Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: This is House Education, Wednesday, April 22. The committee is going to review s two twenty seven, an act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools. Since we last visited it, we made some changes, mostly clarifying and whatnot, and I'm gonna have legislative council walk us through, remind us what we have and walk us through some of the changes that we are looking at. Rick, the floor is yours.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Segal with the Office of Legislative Counsel. So this is your immigration protocol bill as 02/27 and changes are in yellow. I'll kind of go over those changes and anywhere that there's been something that's been of course adjusted, we'll talk about it. Mostly technical, but based on what you all talked about last time, along with testimony from the AG's office and the VSA, some kind of changes to the bill that hopefully we can discuss. So no changes on page one of the bill. The purpose statement stays the same. We are still in chapter 33 of Title 16. On to page two, the definition section. No change to law enforcement officer. Non public area of the school. I think we had some discussion about how to improve this definition. So the word authorization is highlighted. That was there in the last draft, but it's because that phrase was removed. That's why it's highlighted. Previously, it said normally requires authorization by the school to enter, etc. This draft says just authorization. I think there were some questions about could a gym teacher authorize a non public area of a school? And it wasn't clear who had that authorization. So at this point, the bill would just slide back to Section fourteen eighty four, which is the policy that every school has to have. Their emergency access policy Section fourteen eighty four, and includes any area a school administrator determines to be non public. You'll notice that phrase a lot in this bill, school administrator, it's a new phrase in this bill, had the help of Beth St. James kind of establishing that term, and we have it defined here in a second. So, it would have to be a school administrator, which would be a superintendent or a headmaster of an independent school that makes that decision. Hopefully, it's more clear about what a non public area is of a school. Okay, number three, definition has changed by removing a sentence. And this previously included employees, independent contractors, school resource officers, etcetera. As we read through the bill, the term school was used in a few different ways. It sometimes referred to the school as the institution. A school should not do this, do that. It would sometimes refer to the people at the school, like a teacher, a superintendent, a principal, etcetera. At this point, the definition removes the people. It just is the building, the facility, school. So, it means a public school or an independent school approved under section 166. School administrator is a new definition. As I mentioned, it includes a superintendent and a headmaster of an independent school.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, jump in.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Why is a superintendent there and not a principal? You talked to Beth St. James, so I'm assuming that happened.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a policy choice. It was always drafted as superintendent in previous versions of the bill. If you want it to be

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: something I was going to say, it's not that I'm opposed to superintendent being there, but it is typically the principal who would oversee the operation of the school itself. And I think it would need to be added in my I agree.

[Speaker 0]: So if we go up to line six, non public area of a school, what did that say previously?

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: So what it said

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: previously was non public area of a school means an area of a school that normally requires authorization by the school to enter consistent with etcetera, and includes any area a school determines to be non public. And again, remember school included everybody who worked at the school, right? There are parts in the bill where we talk about designee of the superintendents, especially the law enforcement section. You could always do that as well. Yep. And allow a superintendent to designate somebody to operate in this area?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. I think, barring the objection from the committee, would say designee would probably be the better way to go since I'm not sure if principal is a term used at independent schools.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Well, they're covered in the next

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Right. There's already

[Speaker 0]: That's covered. And actually Well, no. But what we're saying is that superintendent is, like, too limiting, and we wanna allow principals

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Within the buildings to be able to do it.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Let me clarify my question. I really want to allow the person who actually has authority over a building to be able to make these decisions. And while a superintendent might, a superintendent is often covering many buildings and they would designate, which I'm fine with, a principal to do it.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I would say that some of our independent schools also have multiple buildings, and you would want somebody How

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: so?

[Speaker 0]: What's that?

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: How so?

[Speaker 0]: St. John's Berry Academy's got multiple buildings.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: It's one school. One campus. It's one school. I mean, that's one of the differences here between To me, headmaster is very similar to a principal. Okay. Whereas a superintendent is defined.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, and that's the building. I

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think there may be times where Let's go maybe section by section. For example, don't know if this would be immigration resources. I don't know if you want the principals, maybe it makes sense for them to distribute those resources at each school instead of the superintendent. I would imagine the superintendent would distribute that to the principals who would then distribute that. But again, I think maybe let's go section by section and see what makes the most sense. So, if I can continue on subsection B, the immigration resources. So again, previously, the flaw in the bill was that the language said a superintendent shall, and at some point realizing that this does not include independent schools. So, the intent was to build to cover independent schools as well as public schools in the state. So, a school administrator, which would be a superintendent right now or a headmaster, shall distribute these resources, no changes there, that are provided to the school administrator. Again, previously the superintendent by the AG, no other changes there. Subdivision two, again replacing superintendent with school administrator.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Go ahead. Can I you said I'm I'm now going back to school administrator terminology? That was something you worked on with Beth. I'm just wondering because we're gonna run into license like, there's licensed school administrators, which is what public school superintendents and principals are, not necessarily independent schools. So I'm now worried that we're conflating licensed positions and how we refer to them. I'm not sure if that would be appropriate or set some strange precedent for what

[Speaker 0]: we mean by administrator. Well, definition only applies to this statute. So in this case, school administrator only means superintendent or headmaster.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could use a different term supervisor. I mean this is a term that we thought about and it's not a chapter or a title wide definition. A lot of these are title wide like school and superintendent is a title wide definition. School administrator is not. It's a newer definition. I forget which chapter it's in. But again, this is something we could change. If you don't like that phrase, we could have it be something else.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Why don't we keep Yeah. Plugging through Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, to page three, no other changes on page no other changes on page two. On page three, finishing Subdivision 2, again, replacing superintendent with school administrator twice in that subdivision. Subdivision 3 has been reworked based on recommendation from, I believe, the Superintendent's Association. This is the providing support to a student with immigration related concerns. A, connecting the student and the student's family with an immigration advocacy institution. That language is similar to what was in the previous draft. B, and B, this is newer, providing the student with access to mental health professionals. And I kind of want to ask that about that phrasing and what the intent would be there because mental health professionals could be outside of the school, could be in house counselors. Don't quite know what you all would want.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Where did that come from?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, that's the quote. Where did that come from?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe this is the superintendent association. What was there previously? Previously the subdivision said three, I'm just gonna read it. Foster to the greatest extent possible a relationship with a legal or immigration advocacy institution that will provide assistance to a student with regard to immigration related concerns, including a situation where a guardian of the student has been detained by immigration authorities while the student is in school?

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Maybe they're assuming the kid might need a social worker at this point.

[Speaker 0]: That sort of professional, I think that's what I'm reading, right? Mental health professional.

[Representative Emily Long (Member)]: Well, social worker is different than a mental health professional. I think this has

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: more to do with the trauma that is going be

[Speaker 0]: associated with the problem.

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: So does that mean if the school doesn't have a mental health professional that we're financially responsible for providing one for them?

[Speaker 0]: Well, it says the greatest extent, provide support to the greatest extent possible, including

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Providing the student with access to mental health professionals.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, to the extent possible. All right, let's keep going and we can we'll circle back.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Subsection c, just the previous title of the section was student records changing that. It's not just student records. That's student information privacy. School districts and independent schools are prohibited from. Previously, the language read school schools are prohibited from engaging in and from using policies or procedures to engage in, etcetera. So this was from Julio Thompson. I talked about this offline a little bit, trying to clean up that language. Sometimes just overcomplicating the way that's worded. If you, and also Beth helped with this, if you discuss engaging, practicing, I think you just prohibit, because you're kind of covering everything with those words. I'll word it again. Schools are prohibited from engaging in and from using policies or procedures to engage in practices that have the purpose or effect of excluding a student from school. And the committee also had a question about, well, what about behavioral issues? That came up like, yeah, that's a good point. This could hamstring a school from actually having a behavioral consequence for a student. So curious what you all think it's simpler that you just can't do these three things, and the three things have not changed. It's just the introductory text has changed. Sounds a lot clearer.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: I like it better.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I just think that we Why should we talk about policies, procedures? Just if you want to stop these things from being done, might as well just say, just don't do these things either no matter how you do it, in practice and policy. Okay, and then again, one, two, three, the collection of this information, the disclosing of information, information, and voluntarily sharing that information has not changed. On page four, again changing superintendent to school administrator in Subdivision 1, Line 7. And there's a few more times for you to see that change. So, skipping down to line 17, the warrant section, I'll start from the top of that subdivision. The school administrator or designee, this is where you have the possibility of a principal or some other staff member or resource officer, shall not allow a law enforcement officer appearing on an immigration related matter into a non public area of the school unless the officer provides official identification and a judicial warrant, that language has not changed, that authorizes entrance into a specific area of the school and names a specific individual located within the school who is subject to a search or arrest. So this language, again, talking to Julio Thompson offline about how to get this where he would want it to be. That doesn't mean it's where you want it to be, but this is very protective. I just want to make that clear. You require a warrant that names a person that is at the school. So staff member, probably not a student, but someone that's there who is subject to a search or arrest.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And just to be clear, we're talking a judicial warrant?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: And that judicial versus administrative warrant? Correct. And

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it also has to be a specific area of the school too. This is very, very specific, which warrants can be, but they can also be just for a person. So and so there's a judicial warrant. And again, this is immigration only. It's not all other criminal warrants. This would be a very rare type of warrant.

[Speaker 0]: How how challengeable would this be if we keep it as is when we talk about located within this subject, let's say, when we're talking about specific area. Right. Is that you say it's very protective, is it so protective that all of a sudden somebody, law enforcement's going to sue and say, you can't require this to be that specific.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The classic saying is Fourth Amendment is a floor, and you can always, you can't require less proxy under the Fourth Amendment, you can always require more. Requiring police to have a warrant that's very specific, you can do that. They may complain about it, but there's not really a constitutional problem with that. But I'm just letting you all know that that's, you know, it's a person is at their house and they have a warrant for their address. Sometimes their employer, but usually it's at their house. And they'll be arrested due based on your address And there might be a search attached to that warrant that they can search your kitchen or your bedroom, right? It's usually pretty specific. This happened, you know, a gymnasium, a cafeteria. I don't know the likelihood of a warrant being that specific. And

[Speaker 0]: this is just immigration related? Right.

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Right. I'm saying what, yeah. How many warrants to your knowledge have been issued for immigration related concerns within schools in Vermont? That I don't. Yeah, I'm not the best person to answer that question. Do or have you seen a lot of immigration related issues in the state of Vermont where schools are just having difficulty, or I guess with law enforcement, whether that's local police, or ICE, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security coming in with warrants. Have we seen anything within schools that's concerned?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Also not the witness for that

[Speaker 0]: question, I'm sorry.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other witness.

[Speaker 0]: It's fair to say that part of this is to have people who may be living in fear feel more comfortable about their children going to school as opposed to keeping them out of school. Think it's pretty good.

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay, so, and this is just for my understanding. So it sounds like all of this stuff is already in place. We're just saying it so that people under understand that you're already protected. You law enforcement can't conduct a search without a warrant. I guess when I look at it, I question, will there not it should be more policy within the district as opposed to what we're doing because it feels like we're already covered under federal law with some of these things.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Don't know what to the extent that federal law covers protection of ICE, for example, coming into a judicial warrant at where they can and can't go and what they're So I think this is just a

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can speak to

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: that one.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, that's great example.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the federal government actually allows these administrative warrants through the Immigration Nationality Act. Those are the warrants that police, ICE, DHS can use to enter usually a public building, not your house, hand your public building and arrest you civilly, detain you due to removal, whatever the case may be. So that's yeah, you're not protected under federal law from this. So if the state wanted to protect schools from immigration enforcement, like that's what this bill is doing. My only just being, giving you the honest truth about the language that's very, very specific. And I just don't know how many warrants would ever meet that standard. And maybe that's the point. If that's the point, then point achieved. Yeah.

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: It is. Guess my only other concern is just the financial lift. I understand it doesn't look like there's anything going on here, but my concern is just one more thing that's gonna financially impact our district. We're already short staffed. We're you know? And I it's sure. It's a little training, but then we've got training with this. We're gonna have training with epinephrine. We're gonna have training with all these other things. So my question is, we're already stretched for personnel. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, this comes with the support of the public school establishment. I'd say this is probably a small lift that they're probably already doing anyway. But concern noted and always worth pointing out, is this some sort of unfunded mandate?

[Representative Emily Long (Member)]: Not sure I understand exactly where the funding is coming from. I mean, the or not where it's coming from, but where it would be necessary is what I mean in this. Principle or the superintendent is going to train. I mean, I think that that can be done

[Representative Jana Brown (Clerk)]: relatively easily.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, it's distributing materials. So we

[Representative Emily Long (Member)]: copied something on Xerox. Sorry, that's outdated.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision three, so absent that warrant required, no school or adding the phrase individual working at the school previously just said no school. So adding because now we have removed from the definition of school, the people that work in the school. So ensuring that a person that is at the school working shall reveal any information about a student or school staff member in response to an immigration related request from a law enforcement officer and adding unless otherwise required by law. That's also just ensuring that you're not interfering with federal law that would require information sharing that's already in the bill, but again, just kind of making sure that the bill covers that. Sorry, can you restate

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the part about the federal law?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just my on the page. Yeah, so you'll see in the bill references to federal law, especially thirteen seventy three and sixteen forty four on page six. Those are the Immigration Nationality Act, I referenced earlier that requires certain information sharing and that states cannot prevent police from sharing that information. So you just want to ensure that you're not blocking that appropriate request from the federal department if they make the request. No change to subdivision four. Subdivision five, adding in the Vermont Independent Schools Association to the model administrative procedures. This is just the law enforcement subsection in the bill that requires the judicial warrant section. So because the independent schools are now clearly included in this procedure, adding them I thought was a good idea. Subsection E on the immigration agreements, previously that language said, except as required by federal state law, no school, and then it just said shall enter, Because a lot of times it's not the school, it's the school district or in some cases the supervisory union that actually does these agreements. You want to include all of those entities. Okay, no other change to that subdivision. Number two, any agreement that purports to your part. So, there's an exception to one that says if it's required by federal law. So, any agreement that for force to be required by federal state law shall be subject to review by the school administrator after they have consulted with the AG. Previously, that language just had the superintendent. So again, because we changed superintendent to school administrator. Subdivision B is new because I think the committee had questions about, you don't want to step out the governor's shoes, you don't want to have the superintendent doing something that they should not be doing. So, at this point, once the school administrator has reviewed this agreement with the AG's office, they will provide a recommendation on the proposed agreement to the school's appropriate governing body, which could be the independent school itself, could be the supervisor union, just depends on how that school is structured. Does that language make sense?

[Speaker 0]: So, basically saying after the superintendent meets with the AG, gets their feedback, then takes it to their school board and says here's the recommendation.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection F applicability, just adding supervisor union in case it's the policies at the supervisor union level, not at the school or school district level. So, that entity into the language. Subsection G, the policy, the model policy. I don't think there's any changes to that section. And then at the very end, we are in the immigration resource guide section three on page eight. The previous language used the term superintendent because we're again switching that out to school administrator. And then the schools is highlighted because it was school districts. So changing that the schools to include independent schools as well. And then the last change again from superintendent to school administrators. And those are the changes.

[Speaker 0]: Alright, everybody we were a little bit stuck. I'm actually glad we walked over through it for on page two, line 12. Actually, I'd start on line six, in terms of who is determined to be non public. I hear some concern that limiting it to a superintendent or a headmaster may be too limited.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Vice Chair)]: Yes? So I'm not concerned about a headmaster because I'm still linking that with the role of principal. But as we've walked through this, it does mention after school administrator designee or designee in some areas. I was looking at this very specifically to nonpublic areas of I have no problem I would need to make sure that it fit in with the rest of because this is a definition. The rest of the bill, it's not even just the principle. I often think I'm thinking more broadly now about the other impacts of changing that definition in this bill. There are times when the superintendent is not around, And they're off at a conference or something, and something might happen. And I want to make sure that in every instance in this bill, there is someone in a public school. Or I'm not sure, I'd have to think about whether we need it also, like headmaster, there's often an assistant superintendent or somebody who they may have to designate when they're not around.

[Speaker 0]: What the goal here, what I'm hearing is, like, everywhere beyond line six in the whole bill where we say school administrator, I think superintendent is totally appropriate in limiting it to superintendent and headmaster. But in the designation of non public areas of the school, can we create more latitude so that an assistant principal at a high school could create that? Can you say building administrator? Would that cover would

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: that that might mean, like, is this the principal? I didn't mean it. That

[Speaker 0]: may be may be one way to do it. I'm just I totally am hip to what you're saying, though,

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: I know. Because a lot of times, like, I know I'm to kind of agree on, I mean, Brandy Lowe's office is not in any school. Mean, she's it's a huge area, they're usually not boots on the ground, principals and ADs, assistant principals.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But does everybody agree the goal here is not to necessarily change school administrator as it appears everywhere else in the bill, to provide more authority for the bill at the business You

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could just say designee, and that gives the school administrator latitude to designate someone at each school or just want the assistant superintendent, whatever, you would leave it up to the school, to the superintendent or to the headmaster.

[Speaker 0]: So basically line eight, we would just add. Yes,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or again, not even accomplish or designate. Yeah. That's my suggestion. If that's what you kinda wanna cover.

[Speaker 0]: I guess change people would be in favor of. Okay. Okay, we also, next page, line eight, providing Steven with access to mental health professionals. That was not in the original one. It seems totally appropriate, yet a little bit kind of left field, given that this is very immigration specific. And that it may not even need to be said that the school administrator is gonna be looking out for the mental health well-being. And so I'm throwing out the committee here, I don't have a strong opinion.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Well, I'm wondering if we could rewrite that line to maybe incorporate what Leanne was saying about necessary professionals to help in the healing of trauma associated with it, or something like that. It's a little weird that it says mental health professionals, I don't disagree. It did come, I'm going back, it did come from choices testing.

[Speaker 0]: Is that the same language?

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yes, with the applause at the end and their testimony was, for other supports deemed necessary to directly support the student in school. Her fault. So

[Speaker 0]: A is connecting the student

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: and the student's family with an immigrant agency institution,

[Speaker 0]: and B, connecting the student and family with necessary

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Providing access to school mental health professionals or other supports deemed necessary to directly support the student and school.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's from

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the BSA? This is from the BSA from Chelsea Fire Sessel.

[Speaker 0]: That's right. That sounds better. Yeah.

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Okay. I would be in favor of just, I guess we are, we do this, right? If a parent is arrested while the student is at school, do we not still take care of that child and make sure that they have access to what they need? It doesn't need to be dictated, especially specifically, you know, for mental health. Look, SEL, like, we're taking care of our students the best way that we can. We have testimony stating they do things above and beyond what's in here. I So interestingly, the language came at

[Speaker 0]: the request of the education community, who I think would be the first to say, Well, we do this anyway. You don't need to state it, but yeah, go

[Representative Jana Brown (Clerk)]: ahead. Just one other sort of picky point, that language that Brett Brady just read, I would maybe suggest eliminating the deemed necessary part, because it seems to set up kind of a weird conflict with providing support to the greatest extent possible, I think the idea

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: is Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll start the demystify.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Since we've already got to the greatest extent possible.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I assume this is on your committee webpage, the testimony?

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Is

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Someone can email it to me. That'd be fantastic just so I have it quickly. I can do

[Speaker 0]: that. Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you so much. You have that handy.

[Speaker 0]: Are there other parts as we scroll through this that anybody else would like to bring up? The rest of it was mainly using the word school administrator.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I will do the background work, but I would like to check with, just because I think we're running into a licensure term, and so school administrator, just have to check that.

[Speaker 0]: Right, and again, definition would only apply, I'm not saying this, I'm questioning it, the definition would only apply to this part of statute, so that if school administrators use some other statute with a more specific definition of licensure, that shouldn't have an impact here. Okay, that's great. All right, other areas, maybe we'll have you then take some of those changes, work on it, and then, apparently, we we could actually have you back later this afternoon. It's My calendar

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is cleared for you all. Mostly.

[Speaker 0]: And, you know, it's for the committee's point of view, I'd like to probably move quickly on this just because we are amending it, and therefore, it needs to go back to the Senate.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Would that require a vote for the Senate?

[Speaker 0]: No. We don't need to vote on this afternoon. Okay. We

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: wouldn't need to vote on it at all?

[Speaker 0]: No. We have to vote on the committee before the whole usual shooting match.

[Representative Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Will that be this week, do you think?

[Representative Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: We try for tomorrow. All right, I guess you have your marching orders. You'll be back here at what time, Beth? 03:30. 03:30. Thanks very much. Yeah, thank you all.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: See you soon.

[Speaker 0]: And let's get that voted by this committee. We in five minutes. Is our student already in the waiting room? Alright, five minute break, 11:30.