Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Are live. Alright. Welcome back, everyone. Moving forward with today's agenda, we are joined by counsel, for a committee discussion on the OPR bill H588. There were some revisions and language changes based on testimony and conversations that we've had as committees. We've got an updated draft as well as the as introduced on our page. So we are just gonna kind of run through that. It's all based on testimony that we've taken. And so With

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: that, Mr. Okay. Thank you very much for having me, committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Devlin, legislative council. For you, you should have three documents under my name or maybe OPR's as well. One is the updated draft amendment from this committee, which is 3.2. And there will be an overview as well. And before moving on, actually, should say that the updated text in the draft itself is highlighted for ease of reference. Similarly, in the overview, any of the green text will indicate what's been updated. And then third, this actually is material coming from the Office of Professional Regulation. It's a flowchart, with, two pages, indicating a way to kind of visualize some of the information that's been translated, since words on the page having to do with the rescission process that's being proposed in this bill. So, the four, of larger items that are being modified in this bill are one, the rescission process for essentially in instances of administrative error or non payment for the most part, a implosion of a compact, the OPR, sorry, the Office of Professional Regulation will be enabled to rescind with certain due process being afforded in a few different scenarios. That is fleshed out much more detail here. Second, we have, the accountant provisions carried over from H seven zero seven, having to do with CPAs, are inserted in here and somewhat modified. The of note, what you won't see in here, because it's been removed, the provisions that weren't here regarding pharmacists and pharmacist technicians and the immunization provisions there. And then fourth, we have added a report to be undertaken or study to be undertaken and reported to back here. The GovOps committees by OPR having to do with outdoor cremation. So I'm just going to pause there and wrap my go.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: Yeah, have you not seen this previously? Did you just say that there is no pharmacy, no immunization?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Correct.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: that moved with that other bill out of

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: So that was human services.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: that was the third instance of what's in the bill?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Third category of

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: changes. Yeah.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: And then the fourth being the outdoor cremation report. And sure, Birong, if it's okay with you, maybe in the interest of time, what's coming up, can just kind of work off the outline. Would that be best? Then How do

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: you think that would probably work best? Rebecca?

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: If we're you're talking about 3.2 overview.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sorry. Overview.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: So, I wasn't seeing Maybe maybe I'll just wait for you to go through the overview. Thanks.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So, the overview of the purpose section has been updated. And the first real significant change we see is in part one. This is under the general powers part of the bill. And section two gets to that rescission process I was talking about before. And again, this will amend three PSA one twenty nine, retitle it powers of the board or director and adviser professions, disciplines, and rescission processes. This is actually just small amendment, really just clarifying that, certain provisions will apply to rescissions as well. These hearing statutes are already flushed out under, title three for the Secretary of State's, powers, etcetera. And those are gonna be adopted by cross reference later on. We'll get to that. The real meat of the changes that will be in section three, and this is that to be created new section three VSA 129 C, simply named Precision. Again, this will enable OPR to rescind a license in a few different scenarios. First, if the license was issued because of an administrative error. Second, if fees were not paid. And c, if a license compact, so a licenseary compact becomes no longer binding on the state. So if states withdraw from the withdrawals from a compact or if enough participant member states withdraw that it becomes defunct essentially. That's the scenario it's contemplating there. Now the rescission process will take two forms, and here's where we see the changes that are highlighted in the development today. So there's two categories. If the license is active for less than thirty days, it will be treated a certain way. If the license was active for thirty days or more, it will be treated as a different secondary way. Really, it will be afforded more process. So quick summation of what's on the page. The first bucket, if the license is active for less than thirty days, the OPR Director can initially rescind the license and then immediately notifies the individual. The individual is then provided an opportunity for review of that decision by either a board or administrative law office. And the review decision must be made within thirty days of the rescission and either must affirm or reverse the director. Then the affirmed rescission decisions may be appealed in accordance with the appeals statute orient books, which is three BSA 130 A. I apologize now seeing that I left off the summary of the second bucket, but I'll just tell you right now that, in essence what happens, and this might be a good time to pull up and, the flow chart if, you're more of a visual visual digester of information. But if it's more than thirty days, sorry, thirty days or more, there is no initial precision, but there's a notification sent by the director to the individual that within thirty days, the director intends to rescind the license. So that's the first difference right there. It's not immediately pulled, there's notice that says it will be. At that point, there is the individual is provided the opportunity to request a hearing. And if they don't request a hearing or if they don't get back to the director, the rescission takes place at that moment. If there is a hearing, the rescission is put basically on hold or stay pending the outcome of the hearing. And again, the hearing would be in front of either a board or a administrative law officer. And at that point, there's a decision rendered, the license is or isn't rescinded, and then again, there is an appeals process that follows from that point. So best way to think about it in sum is that if the license has been active for thirty day less than thirty days, it can be initially rescinded and then there's a review of that for to the individual. If it's active for more thirty days or more, then it's not initially rescinded, but there's a notice saying that it can be if you don't get back to OPR essentially, and that there is a full hearing provided to the individual after which it may be rescinded or it may be kept not rescinded and after each there's an opportunity to appeal. And there's a lot more detail in the words and I'd be happy to go into that there at a later point depending on what the committee's appetite is for that right now.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: What's the appetite for the table to do that in detail now or?

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: No, we're going through this new version just high level.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so the next, Let's see. Next additions.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: I just wanted to say, I really appreciate the flow chart. Thank you.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you can take your PR

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: for that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Tim and I reviewed that

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: at lunch yesterday and it

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: really helped me wrap my head around the the complexity of the words. Colors. It's good. Yeah. Now hats off to OBR on that one.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: The next category changes are in the accountants. This is sections 10. And again, this inserts most of the provisions in coming over from h seven zero seven. So the real differences are there is a or that was changed to an and, and then also the term substantial equivalent was in seven zero seven, it was to be amended to be replaced with comparable, but that has been not opted to be followed. Those statutes are not going to be amended. So there's two fewer statutory sections being amended in this. So it'll look a little bit shorter than if you were to pull up HO7.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: Yeah, I'm sorry, Tim, I lost you after the rescissions, the thirty days or more. Then my page went to section four, but that's about healthcare, not CPAs.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sorry. I'm skipping some sections throughout the bill, just visiting on what's changed between draft three point two and two point one or whatever we were on before. Sorry about that.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: All right, so which section are you on? You're on part two. Yes. Section two?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Section part two, sections eight and nine of the bill. And and I'm not sure if it shows up particularly well on the screens, but all the text that's been modified from the last version of this and the overview is in green font. So just kind of a recap of what the section is brought over from H707 do. Section eight will modify the definition of principal place of business, replacing within that the term substantial equivalency with mobility, which is apparently a used and readily understood term in the practice and in professional recognition at large. Section nine will amend statutory Section two of licensure by examination. This will create additional combinations of education and experience that are one prerequisite for obtaining license participation. And similarly in Section 10, which is really by endorsement or reciprocity licensure section. This will be renamed Mobility and will enable us so that a out of state accountant does not need to obtain a state license if they both have a license in another state and to pass uniform CPA examination have a permitted combination of education, experience. Again, what's really changing here in the statute is that there's different permutations of that education experience that will be afforded to both people taking the exam here to be licensed in state or a mirroring of those requirements for people who are seeking reciprocity and licensure here. Okay, so the next thing to note here is that, again, there'll be kind of a gap after the midwife sections. And that's where the pharmacist and pharmacist technician immunization protocols, those sections have been removed. And so now we go to funeral services, and this is the section 17. It adds session law. That will require OPR to submit by November 15 year. Both, housing senate gov ops committees will report on any aspects of professional licensure necessary to facilitate regulating the disposition of human remains, outdoor cremation, in consideration of public health and safety, religious freedom, and environmental impacts. OPR shall consult with the Department of Health, the Agency of Natural Resources, and other interested stakeholders. And then the only other thing changing the bill really is the effective dates. Actually, really the same, the section numbers, changed necessitated those also be changed. Any kind of drill down questions? And again, the lion's share of today's changes are in the precision process.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, Rutland. Just

[Unidentified member]: for clarification because I got lost in translation there. Where the information for the prior section regarding pharmacist and pharmacy technician immunization protocols were removed. Yeah. That was taken up by other the other The bill out of human

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: services two weeks ago, three weeks ago. Okay. So the language in that would be duplicative to this. Okay. Yes, that's what

[Unidentified member]: I wanted to confirm. Okay.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: And I erroneously said healthcare. Was.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I didn't find that to speak of ponies.

[Unidentified member]: We're doing anything for speech language pathology assistance.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're trying to get that in as well. This isn't like a final update. I want to address that. So addressing that, and then for the committee sentiment, I think after the testimony this morning, the massage therapy conversation, I think that speaking with the secretary of state's office about what we can do to push that conversation further towards licensure seems to be an agreeable position.

[Unidentified member]: So this is just the changes that we have so far, so it's not intended to reflect the testimony that we've heard.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, this was sort of like a council We've been tracking a lot of this stuff. So my goal was to get an update on stuff that we had spoken to, like, more clearly. And also he that counsel was communicating with OPR on to make sure that there was language continuity going back and forth.

[Unidentified member]: So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: this is this is an update to an ever evolving plan. But the I think the biggest things still outstanding here is how to address the conversation in and around the massage licenses and then in getting the speech pathology words correctly implemented.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: Well, have OPR back in to talk about both of those things.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, absolutely. Okay. They were at a conference last week, a bunch of them. And I know that both Tim has been going back and forth very vigorously. Okay. So my goal is to have them in to go over this and have conversations about the other components that we had left outstanding. That was the goal of mine for scheduling next week. Cool. And that other piece is for the treasurer's bill. Yeah. So any questions on this right now for council? Well, I

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: don't know if I wanted to say that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And don't. I don't. Yes. Ask after.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: It's it's the

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Ask after.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: Oh, no. I'll ask now. I'll just hear. Oh, well, I do care, but are we gonna talk about the atomic stream?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: In within the context of this bill? No.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: No. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're waiting to see yeah, we're waiting to see what the senate sends over. Okay. Before we take that out.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: But that's what where this would

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: be if we were to talk right No, we're not. I have no intention including that. Is Okay. They're they're two separate bills moving because that one is the it's it's own very focused conversation with a lot of opinions. And I'm trying to keep this one as tight as possible.

[Rebecca (unidentified committee member)]: Okay. No.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Great question, though. It is mean, it is relevant to it, but we're intentionally keeping on stuff. Anything else? Alright. Just minutes to floor. And I guess that's it for the afternoon. Thank you, counsel. Nate, feel free to take yourself.