Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're live. Welcome back, everybody, to the House Committee on General and Housing. Today is still Tuesday, May 19, and we are now taking up the issue of S-two 30, and whether do we, a, concur in the senate amendments, b, concur with further amendment, or

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: is same, and today is still Tuesday, May 19, and we are now taking up the issue on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, Mayor. Or c, we can refuse to concur and ask for a conference. So also I note we have received communication from VSEA, which is on their website, and Steve Howard is here representing the VSEA. If any of you wish to have any questions, I'll ask them to come and testify, otherwise I think their letter is pretty self explanatory and we can move to discuss. Is there anyone who has questions at SEAC? Sure, yeah. That would be a yes. Steve, you want to come up?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Good afternoon. Good morning. Still morning.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome, Steve. Thank you. So we have your letter. Yes. And I think we understand the situation, but go ahead.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Thank you. A committee member with a similar name mentioned instances of soliciting on the the property, guessing brought up this whole issue, but refrained from seem to know, we wanted to refrain from letting us know. I didn't know if you'd be able to So, share that with

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: I can tell you how this issue came to our attention. Generally, the policy, as you may be aware, in place since the 1970s at all state office buildings in the state, there's a policy that limits what solicitation can occur in the parking lot of those state office. So, if you go to 133 or any of those state offices. At the time, the thought was they would delegate the authority over correctional facilities, parking lots, and grounds to the Commissioner of Corrections. With the reasonable thought that the Commissioner would adopt something that is more strict, that's more of a strict policy than the rest of the buildings that the state occupies for obvious reasons. Turns out that the Commissioner of Corrections in the 1970s and every commissioner since then has adopted exactly zero policy. So, you can do just about anything you want in the parking lot of facility and the state can't stop you. If you do anything in front of 133 or some Hartford State Office Building, there's a policy in place that governs what's allowed and what's not allowed. So, this came to our attention last year when a rival union was, from our members' perspective, harassing them in the parking lots of correctional facilities as they're coming to and from work. And it was a major hassle. So we looked into it and said, this can't be possible because we know that this is policy. And then we uncovered that there is no policy. And so because there's no policy, the administration wouldn't intervene and put a stop to it and it just persisted. So, sorry,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: got you. So, outside of that, was there instances, like you had mentioned, like, you can do whatever you want there because there's no policy. Were there other instances that this was as to why this was brought forward of soliciting on there outside of that?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Not that I'm aware of. There certainly could have been since 1970. Not that I'm aware of. I think our view is regardless of what form of solicitation is happening, nobody should be allowed to solicit in the parking lot of the correctional facility, including the VSEA. We have obligations inside the correctional facility representing our members, but this parking lot seems like an off territory that should be off limits. Now, we did meet with the Commissioner of and the Commissioner of Corrections last week, later part of last week. And we had a pretty good discussion. Commissioner does, it's been brought to his attention. I think he has the authority to implement a policy, which of course is different than a statute. It was a good discussion. I think he agrees with us that that kind of stuff shouldn't be happening in parking lots. And we'll see what comes from that. Our position is we would urge you to concur with Senate. The language basically just says that you'll meet with the two parties, the three parties will meet and we will report back to you what the conclusion of that discussion is, even though the commissioner has the authority to implement a policy now. Don't think it is earth shattering if it's not in there, but I do think it helps to keep that conversation going so that we can come up with something before the next session.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Ashley. Can I read something to you? Sure. While remote law prohibits solicitation in general on state property under some circumstances, the general prohibition conflicts with those specific rights protected under the state labor laws and agree to by the state in the collective bargaining penalties. Under such circumstances, the courts and the DLRB will interpret the specific law as the legislative exemption to the more general law. For example, in the private sector, employers may generally bar solicitations on their property, but the specific provisions of the National Labor Relations Act have been interpreted to protect employees' rights to solicit and distribute on behalf of their unions. That's on the VSEA website. So I guess I'm just getting conflicting. So that's on your website. When I read that, it sounds like the VSEA is in support of employees' rights and their ability to hear from either your union or another union, they might feel may better support them. But you're in here saying that you don't like this because a different union came in. So, I guess I'm just really confused. Which side do you agree with?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: So, VSEA is under the State Labor Relations Board, not under the National Labor Relations

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Board.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: But this is on your website. This is on the VSEA's website.

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Okay. I'll grant that to you. I haven't read the website recently, but nevertheless, the jurisdiction is the ELRB. Our position is we are not allowed to solicit in a campaign that would trigger an election inside a correctional facility or inside a state office. We can solicit membership in a break room with an employee who's on their break, which is I think a creature of our contract. And we have access to the building because we have to meet with our members and talk with them to do the business of that's just because we happen to be the incumbent, but any incumbent union would have that access. What we can't do is talk to people about an election inside the facility, or we could do it in the parking lot, we can't do it inside the facility. And what we're saying is that all of that stuff shouldn't be there. But we also think that people shouldn't be selling books to the parking lot. There shouldn't be food trucks in the parking lot. There shouldn't be any of that stuff, which is currently allowed.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Is that happening?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: I'm not aware of it, but it could. So, what this language does, it just says that the three parties will discuss it and we'll report out to the legislature what the conclusion of that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Could you clarify something for me? Non corrections elsewhere, what is the policy? What can you do and what can't you?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Wish I had the policy right in front of me, but there's a list of things that you can do, some of which are actually pretty questionable in my mind. There are, for instance, this was a surprise to me. Political candidates can stand outside a state office building and campaign. I don't have the list of exceptions here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there an exception for is there, in other words, it's a prohibition with exceptions. Is one of the exceptions soliciting employees concerning representation, labor representation?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: I don't have the language in front of me. There is language, there's certainly language that exempts the incumbent union from being able to carry out his responsibilities. Without the list, can't tell. I think our view is what the drafters of this policy first thought in 1970, is that the policy in a correctional facility should be stricter than the policy in the Franklin State Office.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But in your discussions, are you in fact just asking that the same policy apply?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: No, we're asking for a stricter, which the commissioner has a jurisdiction to provide, just no commissioner has done it. So what this amendment does is it just facilitates that conversation and requires us to report out what the result of that was.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: All right. Any other questions of Mr. Howard? Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Steve. Appreciate your coming. No problem. Okay, committee, what's your question?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I say with my original suggestion of concur with further instance of amendment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Ditto. Okay, we have two people who are proposing that we concur with further institutes of amendment. What that would mean is that we concur in everything, except for our amendment. And our amendment would be to strike that section. Okay, discussion? I

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: guess like to hear from yeah. I don't We just heard from one of the parties, but I didn't hear an echo of that history of there being a lack of policy, and that I do find disturbing, given that everyone is saying that they fully have the ability to enact some kind of policy. That moves me to want to tell them to go ahead and do it. I can see why it would be important, these are sensitive

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: facilities. What does this mean that you're

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: saying that Go ahead. Yeah, no, I'm just saying that I'm feeling confused as to if it's not necessary because they can do it, why haven't they done it for fifty years? If it's not been necessary, then why do we need to do it now? I'm still Yeah. Great topic to take testimony on.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I'll be here, Saudia.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. I was just wondering if you did you did I miss a conversation where you heard back from the senate? Did I miss that part?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You didn't miss I wrote Senator Clarkson during our floor amendment our floor, and I asked her what would happen in your committee if you you sent back a further instance amendment to two thirty to remove the language that the labor union requested on the grounds that they're already meeting. And she never replied. So you didn't miss anything, Saudia.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't do not know what would happen in the Senate.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's Joe.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: One of my things is that this doesn't even that amendment doesn't even tell them to come up with a policy at all. It tells talk, them which they already did, which they can do at any time. If the governor doesn't need us to come to talk to somebody, they can talk to people. That's why it's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You have something you want to say?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I have made my mind up, but

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it is interesting to know that they've had fifty years to do it. So it doesn't make

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: me feel as bad about saying they started the conversation and they ought to finish it. We're not telling them how to finish it. What it turns into is going to be up to them anyways, even with this language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Caledonia, do you have anything you want to say? Don't want to force anybody to say anything, but I'm just trying to suss out that if you do have anything you want to say, and Mary and Gayle, I will be doing the same with you guys.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Guess not. Can I ask a quick

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: question about

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: our witness? Yeah, sure. Have there been solicitations marketing or attempts to recruit people not to the union but other jobs or anything like that? Aside from this, you know, the solicitations you described, you've said that there hasn't been anything to your knowledge Not that I've been of.

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: But it came to our attention when our members were calling us saying, they're out there in the parking lot pushing their carts while we're trying to go to and from work and we want you to stop it. So we looked into how to stop it and we realized we can't because there's no violence. But this just supports us have a conversation with the administration before we're back to the public.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So I'm curious why we wouldn't have suggest why don't we have in front of us a suggestion for a policy that at least sets the floor to what other buildings are?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Right now under the law, the Commissioner of Corrections has the authority to bring policy and could reference the statute that gives them that authority. So I think in the discussions we've had, I think that's what he's exploring. But by leaving it in there, basically all it says is that you will continue to talk and then report back to the legislature, but the result doesn't create a policy.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Should I ask a follow-up question? I have one question for Mr. Howard. Does this happen often in the parking lots? Is it a continual occurrence?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: To my knowledge, it's only occurred a couple of times, pervasively the last couple of years. I don't know since 1970 what's happened, what I do know is that it could happen because there's there's no policy governing it.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thanks. So my question was what compared to, A, I just want to confirm that there is no policy and what this language would do compared to what the policy, like what is the policy elsewhere And how would this language get us any closer to having a real policy? So Sophie Sadatney for the Office of Legislative Counsel, I'm not logged into the meeting, but I do have the current policy that went into effect on 02/03/2000. So again, it may have had a previous policy that it was building off, but this is the current one. And it provides that the rules don't apply to state correctional facilities.

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then there was a question around what the exemptions are. So this rule does not apply to the annual state employees combined charitable appeal concessions or personal notices by employees on authorized bulletin boards, and then relevant to this, solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by the State of Employee Labor Relations Act or the bargaining agreement entered into between the State of Vermont and the State Employees Association. And then it's a list of other things, farm produce, newspapers, political solicitation in a public area or outside of the state building, vending machines, operation of the cafeteria, etcetera. Those things that cannot happen. That's the core Those of are things that can happen under the current the general Vermont state facilities policy that the DOC has carved out of. Right, and just nobody has developed? That appears to be the case, where there hasn't been a DOC specific policy. Could you just repeat the part about labor? What's the exception? It says you can't,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: but then there are exceptions. What's

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the so generally, there's a general prohibition on solicitation, and then it says, This rule does not apply to subsection C solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by, and then the site for the State Employed Labor Relations Act, or the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the state of Vermont and the VSEA. So it would currently allow this is, again, the general policy would allow solicitation of labor organization membership in other authorities. Would that be only the VSEA, or does that mean that any other union could come in and solicit? So the policy is explicit to the VSEA, but I think, as Mr. Howard just testified, if there was a different union in, that union would have rights and obligations under the State Employee Labor Relations Act to work with the members of that union. I guess my question is that I'm looking for confirmation of how it's written right now. If I am part of FOP, and I go to not a DOC property, can I then solicit because I am a labor relations? Right, I mean, and again, this doesn't include DOC, so for everyone else, yes, you could go to the parking lot and this would allow solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized under the Stage Employee Labor Relations Act.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So it would apply to any union, not just the union, then there's another section that applies to

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the DSA. It's solicitations. There is an exception for any solicitation. Right, solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by the State Employee Labor Relations Act or the collective bargaining agreement.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But before you get to collective bargaining, under the State Labor Relations Act, does the Act allow anybody, including a union, is not currently the representative union, is it?

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, generally, you'd be looking at unfair labor practices. So just in a generic sense, if an employer is preventing or engaging in conduct that would discourage or impede the ability of employees to organise, that could be an unfair labor practice.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I think in terms of Ashley's question, let's say that the VSEA is the current labourer and has a contract, can under that first clause, some other competing union go and solicit people at parking?

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, in other state buildings, again, this Yes, in

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: other state

[Sophie Sadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: buildings. In this building, there's no rule at all. That's my understanding.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That helped clarify where we are, Chittenden. So right now, in other buildings, competing unions can solicit and in the Department of Corrections, they can solicit, but of course they can do anything good, right? So there's no rule I'm

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: why it should need to be stricter. Why was it ever envisioned that it needed to be stricter? Mean, it's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a difficult Maybe because it's unfair. I don't know. And maybe it wouldn't end up being stricter. We don't know what the commissioner will do, if anything.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Again, might be a great time to have a conversation next year.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Question, Mr. Howard? Was that your response when you had a member reaching out to you saying like there's people soliciting in the parking lot, what can you do? Was that your response like, that'd be an

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: unfair labor practice if you jump, they can't do that?

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: We thought it was an unfair labor practice, but when it became clear that there was no policy, it was hard to argue that the state was favoring one side because either side could do it, there was no policy. I think that it that would have been a weak argument for us to make unless the state said ESEA you can't do it, but this other you can't. So what we want to say is nobody could be able to do. No,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm just asking if that

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: was your response to your members, it like, well, would be an unfairly practice on our part if we said, if we tried to remedy this for you. If we tried to remedy this and say, like, well, we need to do something so that those, they aren't here, that would be an unfair labor practice.

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: So our position was initially when we thought the buildings policy applied, that if it's an unfair labor practice by the state because they were allowing them to do something that they shouldn't be able to do, and then when it became clear there was no policy, it was hard to sustain that argument. And so what this does, it says that we'll continue to have a conversation with the administration, the commissioner at any time, initiate a policy, and then we will report to the Secretary of Administration

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: on what our conversations are like. But the Commissioner can already investigate and initiate all this. Yes, that's clear.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there any further questions of either counsel or Steve? Nothing drives me. Okay, what I'm going to do is, we have a choice, do we concur? I think it really comes down to, do we concur, period, recommend that the House concur, or do we recommend that the House concur with further instance of amendment payment taking out that sanction? And I'm going to ask for a vote either way on this. Is that okay? So, first, you're going to ask for I'm going to ask who would just say they want to concur. Then I'm going to ask who would they like to concur with amendment strike, in other words, if you concur that paragraph stays in. You concur with instance of amendment, it goes out.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay, and then you can vote for both. And then, Marc, and then after, you have to vote on the vote, will people still vote for the whole thing now?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think either we concur, in which case we're concurring with the whole bill, or we concur with instance of amendment, in which case we're agreeing with the whole bill except for the amendment. Got it. So, in sum, I can't.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Is this the official trial again? Yeah, you think we're ready? Yes, believe God. Guess

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, I'm going to clarify again. If you concur, it means you concur with the whole bill. If you concur, in which case that paragraph stays in. Right. We're just leaving it as it is, which means it stays in. If you concur with instance of amendment, it comes out. Right. Okay? Okay. In or out? Okay, how many just concur, which means it stays in. One, two, three, four. And Mary, are you there? Yes.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Good to be here. That's awful. Can

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: you hear me?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. I will find that out, but I'll return.

[Steve Howard (VSEA representative)]: Maybe not.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I'm here. I I know. You can.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You can. You can.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Make any sense.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. You can.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Wait. I'm gonna ask you again, everybody. Yeah. You can. Saudia, I'm asking first, how many just plain old concur? It means it stays in. 23, 45.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: No. I think you do, Mary.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Six. Saudia, is that is your hand up because you concur?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. I I yeah. That's not bad.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And, Mary, do you concur, which means that paragraph stays in, which is the position you were arguing for early?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I want the graph out. Debbie. Debbie. Wait. She's saying Debbie does not. Yeah. But what about Mary? Mary?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mary?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I concur. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So again, I wanna get this on hold. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. Now how many concur with amendment, which means it comes out? One, two, three.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So here's a question. No, four. Debbie, it's four? Okay. Yeah, she said I want paragraph out.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. Alright.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Here's my question. Who's reporting this on the floor?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, you couldn't report it on the floor. We can't report this on the floor.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Oh, I think Leonora should do it. If

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there's no volunteers, I'll report it on the floor.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And obviously I can. I'm just saying, like, I was trying to give opportunity if people wanted do that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Don't see anyone running to do this. I think that, and in fact, it's seven-four-zero, which means that What? I think the floor report has

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I thought we just did a straw poll. We did. We were talking about reporting now? Sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, definitely you saw what happens today. Somebody has to stand up and say, the Senate sent us revisions to S-two 30 and we find that and we concur, we recommend concurrence, the straw poll was seven-four-zero. And if it was me, I would say seven votes were for concurrence, four votes were for Amending. Yeah,

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Marc, you better report it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, I'm sorry that we can't accommodate everybody and I think that it is a difficult situation. At this point, I don't think we have anything else that we have to do today. I do want to say there was no vote in the Senate Committee on landlord tenant.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah, the division discussed more to Marc, no commitment of the vote.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. On threetwenty eight, which is our housing which we worked so hard on, It's coming out of Senate Approach tomorrow at maybe before the floor, and I have asked leadership to accelerate it, it has to go to the Senate. My hope is that in the Senate they can I'm kind of short on time with further amendments, but I can't say what they will do. They may

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Senate be appropriations as the last stop before the floor? House Approach. Oh, it's a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: House Approach. It's the last stop before the floor, yeah. And what I'm hopeful for is that in the Senate, it wouldn't have to go through all these different committees again, but I don't know that. And I really care about it. Personally, I will admit, I really care about three twenty eight, it's what we've worked on.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Leadership will like, develop the ship.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Am I reporting this bill?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: You are. Seems so. You wanted it. I told you.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Okay. We're working on it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Are we is there any other business? We're a driver.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Hi Debbie. Hi Debbie. Don't drive in