Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Xusana Davis, Director, Vermont Office of Racial Equity]: I have one on

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: your seal here. All right, are lots of votes. All right, committee. We are picking up our first order of business after a long engagement on the floor today. Let's see. We are starting off. It is 1PM on Thursday, February 19, and we are discussing page 67 and act relating to legislative operations and government accountability. This continued testimony on a continued project. And we have a couple of different guests. And barring any other opinions, I was just gonna go down the list with, Dora Lamoille starting via Zoom. Hi, Dora. How are you?

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: Wonderful. Thank you for inviting me.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Of course. Of course. Yeah. And, so, yeah, you're a data director building bright futures. And, yeah, we're looking forward to your insight and input. So, table is yours.

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: Wonderful. Can you all see my screen?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes.

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: Yes. Okay. Perfect. Good afternoon all. For the record, my name is Dora Levinson, research and data director at Building Bright Futures, which is Vermont's early childhood state advisory council. Building bright futures or BBF is charged in statute with advising the governor and legislature and monitoring the broad early childhood system. BBF also maintains Vermont's early childhood strategic plan, which is a comprehensive cross sector plan of plans to align policy, investments and implementation. As part of Act 76, which is Vermont's childcare law, we are the entity named to monitor implementation and impact related to these childcare investments based on the intent outlined in the act. While studies and reports are often called for in legislation, this role goes beyond standard reporting to actively monitor and support continuous quality improvement. Defining success is more complex than it may initially appear. When we began monitoring Act 76, partners identified more than 150 potential indicators to measure impact. Narrowing that to a meaningful set of measures required months of engagement, data analysis, and coordination across agencies. Because of this intensive work to establish metrics, baselines, and reporting protocols, Vermont is able to show the initial impact of this major investment after a relatively short period of implementation. And as you can see here are some of the things that we are able to to report. This is from our most recent report from January. We appreciate the committee's focus on strengthening government accountability, which is in line with Vermont's early childhood strategic plan and our annual policy recommendations. Based on our experience monitoring act 76 and other cross sector cross sector and cross agency initiatives, I'd like to offer a few considerations about what effective accountability looks like in practice. First, as I mentioned, defining success is complex. Accountability systems are strongest when there's clarity about outcomes, clear alignment with legislative intent and dedicated analytical capacity. Second, clear designation matters. For major laws and investments with significant public impact, accountability works best when responsibility is explicitly named and structurally supported. Clarity about who tracks implementation, analyzes data, and reports findings helps avoid fragmentation and strengthens public trust. Third, lived experience must be part of the structure. Quantitative data is essential, but it is not sufficient. Families, providers, and professionals often surface implementation challenges before they appear in formal metrics. Accountability systems should intentionally incorporate qualitative data and community voice. In small states like Vermont, it is especially important to ensure that the experience of the most vulnerable children and families gets elevated. Fourth, infrastructure and staffing are foundational. Building a culture of accountability requires technical expertise, data systems, and legislative capacity. Without sustained infrastructure, even well designed oversight structures may struggle to function effectively. Again, we are encouraged to see the legislature considering how to strengthen transparency and oversight. Durable, well designed accountability structures can help ensure that major public investments achieve their intended outcomes and that course corrections are made when needed. Thank you for this opportunity to share these considerations.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, thank you for that. Do we have any questions from the table on that presentation? Okay, Robert Hooper.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Hello. So when you say defining success is complex, could you could you give some insight into how with Building Bright Futures you define success or how success was defined for you and how you used that to implement the accountability measures and things that you're doing now?

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And so much of our model and I think what is based on partnership and those who are impacted, those who are implementing systems and and structures. And so we really went out again. There were a 150 measures that were identified. The intent that was outlined at the beginning of act 76, I think there were five broad strokes. We were going to increase affordability, we were going to increase access, etcetera. And so these broad aims,

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: what does it mean to increase access? What does it mean to improve affordability? For who? By how much? How are we looking at all of these things?

[Tim Ashe, Deputy State Auditor]: And if it's happening in one part of the state,

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: but not in another part, how are we thinking about that?

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: And

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: then once we agree on sort of what we're looking for, then how are we going to measure it? Right? I think you all probably know about some of the significant shortcomings in in many of our data systems that are not able to to count things the way that we want to be able to count, let alone some of the nuance that is required for the things that we're trying to for the policies that we're trying to put forth. So it has taken time to be able to we were fortunate with Act 76 to to have a data system at the child development division being coming being designed at the same time and coming online at the same time that Act 76 was. And so being able to inform what we wanted to be able to pull out was really it it was there was a lot of alignment. But really being able to go from from community voice defining what, like, what was values based intent to make it something that's measurable and meaningful to those who are in the field. And for those who are impacted, who are receiving services or providing services, and then being able to say, can we actually count those things? Can we actually see what baselines do we have now or what systems do we need to put in place to be able to measure those things?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, I have not. I

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: was waiting to see if anyone else had a question first. So. Oh, no, I've forgotten it. Wait, give me a second. Okay. So can you talk sorry, I just totally spaced out. Could you talk a little bit about how has there can you think of an instance where you've made an adjustment in the way that you're structuring your program or the work you do on a daily basis, and not just you, but like, you know, as a general organization, how having that measurable data and having that accountability built in to your structure and the financing for it too. Can you think of examples of how it's helped or maybe not helped? Or how it's informing the way you work now?

[Dora Levinson, Research and Data Director, Building Bright Futures]: Yeah. So, I mean, building Bright Futures is not doing the actual implementation of childcare financial assistance. But throughout our our data collection, our qualitative data collection in particular, as well as some of the sort of researchers that are working on this and some of our other partners. One of the things that came up so prominently, and this is just like one small example, is that there were a lot of people who were frustrated that they had gone through the entire application for financial assistance and thought that they were going to be eligible and found out that they weren't eligible. And it's a long application. And just in the last couple of days, there's a new screener that has come out. So you can, instead of going through the full application, you can put in some, like, high level basic information that says you're probably eligible and go through the with all of these caveats. But if you're rather than having to go through the full application and be denied, which is a significant amount of effort that families are having to do. So, you know, that's one small example of something that we heard from families, that we heard from eligibility specialists and were able to share with the child development division, and then they were able to elevate this. There are lots more examples, but that's just one and it's of particular, it's top of mind because this eligibility screener that people have been asking for just came out, which was really exciting.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Right. Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions from the table? No, thank you very much. And feel free to hang out in case anything else comes up, if you have the time. Wonderful. Next we have, director Davis, office of racial equity. Good to see you.

[Xusana Davis, Director, Vermont Office of Racial Equity]: Good to see you as well. Thank you very much. Is my volume okay?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yep. Yes.

[Xusana Davis, Director, Vermont Office of Racial Equity]: All right. Well, for the record, Susana Davis, Office of Racial Equity, thank you very much for having me. I am pleased to be part of the journey here. We provided testimony to the Summer Government Accountability Committee when it was impaneled and provided some moderate assistance to the original Government Accountability Committee as well, and have kind of been been on the roller coaster of this process for those few years, so it's. Positive to see that this work has not ceased. And in looking at age 67 again, I'm pleased that we're continuing on the trajectory, but I do have some. Questions and food for thought for you all to consider as you deliberate the bill, things that I think will add strength and clarity to the mission of the proposed committee so that hopefully the work Is non duplicative and efficient and effective. So, first of all, I want to lift up pretty much everything that we heard from Dora, and I appreciate particularly a couple of things that she said, including that success and defining success is sometimes tricky, depending on whose vantage point you're looking from. And that's one of the first things I wanted to share with you all is that as I go through the bill, I noticed that there are some terms that I perhaps think I know what they mean, but that in a room of these members of this proposed committee, I can almost guarantee there's going to be differences of opinion on that. One of those terms is the word failure. It discusses the analysis of failures of government and programs. And I want to note for the committee that what constitutes a failure for communities of color is often exactly the way the system was designed to work by people who created it or implementing it. And so, thinking about what it means for something to have failed sometimes is a question of whom are we talking about? And how can we ensure that the perspectives and the material conditions of vulnerable populations are part of that calculus when we determine, when we scan government activities in search of failures. So, I would encourage any kind of clarity, even a series of examples or a set of criteria, perhaps a rubric or something that could be loosely followed in helping to ensure that the calculus about that is not too subjective. The next one is the phrase issues of public concern, which I know came over from the summer process that took place before. And I appreciate that this term includes vulnerable populations in its sub list of definitions. And in addition to that, I want to point out that it's going to be really important to figure out how committee members are determining who is vulnerable, what constitutes vulnerability for a particular population, and what kinds of background education or training are going to be expected of committee members so that we can make sure that they understand population level issues and disparities well enough to be able to conduct those kinds of inquests. And I don't just mean, hey, let's once a year sit down for forty five minutes with Susana and talk about implicit bias. I can assure you, I love doing the implicit bias training. I love sitting down for forty five minutes to talk to people about everyone's favorite topic, systemic racism. However, for the level of rigor that this bill is seeking, and for the level of rigor that government transparency demands, we want to make sure that the members of that committee really have that broad understanding of how different population groups are going to be impacted, in particular because of the rotating membership of the committee. The next thing that came to mind in reviewing the bill was that I didn't see any mention of impact assessments. You all probably already know, as a matter of fact, you do, because I remember presenting on this to you a couple of years ago. The Office of Racial Equity, in conjunction with the Chief Performance Officer, created an impact assessment tool that's in use by the executive agencies. And what it does effectively is force us to ask ourselves the right questions when we're proposing new budget or policy measures to make sure that we're not creating any unintended harmful disparities. So impact assessment happens in a lot of ways. For example, a new highway project may require an, what do you call that, environmental impact assessment, or you might have a health impact assessment for another kind of a project. So, when we think about impact assessments, it could be of different scope or different nature, but conducting one particularly about the demographic, and in limited cases, of course, geographic, which is tied into that, implications is gonna be really important. So inherent in all of this that I'm seeing in the bill is the concept of conducting impact assessments, right? Evaluating the government's work and the resulting outcomes to determine what's the impact of the program, right, at a basic level. One of the crucial ways that we can prevent those failures mentioned and foreseen in the bill is by trying to anticipate those potential failures or disparities on the front end so that we're doing fewer postmortems and more upfront anticipation and making our programs and our policy resilient and intentional. When the proposed committee develops its process for making those recommendations to standing legislative committees as discussed in the bill. Is it going to be using an impact assessment tool at all in making those recommendations? And then also, because this is about transparency and accountability, to what extent are those materials and analysis going to be made available to the broader public as part of that inquest? The next thing that I want to know, and I should add, of course, that the. Concept of doing an impact assessment in the legislative process, especially is I know something that we've discussed a few times. We're happy to do a walk through of the tool that we use or to, Provide any other assistance or resources that may be helpful in thinking about how to make the legislative and the policy making process as thorough and thoughtful as possible using something like an impact assessment tool. I think the last thing I wanted to mention is that, again, I appreciate the intention and the direction of wanting to evaluate and audit and make recommendations based on what we're seeing in programming and in government function. But one thing that I noted in this bill is that the government function in question appears to be almost entirely looking at executive agencies, which, of course, carry out the bulk of government activities and interactions with the public. And yet, one of the things that is so challenging for people from historically marginalized groups, and I don't just mean different racial groups, I also mean people living with disabilities, people in different age cohorts, right? One of the things that frustrates and challenges our communities is the appearance of transparency, but only in selective arenas. And so I'm thinking about the whole of government approach that is clearly an intention of this bill. And I'm wondering what existing or planned mechanisms are going to assure the public that they're getting accountability, not just from people executing the laws, but also those creating those laws in the first place. And I know that on page two, line 12, it seeks to determine whether those officials are properly and adequately achieving the policy goals established by the general assembly. And I've appreciated, or he has appreciated over the years a lot of those policy objectives that the legislature has put forth. But also sometimes there are some tremendously misguided pieces of legislation that manage to become law, in our opinion. And if failures or general, disappointments or or shortcomings result from that, it's worth examining whether it was a product of the execution or a result of the design. And so as it relates to communities of color, we're often told, Oh, well, we know that we didn't put equity into the bill in this version, but we'll fix it in January, or we'll fix it in the other chamber. Which essentially to us is an open acknowledgment that a committee is getting ready to knowingly pass something that's either not inclusive or inequitable. And from all of the qualitative information that we've received, people of coloring Vermont has been burned before by the legislative process enough times that for them, it isn't enough to say to them that this is just going to be another item in the list of transparency measures that we're going to exempt entire branches. So I would ask the committee to consider that and to consider how we really can push forward a whole of government approach with the whole of government. Those are really my remarks on this one. I don't want to wade into the territory of the auditor's office. Know there's a substantial amount in the bill that's related to that, but they can certainly speak for himself. I welcome any questions or feedback you may have. Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you for that feedback and input. Any questions from the table? No, and I know, rep Waters Evans and I have been taking notes on your on your commentary and feedback. So thank you. So I will shift over to the deputy auditor. Mister Ash, how are you, sir? Good. I'm freezing, so

[Tim Ashe, Deputy State Auditor]: I apologize for wearing my hat. Was wondering what the bundled up look for you. No. I'm just having It's a heat now. In the old days, there was no heat. Tim Ash, deputy state officer of the record. I'm gonna quickly tell you, we just released a newsletter, which should show up in your email inboxes. If it hasn't already, it will. It speaks to government sort of accountability and follow through, which was about a law that was passed in 2021 and updated in 2022 requiring that schools test for radon. So that if the only requirement was that the schools test. It wasn't that the schools had to necessarily do anything if they found high levels, but they just had to test. But it didn't require anyone to report the information to anyone. And so our office basically just called all the superintendents and said, give us the facility directors for all your schools. So we had almost 300 public schools in that list. And we called them and said, did you test by the deadline, which was 06/30/2025? And we found that seventy percent had tested, 30% hadn't followed the law. To me, that's one of those just simple indications of opportunities to think through how to design things in the future such that you don't find yourselves with a public health initiative and 30% of schools either were unaware of it or blew it off or didn't take it as seriously as the other 70%. So anyways, I just say that as a little foundational element about the importance of of government accountability and follow through. Zusana's comments, you know, many of them will apply to any version of the drafts that were put forward, but I just wanna, I mean, I had found the draft 2.2 on the committee website, and so I'm gonna be speaking from that. I think that some of the problematic language or some of the issues that Susan was flagging don't appear in draft 2.2, which I think helps allow for a period of time to sort of work through some of those things without getting, without requiring a huge amount of wordsmithing at the moment. So draft 2.2, and from the conversation when I was here a couple weeks ago, I think it's like it's like, from our point of view as an office, a very good start. I'm gonna only cite a couple concerns that we have, and one of them is a more fundamental one. The others are are really just technical ones. On page two of draft 2.2, which talks about membership, I'll just reiterate, our belief that, while having nonvoting members from the administration makes a lot of sense, having someone from the chief performance office and then someone else who might be topically knowledgeable, at having a gubernatorial appointee sort of breaks away from it being a legislative oversight committee. And so our recommendation would be that voting members are only appointed legislators. The other this is a more of a logistical one, with four legislators that may be too few. Six makes it hard to assure that it'll be truly nonpartisan in the sense that you could have two from one party, one from another, and that might raise some concerns. So it almost argues if you were to remove the gubernatorial appointee to go with four and four, that way you have enough people to spread what might be an interesting amount of work while preserving the partisan balance or the nonpartisan nature of the committee. So that's food for the committee's thought. And then the only other real one this is more to preview of coming concerns that other committees like appropriations might have on page six, where it talks about the number of meetings that would that suggest you clarify when whether those 10 meetings were anticipated per year or ever for the life of the pilot. Because I think some people might say, jeez, 20 meetings, like, this is turning into a kind of a full time job for these people. You might wanna clarify that's 10 meetings in the life of this pilot if that's what you envision. Otherwise, you're just gonna be dealing with that, on the floor, I suspect. Otherwise, think that it touches all the kind of key themes, and it allows for the time if it if it were to pass in this form with kind of an on date of next February, it gives a lot of ramp up time to sort of figure out some of the concerns that were and thoughts that were raised by Dora and Susana. So, you know, we could all, I think we, as an office could go through and nitpick on some of the language, but I think generally speaking, it captures all the right themes. So we applaud this as a step forward.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you so much for being as consistently available with feedback and insight as you've been. It's really been a tremendous help. Any questions for Doctor?

[Tim Ashe, Deputy State Auditor]: There is one typo, which you may just wanna clarify what that it means on page two, line 14. I think there's just a like an editing issue there. The the one of the nonvoting members, it says one member related, comma, you shall have relevant experience. So they probably just need to be a little bit of clarity about what was intended there.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Understood. So I think it

[Tim Ashe, Deputy State Auditor]: was meant to be someone a governor appoints who knows something about the topics that are generally being considered, but just spell it out

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: a little bit. No. I I I see how your eyes are hitting that. Yep. Okay. Final call for questions for our guests. Seeing no hands. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. And to you to our guests on Zoom. Right, Katie, that gives us about ten minutes before we tape up our next order of business, which is our miscellaneous alcoholic beverages bill, we have testimony coming in, with the Commissioner, Chamber of Commerce, Department of Financial Regulation. And so there is some, attachments that people have some time to put their eyes on before that gets going. But, with that, I will take us offline until