have no policy decision on. If that is the choice you want to make, I'll just need to think about building in language to account for membership at the school district level and not at the SU

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: level across

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: all. Mean, that's so that example, that's largely based on the fact that the water and the bridge, so I would be reluctant to change it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then Caledonia Central, you've got Plainfield and Marshfield, which is what, Twin Valley district? Twinfield. Twinfield in a separate seesaw than the rest of their supervisory union.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, this is So, here's the reason why is because as we were making groupings, and with the bigger view of regional high schools, the view is to think about the future. So we've had a lot of reaction and thought that in the future, we're talking about bigger regional high schools, that the twin field grouping would probably head to U32. So hence, we put them in the Winooski Valley CISA anticipating that future. However, I think you're bringing up an important point that's saying that CISAs are being deployed quickly. The rest of it isn't. So therefore, maybe the CISAs should continue to respect existing school district lines in this case.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: And don't we have language that in your study groups you can go outside your CISA if there's a partner outside your CISA that makes sense?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, but when we get to the group maps, you'll notice that the supervisory unions, there are more supervisory unions with multiple colors, which means you've even got, at least the way I read your map, you've even got school districts split in your groupings. Within CESAs or within

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Within districts. Okay. With CESAs, our current language is grouped by SU. Yes. So if we had our CESAs built around existing SUs for the grouping, it would

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: simplify math I will do whatever you want to do. I'm just pointing out that there were two instances, and they can go out. Well,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would it seems like it would and I'm happy to have anybody else weigh in on this except me but it would make sense to within the CISA, since we're trying to deploy them rapidly and get them up and running,

[Emily Long (Member)]: to

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: maintain current SU lines, which would put the Twinfield District back in the Northeast region CISA.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we can do that? I agree with you. So I can do that by just doing this. Oh, there's one more then. Is that

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Again, it's a little. But I I understand why I

[Emily Long (Member)]: didn't

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: because of the roads.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's yellow dot is still there. So that's a TBD. But I have just added the Twin Field.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, Twin Marshfield and Twin Field

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: School District back into the Northeast Region seesaw, which keeps the Caledonia Central SU intact, I think. Does anyone have their book that I left on my desk? May I borrow that? Yeah, please. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. So Caledonia, this is like there are folks out there who probably think I'm crazy. Okay. So habit.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is anyone who's familiar with the Super Render Union? This looks intact according to the map lines, but I've still got this color here, which I don't understand. Which color

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: would you If you look, there's a little dot that would indicate.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I can't even see the little dot. There's one yellow.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I don't see, I'm struggling to see it actually on the map.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Maybe if you look where the hand is or on the left, it's calibrated, sexualized. Oh, right there.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I was looking at the map.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Those were the only two conflicts. Maybe the map.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, I don't know. It's probably me. Would you like me to keep Alberg as part of the Champlain Valley North or Chittenden Central? Alberg is split from its SU, which is a choice you can make.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I think Leanne can speak to that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: better than you. Or CSO. This is the only CISO. Am I hearing some consensus that we should just keep This the SUS the

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: isn't about kids. About workings. So let's think about the that are working together already should be in the CNS.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, let's

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: keep Alberg as part of the Chittenden And Central Region?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Just remind people, the previous thinking was because Alberg so far up there, when they go to the mainland, they do it, these village at the top there.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: But it's

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: part of the union. What's that? It's part of the union.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yeah, like this, yeah. And so we do have language about changing, I think we do about changing CECL lines or adjusting them. Well, we thought about doing that in the future, that there would be a process in the future for that. The process in the future is you would have

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to make those changes because they're set in statute. I think you ask for

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: A report back with recommendations.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yes,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: section 15. This requires AOE in consultation with the study committees and the State Board of Education to make recommendation for SU boundary adjustments and CESA boundary adjustments that take into account new union school districts formed pursuant to this act. So you have already accounted for that. Not until 2029, though. Okay, so I'm still very confused as to why there is

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Does it tell you which of those It

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: tells you the town. It does not tell you the school district. And it tells you SU. SU. And then it's keeping a running count of your aggregate ADM.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: When you open that up, it doesn't show you what each dot is? No. Well, think what

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we have embraced here is a philosophy of not breaking up SUs when it succeeds this.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I just want to be transparent about my resources here. I'm using the education directory that I find so helpful. I am googling school district and SU websites and checking membership as I need to. And I think when we are as close as we can get to done, I'm going to try and use the agency's website, their dashboard. This is all I'm not trying to be a martyr here. This is all very time consuming. And so the lead time I will need to finalize things, I just want to keep that in perspective. And I am always open to someone who has an answer reaching out and letting me know that something is wrong because it's wrong in one of my resources.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we have probably one more issue to deal with, and that is we created So the Southeast Region really needs to be exactly what the current BOCES is because we are using them as an agent for creating the rest of the CSIS. Oh, Hartford. And if we change their border, it could really complicate things.

[Emily Long (Member)]: The top right of it is.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So don't know anything. So we're talking about the Southwest Region, right?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. If

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want to keep this as VTLC, I need direction on what that looks like.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But we also have Norwich in there. Yep. We do? Do

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: you want

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: me to take Norwich off? A question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: For a they can be an interstate school district. So we probably need to put that up with that vertical. Yes, go ahead, Josh. I think

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: we need to change the name of the region. But we can because it says Southwest, and

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that would be Southeast. Sure. No, it says Southeast. Southwest. Well, mine, it says Southeast.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Oh, yes.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Anyway, well, we will probably change it to

[Emily Long (Member)]: the Italian Health,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: or we will probably change it to No,

[Emily Long (Member)]: it's fun.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So here, draft 8.1 is posted. And perhaps it would be easier, instead of looking at the map in this moment, to look at not that. And we're gonna go to page three, line 17. This is where the language starts. So you'll notice in the key at the top, in the heading on each page, there's a new color, and blue is for questions regarding boundaries. So we've already cleared up the Alberg School District question that I have. This is just the rest of Grand Isle Supervisory Union. So we've cleared that up. No questions on Champlain Valley. No questions on the Southwest Region. Oh, I do have them both. So we wanted to do Southeast. So let's jump to page six, slide 10. I think this is the we're gonna I'll fix the mistake there. So that's Southeast. Which supervisory unions are currently members of VTLC?

[Emily Long (Member)]: I mean, I'm happy to read the list because I can't go to both sides. So I'll just read the ones that I am aware of when we joined. Mountain Views, Supervisory Union. I'm reading off this secretary's memorandum to them. Oh, okay. Mountain Views SU, Springfield School District, Two Rivers, Windham Northeast, Windham Southeast, Windham Southwest, Wyndham Central, and Windsor Southeast. These are all issues. Sorry, it's eight numbers.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, the Ws again.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Okay, there's a lot of them. So Windham, there's four. Windham Northeast, Windham Southeast, Windham Southwest, and Windham Central. Those are the four Windham County S.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, I think right now Windham Southeast is not a part of Yeah. It's part of the whole No. Southeast I just mean the map. So Windham. He's in there. Maybe I just didn't list it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's the biggest one.

[Emily Long (Member)]: The only other w was Windsor. Windsor Southeast. Windsor Southeast.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yep. So that leaves Hartford Supervisory District and SAU 70, one of the interstate districts. That if you wanted to keep VTLCs membership the same so that I can make some language about keeping them as they are, we would need to find a new CSOF home for Hartford Supervisory District and SAU 70. Springfield?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Springfield is part

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: of the area.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So let's put them in the light blue or I'm sorry whatever you have there. Yeah, the green.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The The sorry Northeast Region? Yes. I

[Emily Long (Member)]: just want to add the caveat that it's potentially possible that they've added some, but I don't think so. They would? Added others, other than they have signed on.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I just emailed for a full Thank you.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That would be great to have it confirmed, but those are the ones that I'm definitely So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what I envision happening then is on page six, line 10, what is currently the Southeast Region, CISA, I will rename to the Vermont Learning Collaborative. And I'll come up with some session law, or I'll come up with something that will live somewhere that makes it clear their current articles of agreement satisfy the bylaw requirements and that they don't necessarily have to do anything different. And as I'm drafting that, if I have concerns that I hadn't already thought about, I will bring them to your attention. Does that work? So then I think you I mean, you are obviously entitled to make whatever policy choices you want, but I think you've done your CCI regions.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Not hearing any objections to that.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I'm not objecting, but can I ask just a follow-up question to something I asked yesterday and got a lot of nods, but I don't know whether you're learning from the nod? I just want to make sure that these CSAS, I'm comfortable with the boundaries of them for sure. But it remains flexible during the process that a CSAS mind could change downward.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No. Down the road. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I'm just

[Emily Long (Member)]: concerned about people looking at this and saying, this is solid enough. But as districts start forming within, it could adjust lines. And I'm looking to you, Beth, that the language in our bill supports that flexibility.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, it it would the are putting these in statute. Yes. We are asking for a report back with any recommended changes, but it would be up to the legislature to make the change. So I just want to make sure that we're really clear about this, because we need people to have deep, thorough conversations locally around all this, and

[Emily Long (Member)]: some lines may need to change. And so we need to make sure that people understand the processes and that there is others allowed as the work continues locally.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Can I ask what you were so adamantly saying no to though? You seemed like were, this is really important and this does change.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, all I was saying is that the language that we have doesn't allow for change on the fly. This is again just CESAs. These are lines that are being put in statute. And so therefore only the legislature can change statute. Okay. So as they go to form them, report back, the report back may say, Make these changes, and the I legislature will act on would also remind us that things may evolve as it goes through the rest of the process.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, I'm literally not talking about major. I'm talking about if there's one district that gets better and another one, might happen. I actually agree with the process. I think it's better

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to do it this way. Alright. Let's bring up the tougher map. Okay. So we've got got some statutory challenges here.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I couldn't figure out where you assigned when you ski.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Because it was too small? Yes. Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you remember where you assigned to a new school?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: With Burlington.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: With Burlington. Okay. Then I'll make that change right now.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, we can use best value that. We can also add South Burlington since that makes it much bigger. And these

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanna assign it to something.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, yeah, we don't think we probably just need to talk about it But

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yeah. Which one? Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Alright. So now if we look at the

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: district. Districts with CSAL. Oh, we just changed the CSAL. If

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you go to page 32, that's where the guidance, where section 13 begins. And I have just called these things groups.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. That's a great name.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What a policy choice for you all to make in identifying.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And so you said page 32? Yes. So before we started, I was talking about some of this stuff with Beth. The issue that we have is that says current that when forming unified union school districts, you are bringing together full districts, and we have contemplated breaking them up mostly over the discussions of regional high schools. So I think we have two options we can sort of say, well, let's stick with the law as it is from districts, or we could not withstand. But again, we're not doing anything except using this as a, what do teachers call it?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Graphic organizer. I still feel like that is getting lost in some conversations that are making it tenuous. And I wonder if Is it possible to offer two or three maps so that people really truly understand that there are options?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We have to put in So I don't know if I can answer this, but we have to put in the suggested groupings. That would be based on a graphic organizer of a map.

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

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would be hesitant to say optional, Here are three optional groupings.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yeah. So I know that we need the maps. Understand that because in order to move this forward and have it meet something of sort of the request, it needs maps. But, I mean, if all of it is optional, I don't really see the difference between offloading more than one option other than that we are really emphasizing even harder for these options.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think it just sort of is like legislation. Would get challenging. I think we offer all the freedom in the world to deviate from this. I I think if I'm catching your drift here, I think your concern is being misunderstood or and communicating this to the public.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we just have to keep.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Some people are not hearing that. It's like we can't write legislation. But yes, I want us to have the support of the communities that we're doing this for. We literally are giving them what they asked for.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Well, all we can do is do that. We never wish everyone.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Well, I'm also not sure we're giving them what they asked for.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We all ask questions. Exactly.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: It's It's like making groups in a classroom. So you're going get the groups and say, I don't want to be in that group. And you're trying to account for all the different variables that will happen. And then some kids will be absent that day, you have to rejigger the group. It's a group classroom, and you go.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correl areas all

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: the way through this one. But this is the teacher's best effort knowing everything you know, assuming everyone's going to be there, and you're trying to equalize all the different things for your flexible grouping. But then reality hits in the next day when you actually go to do the activity, and the printer didn't work, and three kids are absent, and somebody broke up with someone, and you got the message approved. So no contact over the place. Right. No, I hear you.

[Emily Long (Member)]: They get to London to do their homework, and

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: so then now they can't actually participate in an activity event. Things actually change, but you start with a plan so that it has a direction, a goal, and then we have to figure out. So I'd to go back to what you said.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I would like to put, my gut reaction is to put in the notwithstanding, because I don't want to hinder possible mergers if it just says you have to keep intact districts together. So as they're working through this process, gut reaction is to leave flexible for them to break things apart So if we put in notwithstanding language, does that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we are we have suggested groupings in here. Yeah. We're actually not in conflict with law because they're just suggestions and they're just groupings. The notwithstanding part of that or the change in statute would have to come when they actually form. Is that a fair statement?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Are they gonna do even the conversations and work within their study group if they think that they're not gonna be able merge in the end because they're not bringing the whole district together.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I don't wanna hinder them from moving forward.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right, so if I were a district being sort of split apart in the suggested groupings, I might say, but that's contrary to the law, if we were to merge correctly. I don't know. Talk to us.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gonna get into big issues when it

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: comes to a vote. Yeah. Oh, that's true because they vote by school districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not by 10. Correct. So I am, you you all make it up. But if we're gonna be splitting school districts, then we may need to think about I would need some time to think through what are the provisions in current law that we would need to account for and how many different processes we need to create. I don't know off the top of my head. All I did last night was flag that there were some school districts that were split up. I think at least two.

[Emily Long (Member)]: You said two. Yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But Somerset with both students.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other piece of this Oh, is that why I can't find Somerset.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There was

[Emily Long (Member)]: one student.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: That's why it's pink. Highlighted it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other piece is if you split up So for example, Montpelier and Roxbury were split up. So first, just off the top of my head, you're gonna have an issue when it comes to voting. What happens if the Montpelier study committee that the Montpelier School District is on want to form a Union School District with its membership, and the Roxbury School District does not want to form it. What happens to Roxbury? There's been no withdrawal process. There is a process in state law for school districts to divorce. And if they haven't gone through that process, what does that look like? You can theoretically build exceptions for everything. I'm looking at the clock in the calendar. And I wonder if we have the time to do that so that it works.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So then does contiguous become an issue?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. No, it becomes It's hard to say. You can't say both.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Right, well, you could say to the extent possible, no?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Right,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: right, I guess it would be hard to require non contiguous, require continuous won't get non contiguous districts.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Right, that's what I'm saying, so we have the word in there requiring concurrency.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Well, got it.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: It says shall.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Can I just clarify, so if we are going to keep the existing units districts together, Does the contiguous become irrelevant then? Are. To make things better? We are. Aren't we trying to make things cheaper? And so if you've got non contiguous and you've got buses going through other towns, none of that makes sense.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But it is the world in which they already exist.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I understand that, but aren't we trying to move towards a new What I'm hearing from

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the legislative council is this is gonna be a very, in order to divorce Montpelier with Roxbury, just as an example, it really complicates things.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I don't think we should shy away from comp

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I guess I'll

[Unidentified Member]: Changing everything to five districts would also complicate things.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, but that would be sort of imposed. We sort of, we stepped away from imposing mandated districts. And so now we are at voluntary mergers and mergers under Chapter 11 are merging school districts, existing school districts. Turn Roxbury into connected as far

[Emily Long (Member)]: as the study. Then they can make decisions within the study.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm sorry?

[Emily Long (Member)]: We're talking about school districts. Is that the only one,

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: by the way? No. There

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: are six.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that Quarry Valley Unified Union School District you split up. HOLTON and Proctor are in group three. And There's a couple.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So if we make a decision to not break up current districts for the reasons that have been explained already, those may happen down the road, and there's a legal process for them to happen. We'll just need to make sure that they stay contiguous in our guidance around I mean, not contiguous, you know what I'm saying? Thank you. Within the language of these, the guidance of what these studies are. Just

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: turn and make them applicable. I think we are, and Beth can correct me if I'm wrong, we are in conflict if we say nothing non contiguous, not that everything has to be contiguous, and we have the district that is non contiguous, like Montpelier Roxbury. I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think that the contiguous language speaks to the new school districts, right?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Not to the current study.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Study to the study. Well, let me correct myself. You're non operating. Contiguous is irrelevant. I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: guess I'm going to throw this out there as a concern, anybody can talk me out of it. So in the case of a non contiguous district, I don't know if there are other sidewalks there.

[Emily Long (Member)]: How do

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: they, I see that sort of like if we require them in the future to be contiguous, does that throw a whole monkey wrench in that discussion within the sort of Central Vermont area, which is why it is targeted in the redistricting task force.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So my opinion on that is that there are going to be other challenges down the road. This is not happening overnight. There needs to be a process for those who don't fit in the whole block. We may have to, a future legislature may have to change language. Still, even if it says

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: in

[Emily Long (Member)]: here that it's not allowed, I think we should make this guidance remain, the guidance districts remain for study committees remain without breaking boundaries. It's going to make

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: the math look different the industry.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: And something has

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: to Well, so it says, okay, using suggested school district groupings, the facilitator shall group districts together according to the following criteria.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Without looking at this, what your goal is. You want us to go around the entire table? No, I'm looking at your chair.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I can't speak for the committee, I you do that a lot, but for the individuals. Our goal is to bring together school districts to force the conversation, and that's all.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe, what is your goal related to contiguous school districts? Is your goal to have the end result be school districts where towns that are members of the school district are contiguous?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is not the language you have here.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So we need to take it on.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I read the And I think it could be more clear, but the way I have been operating is that you require the school districts on the study committee to be contiguous with each other. And you are silent as to the results of those study committees.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I would also say it's not everybody's goal in this room to make sure that everybody's contiguous. The way the legislative process works

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is I will go crazy if I don't take direction just from the chair. And so when I say we, I am asking for direction for me to leave the room and come back with a product, I am never speaking on behalf of every member at the table. So I apologize if that is the impression I have been given.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I the best comment was directed to the committee, not at least for the council.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Correct. Is we see.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Like I said, yes, I do. I'm not sure it

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: is. Josh, go ahead.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: So like, my concern is how do they vote if they're split into different study committees, right? Because voting is by district, not by town. So I even with think

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: legislative council may have just told us the language we have is not achieving the goal we are seeking. This is saying you bring together only contiguous school districts, which would leave out a non contiguous school district. So how do you bring together Montpelier and Washington Central when Montpelier isn't really allowed in because they're not contiguous I school

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't, I read the language as being this school district and this school district need to be contiguous with each other, not that this school district needs to have towns that are contiguous as its members. I can draft the language however I am directed to draft it, but I believe as drafted and at the end of the day, I know I sound like a broken record. It doesn't necessarily matter what I think. It matters how the field is going to execute this and interpret this. Because I'm in the witness stand, the way I read this is school districts A, B and C, if they are on a study committee together, they need to be contiguous. It says nothing about the end result of what A, B and C decide to do. And it also says nothing about the member towns of school districts A, B, and C. It is agnostic on both of those second Alright.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. So the groupings that we have created, I would say, therefore, it's almost everything is contiguous. Yes. Because Montelier is contiguous.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, yeah, here. Let's just use a visual here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All of your colors are touching like colors. The color groupings that you've made Except for that little green thing.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's this. Where?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh, That's actually connected.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That's touching. Oh, okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Your color groupings are all contiguous in that they're all touching each other in some way, shape, or form.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So that means even one little corner that's

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Okay. Because we have a couple of places where I would argue it's not touching, but it's like Corners are.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's like four corners.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe contiguous is not the word you want to use. Maybe we come back to the plain English and we just describe what the goal is at each level. What is the goal for school district groupings? The guidance? Yes, for the guidance. And then is there a goal? Do you care about whether the membership on the current school districts that are sitting at the table You can't change the membership of the current school districts. So if there are non contiguous school districts right now, unless you build a separate process, if you're trying to work within current law, then you just have what you have for current school districts. And if there are non contiguous school districts, are non contiguous school districts. But you can require the groupings to be contiguous, which I believe you've done with your mapping, you are still silent as to the end result. So like, for example, this pink area, what is pink? Let's see. District 17. This says district. I did not label it district in the draft. I go with the term group. If you are agnostic or silent as to the end result, which you have been, which seems to have been a theme, a key concept of what you, the committee, is trying to achieve, in the universe of possibilities, regardless of whether this would ever actually happen, Elmore, Stowe and Belvedere could decide to be a school district. They've been grouped together on a study committee. They're contiguous. Well, I don't know because I don't know what school districts they're part of and whether they would need to divorce to accomplish all of that. But I'm just saying, theoretically, you could have school districts that are grouped together and contiguous within the larger grouping decide that they would like to form school districts that leaves out the middle, if you will.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Which they could do in current law too. Absolutely. I'll just share my goals because I'm only speaking for myself and no one else in

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: this committee, or anybody I represent.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I just

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: have to say it, because this

[Emily Long (Member)]: is really complicated and challenging. Goal is that in the end, my goal would be understanding that there may need to be exceptions, but should be going we have a process for exceptions. But my goal is to have that contiguous piece, the final result. I'm less concerned about it in the study. Fine with the map the way it is, too, but I don't want to be setting ourselves up for any challenge down the road with following law. But my goal was not to have the lines around these guidance districts, guidance various groups, thanks you, It to necessarily be was the final result that obviously That's just me.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Beth, go ahead.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I'll take just for me. That really cleared it up a lot for me when you said that it's for the study group. The contiguous part is the study groupings are contiguous. So that makes perfect sense. And not breaking apart current groups makes it easier for the study groups. And I just don't want to hinder or stop people who want to move forward from moving forward by putting something in there that hamstrings themselves. I'm very happy with what you said, because it really

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: took So, it up from currently, we are silent Yes, on that's right. Yeah.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Should we be? I think so.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I mean, are as sort of hands off because it's voluntary. And so the question is, does the committee want to be more prescriptive of what the outcome has to be?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I think that's a really bad idea. It's struggling to imagine a world with a bunch of non contiguous districts that is forward progress for any of the bigger goals that we actually might mostly agree on. I guess one other question would that happen? I don't know, but you're talking about reducing transportation costs, all the things about a district. At the regional level in high school. Or being able to, in a larger district, you can move teachers and staff around as needed. Enrollment goes down one place, it goes up another place. I guess it depends. Well, if your district is now has an hour of another district in between it, that starts to get really This is all We're so deep in conjecture land, and it feels really But that seems like it would be a very unfortunate outcome for the state of Vermont out of this.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So we have So we have Do we have any Under Act 46, in other words, the proposals sort of go through a check with the AOE and the state board, right? Yes. And the state board, do we give them any power to say, go back to the drawing board?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You don't deviate from current law. So current law says, advisable committee transmits the report to the secretary who then submits them with recommendations to the state board. The only change you made here was the timeline within which the secretary has to act. You've given, and it's in draft 8.1, you've given the secretary sixty days from receipt or whatever, April, I think, whichever date comes first. So the requirement on the state board is they have to consider the report and proposed articles of agreement and the secretary's recommendations. They have to provide the study committee an opportunity to be heard. They may ask make the secretary or the study committee or both to make further investigation and may consider any other information the state board deems to be pertinent and may request that the study committee amend the report or the proposed articles of agreement or both. And then all current law says is if the state board finds that formation of the proposed union school district is in the best interest of the state, the students, etcetera, then it shall approve the study committee's report.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And if they don't, then they then what?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well So then we let's see. Vote to form union school district.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think that the language in that as a check works, but it also says if we don't find it as a bit, that's interesting students.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I don't think I'm trying to remember back to all of our work in this area. This is not very explicit as to what It's not explicit at all. There's nothing in the vote to form a union school district statute that requires, that explicitly says the vote only moves forward if the state board has approved it. And I'm looking at the language here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: In order to be able to do that, you would first have to withdraw from If you are, well, guess these are three deadlines.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you're onto something, though, and I think that that is a process that could happen organically. If you're on a study committee with six school districts and there's a meeting of the minds that one school district needs to divorce so that there can be, instead of six school districts, two school districts, then I think that withdrawal process would need to happen so that And then there would need to be towns. I mean, I think it would get very complicated quickly.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: To be able to do

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: that. Yes.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. I guess it would be more like good three non contiguous school districts within the study group. The unlikeliness of it, especially in the face of what I would hope would be a negative recommendation from the state board, I think will make it seem very unlikely. So again, I think I'll go back to the question. It said the state board finds that it is in the best interest, but it doesn't say anything about it, the state board finds that it is not.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't. The use of this term, the chair of the study committee shall file a copy of the approved final report and proposed articles of agreement with the clerk of each school district identified. There's no option B. There's no D1 and D2. Or what happens if the final report and proposed articles are not approved?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: That's a question on that. But I suppose technically, it's never approved, then they're not If they can only file a copy of an approved final report, if the final report is never approved, then they can't meet subsection D, right?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Like isn't that Lawyer stuff kicking in.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, yes, I don't know that the vote requires an approved final report. That's where I was jumping over to section seven ten, and I don't see that same term used here, Approved. It just says the votes will be held on the date specified in the final report. Oh. I don't have any memory of whether that

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: was intentional choice.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you want to allow the state board to say no and then prevent a vote from happening, then I think you build in that language for this process specifically. And if you just wanna let things play out organically as they would under current law, then you're going to get lots of reports back about impediments or issues in current law or rule that folks from all the different perspectives want to see changed as they make their way on this journey.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That part's gonna happen anyway. I guess I find these scenarios that we are talking about would be highly unlikely to ever get to the vote. Because so I guess I'm comfortable with current law, but that's me. If you figure you have to, you wanna form a new, larger, non contiguous district, First of all, if you're part of a district and you wanna break away, there's a whole rigorous process for that. But if you are I I don't even know if these scenarios exist where you still have small districts, non contiguous, similar operating structure. So then you'd have to come all together and create arbiters of agreement. We have to go before the state board. State board might say, This is not in the best interest of the state. Can't file the report. The idea that everything would still happen after all of that, I find highly unlikely. But I guess I would, tend to delay, just not complicate this, but just keep current law. That's me thinking out loud, and this is a discussion for everybody. I agree. We can chew on that and move on.

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

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So this brings us to our grouping issue in that we have in fact split school districts in groupings and that's not really a lot of the current thought of under chapter 11. So perhaps we need to revisit the map. Doesn't it's gonna get in the way unless we make larger groupings, it's gonna get in the way of the discussions over larger regional high schools potentially. But remember, we are allowing the flexibility of groupings to expand or contract in order to meet the goals.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you like me to point out where I found school Yes. Districts and Okay, before we do that, I just wanna Let's look at the same dots that we looked at last time. So again, the colored dots underneath the supervisor union's name correspond to the groupings that school districts within the SU or towns within the SU for this map have been assigned to. So you'll notice that there's a lot more multiple colors under the supervisory unions on this map than there was in our previous map, the seesaw map. And I only point that out because that means you've split SUs. And if you're keeping SUs intact for seesaws, that means you've split a seesaw membership, which I don't think is necessarily a deal breaker. We may just want to revisit the information about direction to the facilitator and how they are using these groupings and when and how they can deviate from grouping within their seesaw, the region they are assigned to. So maybe it's not that facilitators are assigned to a Seesaw region. Maybe it's that facilitators are assigned to groups one through seven and whatever. You're still gonna have the same issue with supervisory unions being split, but you're getting that report back for recommendations for SU boundaries and CSAT boundaries after the dust has settled, AOE has taken account of the mergers that have happened. We're gonna go to page and do we like the term group?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Let me type the answer. Great.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Page 32, section 13. Okay. So group one, everything seems to be intact. Group two seems to split the Quarry Valley Unified Union School District. Group two includes West Rutland, but it does not include Pulte and Proctor. And my understanding from the resources that I listed off a little while ago is that Pulte, Proctor and West Rutland form the Quarry Valley Unified Union School District. I don't know off the top of my head what SU

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: those folks want.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. This is what's this called? Quarry Valley? Quarry Valley. And we have and and it includes Fulton.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Group one or sorry. Group two includes West Relinch.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Group three includes Pultely and Proctor. So two different groups, three towns, but those three towns, my understanding is one are one school district.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Where's Proctor? Geographically, this one is really challenging because Proctor and West Rutland are very close to Rutland. Hultney is separated from all of that by IRA. And Hultney's sort of best place to merge is with Fairhaynab. So this gets into your suggestion that we are talking about groupings, not by school district, not by SU.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Still have the issue of if you split a school district into different

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You vote.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So if I understand what we're saying is either just move West Rutland into group three or move Coley and Proctor into group two so they're together. Is that why?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not making any suggestion.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think what we really just have to do here is combine three and two. In one big group. One big group. Okay, so, all right, so let's play this out. Let's say they all get together and say, well, we shouldn't all be one big group, but we should split ourselves up exactly as two and three look here,

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: we

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: have a process that would be very complicated to make that happen that exists in chapter 11. We could supersede that in the future. Probably don't need to solve this now, but let's say that they came back in '27 or '28 with their final report saying we should be split apart, the legislature made a statute, recession law, that says, by waving our magic wand, you do not need to go through the withdrawal process that exists in chapter 11, that by virtue of your power vested in us, you are now two sin victors.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have power to do that? Whether that is how to do it, I would have to think through. Yeah. I mean, have the power to do that in that we are a Dillon's rule state. It's going to I can't give you a black and white yes or no answer without knowing more specifics in the future.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We were talking about feeling fully mandated new school districts. Right, right.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: The draft we had before, we were having a conversation at some point in time. We said, well, what if the study committee gets to the end of this process and decides a unified union school district, pre K through 12 isn't in their best interest, but they decide, for example, what you just said, do they have to disband the study committee, start all over again, go through the process? Or could we put something in our existing thing we're working on that says, oh, you've made that decision and there's a process for you to move forward with that decision, instead of having to disband and start all over.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that a question for me or the chair?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: No, The answer was, we said, Well, if they don't do the Unified Union School District pre K through 12, then they disband and they just go through the process we have in existing statute.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm not sure.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I'm starting to rethink whether we should have something in there that allows them to say, yeah, the pre K through twelve, one pre K through 12 unified union school district isn't the decision we came to. But we came that there's two and there's a way for us to move forward from this point without having to just disband the study group.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So what we have currently is the study group is trying to achieve the goal of a unified school district. And that if they decide that it is inadvisable, then they can disband, and should they choose to use Chapter eleven to do anything else, that remains an option for them. I think that if this sort of district situation were to pass, maybe it's a job for a future legislature to solve probably at this point. For the time being, I would combine District two and three, except I do not believe Middletown Springs, Ira, and Wells are part of anything else in District 3?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What do you mean they're part of anything else?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't think they're part of those SUs within District 3. I could be wrong.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're combining group two and three, so now we only have one group.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want, I don't, I guess I just don't understand what you're saying.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Are they, I guess, Wells, Lookout Springs, West of who's in the group, or you getting close?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Wells Spring Unified Union School District, Iris School District.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They are all three separate school districts.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yes. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Alright.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gonna have multiple towns part of two different school districts because of modified union school districts, elementary school districts, high school districts. But again, chapter 11 is about school districts coming to the table. So you'll need to include all of them. But yes, Ira School District is its own school district.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay, so here's my next thought. It's gonna require some local knowledge. IRA, Middletown Springs, and Wells do not send I think they are not nine or K-twelve operating systems. Everybody else in districts two and three are, so should they be grouped to district four? That's policy question. It also sort of balances the numbers a little bit. I don't know what that does to I don't know what member what SU they're at, and we were trying to keep groupings together within the CSUS.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you have multiple SUs that have been split up.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Okay, sorry.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Whether that's Within who are not

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: CSUS.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Those three are MS.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Even within districts.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, yes. So the way to tell if you've split up an SU is to look at the SU names. And if there are multiple colors, then the school districts within Caledonia Central Supervisory Union have all been assigned to different groups. And I'm only able to determine that by the different color dots. Same with Grand Isle, Greater Rutland, Montpelier Roxbury, actually split the school district, Orange East, Orleans Central, White River Valley, Windham Central, Windham Southeast.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm falling into my own trap of sort of, can see some lines because it happened to be on the map I'm looking at.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: We also ended up doing that between district twelve and thirteen, based on some conversations that I thought we had undone yesterday afternoon, but looking at the map, I see that it stayed like eleven

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't think we ever gave direction to make that change.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Okay, and Westmore wants to be moved.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. One area at a time. Alright. I'm just gonna go out there based on my limited knowledge. We should combine two and three, except that Wells, Middle Town Springs, Ira should move into four. And I'm only thinking about light operating systems.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Don't we want to end up with

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And let's just well, let's keep the then let's keep one simple. Let's just provide the two.

[Emily Long (Member)]: But Middletown Springs and Wells are a single school district.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Wells Yes. The Wellspring Unified

[Emily Long (Member)]: East And then Ira must be its own. Correct.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, according to my

[Emily Long (Member)]: sources. I'm looking up essentially. Okay.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry, you said combine what? So we've combined Two groups and three. We no longer adding Wellspring, Ira and Ira to four? Are we keeping them

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We're getting into serious nitty gritty here. But here's what I I don't know to the extent that Ira, Middletown Springs, Wells, Loathe, Port Bolton, which is the closest school or fair game. But let's just let's just, for the time being, just keep keep combining the two.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I don't think so.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And don't move anything to group four.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Okay. There was a degree, Emily? Yes, I said I agree with that. Okay. Appreciate your while you were I'm sorry, I'm reading and trying to keep out, I Seven minute break? Oh, well, actually, no, because we have pre k coming in, testimony at eleven. Alright. So show us other areas in which we have split districts. The

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: next the next blue is on page 34, and that's group 10. You have Roxbury, but not Montpelier. And you've assigned Montpelier to group twenty three.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. So that we that because it's a district, and this this is about districts coming together, that needs to stay together.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Unless you want to build out a new process.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I thought the part of this was to have unified k through 12 systems, not for everything to be fully operational.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. Your point being.

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: I don't know, just to feel like, I mean, Kate just made a comment, shouldn't it be everything K-twelve operational or fully operational? That's how I heard it. So I feel like some people on the committee might be feeling one way or another. So I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear on what we're doing.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We are forming, so when we talk about operational and non operational, I think we're trying to actually move beyond that and say that you can be operational, but how you choose, how you operate to educate your students is still up to the district. Thank you.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So we need to move Roxbury to group twenty three. Yep.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that what's happening?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah. Have been. We don't

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: wanna build out a whole separate process.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to keep going? Yes. Okay. Next one is group twelve. From my read of the map, you've assigned Barton and Glover to group twelve. Barton and Glover are part of the Lake Region Union Elementary School District and the Lake Region High School District, two separate districts. But they are not and the rest of the towns in that district, you've assigned to Group 13. So you split it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right, so

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: you should probably put those back in.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, we need to unsplit those.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So who's going where?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: You need to go with the high school. And that's just for, that's because of voting, right?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah. That's where they go to school.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: But after that, say, whoever wanted to be in District 12, they could vote for that or they could vote not to be in the Lake Region. Mean

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think that'll be in the report back from the facilitators. Reason And then a future legislature would have to create a process

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: for I said it was because their proximity to the interstate, they're right in the middle.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, I've kind of lost track of how that's supposed to look.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Yeah, so Culver and Barton should be in District 13 for the voting reasons. The other thing I'm wondering about is we were saying contiguous, but Walden is not contiguous to District 12. That's an exception to that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Standard is sticking out there. Why not just put Walden and Standard?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Where Walden exist currently? It is in Cal Co op, which

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: is Walden. Walden is a choice town. Which

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: is Danville Cabot? No.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Chittenden.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: They have an elementary school and then they have high school choice.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Right. They

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: are like all They have to stay together. Putting SDs for this. Is that correct? Walden, Barnett and Waterford are one

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: SD is contiguous within the study group with Why is Walden, Barnett and Waterford an SD when Danville is in the center? Because when they merged voluntarily the last time this happened, that's how they got together. And then what district is Standard?

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

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: is it's in the green. Some standard kids go to Hazen. Some standard kids go to LA. Because they don't have a high school. Right. So high school teachers. Well, I'm wondering what school because for voting I'm just asking about voting purposes.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's what we to know. We need to know what district standard is in.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Looking purple book. So

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is part of the challenge is that the purple book is organized by SU and not school district. What color or what district is standard in?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We have it currently in 13.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 13, okay.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Bear with

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Oh,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's that little sliver. They're part of the Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union. Okay, so then they should say that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: they were

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: their team. It's just weird on the map.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes, is. Yep.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: It is. And they're part of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Mountain View Union Elementary. Oh, that's all right, so you

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: can see that that's all coming back to me. Okay.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Alright.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So And they're their own town school district.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So what I'm hearing is that Barton and Glover need to go into District 13. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: What's more I was wondering about being in District 12 because prior to being roped into Oksoo, I think that they were a choice town versus a foreign event. However, now that I'm hearing all of this, it sounds like they already are part of the Occidental School District, and so that's why they have to be in 13 for the voting purposes. Is that correct?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I went a little fast.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. What district are we looking at?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Westmore. We're looking at the town of Westmore.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, the district you've created. Oh, 13. 13. Okay. And what town? Westmore.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So I'm just wondering, they were wondering about the possibility of going into District twelve, but it's just a voting question.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's a voting question.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Think they're now part of Lake Region.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're Arlington Central SU. And they have to stay. That's the reason. Okay, I can communicate that. Although because I'm looking at the Ottawa. Yes, they're part of the Lake Region Union Elementary and the district and then the corresponding high school district.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So again, it's going be very important to explain to people that while they're staying here for voting purposes, that doesn't mean they have to stay here perpetually. I mean, they can vote to move and join a different space.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We would need to create a process. Here's, to play it out, facilitators go out, get the groupings together. They may come up with something where they need to split districts that's gonna be better for the state of Vermont and meeting our goals. We don't have a process for that other than a very complex first you have to withdraw from the district you're in and needs to be accepted in the other district. It requires the vote of everybody. If one town says, you can't do it, then you can't do it.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: How does a town regain their autonomy to be like, we don't want to be with you if you're holding?

[Joshua Dobrovich (Member)]: It used to be easy, but you can't anymore. Both towns have to petition for it. Then there has to be a committee. They have to agree to it. It goes to the state. State decides to make it happen.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: That's a simple one. Well, it's actually If somebody is part of a unified school district and they don't want to be part of it anymore, there is, in Chapter 11, there is a withdrawal process. But you are breaking from a unified group, so it requires everybody to vote on it. Any town that says no, the whole thing, this is all current law.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Right, so I'm just wondering, so theoretically then a town could never, for the rest of the history of the universe, get their freedom back into the other towns. Well, I would

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: like to not classify it as freedom and not freedom. Would

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: classify as one of the Can we say autonomy?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, I mean, the choice is So the process exists. But this is where we talk about the goals of the state of Vermont and Act 46 and the resulting language talked about.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: So essentially a small town would have to petition or organize for complete secession from the state of Vermont.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All they do is petition and go through the withdrawal process. But it doesn't mean that they're gonna succeed. And these aren't towns. These are school districts. Right.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: But I'm saying they used to be, like, each town used to be a school district. If the town decided we want to go back to being our own

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that's not the direction the state is going. Right,

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: so I'm saying how, so there is no way, this is my question, there's no

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: way for a town to say,

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: well, we want go in a different direction than

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There is. There is language in chapter 11 of there is a withdrawal process, but it requires a lot, including a vote, And if that vote goes the other way, then it doesn't happen.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I still feel like this conversation is

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: getting really circular, and my question is not really getting answered in it.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, you're saying there's no way you can ever leave it. I'm telling you, yes, there is. There's a process.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: But only if the other towns around you agree. So there's no way, if one town wanted something that the towns around them didn't want, they're stuck forever. Have

[Emily Long (Member)]: a senior investigation sufferer as well.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. No,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know, I'm just trying to understand.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: I'm not arguing about it, I'm just confirming that yes, that is true.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: There's a process that exists. It's not easy.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Kate McCann)]: Used it. And no one has this much autonomy.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Alright.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Did have any other actually, I'm gonna I'm gonna just stop us right here. Ten minutes, everybody.