Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: You're live.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Welcome to House Education, April 16. The committee this morning is hearing from a number of sponsors of amendments to h nine fifty five. We're gonna begin with representative Olsen Starksboro, who has two amendments, and gonna hear him present those amendments. We'll later do a quick walk through with legislative council, a roll of testimony, and then we will straw poll them thereafter. Representative Olson, I do not know. Do you have an order you would like to go in? You have two amendments.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Yeah. Our intent was to have them proceed sequentially in the order that they appear on the action calendar, so I can do the same here.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay. Just tell us, kind of by description, which one's first.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Description is the quote vote amendment would be first followed by the quote administrative hearing.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for having me.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: And the vote amendment is page nineteen forty three of the today's action calendars. And the administrative hearing is the following page. Where is yours? Okay, great. Well, thanks very much for having us in here. Representative Jana Brown and as well as the co sponsors wanted to offer these amendments in order to, you know, give folks meaningful votes before their school might be closed. We think that's pretty important for these communities, for these parents, for these students, And within larger context of what we're trying to do with education transformation, I think it I think it would be a real plus not to make sure that that people have a say before their school is closed. And there are two ways to do that in our mind. And the first has to do in the First Amendment, that would be accomplished by a vote in the the electric where the town where the school is located. I had to change that wording. There are, as you know, there are a whole bunch of different sort of parameters of what a school district is. And so we tried to encompass both situations where there were multi multi towns with a single district, as well as to try to exclude town municipalities where they had a single it was a single municipality district. Like, I remember when we came in earlier, a question, you know, what do you do about Burlington? What do you do about Lincoln? That kind of thing. Didn't feel that that was within the scope of what's necessary here because you have that direct relationship. So, the point. There would be a vote there. That's subsection A, subsection B- Just pause for a

[Chair Peter Conlon]: quick second. I think what I heard and what I'm reading are somewhat different. I thought I heard you say the town where the school is located, but subsection a says a vote of the electorate of the towns served by the school.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Yeah. So we're trying to, again, encompass take into consideration the variety of ways in which school districts are operated. So, maybe take some examples. The school district in my area is a merged district. It's a supervisory district kind of thing. It's a unified school district. So the notion there would be if the board wanted to close one of the schools, for example, an elementary school there, they would have to have a vote in the town where the school is located. But we acknowledge that there are some school districts that are configured differently. There might be a multi town district that has a single school, elementary school, some sometimes in much smaller towns. So in that circumstance, it seemed right that all of the residents of that district would get a vote if their school, because they all feed into that school, were to be closed in a larger structure.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: So I I just in the term terms of examples from your area. Mhmm. In addition to having a single town elementary school, you also have a unified union high school.

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: Mhmm.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: It's serving five towns. So in order if that if they if your district were to merge with another district and say, only need one high school or one high school, middle school in order to close one of those in order to close the one in your district, it would require a vote of everybody in the five towns that it serves. Is that correct? Are you

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: thinking of a merged district after that or what?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I would say doesn't matter. I was just saying that if the school board that oversees the high school in your district decides to close it, I I'm assuming this would say that the voters in all of the towns that feed into that high school would be voting on whether it can be closed or not. I just wanna make sure I'm right on understanding that. Yeah.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: I think that's correct. Whether that is the perfect way to do it, I'd certainly be open to discussion. I mean, it's tough when you're trying to put together an amendment and you haven't had the opportunity to come before the committee who really knows a lot about that. But that's what I would think right now.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Doctor. Huang?

[Rep. Emily Long]: As a quick follow-up, some of those, using this example, some of those those union school districts have commingled ballots and vote in one lump, and some I think don't. So it would be required to follow whatever the current rules are? I guess I'm just trying to figure out what you're

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: I plan. The one yes. You know, again, there's so many different configurations in terms of governance. I think in our situation with a unified union district, it's always comming.

[Rep. Emily Long]: And yeah. Okay. So what I guess what I'm trying to say is when you commingle them, that's a that's a different vote than if you had, you know, all towns separately having to vote too.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Right. But I think in the in the example posited by the chair with the high school, I think that would that would be a commingled vote under under this example. But if it was, say, an elementary school district, it would be the town, the voters of the town where that school was located.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Who was next?

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: And I'll just say that I worked with Beth to try to cover as many permutations of this as I could. I thought it was important, when you have a single municipality district, I think that's we're sort of a different color. It's not, this isn't, you got a direct link to the voters. And

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: it probably isn't covered by this, but I have to ask a question, because where I live, we have a lot of tuition. And so

[Rep. Erin Brady]: a town that because I'm thinking that's not

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: really the town that served or the family that served because I'm from Concord, we don't have a high school anymore. We tuition out to all the other high schools in the area. If one of them decided to close, it's comfort getting about that because we tuition kids there?

[Rep. Emily Long]: Are we So maybe some of these questions no.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I think maybe some of these questions might be best for for Legis Council. I think the term Union School District shall Yeah. Yeah. Maybe something that I think

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: an electorate of that. So, I'd defer to Beth on that answer. My sense would be no, because it talks about electric Electorate. But Beth would be much better able to talk about

[Chair Peter Conlon]: it. Representative Harple?

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: No, I just wanna offer examples, but I feel like there's enough examples on the table. I don't even muddy the water. Okay.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Why don't you continue on? Yeah. So, that subsection A, subsection B simply gives some parameters about how information I mean, voters need to be well informed about this. It's a critical decision. And so the idea would be that the board would post a report giving their their thoughts, their rationale, their information why they thought this was a good idea. There's a bunch of different factors that sort of outlined in subsection b. And then, you know, just some sort of opportunity, whether it's by hearing or some other means for residents, you know, affected residents to give their perspective as well. So so that's that's the First Amendment. Let's go to the Second Amendment, if

[Chair Peter Conlon]: you want. No, no. Let's finish up with this. We'll do one at a time so we can stay focused. Okay. Currently, for example, at York District, does it require a town vote to close the school?

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Yes. Per our articles of agreement as they exist now. Whether that would change under the Merger Study Committee kind of thing, that's an open question. But

[Chair Peter Conlon]: that was decided locally to have that as a feature of your articles of agreement.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Oh, yes. The merger act 46 merger would not have happened without that with those articles. It was a very close.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: But that was that was a decision that your merger study committee came up with when they did the articles of agreement. It was not something that was sort of mandated by the state.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: And it was something that the individual towns voted.

[Rep. Emily Long]: Right.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Yeah. Which is part of the reason why we're a little concerned about, you know, what's gonna happen in the future with study committees, possible mergers, you know, is that is that aspect of existing structure going to continue? You know, it's just a valid concern.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Committee, just to don't know there any questions. Do you want to move on to the next amendment, or would you like to have legislative counsel sit in for a quick second on this one before we move to the next? Don't we just go a second. Do the second one first?

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: Sort of related to the Okay.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Great. Let's do that.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: The second is related to the first. It tries to get at the same sort of goal, which is that before a school is closed, there has to be some sort of accountable way for to the decision. Make sure it's not an arbitrary one. It it it sort of gets into the sense of what's due process about. It has to be specific to the individual decision. It has to be based on facts. And folks get to participate in that kind of hearing. So the

[Chair Peter Conlon]: you saying that that doesn't happen?

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: I'll explain in a minute what we're asking for. Okay. Under current law, a school board has the authority, absent articles of agreement, the school board has the authority basically to close a school for any reason or no reason at all. So what this would do would be to say, yeah, you can close a school. Saying that all schools have to remain open. We're really trying to sort the wheat from the chaff here. But before you close a school, you go through a process, a hearing, notice an opportunity to be heard. There are established statutory standards for that. And then if they conclude it's in the best interest of students in the town served by the school, they can close the school. The subsection b talks about some of factors that should, I think, be considered when you decide to close a school. I don't think there's anything unusual in there. It's talking about educational value, financial viability, capital costs, transportation times, those staffing issues, those kinds of things. Those would be elements that would be part of the administrative hearing. So, that's that subsection B. Subsection C simply says, you know, it's good to specify, well, what do you do from that hearing? And there are a bunch of different options under the law. So, we thought it would be helpful to clarify that this would be simply simple on the record review in the next step in in a court proceeding. You know what? Any decision of a governmental body, state or local, in my understanding, probably is going to go through, you you can always appeal it, anyone can appeal anything. And it probably will be pursuant to this rule 75 that I identified there. But But I thought it would be helpful to say you don't have another full blown hearing, evidence and all that. It's on the record. The record would be developed by the board. And then if you can appeal it, judge would just take a look at the documents in the record and make their own decision.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: So I'll be very honest. Never heard of rule 75 of the Vermont rules of civil procedure. Well, you have to be a government lawyer for

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: a long time to be So

[Chair Peter Conlon]: there's no hearing. A judge just reviews records and then makes a decision.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: I think my understanding, it's on the record, you don't bring in witnesses and have them testify, stuff like that. It's the record is compiled by the board below, then they got rules for that. There's rules on how that that happens when you go through a chapter 25 hearing. But the court specifically doesn't have to hear a whole bunch of witnesses. They might have hearing, mister chair, with the attorney saying, you know, from the records, this is why we thought this was a good decision. This is the appellant's, you know, I thought they didn't give full consideration to that. So, there'd be that type of hearing, but not the evidentiary hearing that takes a lot of time and complexity.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: I'm curious how we think about economic viability in a statewide education fund. The economics of each system are not contained within a single district, we're all playing in a statewide education value. How would that be measured?

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Well, measured, I think it probably depends on the specific case, but there is identified that kind of a factor that would go in. You'd have to think about economic viability. The Ed front isn't specifically mentioned, but certainly I would think the board could say, geez, compared to the educational value for the students, it's just too darn small. We can't do what we need to do. Plus, it's gonna cost a bunch of money, and that might be the basis for a decision that, yeah, we should pull that closure.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: Using weights currently? Like, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how you would how we would make such a determination. And there's so many factors and weights that go into what what a district's tax rates are or what they're selling. Yes.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: And I think the board would probably be best situated to talk about what the financial impacts would be depending on that, depending on the district, depending on the local school. I'm really trying to get everything out there. Pros and cons. The pros, know, It's not cutting it educationally. It too much. You know? That would be persuasive case.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Another question? Representative Brown?

[Rep. Jana Brown]: You may have already said this, but how are these two instances of amendment meant to work together?

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Okay. Yeah. I should have started with that. So, they are ordered. There's an order, and the amendment relating to a vote is first on the action calendar. If that is approved, there would be no need for the second amendment. Our plan would be to withdraw it. If the vote amendment is not approved, then we would proceed to the second amendment.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: Thank you.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you. Thanks very much for your time.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I wanna be cognizant of our witnesses' time as well. Would you mind joining us, legislative council? It may be a quick visit to the air. If we go back to the first amendment, I think maybe we just need a little definition here before closing a school that operates grades pre k through 12 or any subset. A union school district shall obtain the affirmative vote of the electorate of town served by the school. This 1.2 or 1.3? This is First one,

[Rep. Emily Long]: I'm sorry. Oh, first amendment. 1.2.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Is a single town that operates a single school, a union school district?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel, no.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Okay.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Alright. So if a if a school board of a single town school wanted to close their school, they couldn't do that without a vote of the electorate.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Depends on what their articles of agreement or charters say.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay. Well And just

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: to add on to that, in September with the creation of new districts, we

[Chair Peter Conlon]: kind of left it open for them to write their own articles of agreement. Correct? Correct. So if this were important to his region,

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: these things could be included naturally in their articles of agreement? Yes. Okay.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Other questions? Thank you very much.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: We need to Oh

[Chair Peter Conlon]: yeah, I'm sorry, were there questions on the second one? I think in terms of how rule 75 works, I don't know if anybody has a question for the legislative council. I will just say that that's gonna be the focus of our testimony at 09:30, to get a better understanding of that, sort of what it means.

[Rep. Jana Brown]: I can hold my question to 09:30.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Alright. And I think that's sort of the these are largely the same other than that part of it. So if you all wanna hold your questions for the next witness, that would be fine as well. But if are any further questions for legislative council? Thank you. All right, let us welcome via Zoom, Judge Thomas Zone, Chief Superior Judge in Vermont. Thank you for joining us. To the extent you can enlighten us as to Rule 75 of Vermont civil procedure and sort of what might be the impact of adding something like this in a situation like this, that'd be very helpful.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: So good morning. Thank you for having me, Tom Zonay, Chief Superior Judge. I would first note that the bill sets forth a policy determination by the legislature. And so I when I make my comments, they are not intended and should not be construed to be weighing in on any legislative policy decisions. Rather, my comments are intended to note the practical impact of the policy decisions as expressed in the proposed bill if this bill were to be enacted. Additionally, I am not in a position to provide advisory legal opinions or opine as to a court as to how a court may interpret statutes. But what I can do and will do is talk chair Conlon, you had in your question, you said you were not familiar with rule 75. And so if it's okay with the committee, what I will do is talk about really two rules of civil procedure that play into appeals of governmental or municipality matters. And so the the first of those two rules that the Vermont rules of civil procedure have is a rule called rule 74. Rule 74 applies to quasi judicial determinations made by either the executive branch or municipalities when a party is entitled by statute. And hold that thought when we get to rule 75. This is when it's entitled by statute to seek review or appeal a decision, And it defines the process for the appeal. It talks about a notice of appeal, whether there's a stay, what is the record on appeal? What is the process for a trial on appeal? And it has rules of procedure. And because it is set by statute, rule 74 appeals often have a standard that defines the scope of their review or the appeal. One example would be for instance, in title 28 section seven twenty four, where there are furlough appeals in the Department of Corrections. And under subsection c two, it says, an appeal file pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to determine whether the decision to interrupt or revoke an offender's community supervision furlough status was an abuse of discretion. And so it specifically tells the court, here is what your review is, and it lets the parties to the case know here is what the scope of the court's review is. Now rule 75 is different. Rule 75 exists to review the action or the failure to act by the executive branch or municipalities, but it's only applied where there's no right of review or appeal under rule 74 or environmental court rules. And if such review is other or if such review is not otherwise available by law. And the second prong has been interpreted to limit rule 75 appeals to what are known as extraordinary writs. And an extraordinary writ has traditionally included such things as a writ of mandamus, a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, writ of habeas corpus, quote, a writ of, quote, warranto, and a writ of serifascis. These writs are processes that come from the common law and chancery courts dating back in Vermont to at least 1824. Although they have a complicated history and jurisprudence, they're effectively procedural safeguards and offer equitable relief. The two most cited writs are, one, mandamus review, And what this does, it looks to compel performance of duties. And the second one is what's called certiorari, which is review of a decision. And it's usually done for process or sufficiency of evidence. And so by its nature, rule 75 appeals are limited. They rarely involve review of substantive decisions. And examples of rule 75 that you may have experienced are certiorari review of inmate discipline cases or mandamus to compel a town to plow a road. And so those are the two rules that we generally see on appeals, again, from executive or municipal decisions. And if you look at it like this, rule 75 is generally included, is generally used to fill the gap when nothing else is provided. And so that's the background to the two different rules that we generally see. And so when you look at rule 75 being included in this amendment, it's somewhat confusing because as equitable relief, it usually only applies when the statute doesn't provide for relief. And that's not to say that rule 75 would not necessarily work, but it's, as I pointed out, it's not consistent say that rule 75 is the mechanism because rule 75 is usually the mechanism you use when there is no mechanism otherwise stated. Think of it like this, it fills the gap when the legislature has not acted to put something in. And there are several statutes, I would note, that would statute say rule 75 appeals, but it's that is generally not the way it is done. And so by including it, the question for the courts, if this bill were to pass and there were an appeal filed, is what type of review what type of review is is being sought? As as judges, we need to understand what is this statute? What do you want us to do? And this bill does not tell us that as far as the type of review. For example, if the intention of the legislature is that the review would be in the nature of certiorari to review, It's not fully clear that section this new proposed section five sixty four would create the type of proceeding before the board, evidence, deliberations, decision making that would result in a determination that would qualify as the type of quasi judicial decision over which a court could properly exercise that extraordinary writ of certiorari review. And apart from the standards from the writs that certiorari review, for instance, it says it's a record review in this bill, but it doesn't provide any substantive guidance for the court to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision as provided by law. And that raises the prospects, I think, if not the likelihood, that appellants may expect a court to substitute its judgment for that of the board, when in fact the court's jurisdiction and the court's authority is much more limited. The bill also sets forth that it it there can be multiple appeals. It's not a single appeal. It says that it gives all the residents of the district the right to file appeals in as many as two separate forums. One would be the Washington Superior Court in the civil division, and the second would be the home court of the district. On its face, these appeal rights would likely give rise to numerous individual lawsuits related to any particular school closure decision, and it could even be in two counties. I'm not sure if there's any school districts that have three counties, but I do know of some that I think that are in two. And so you have the potential for two different counties. It also has the potential for dozens, hundreds, or potentially even thousands of residents seeking to file a appeal from a closure decision. And so a multiplicity of suits, could raise a myriad of disparate issues, that could challenge the courts, with the dockets, raise the prospect of conflicting decisions from different courts and judges, and likely would lead substantial delays or courts have to sort through the initial procedural issues if we have, again, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people appealing. It also raises issues about how we would consolidate those suits. Where would venue go to? Because the legislature is very clear, if you adopted this bill, that it's the discretion of the appellant that controls. And so the courts would be having to determine where are we gonna send this, and there's no clear guidance. So we would have a number of procedural matters to address in determining where we're going to consolidate cases and how we would go forward. Additionally, the statute says that there's a right to appeal on the record, but we don't know what the record is before the board or the court. There's no guidance to tell us what the record is. And, there's also the issue of what's called standing. Parties generally have a right to appeal an action because it's caused them a particularized injury. And even though this statute may say all the residents can apply, there is case law that talks about the fact that there still has to be some type of particularized injury. And so the issue of standing would be one which would certainly need to be addressed for each individual in who brings an appeal if that were to happen. And that happens in many ways right now in the environmental division when individuals are seeking party status, the court has to make those types of determinations. But that is another issue that would be expected if this bill were to pass as proposed. So those are my comments. Happy to answer any questions if that would be helpful.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: You had a comment that that rule 75 is there for when general use to fill the gap when nothing else is provided. So if not this route, then what route is provided under law right now?

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Right now, if there were to be no specific, if there is no statute that says here is the appeal mechanism, that rule 75 would be the mechanism that an individual would attempt to utilize.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: But if there was no if there's nothing in this if this amendment did not go through and there's nothing mentioning rule 75, then what is the path forward?

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: This amendment did not go through. The the existing mechanism, because there is no statute that says you appeal under rule 74, the existing mechanism would be rule 75. That would be the process that would be followed. But the difference is by placing rule 75 into a statute, it causes some confusion because when a court looks at a statute, that section and other sections, court has to discern what was the intent of the legislature? Why did the legislature put in rule 75 when rule 75 is used when we don't have something in? Did the legislature really mean rule 74, and what is our scope of review? So it does give rise to questions by putting it in.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay. So I just want to be clear. Rule set, if this amendment does not pass and rule 75 is not specifically called out, it still applies if there's no other means of appeal.

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Rule 75, correct, would still apply, but I wanna be very clear. I am not saying that rule 75 is the mechanism, and if someone files an appeal from a school closure, here's how it's going to work. I am saying is rule 75 is an existing rule of civil procedure that if the legislature does not set forth a mechanism for appeal that an individual, a resident, an aggrieved party can seek to utilize. How that comes out, I cannot opine on, but that is the mechanism that individuals would generally seek to utilize. Correct.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay. Guess does the other sort of pathway, which is just a regular old lawsuit, still have Is that a process that exists as well?

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: Individuals have a right to file lawsuits if they believe there is a factual and legal basis. I cannot opine as to whether there would be any legal validity to a suit that a citizen could bring on this type of case. Citizens certainly can can try to utilize common law and other statutes to bring lawsuits if they believe that there is something that needs to be addressed.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay. Committee, any other questions? Hearing, online? Yeah.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: If I could just explain a little bit in light of the judge's comments. Sure.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Why don't you have a seat up Here's like

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: a perfect example where you try to explain too much, it doesn't always work well. My intent in offering that subsection C was this is just a simplified type of procedure for appeal. And I agree with the judge that if we'd said nothing at all, it would be under rule 75. It was an effort to try to make the appeal proceeding simpler, But obviously, it gave rise to other questions. I'm looking over with my co sponsor, my joint sponsor here. But I would, when this gets on the action calendar, I think I'm gonna propose to just drop, you know, that such and such change, because it seems to raise more questions than what I was trying to avoid. Rule 74 is is is solid. It's a good process. And that's an option, I suppose, but it is more involved. I think it takes more court time. It takes more litigant time, in my experience. So, we'll be making, I guess on the floor, some adjustment to that subsection C, so it doesn't result in the type of confusion that the judge was suggesting. Okay. We may need to see that before the floor since it'll be a change into the amendment. That's that's fine. I what I'm saying is that you have this subsection c, and I am you know, it's on the calendar. Right? So you can only to get to add drop. I'm not sure. I maybe I need to talk to the clerk or something about how to drop that subsection c, but I'll explore that with him and then

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I can share that with you. Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. I'm just trying keep aware of the time, but we actually have Legislative Counsel, I know you have different conflicts timing wise. When do you need to leave the committee room to 10:15? Alright. This is just a question of draw polling after we hear all amendments, or do you want to draw poll these two first? We have Representative McCann still present her amendment.

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: Does the committee have any opinion?

[Rep. Emily Long]: I think

[Chair Peter Conlon]: we should

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: hear them all and then straw poll.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Well, may be good for

[Rep. Erin Brady]: It's a sac. I would take them and say, Claudia, that's very different. I would straw pull what we just discussed.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: So that's fresh in our minds. Yeah, I

[Rep. Erin Brady]: think we have to straw pull what's in front of us. If changes come floor, we would have to reassess that to meet

[Rep. Emily Long]: the well. Straw poll hypothesis.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay, all right. Discussion?

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: I, know, as a person who is in one of and represents many of the districts that these kinds of closures might happen to, I'm in full support sort of of this, but I also feel like we are closer than we've ever been to finish something palatable across the finish line. And I'm really worried about the idea that this is gonna muddy the waters when it could be worked out in the articles of agreements from town to town. So I'm really torn up.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: You know, I'll just Go ahead, Beth.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: I was just gonna say the

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: same thing, is we had a lot of discussion as we were putting this bill together about what to do about our Articles of Agreement. And we made the decision to leave it totally in the hands of those who were doing this. I have a mind to stick with that decision and leave it to them.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Yeah, I would echo that. I think we had, in September, bent over backwards to make it a local process with local decision making, right up to a vote of the electorate in the districts. And it sort of seems that mandating something in light of a philosophy of locals making the decision, locals voting on it in the end is counterintuitive to what we've put forth here. So I'm inclined not to support the amendment.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: But, yeah, the I sorry.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I don't

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: the consolidation of districts is different than the consolidation of schools. What we've enabled, or well hopefully this legislation if it passes, will enable communities to do is to make their own decisions about which districts that they want to be aligned with, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily saying they want those districts to then turn around and shut them down. Without this legislation, that continues to be a risk.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Yeah, so I would just say it's really all about the articles of agreement. Right. What we have here is a local process for developing local articles of agreement to be voted on by the people of the district or the districts that are emerging. It's a it's a pretty tough road because all the districts would have to vote in favor of the articles of agreement for anything to happen. So to me, it's a very locally controlled process with really ultimately the voters being in charge of of what they want in their articles of agreement and what they don't want in their articles of agreement.

[Rep. Emily Long]: So I will just say I am, yes, unfortunately very familiar with foreclosures that are happening quite often around me. The articles of agreement have been used throughout the process. And the electorate in my region has spoken against closure and then for closure in some instances in the same community over time and a process. And I've also sat through multiple community meetings by request of the locals to come listen to the engagement with community. And I felt reassured, if not sad, about some of the closures that have had to happen. And never felt it was done in my region in a crisis beyond the fact that enrollment declines are a crisis. They are. But the engagement in the communities based on current law and the ability to have a thorough conversation over many, many months has been super important. And I feel pretty good about the fact that we have allowed that to continue in September. And I can't see in any part of September that would stop what I've been witnessing from in my region of the school closures. So I don't see a need for either of these that exist already.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I guess the information that

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: I wish that I had, and maybe someone else better than I can predict this, is like, if we did pass this amendment, would it make our old bill less likely to pass if this was attached to it?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I think that's a major political question that would require observing a body of the house, But I would share your concern about the amount of work we put in on plan that we feel very good about moving forward with it.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: I just feel like I need to think about this. I am not going to I don't know how I'm going to vote. This is coming up in ten seconds. Don't know what

[Chair Peter Conlon]: to do. Well, unfortunately, we have a process. Is

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: this the right thing to do? That's

[Chair Peter Conlon]: the question we answer every minute of every day.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: And is this going to cause the bill to pass or fail? Is this gonna tip the balance

[Rep. Emily Long]: one way or two? Ultimately,

[Chair Peter Conlon]: this is a question for the full body, because this amendment that will be presented on the floor, all we are doing is providing a straw poll. So it'll be up to the body to decide. All right, I'm going to have us move to just a straw poll vote with hands up. I think I'm going to say, please raise your hands to find the proposed amendment unfriendly. Unfavorable. Unfavorable. I think the title term was that friendly. So therefore, would be, as we raise our hands, voting to find it unfavorable, meaning it's a recommendation not to pass this amendment. All those who choose to vote that way, please raise your hands. On To on screen. Oh, so I think that is a ten, one. Okay.

[Rep. Emily Long]: Can it be ten, one?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: You don't have anybody absent.

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: It must be an example.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Maybe if you're not in the room. Should

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: we do it again and sleep the room?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Would just remind us, all as legislators, we have one responsibility while we're here. Okay, the second amendment, I guess, given sort of the confusion around Rule 75 and the understanding that it applies, whether it's called out or not, but by calling it out, it adds confusion to it, I am very hesitant on this one as well given what we heard from Judge Zone A.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Mr. Chair, I said I will be seeking, I'll give a talk to the court right after this, to figure out the right to seek not include subsection in the modernity.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Okay, alright, we're gonna just do a straw poll. It's not a binding thing, so we have it on the record. Just wanted to clarify, Laurie. Appreciate that. Same vote, Starting off to find the amendment unfriendly. Raise your hands. And we are eleven zero on that.

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Okay. I Thank just you, committee.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Yeah. Thank you very much for coming in and taking the time. Thank you. Okay. I wanna be respectful of with council's time. So if it's okay, would you represent McCann, guys? Let's count to go first.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: Yep.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Given your short time, if you could present the amendment first, then hopefully we'll be done in plenty of time for your next obligation.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is it on your website?

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: It is.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Which document are we?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: It's under it's on today's documents.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: So McCann proposed to that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St. James, Office of the Legislative Council, here is draft 1.1 of rep McCann's amendment to H nine fifty five. And just to summarize, it's not making any changes to the underlying law or the underlying work that you have done or House Ways and Means have done of adding three new sections. And the three new sections combined together would require all approved independent schools that are eligible to receive public tuition to follow education quality standards period. So Section 21B amends section 165, which is your education quality standards statute. And you'll just see throughout adding, right, it says that each Vermont public school and then we're adding and each approved independent school that is eligible to receive public tuition. That is quite a mouthful. I thought about putting in a definition for this section that said approved independent school means an approved independent school that is eligible to receive public tuition. But given the confusion around this topic, I thought that was dangerous. I

[Chair Peter Conlon]: think that was a very good call. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're just going to have to read that sentence everywhere it appears. So that's what the language is substituted through in there. There is no substantive amendment to what the education quality standards are. It's just adding anywhere there is a reference to a public school or a school board, adding also approved independent schools eligible to receive public tuition or for school board governing body, as you can see here. So that's what the first section does.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: So I just want for the committee's benefit, that first ellipsis right before number two would be our Education Quality Standards statute.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The ellipses are only there because this bill is already well over 100 pages, and so I'm not including language that hasn't been amended. So the next section, amends, is a little duplicative, but we're trying to make things as clear as possible so that there is no way for someone to misinterpret it, even though there always is. Amending section eight twenty eight, which is the section that governs who a school district is allowed to pay tuition to. And so we've added in the criteria that an approved independent school needs to meet in order to be eligible for public tuition. We've added So I've crossed out complies with minimum class size requirements because those are a part of education quality standards and substituted that they meet all education quality standards. And then we've crossed out independent schools meeting education quality standards because that's under current law, still a concept. This would move that concept. You're requiring approved independent schools that are eligible to receive public tuition to follow education quality standards. So I just felt that was perplexed. And then the third section that you're adding is requiring that the State Board of Education update the Rule 2,000 series, which is the Education Quality Standards Rule series on or before 03/31/2027, to require approved independent schools that are eligible to receive public tuition to meet education quality standards. And this date just tracks with all of the other rulemaking in the bill. That's the only reason I picked it.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Are there any questions? Yes?

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: Because I know there's always a question around therapeutic schools, because they're included as, on our list, just as an approved independent school. And are they singled out in any way or are therapeutics Did I miss that somehow? So,

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: section eight twenty eight lists all of the programs that are allowed to receive public tuition. And the last one is therapeutic. Thank you.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Changed, I think, last year.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: Thank you.

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: Josh,

[Chair Peter Conlon]: you're up. Go ahead.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: So if all these schools need to meet EQS, would this make them all eligible to set their own tuition?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This amendment does nothing to change the current tuition statutes or the tuition statutes that are envisioned under the foundation formula through Act 73 or the changes you're making in h nine fifty five?

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: So I'd say the answer is no.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't remember off the top of my head.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: The answer is actually, under the current way we do things, that an independent school approved to receive public tuition that meets EQS can set its own tuition.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: Is there

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Currently, under the foundation formula as as perceived to nine fifty five, that would be no longer.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: Okay, so then schools like Thetford Academy that follow EQS would no longer be able to set their tuition under the new foundation formula, correct?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Right. Once the foundation formula takes place, if the money follows the student, and that is the tuition.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: Was there a fiscal note done on this amendment?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's a question for the sponsor.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Rob,

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: my friends. Thank you.

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: Of course, you know that I can't support this. And I would be

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I'm gonna just interrupt you. This is questions for legislative We'll debate after that. Good. Okay. And the ellipses that I keep talking about on line 17 is significant. If you go and you read, we will talk about

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that's I

[Chair Peter Conlon]: would just say it also then has to There's a whole part below it, which is the rule 2,000 series. And I'm just going to bring up kind of one part of World 2,000. There's lots of transition that would have to happen in order for an independent school currently to meet EQS. One of the big ones is it requires all administrators and all teachers to be licensed. I'm not trying to debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. All I'm saying is that that's a significant transition that would be There's no provision in this amendment to how that transition would happen, how disruptive it might be, which is only to say that that's just an important piece of this puzzle.

[Rep. Emily Long]: May I ask a question of the sponsor?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Why don't we, when we have the sponsor in the witness chair, unless it's a sort of a clarification on

[Rep. Emily Long]: some language. It's not language.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I don't think it will be clear. It's fine. Do have any other questions for, what is it, counsel on this? Thanks very much.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: Thank you.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: All right, Representative McCann? Thank you for visiting the clinic today.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: Yeah, that's awesome. Welcome Welcome to Fox Education.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: All right, for the record, Rep Kate McCann from here at Mount Pleur, and I am a member of this committee. This morning, I bring to you an amendment to align public funding for education with existing law and expectations. The amendment would require publicly funded independent schools to meet the education quality standards adopted by the State Board of Ed. The introduction to the updated EQS reads, the purpose of these rules is to ensure that all Vermont students are afforded educational opportunities that are substantially equal in quality and are equitable, anti racist, culturally responsive, anti discriminatory inclusive, thus enabling each student to achieve or exceed the performance standards approved by the state board of ed. Vermont's constitution requires substantially equal educational opportunity as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The educational quality standards are the state's mechanism for defining and enforcing those expectations. If public dollars are funding a school, those expectations should apply. In other words, if a school receives taxpayer dollars, it should meet Vermont's education quality standards. EQS is the rule adopted by the state board to define what a quality education must include. It is explicitly designed to ensure all students receive educational opportunities that are substantially equal in quality, and it translates a constitutional obligation into real enforceable requirements. It does not eliminate independent schools. It does not dictate mission, culture, or pedagogy beyond baseline standards. It simply requires that schools accepting public funds meet the same minimum expectations as public schools. And to close, I just want to thank you all for the opportunity to present the event.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Thank you very much. Representative Dobrovich, online, you have the first question.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: So to go to my original question that Legis Council can answer is, was there a fiscal note?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: No. Okay.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich]: So that brings me some concern. Because in the interim, or if a foundation's point of view does not get triggered, this could become extremely expensive. And that does bring a concern. And I do wish that we did a fiscal note to determine what this looks like.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Other questions? Do. Joan, did you have a question?

[Rep. Emily Long]: Yeah, it goes back to the administrators needing to be licensed. Do we know, did you do any research? Do you know how many independent school administrators are or are not licensed? Do you know anything about?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I would just say that, you know, I'd say this continues to be an important issue and worthy of debate and testimony. I think if it were the will of this committee, after a fair amount of testimony and decision making and all of that, to move in this direction, that there would be an understanding of what level of disruption or time would be needed in order to meet all of the licensing requirements and frankly, of the requirements of EQS and sort of what to what level. And and which is only to say to be sort of silent with opinion other than to say this is a an important issue to be discussing. Accountability for how we spend our tax dollars, I think, is incredibly important. However, I think that it is not something that should be done within a floor amendment. So you will find me polling to find it unfavorable really for that reason. Leanne? Oh, then Rob, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: Would it be possible to, I don't know, obviously adding language or just like an under standing or something, I don't know how this works, but it takes like two years to get your license right. I mean, if you're going go through peer review or if you're going

[Chair Peter Conlon]: to go through I've got to say that that

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: would be the kind of

[Chair Peter Conlon]: thing that would be developed through testimony.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: Okay, but it is doable. It's not that hard to get your license if you deserve to get your license. Is there a timeline that could be put on this so that we're like, yes, we're passing this, but it's not like you have to have it that in two years.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I guess I would say that we have to pull on the amendment before us. That's right. And that the answers to those questions are things that you would need to have testimony on. Like, what happens if 300 teachers all at once who aren't licensed want their licenses? I don't know if that

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: I mean, that happens every year in our college system.

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: I just sent a little handout to Matt, and I hope he could put it So it's a decent fact sheet, and it talks about the 2,200 rule series that independent schools have to follow. And in many ways, they're just as rigorous, if not more rigorous. I think if you went to many of these independent schools, you'd probably find that most of those teachers were certified. Is very interesting, it's very compelling. Would say take a look. I feel like, you know, since I've been here, I'm battling this bogeyman that's out there that people think independent schools are, but they're not. They're serving Vermont kids really, really well. And I think that to rep Harple's point earlier, you know, this kind of amendment on this bill that we've done so much work on could completely derail it on the floor completely. Now I don't know if that's the plan, but that's kinda I I just have to ask myself. I mean, and while

[Chair Peter Conlon]: it sounds reasonable, I just think, take a look

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: at the 2200 series. Look what look what independent schools already have to do, and you'll find that in some ways, it's a much more rigorous process than our public schools. And if we talk about teachers getting certified, we have 800 people in the state right now at public schools that aren't certified. Like I said, in one famous email, we have bigger vision for Brian.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Terminology, I think. License not

[Rep. Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: That's what I got.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: When you get to that, you thinking about provisional? Yes. Right. I mean, that's on a path to licensing. No,

[Rep. Robert Hunter]: but I guess that I don't. Would just

[Chair Peter Conlon]: out that licensing and all of that is something that would require a great deal of more knowledge and testimony. Any more questions for the presenter of the amendment? Representative Brown?

[Rep. Jana Brown]: Are we in the moment where you can state some opinion? So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think I agree

[Rep. Jana Brown]: with a lot of what has been said here this morning, and I certainly really look forward today for the day when a future House Education Committee takes a very deep dive this issue of the rules and regulations that apply to public schools versus independent schools. And I just have to say one piece of the discussion that continues to really sort of irk me a little bit is I don't think we're here to debate how well our approved independent schools are serving students. We're here to debate basic fairness with public dollars, and I think it's really important to keep highlighting that. You. Mike, I'm curious what education, I mean, so we've talked about the licensure, which I actually disagree that they should have to be licensed and they can't get licensed at a reasonable timeline. But beyond that, EQS, what other EQSs are there that independent schools don't think that they can meet, and why shouldn't they have to meet them if they're an EQS?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: The answer to that question, I would recommend looking at the rule 2,000 series to see what EQS is. And I think that it's meeting all of the curriculum requirements under EQS. You have to look through it all. And for me, I'm not going to debate whether they can or can't do it. I'm just saying that that's probably a multi layered, multi year transition plan.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: Guess my is it's a totally reasonable expectation. As you're saying, they're meeting most of them anyway, then great. I kind of feel like what's the problem? And when we come to licensing itself, I think it's really important to remember that a teacher's license is not just going and getting a piece of paper signed. It's like studying special ed and law practices, and we want our teachers to be licensed.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Representative Brady?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I

[Rep. Erin Brady]: appreciate Representative Brown's point and continue to find this very frustrating. Think that the debate gets taken in a way that is not the intent. And I am concerned that continuing to not deal with it is also counter to the goals of Act 73, nine fifty five, sort of, I think, oh, big shared goals most of us have. And that having different rule systems, different We're a small state. We're talking here about scale, about efficiency, about we need to do things in a more consolidated, more efficient manner. And to have two entire different rule systems, to have the state board devoting so much time, to have AOE staff, to have a whole division devoted to these matters in such a small state, this is a really challenging I guess it continues to surprise me at all the junctures we run into out of small policy things we want to do, often just for the we all share for the best kids, whether it's universal meals or it's some flexible pathways thing. And we run headlong into, well, we have to do it two different ways. We'll have to write the rules twice. The state board will have to go through two different processes. And I am frustrated that we continue to run into that very inefficient way of doing things and good things for education for all kids in whichever school they're in. And so I appreciate the amendment. I understand the feeling that it's too much to take on in an amendment. I also think we have taken over many years this on quite a bit. And so it's also, I think we're overdue to really figure it out and to make it a system that is in some way I think we have the academies. There are schools that are part of our system how to do that in a way that ensures accountability, transparency for our public dollars, and efficiency in terms of how we create programs, rules, where we apply them, etcetera. And I guess I would also just note, since we're talking so much about teacher licensure, I believe that most of the teachers are in the pension system, in the retirement system, the teachers owned, approved independent schools. So there are significant financial implications for our state. That, to me, is another tie into why there should be common expectations.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: As

[Rep. Erin Brady]: the three of us know, there are significant financial implications to being licensed, staying licensed, etcetera. I'll stop there. I'm rambling.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I'll just remind you all that currently independent schools come in all shapes and sizes right now. Go ahead. If I

[Rep. Kate McCann]: were to swing around there and sit in my seat, I would say that I believe that this amendment would actually strengthen H nine fifty five. And I think the stronger our bill is going over to the Senate would make me more comfortable about where we might get to as a compromise. And then the other thing that I would say, if I had swung over there, would be that I understand that this process would take a timeline, think that there and are unknowns. But I think there's unknowns in nine fifty five right now. Some big ones. And so I don't think this is any more than what we already have in there.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I might disagree a little bit and say that many of the unknowns in September are the subject of reports back and future decision making. This amendment kinda has a bit as of date certain. Presenter Hall.

[Rep. Emily Long]: I I just wanna share my thoughts on this. I actually have always believed that all schools that take public dollars should operate under the same EQS standards that we have. And I feel strongly about that. I wanna echo representative Brown's comment that this is not a reflection of the quality of independent schools that we have in your state. They are wonderful. We know that most all, if not all. And so I'm trying to keep this conversation separate from that, and we'll always try to continue to. But I have to say, I'm often baffled by the argument that not only are the 2,200 rule series, which I'm familiar with, are at least as rigorous or more rigorous than we often hear, and yet only one independent school has agreed that they wanted to follow EQS. And so I still remain, I'll say, use the word baffled again, why we don't see more independent schools adopting EQS as a standard. And I also feel an obligation to my constituents and taxpayers to make sure that tax dollars are used under the same umbrella in this case. So I'm strongly in favor of the concept of this, absolutely, and have been for many years, and my constituents know that. Two parallel systems is in the state. It's very challenging in my area. I am concerned about the timeline and the depth of debate that we should have over this. And I truly

[Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay]: believe we should

[Rep. Emily Long]: be having this conversation because I think it's a healthy one to have. And I haven't yet decided which way I'm going to vote on this, but I'm going to decide. But my biggest concern is literally the timeline and the ability to have robust debate around this. And if we do not do this today, I hope that we will walk this path without fear. This should not be fear. This should not be division. This should be about our students in this state and our taxpayers in this state. And we should welcome that debate in that conversation. Representative Harple?

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: I think one of the things Representative Brown also said that really resonates to me is that it is about fairness, and we're seeing the EQS change. And so one of the ones that has really been on my mind that is going to affect my communities is the minimum class sizes. And I absolutely cannot stomach the idea that we would take action against a small rural school for not meeting those minimum class sizes and then turn around and allow that money to go to a private school that also didn't meet those minimum class sizes. If we don't pass this, that's something that is a scenario that could actually unfold. I just remind us

[Chair Peter Conlon]: that we have a minimum of close access to supply to both independent schools.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: Right, they have. Thing But I don't have to state for it.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: Mean, mechanism for closure changes in our rules, right?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Like the

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: academy could still have a class size that was smaller and still, yeah.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Yes, the power that the state has is they would no longer be an approved independent school eligible to receive public tuition.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: So you're telling me that like a school like Riverside now is going to, in order to stay open, have to have class sizes that meet those minimum class sizes?

[Chair Peter Conlon]: I would say that was what we passed that there had to be the same and similar rules.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: I guess it's all very different.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Those rules all have, both for the Rule 2,000 series and the twenty twenty series, both are in rulemaking with the state board right now. Both, I think, would provide all

[Rep. Erin Brady]: of the allowances that currently exist terms of the process. I think that Harple makes a really important point and the complicated nature of all these things that we're setting in motion. First of all, the class size piece is very much ongoing work right now at the state board. And again, there'll be two different pathways here. There'll be the EQS for public schools and rule 2,200 for private schools. And ultimately, in any future state Right today, a school board could vote to close a public school. It will not ever have that authority, nor should it if it's a private school, but it will. But if that's where the public dollars are going, it can create a very uneven sort of comparison and dynamic in small, particularly in rural Vermont. There is a different pathway of what could happen to different schools given the dynamics of all of the things we have set in motion. And I share that thought, I share that concern tremendously. And I think that's a very real thing in parts of our state.

[Rep. Leanne Harple]: That's a much more articulate question.

[Rep. Erin Brady]: A risk, and it's not, a risk of not having

[Chair Peter Conlon]: think you are all highlighting excellent discussion points that probably won't get solved at a floor amendment, amendment, which continues to be my concern. Not that any of these points are invalid or valid, but that it's something that requires a pretty strong depth of knowledge to make a big decision on. All right, folks, as is our obligation as legislators, we will do a straw poll on this one as well. And we will vote in the same fashion that we have been voting in terms of finding the amendment unfavorable. So we'll go right to it unless anybody has any other questions. Those voting to find the amendment unfavorable for whatever reason, please raise your hands. Two, four, five, six. People took pardon me if I voted wrong. Seven up to there, if I count wrong. Did I count wrong?

[Rep. Beth Quimby]: I don't know. I saw a hand go. Don't if

[Rep. Emily Long]: she was six or hearing about me.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Again, Yeah. One Unfavorable. Two, three, four, five, six.

[Rep. Emily Long]: 6. Do I count right? Seven.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: It's one not holding. It's not here until here. You have seven hands up. That's what I came up the first time, right?

[Rep. Erin Brady]: I think so. Yep.

[Chair Peter Conlon]: Those who tied the amendment favorable? Have one, two, and three, and one absent. All right. Representative McCann, thank you for furthering the discussion and providing, I think, a request for everybody. With that, we have performed our duties such as they are in our agenda. Please be back here at 11:15. I'm going to bow out to work on my floor report, so may not be back here for that, in which case the vice chair will run the show for the adult education literacy advocacy day presentations. Alright. We are adjourned.