Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome everybody to the Committee on General and Housing. Today is Friday May 15. The Senate has just passed S-two 30, which is an act relating to employment practice. And the general announcing committee is now considering the Senate version as amended, and our options are to concur with it or to fail to concur with it and request conference if we have strong feelings about that. Meanwhile, our counsel, Sophie is here to take us through the bill as amended by the Senate.

[Speaker 0]: Good morning. Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm going go ahead and share my screen. Actually, quickly, before I before I do that, let me just run through. So s two thirty has passed by the house. I'm just gonna run through quickly what changed and what didn't, and then we'll go through the actual changes. So they didn't make any changes to Section one, which was the Parental and Family Leave Act, and that was adding that code of federal regulation citation. Section two was the section that dealt with adding victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to the Fair Employment Practices Act, taking language from the Parental Family Leave Act. This committee had taken out the language the Senate had put in requiring that any self attestation by a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking make that self attestation under penalty of perjury, and the Senate has concurred in that. So that language has been removed. So now the language in both statutes is identical. The third section was repealing a section of the Fair Employment Practices Act.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'm sorry, can I interrupt? Yes. There's been conflicting discussions from people at the building. So, for the section that was really important to me about survivors, is it our language?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, it's your language. The Senate concursion.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Oh, wow. Okay. GGG. The third section

[Speaker 0]: was repealing a section of the Fair Employment Practices Act that has been unlawful for thirty plus years, which it was to do with mandatory retirement of tenured faculty. And then the House had added in H. Five fifty six, which was removing elected and appointed municipal officers from the definition of employee under the state's minimum wage and overtime laws, and the Senate concurred in that section. All right. So Section 3B, this was a section that the House had added to the Senate's original version of the bill, and you had added noncompete. So noncompete for nonexempt employees, and then you had added language relating to health care providers. On the Senate side, in Senate Economic Development, that ran into some of the same issues. The language around non competes for nonexempt employees. It ran into the same salary threshold issues that House Commerce had run into when dealing with H-two zero five. So ultimately, the Senate took out the prohibition on non competes, the nonexempt employees. But they did like the language that came over regarding contracts with health care providers, which had non compete language, but it also non disparagement, had other pieces in there. So they essentially adopted the houses language on the health care providers, but they added in a definition of health care provider. And it's the same definition of health care provider that would have was in H205. And we can look at that in just a second. And then they added an additional section, 3C. And this was to do with an issue that's come up on the Senate side around concerns by the Vermont State Employees Association over solicitation in Department of Corrections parking lots. And so given that this came up very late in the day, what the Senate has done is just added a provision in session law that asks the Commissioner for the Department of Corrections to meet with the VSEA, facilitated by the Commissioner for Buildings and General Services, to discuss the policies, what's allowed and what's not allowed in terms of solicitation in DOC parking lots, and then come up with a proposal for consideration and adoption by the Secretary of Administration.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Could you tell us a little more about what this is about?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, I can. Is that Can I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes?

[Speaker 0]: Couldn't all of these agencies do this anyway without this being in social law? Yes. So on this particular section, there is a facilities rule that was passed in 1999 that covers state buildings and what is and isn't allowed around state buildings. And it has some exemptions. So it's generally no solicitation. But then there are specific exemptions for, I don't know, farmers, produce, charitable things, and also for some union, I think membership, dues, organizational stuff is an exemption under that. But there's a specific carve out at the beginning of the state rule that says it applies to state buildings, excluding the Department of Corrections. But the Department of Corrections can do what they want to do or follow the policy or whatever. And my understanding is that that's been 20 quarter century, and there hasn't been any policy issued by the Department of Corrections. So my understanding is this is a sort of official nudge to encourage that conversation. It has a date in there for 01/01/2027. So I think the expectation is that if there is no resolution of what solicitation will or will not be allowed in DOC parking lots, then that would come back to the general assembly next session. Yes. Is there a problem with solicitation in front of DOC? There was. Why wouldn't it exclude? Well, think it was, I don't know the answers to that. The Department of Corrections was invited into Senate Economic Development and did not come in and testify. So there was testimony from the VSEA. And my understanding is that, I forgot what the first question was. Well, guess I just So they haven't done anything for twenty Right, and so it wasn't clear why there hasn't been anything. And then I think there was concern about moving forward with mandating what can and can't apply in parking lots without hearing from the Department of Corrections as to what are the issues regarding solicitation in parking lots. So there was no testimony as to that. I guess my question is, has, so I'm thinking of it from the lens of, so they haven't updated this in twenty five years. In those twenty five years, is solicitation happening that's causing issues? Like why are we touching this at And this point in the that wasn't answered. So my understanding from the testimony in Senate Economic Development was along the lines of there just hasn't been a resolution and sort of a nudge is needed to encourage a conversation to sort that out.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions of the committee? Is that it? That's it. Well Before we get to what you think. Oh! Do you

[Speaker 0]: want me just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to run through the Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: why don't we let you Oh,

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: thought you, that's what said,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is that

[Speaker 0]: That was just sort of an overview, but this is the actual amendment that was passed by the Senate. So again, this was striking out the House's version of Section 3B, which was dealing with the non competes, and converting it to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It strikes out the

[Speaker 0]: I've got the wrong thing. Hold on. Moving on too many ang- too many today. But we're not voting on this right today. Oh, Okay. Just had so many different versions of it. I couldn't find the right one here. Hold

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: on. Can you wait five minutes?

[Speaker 0]: I can.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Alright. You're still talking about something.

[Speaker 0]: So this the this was Senator Chittenden's motion. Again, it was a five zero coming out of Senate Economic Development. And this replaces your the House version of section three b with this version. So this is going to be adding a new provision under the Fair Employment Practices Act. And it's specific just to agreements with health care providers. And again, it applies if any you know all this language because we talked about it here. But essentially, if any of these provisions are in a contract or agreement with a health care provider, that provision is struck out. It doesn't make the entire contract unenforceable. So again, one is essentially the non compete, which is restrictions on the right of the health care provider to provide health care services in any geographical area for any period of time after the end of the relationship. Two is the allowing would prohibit non solicitation clauses, in other words, anything that limits the ability of the separating health care provider to let their patients know their new contact information. Three would be a clause that prevents health care providers from making disparaging statements about another party to the contract or agreement or about another person specified in the agreement as a third party beneficiary of the agreement. And again, Joseph Barnard, who testified in this committee, also testified in Senate Economic Development that that also gives the ability of employees to raise concerns, whether it's patient safety or whatever in a health care environment. Section four would preclude any provisions that would be inconsistent with Vermont law. And five, any provisions that would require litigation arising from the performance of a contract in this state to be conducted elsewhere. Subsection B is the kind of notice, what the information that the departing health care provider can provide to their patients. C provides that this does not apply to those businesses providing non clinical services. And then D, this is the new language on defining a health care provider to make it a little larger.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So, let me put

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: something So the D, healthcare provider, is?

[Speaker 0]: Means a person licensed, certified or authorized by law to provide professional healthcare service in this state to an individual during that individual's medical care treatment or confinement. And that's consistent with definitions of health care provider in Title 18, and it's broad.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So let me just put this into regular person perspective, I think. Does this mean that instead of

[Speaker 0]: what we had previously of other folks that now it's just healthcare providers? Right. So previously, this section was divided in two. So A was dealing with prohibiting non competes for non exempt employees. And then B was the health care provider language. And so it's been restructured to just be the health care provider piece now.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I was just trying to put it in regular person language, see if I I understood

[Speaker 0]: have a technical question here. We

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have a, just I wanna know, is there a, when we put a motion that we do a straw poll the floor, what are we referring to? Is there a draft number that is the final thing the Senate voted on? Is it our draft 6.2 with amendment 1.1? How do we

[Speaker 0]: get It will be S two thirty as amended by the House, and then as further amended by the Senate. Okay. And there isn't a draft number yet because they literally just voted on this. There another will version posted at some point.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And did the pass fall?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, there were no No.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If people on this committee want to know what they're voting on, it is our version 6.2?

[Speaker 0]: It's on the website, it's the version that was passed by the House. It was your 6.1 originally. 6.1. Maybe it was the six point zero.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's our version 6.1 plus draft 1.1 of the Senate amendment, right? Right. Yep. Okay. Leonora. Leonora. I

[Speaker 0]: was just wondering about the So, educators,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: where

[Speaker 0]: does the bill land on that? No changes. Changes? So, the non exempt, I guess that's Unfortunately So that would not cover that's not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The nonexempt, essentially, what happened was we had two people.

[Speaker 0]: No. No. I understand what happened. What I'm trying to figure out is, so who are we talking about that would be nonexempt, but they're not covered now because we've no longer exempted non exempt people?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Low income hourly

[Speaker 0]: which wage

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we hope to cover, are not covered. The only people who cover their health care workers.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not a fan of that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And again, it ran into the same issues that the house commerce had dealt with, because exempt, nonexempt, a number of states do go that route. A number of other states have a salary threshold, and there's just different views. So if you do exempt, nonexempt, teachers, no matter how much they're paid, are exempt. So they would not be covered by that. And then if you put a salary threshold in, obviously, there's an incentive by folks that want to protect more people to have that salary threshold be as high as possible. And then there are other people that want that on the business side that want that to be as low as possible. So it just wasn't something that could be resolved. Alright.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Do

[Speaker 0]: you want me to put up the DOC language just so you see it?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I just want to add one more piece of information. I talked to the chair of the committee. She seemed to feel they just ran. I mean, they are so pressed over there, they've had so much on their plate, that as soon as there was some objection raised, in other words, as soon as there was an objection raised by somebody who said, we need a salary threshold because you could meet the non exempt definition, but if you're making $95,000 chances are you're part of a company and you know what the hell is going on and you shouldn't be covered. So as soon as the subject came up, as soon as that happened, the committee just said, We just can't deal with this now. So I don't think a decision was made so much excuse me, I don't think the committee came down on the issue so much as just decided they couldn't handle now.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I don't think it's a good excuse for

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, but I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: just didn't No, want no, yeah, I've watched the committee and I've been disappointed about slapping or not doing things because they ran out of time.

[Speaker 0]: I also don't love mean, solely on the correctional facilities. I can't concur. I don't even vote on something that I don't even know if it's actually a problem. Especially when we did have the VSEA in our joint hearing corrections and institutions, and I don't remember this coming up at all.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, I'm going to move to find this unfavorable and not concur, personally.

[Speaker 0]: I think it's removing to either not concur or not I've never done this before.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, we can do it by a straw poll. I'll take care of that, is there any further discussion? I have an opinion, I'll express, but are there any other cancers who want to talk about what they want to do with this?

[Speaker 0]: You can probably just put out the DOC language just so folks can see it. That I think would probably be good. I mean, I think most of us have Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll just make one comment before we just draw a poll.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Part of our displeasure is that committees are working really fast and they hear an objection and they just get rid of things and things like that. And then we get a bill and we work really fast and never even see a legit draft of the bill we're voting on because we still don't have time. So I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think it's both of us that pretty well stopping that. What? I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's both of us. Like, I was in the senate that have a serious problem with the whole rushing. So I don't think we should be saying, I don't like the senate doing it because we did the exact same thing, which is what we're doing right now, which is voting on a bill to concur or not concur that we've never even seen the final draft of.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I think it's available online.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other comments or views? My view, I will vote to concur. I can explain why, but I feel like people should vote however they want to vote. My feeling is, in the scheme of things, this bill is almost identical to what we passed. The part about solicitation and correction facilities, I don't know whether it's needed or not, but it's harmless. It just doesn't matter. How do we

[Speaker 0]: know it's harmless if we don't take testimony on it?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because how could it be harmful that they

[Speaker 0]: have to talk to each other? They don't need legislation saying they have to talk

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to Well, this is, exactly, okay, so it's at worst superfluous. Understand that we haven't heard testimony about it, it's incomplete that way, but it doesn't, I'm just saying, for me, here, every other bill we're doing has got all kinds of changes to it. We're probably gonna have to have conferences if they get 02:30, you know, when they get 02:38, if there's still time or if seven seventy five comes to us, there'll be all kinds of issues, that's conference. They've taken out that that's a major part of July, so we will have a conference on that. If by some small chance some remnant of our landlord tenant bill passes the Senate, we will have a conference on that, although I don't know whether we can bridge the gap in a way that would be meaningful. I don't know. So, I guess for me, the question that really matters about this bill is we didn't get half, we didn't get an important part of what we wanted on non compete, and in fact, I think a really important part of it, and I guess my feeling is, well, this was an idea that was brought to us at the last minute and we put it in and I care about it, but we got half a loaf, and my feeling is next year, I put in a bill for the other half. You know, it's not like they're doing something bad, they're just not doing something good, and so that's why I will vote to concur, but I think people should vote however they want. Other opinions? Tom?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm okay with the DOC, the SEA language simply because it's them being asked to come up with something. And they might come up with they might agree that they don't need anything, but they're probably better informed than either committee. So I don't have a problem with the conversation. I would and I understand without the details of a really clear definition of where do you where is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the salary threshold, what that ought to be.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I understand their hesitation. I'm a little concerned that the low paid employees are getting left out another year. In other words, I would prefer to see them do something and go back and revise it instead of doing nothing, and maybe they'll get to it next year. If it's in there, they'll have to deal with it. So I'm a little

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: decided how I would struggle with this yet. Okay. Other people want to say what you think. Would you, I mean, one option, by the way, I just want to mention, I really want to be chair here, not Marc, okay? One option is, if people want a conference, I think we could vote first thing, Tuesday morning, and it would still be okay if we need to think about it more. If we're going to concur, we can concur anytime, that's okay. I'm a little worried, since the education bill is moving faster than I thought it might, I mean, with the caveat that anything can happen on the floor. The floor of the Senate is the Wild West. Anything can happen there. With that caveat, it's a good possibility that they could be in a conference next week, early in the week, we won't have forever, because when that's done, we're out of here, we're done. So, I think if people want to object, we probably ought to vote today, if people want to concur, we could wait a little, I think we could do this first thing through the morning at 09:00, if it would help people over

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: the Either way, can't we just, if people need more time, can't we just leave?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I think till 09:00 Tuesday, yeah.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Nothing's going to change, like,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, but people should, I think, say what they think now, and with the understanding, guys, we all know each other, say what you think, even if it isn't your final view.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I mean, for me, like, I'm bummed about that piece, but, like, could I live with it? Sure. You know what I mean? Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Like, I'm not gonna like, it's not, like Cause like you said, like, was But I'm bummed. Like, I don't love that, and I would like to But that's where I'm at. I am really happy that they concurred about some other stuff that was really more important. But, yeah, that's where I'm at.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, but just Leonora, let me just summarize. Please, thank you so much. Okay, our option, we could, people are sort of uncertain, we could wait until 09:00, please say morning. I'm a little worried if we want to have a conference that we've got to get going on it. I did express my personal view, which is I find the solicitation at correctional facilitative language harmless. It might not necessary, it might be stupid, but it's harmless. As to the loss of half more of important half, in my view, I understand that there's some discussion to be had. I'm willing, given where everything else we're doing is, to live with half the wolf, and frankly introduce legislation next term to deal with that exact issue.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I understand,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I want people just to vote how they feel about it. I don't like it at all, think it was the more important of the two. The matter came to us very late, it was brought over by the committee, I was really thrilled with what we did, and I'm sorry they didn't do it, but I'm just, maybe I'm too chill, I don't know, I got so spoiled by how I'm screwed up, everything happens here, but I'd live with half a loaf and just take the next one. Tom made the point while you were gone, I'm just summarizing, Tom made the point, yeah, he's okay with correctional, but he's feeling like we ought to do something on the hourly employees this year, just so that if they feel like they have to revisit it, well, fine, then it has to be revisited. He's kind of thinking, okay, I'm just summarizing, you're out of the room, and I know you care about this. So you want to, and I'm just asking people how they feel, you want to vote today, you want to wait till 09:00 on, remember the floor starts now at 09:30 on Tuesday, so we could wait till 09:00.

[Speaker 0]: I'd rather punt until Tuesday if we can.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah, and then we can't, like Joe was saying, then we have a hard time to look at something.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is where people are? It's Mary, what's your thought?

[Speaker 0]: No, I think that we should program it today. I think the longer we prolong these things, it's the end of the session, and it always is rushed like this. Can we compromise and vote on it later today?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure, I won't be here. When

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: are you leaving?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm leaving at 11:30 to go have my CAT scan at Gifford for my shoulder, and then we will be on the floor from 01:00 throughout however long it takes, so we could theoretically meet at six or something like that, but we don't know how well we're gonna be consistent eye on the floor. That's true.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: That's true. Okay. Well Tuesday.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I do think that if we go late on today, it's life voting first thing on Tuesday. So, let's vote Tuesday. What do you guys want to do? I guess I'm going to start off by asking, how many people want to vote today?

[Speaker 0]: I ask?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One, two, yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry, Mary, where do you stand on it? I'm just curious. How would you want the vote to end up, or how are you feeling about this? Feel it's quite a good bill. We're never gonna get everything that that we want see in a bill, and that's a process of compromising. I'm not happy about the way the end of this session is handled. I feel that there are way too many bills that get sent to legislative council. I think they should be short forms first, and then if they're taken up and approved, then go into the long form. I think this is putting a tremendous amount of work on legislative councils, and it's getting to the end, like I said, and people are really emotionally and physically having some issues. Prefer to I think it's a fine bill if you wanna work on it next next term, that would be fine too, but for now, I would be in favor of voting on it now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would you vote to concur? Yes. Okay, anybody else at this point want to say anything? Debbie, I agree with me. You would vote to concur. I guess, you know what, I'm going to do a straw poll, a pre, anything else you want

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: to say?

[Speaker 0]: I'm curious, I'm curious, yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm going to do a quick, pre straw poll, can I do that? Yeah, can you? Yeah, of course I can. I can say, if you don't want to vote, don't, but how many people would vote to concur now, or know now they want to get into trouble?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah, you can't do that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I'm finding is that there isn't enough of a consensus.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: because voting, I mean,

[Speaker 0]: we could just vote. See how people vote, they vote.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, I think what we'll do is take this up, 09:00, be prepared to vote, either to concur or not, 09:00 on Tuesday, okay? Deal. So, is everybody okay with that? I know some of you would like that now, but

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I just want to understand what

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the implications are, what that means, and what that looks like. What are the likelihoods of changes actually being made if we don't concur, if we go to conference? Where does that leave us? And where is the wiggle room? What is the negotiate And what do people actually want? Because especially this last piece, don't even know where it came from. So I have a lot of questions that I don't think anyone in this room could answer.

[Speaker 0]: I think, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I'm

[Speaker 0]: just I think the reason that you're finding we need to do a straw poll is because it feels like maybe there hasn't been enough time for this to sink in. So I would just really want people to actually voice whatever questions and concerns they have more clearly so that when we come together we can make a decision. So yeah, maybe more background. Think that the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I guess my hunch, I can only give you an effect on that, If we had a conference right now,

[Speaker 0]: I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think we could find out more on what this solicitation of correctional facilities is about. I think we could find out more, and I think we'd probably find out more, the conferees would find out more. I think that on the issue of hourly employee, of the nonexempt employees, I don't know if we could, I would imagine the Senate's going to say, they're going say what you're saying about the correctional facilities, you know, we just have more to work on, we don't know whether we need this or that. Maybe a compromise could be worked out, I just don't know. But I don't know whether a conference could do that. Usually, a bill like this, these two issues where there's not a lot of daylight between the two, I mean, except for this, where, like, you know, I think the conference would be like an afternoon, or, you know, it would be a couple hours, so whatever happens, happens. Yeah, I think I announced it before, not that it's a big deal, but I do have an appointment down in Dartmouth, Tuesday morning night. My deal, I have to go to Okay, so, but it's a straw poll, so I can record. No, can't. No, can't. I can't? No, that was bad information. Oh, Okay.

[Speaker 0]: And I won't be here Tuesday. I have a doctor's appointment in the early Well,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I can talk to leadership. I mean, I'll be here in the afternoon. Well From how long ago. Will have a when do you think you'll be back?

[Speaker 0]: I don't know how long the appointment is. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But, my appointment is at 10:00 down in Okay, so what that means is, what's going to happen is we'll have a floor at 09:30, we'll have a break, a floor at once, and we could meet at the break.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And the questions that, for me, the questions that stand are around solicitation, where did this come from and what solicitation is in reference? Of? And then for the non exempt employees, is there hope for negotiation or not? And what are the implications of either way? Because I don't want to make an informed decision. So I don't want to just say no and it have unintended consequences. So I just want to know what the implications are of voting either way

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I

[Speaker 0]: on either one of

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think that I mean, suppose we could have the VSEA in here now, we could try to get hold of them and get them in here, but not department directions.

[Speaker 0]: Fifth caucus or fifteen minutes? Yes, everyone's caucusing in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: fifteen Fifteen minutes, so welcome to the end of the session. I can talk to the VSEA, we can try to talk to Corrections and just find out what's going on. Sophie, were you present during discussions of this? Yes. Do you have anything more to tell us?

[Speaker 0]: No, I pretty much told you what came up in Senate Economic Development. There was testimony from the VSCA, from the general counsel, and from Tom Abdulmagher, but there was no testimony from BGS or the Department of Corrections.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so we have a bit of a problem there. I think you're gonna have that before I we hear from

[Speaker 0]: mean, I'm frustrated because it feels like they didn't take test they were willing to negate something that we did take testimony on Yeah. And then send us something that they that they didn't take testimony on.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, they did the exam.

[Speaker 0]: They did the Sorry. Just to be clear, that was just on the DOC correction. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. They've added on. They they took out a piece that we took pretty extensive testimony on and then added on a piece. That's right. You know? And and said, no, we can't adopt this because we haven't taken testimony. And then took on a new topic and only invited, you know,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think what some they point is did is as Confused.

[Speaker 0]: As was said by counsel, they turned it into a request for a conversation rather than anything else. But if we're saying we can wait till next year to handle something that I think has more repercussions than this issue for low income hourly earners, why can't DOC wait for this? Hypothesis is a slap in the face. I just think policy wise it feels like a normal I just think policy wise, it's a weird way to advance.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, if there is a conference, I've just been in one conference, which was actually

[Speaker 0]: very So much entertaining fun. Well, really fun to watch. So,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I just don't know what it would be like. I don't think you want to get into a situation where we lose the whole bill because we can't agree. Yeah. As to the other I can't tell you, I cannot tell you what would happen.

[Speaker 0]: I just want be able to make informed decisions.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just want to understand implications, have a little bit more information than this is, it literally just came off the Senate floor, and now ten minutes later we're voting on it. So I was just like, a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: little bit. Was Chittenden, Yeah, but

[Speaker 0]: it was the committee as a whole, he was just reporting on the bill. So All five of them voted in support. I will just say, I think that if the bill at least helps medical workers who are non exempt, essentially. That's essentially what all the all the workers things we distilled all medical, no, thought it was only Oh, got it, got it, got it. Yeah, think that that, if we agree on that, So essentially, did they concur that's what you're they concur. They concurred with us, and we took a lot of testimony from a lot of stakeholders from many perspectives on that language, and they concurred with it, I would want to advance that, because I think that was good work that was done and will make a positive difference. I would also add that that was language that was extensively discussed in the healthcare committees as well. I don't want to miss that. But I know that there interest in this bill from the healthcare committees as well. Yeah, I think anything we do to help.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Oh, remember the

[Speaker 0]: health situation. Testimony from the DOC. What? Can we get them to submit? Yeah, submit with DOC, to submit written testimony. That'll help me. Even if they won't come in with the incident. Maybe. I mean,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can certainly

[Speaker 0]: ask. We can ask, I just, it's not how the process is supposed to work, and I don't love it, and I mean, my one vote isn't going to hold up the committee, so, I mean, I'm prepared to vote right now. Other people want information, so that's great. I would love information, but I don't want one-sided information. I think it's just okay to pause.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Does that not feel good?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's say 09:00, understanding two people won't be there, but then what I will do is I'm going to talk to leadership. I just want to find out what this means sort of moving things along, and if possible, watch your messages.

[Speaker 0]: Maybe this afternoon.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We might meet tomorrow, we might meet Tuesday at eleven or 11:30, you know, after the floor, or in between the floor. And I think Miriam will see if we can get anything from the Department of Corrections, any statement, any Rick statement. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Is there any way that we can postpone it on Tuesday not to be at 09:30, because the two people that can't be here?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I can actually Let's do it the other way. You're right. Why don't we say we're gonna meet late morning, you know, when it's between the floor, and And you ain't gonna be here No, at she's not gonna be here at all. I know, she's

[Speaker 0]: be It's neither Debbie out there, it's a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Debbie could be here late morning, late, or we could meet at noon, you know, so watch your email, I will talk to leadership, find out what's going on, what they tell me, if I learn anything, I'll just report it Look to the committee, for an email from me. I

[Speaker 0]: think that's as much as we're going to do right now. Okay? Yeah, again, don't want to risk not putting in the health, the good of the bill. Right, it's not going make it because we are postponing till Tuesday, I don't

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, I think we're okay. Well, if we were to concur, it doesn't matter. I should explain. Right. If we concur, it's instant. We just go to the floor whenever we want and we get on the agenda and we report, Hey, we're concurring, and they'll vote it. It'll If be we don't concur, that means we're asking for a conference. That has to be arranged, okay?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I mean, conversations can happen between now and before we leave today. So, I'm just saying, can we just not do this right this second?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we cannot do it right this second. Watch for a text from Miriam, and I'll see what I can find out, okay? Okay. Alright. Okay everybody, we are adjourned.