Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Hello. Okay. We're back. And we have with us, Legislative Council, Saint James. And we are looking at proposal from the house. So
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Beth St James, Office of Legislative Council.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: I'll frame first. Sorry. So the goal for this first one is you pointed out that this is a lot of definitions to put in statute instead of for rulemaking that makes sense. And there's a lot of things that are in the air right now that it would be helpful to have definitions clear on in the interim. And so what we basically have here is we set rulemaking in progress, and we have these definitions standing in until rulemaking is complete. And so are clear that these definitions that are in statute should not guide rulemaking. Rulemaking should happen in its own independent separate branch universe. And Beth will make my very slander like me, my fully language.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, you're going to go concept by concept?
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: I think so. That's better for the brains.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so section A is just the definitions section, which was previously 29A in the house passed version of September. There have been no changes from the house passed language. Then if you go to the bottom of page two, Section B requires the state board to adopt rules to establish definitions for the same terms contained in Section A and states explicitly on line seven that the definitions adopted in rule pursuant to this section may differ from the definitions contained. And there should be an 11 there, 16 BSA, section 11. And then section C is a prospective repeal that mentions in the statute. On the July 1 following the effective date of rules adopted pursuant to Section B of this act.
[Unidentified committee member]: Thanks. Again, I wanna go to mid school year for
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Mhmm.
[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Great.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: And then the second concept is taking the topping off section, leaving the prohibition on charging tuition in excess of the foundation formula once a formation formula is enacted, removing our original proposal around fees and turning that into a report, and then making a repeal of this tuition, this prohibition on topping off section contingent, meaning that section would be repealed if the report comes back with evidence that a secondary wage that secondary schools are more expensive, and so topping off would be needed, and we did not act on it. So, Beth, will you make it sound good?
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So Section D on page three, line seven, is the amendment to eight twenty eight that was very similar to what the House passed. It just removes any reference to fees. So it's a prohibition on charging tuition above the amount paid by ascending district pursuant to Section eight twenty three. This section, this language would be contingent on the foundation formula taking effect. So it would be the base plus weights. So no paying tuition on top of what the school receives from the district, which is going to vary by student. Section E requires the agency to come back to you all with a report on fees. So information on fees charged by public schools, information on fees charged by independent schools, and any recommendations for guardrails on fees. And then if you jump all the way back up to section C, which starts on page two, line 19, subsection B of this section repeals subsection E, which is the tuition cap language, if the cost factor foundation formula report required pursuant to Section 45A of Act 73 contains evidence that it costs more to educate students in grades nine through 12, but the general assembly has failed to enact legislation to add a secondary student pay.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: So basically, if there is evidence that there is need for the topping off and we don't accommodate that somewhere. So those are, I think, all of our proposals. The pieces that still are We have talked about that. I'm sorry. Sorry.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Go ahead.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just draft. I think you did this for shorthand purposes. But is it weird, the section A, section B, section C, section C? Oh, yes. No, these would all be hopefully instances of amendment. Okay. But I don't get that kind of time. No, I figured you did it for to do it quickly because I was like, this doesn't look the same.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: No, I
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: would insert them into, so this would probably be section 29 or something like that. Okay, thank you. That's a very odd question.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I thought we'd talked about, but maybe I had a hold me in my own head and talked to you, to the extent we look at fees in the context of the foundation.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Oh, yeah, we can change that. That was just an oversight of my part. Yeah. So the report should and I can work with the Sure. But just the report should all be framed in the context of when the foundation So under the foundation Yeah. You want more sensations for that.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You want more sensations.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: No, I think that covers it, really. So just be clear that we're all talking about the perspective on the foundation formula. Got it. Yep. And that the agency understands that. Got it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, anyway, let's take it back. We'll take it back and move on.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Okay. And so I think that is it helpful for me to summarize what's left? To do that?
[Unidentified committee member]: You go ahead and summarize it, and I'm just going to check off my list here to make sure we are Okay.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: So I think we have either ceded or offered language on everything except for we have not fully discussed the date change. We have not covered class size minimums. And we need to get clear with ourselves on what we want to come back to you with on the school construction legacy debt issue. To And we can do that soon.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Working on a proposal about class size minimums as well.
[Unidentified committee member]: I think we can talk about it, but our position I mean, of all, class size minimums are it's not something that everybody's thrilled about putting in. However, they have been on the books. Now they are in statute. We have school districts implementing them. And I think we have a really strong and working. And it's not just about cost containment. It is about this is educationally the right way to go forward. And I think we have sort of given districts the sort of tools and ability to start instituting that now. And I worry, and I think we are very concerned that backing off from that will send the wrong message about the importance of class size minimums as a, not just a cost containment measure, but as a way for districts to be able to, especially educational leaders to say having scale in a classroom is important educationally as well.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: And to summarize, that would be basically our position offer on that is to retain the House language on class size minimums. We also understand that this is a fairly important issue on the administration's checklist checklist for the bill. And so we don't need to talk about that now. I just want to name it as an outstanding And I think that is everything. Yeah. The Spanish language?
[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, We have agreed to accept your language. Oh, okay. Yeah. Pretty much brought it up a number of times.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm sorry.
[Unidentified committee member]: Just to make sure.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I missed remembering.
[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. It wasn't what we did. Was.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Position on class size minimums. Our position on school size.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: No, they agree.
[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, yeah, our position on school size.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: So we're ceding to your position on school.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. So the outstanding issues.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Class size minimums, the date, the big question of the date change, And then thesis Sorry, not thesis. Oh my god. School School legacy debt. Don't know what just happened in my mouth and the words in front of me. And all the things we just offered in writing. But on the map Yeah. And
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we had a little side conversation about one.
[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. Why don't you put that into it? Yeah, the catapult. Yeah, okay. But I would say, remember that it's our Ford Town Supervisory. Yeah.
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: So we I want to be conscious of the fact that one of our staff members who is most involved in this piece also somehow who has never really has been barely involved in yield up until now, suddenly like main feature on the yield bill negotiations. And so I just want us to be conscious of that since those are essentially I basically, every bill in the building can now focus on So I don't know if everyone sort of caught that in the air, but that's where we are now. And it's the same, this lovely staff crew on all of those. So and the budget's basically closed. So here we are. When should we meet again? That's all that was all my just my preface to when should we meet again.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And when did you hear your congressional meeting?
[Unidentified majority member/negotiator]: Yield is supposed to meet eight minutes ago, but the senate's here on the floor, so soon after that. Okay.
[Unidentified committee member]: Is it safe for us to say six? Okay.
[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Well, we can
[Unidentified committee member]: sure. Yeah. Okay.