Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member, Bill Sponsor)]: Wait. Better sense. Alright.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Bye. Thank you, everyone, for that brief recess. Welcome back to crew and operations. We like maps. But right now, what we're gonna focus on is gauge 53 and that related to creating a preference for military spouses in hiring into state employment. And we have back with us counsel for a discussion on the words on the page. How are doing, counsel? Very
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: well, thank you. Good afternoon, Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Counsel. We did do a walkthrough of this on January 8, so I'm just circling back on that. Is it okay if I go ahead and share my screen?
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I would love nothing more, thank you. Okay.
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Alright. So this is a bill that would give preference to military spouses for state employment, and there are two components to it. So, the first one is here at the top of the second page, which provides that after the requirements of an applicable collective bargaining agreement have been satisfied, and after compliance with subsection 327A, and what 327A is, and I can pull that up if you want to see it, but that is just that there is a preference in state employment for filling positions internally. So once that has been satisfied and consistent with affirmative action standards, then the state shall make a diligent effort to recruit, interview and hire. And then there are a list of preferences. So the first one under A is veterans. The second is the spouses of veterans, and then the new language would add the spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces. So this would give a preference in hiring interstate employment. The state will make a diligent effort to recruit, interview and hire military spouses, is what this would be seeking to do. And then the second component would be that to the extent there are competitive examinations, which sorry, I'm sitting around here that their spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces would receive an additional five points on a competitive examination that they have passed. And I think I'd explained before, but the Department of Human Resources had explained that Vermont doesn't really use competitive examinations much, but they do use them for law enforcement. So, that's sort of the only area where that would come in. There are two prongs here, and the first prong is again just a general preference to hire interstate employment, again, consistent with state bargaining agreements and filling vacant positions with internal candidates and any affirmative action standards, but then you would be looking at a preference for US military spouses.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rep. Hooper of Burlington has a raised eyebrow. So, cause of law will specifically say that
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: the contract supersedes the law. The law doesn't supersede the contract.
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so it's saying after the requirements. Whatever is in the collective bargaining agreement around hiring or billing positions internally, whatever, that would take precedence. But then once you've dealt with that, then you would have these preferences for veterans, veteran spouses and military spouses.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Let's see. I'm just scanning through this real quick. Reps, Stone or Pinsonault, any since you're the sponsors of the bill, any, like, commentary or feedback at this stage of the
[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member, Bill Sponsor)]: I just appreciate that you came back in because I think when we heard from another witness, he was very hung up on the five points, only the points, the points. And it's like, there's another interesting fact that I heard when I was going through this is like, for now, yes, the only people who do the point system are the police, but in the future, who's to say that all departments couldn't change and then we kind of proactively cover ourselves. And the other important thing that I wanted to pull out with this, it's not just the point system, it's it's two pronged like you said. So I wanted you to highlight the first prong. It's two different things, it's just to cover all the bases. That's why this slot was written the way it was, thank you, Sophie, to make sure that's not Every way that you can be hired in state employment, this bill's gonna hit it all. Yeah, it's much less, it's clean, covers all the bases.
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: So, did I hear you spoke your glasses? There's two ways of testing: one is a competitive, you know the answer to question A, and the other is a scaling of where do you look to certain criteria on grid.
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Does just
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: say specifically test?
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: No, so the first one is just, again, a diligent effort, so it's a preference to hire military spouses, along with veterans and veteran spouses. The second piece is to the extent there are any point based examinations. Right, and so again, as far as we know, it's only for sworn law enforcement positions that require a competitive examination rating.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Somebody came in from personnel. Personnel, no.
[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member, Bill Sponsor)]: No.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, We have not heard from anyone from over there.
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: We've heard from Bob Burke. Well, I still my impression is still that dispatchers take a keying test and law enforcement and for our rating systems.
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'd reached out to John Barrad at the Department of Human Resources when I was drafting the bill to ask him, because I was just I figured that would be a question, like, well, how many positions have a competitive examination? And what he told me was that it was sworn law enforcement and the test could be done either by the hiring department or the police academy. So that, I mean, there may be other ones, but that was what he shared with me. John Barrad at the Department of Human Resources. So,
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: yeah, so who you're referring to was consulted by Gounsel?
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: He is the Yes,
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: but I guess what I'm saying is just clarifying that. Might have to ask him a specific question. Okay. But I'm sorry, Counsel, did you say that they were consulted while you were drafting this?
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so I had reached out because I was just curious because I didn't know how many state positions do have competitive examinations, and that was what he shared with Yes.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly from what you spoke to and what Bob was speaking towards.
[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Rev Coffin. Yeah. So I know a lot of talk about this point because there's talk
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: about the point
[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: system and the testing. But, like, the federal government, they use a qualification skill sheet questionnaire. And it's a grid system that your quality your your points are based on your qualifications and the skills listed in that in that questionnaire. And then that's where the additional points are added. Don't know if state police use that same system or not or how they do it, but it's not a for the most of the overseeing the point system, I think it's involving places that use that grid system more often than written exam. This was my understanding of this.
[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member, Bill Sponsor)]: Just want to keep saying that this bill is not just about a point system, it is two pronged. Point system can. So, I don't want us to perseverate on jobs that do or not use a grid or point system because the large majority of them don't. That's what we're hearing, but they could in the future. And that's why it's important to be proactive about this. But it's two pronged. It's covering all the jobs, again. One system or not, the language that Sophie crafted after consultation with HR folks covers all the bases.
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Kind of a question about whether it's test or examination, she's caught her, and I think that's helpful.
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Again, this is just language that's currently in the statute that's been in there. So again, someone from the Department of Human Resources would be in the best position to talk about how they do that.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I I mean, reps on this point taken with it having a two avenue focus. I'm And sorry, I'm just running through all of this in my head right now. I love having broad subject matter in this committee. Sometimes it's really crazy long jam of thought in my head. So, well, guess, Hooper, are there any other entities that you feel a need to I mean, we're gonna we're gonna work on this. It's been identified to be included sort of our omnibus military in Veterans Affairsville. But if you have any, like, particular questions on this, like, you don't have to say it now. Burrard was the director of labor relations. Say it again. I'm sorry. Burrard was the director
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: of labor relations. Is that still his title?
[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if it is right this minute, but the last time that I sworn to testify, it was last I
[Robert Hooper (Member)]: don't know that he would necessarily be the nuts and bolts of who does everything in classification, but he should certainly be in charge of them if he shows up. I think can put the issue to bed.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So The consultation already with the drafting gives me comfort that it, like, touched on the components that were necessary. I'll ask I did already say when Repzone and I were going through bills, a list of bills who identified for inclusion in this out of this military better better affairs bill that we're developing. This is one of the components. So I think I wanna ask the committee to just stew on whether or not, a, the inclusion of this, first and foremost, and then b, any testimony for folks that do not wanna hear about this. And then once we start identifying the other bills, I'd like to see where those interested parties or government positions could speak to more than one of the components of the bill, if there is intersecting points, so we could bring them around a couple of pieces instead of doing one here from there. And that's just one of my overarching sort of like management goals for developing these omnibus bills was if we're speaking to multiple sections that our bills being inserted to be able to have witness testimony address multiple parts instead of having fragmented testimony. That's just more of an organizational role. Does anybody else have any questions at the moment? So, okay, anything else for council at the moment? Nope. Could you send out a hay fever?
[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member, Bill Sponsor)]: He's in my house.
[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. I know. So if there's nothing else for council, thank you, council, for that clarification on existing words on the page. It's really appreciated. Welcome. And feel free to take us off for minute until we get everyone right here.