Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Morgan]: Alright, we are live.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, everyone. Welcome back. It is just before 10:30 on the thirtieth, and we're gonna have a committee discussion on S206, the early child care licensure bill that we have been taking testimony on for the last several weeks. We've heard from a lot of people, but we haven't had an open table discussion yet. So, we have about thirty minutes to do that. And so, I wanna keep it informally formal, so I'll still call on hands, but I want everybody to speak freely on there. With that, table is open. Rep Hooper?

[Philip Jay Hooper]: Have I got it correct that we are basically currently trying to weigh in on an ongoing disagreement between two agencies about who licenses I mean, that's basically the thing we're doing, right? Like, that's

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I did ask yesterday.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I heard

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: it. The answer was yes. That is what you are doing. Right? Yeah.

[Philip Jay Hooper]: It full disclosure

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, that's I wanna that. I think that's one of the components. Yes. Right? Yeah. I mean, that that it's a huge bill with a lot of nuance in, like, years of work leading up to it. And I think that's been one of one of the things we've all been trying to, like, do is just get up to speed Yeah. Yeah. The nuance of the complexities of this whole thing. Definitely. And that sort of functionality cohesion between AOE and OPR is definitely one of the one of the tricky pieces. I have Stone then RevPango.

[Mary-Katherine Stone]: I will just say, I mean, I have more to say. We have thirty minutes here. But I mean, I served on house education before I came in this committee, and I've worked in pediatrics as an OT. So I have some background understanding of early intervention and early childhood education. But I will say, I know that there are parts of this bill that pertain to our committee, and I'm not denying that. So every time I start talking about this, people are like, it's a licensure. I know. I get that. But I do think it would be better suited to be in human services with education also taking some of this. I just I feel like it is bizarre that we are leading the way on this bill when it's not in my opinion, there's just a lot of background information that would be better suited suited for a position from human services to, like because they have the background information that we don't have.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. You're it's certainly a herd member. And, like you know, and if we wind up with it due to the fact that it's, you know, it's titled on a lot of the functions within the operation of OPR, but there's so much policy nuance that's on the back end of that that I completely understand.

[Mary-Katherine Stone]: Yeah. Correct. It's like, what are we providing licensure for? And the the policy pieces that are the sticky wickets are things that our committee it's the things that are not in our jurisdiction and that we don't have the background knowledge on. So I still feel just very uncomfortable with us leading the way.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Really understood, member. And was Representative Hango at the next team that had any start? Or was it point

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Doesn't matter. Jump ball. Yeah,

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: would agree. I think a lot of the nuance lies more so in the jurisdiction human services and education. I also wanted to mention that I really appreciated Executive Director Nolan's testimony yesterday from K Street Center, and she highlighted a lot of really good points that I just circled in my notebook, which is that early educators don't know about this bill and how it could fundamentally change or impact their centers, a lot of strain and shrinking of our workforce, and then what are the impact of these potential barriers that the bill could create. And I had another point that just slipped online, so I'll ask that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, it resurfaces, just chime in. That looks like Brett Waters Evans. Think I referred to Boyden. So I

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: think, I don't remember my exact words from yesterday, but going back several years when this dichotomy occurred when AHS was given jurisdiction over the early childhood licensure piece, which they always had, but then AOE got licensure over the AOE employees who are teaching in universal preschool. I think that's where this all really started from and got very murky very fast. And adding OPR and us into it has made it even murkier. So I think, Jay, you're correct in saying it comes down to this jurisdictional who has the authority. And clearly, multiple agencies have the authority. So I'm not comfortable saying that, yes, AOE can do this and do it in a way that's equitable for all employees, as well as Vermont parents and taxpayers.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, look at us all agreeing that this is overwhelming. Like I can see where everyone is coming from, with their individual opinions or the different agencies and how they're weighing in on this and the different stakeholders. And I have said this before, I feel like I personally feel like as a legislator, I'm not. I've been trying to learn the acronyms and the difference between a child's care home and a home childcare or whatever they are. And it's just a lot of learning this thing that has a really long history to it, and then making a decision on it in the next, like, three weeks or however much longer we're here. It seems like something that would be better left in someone else's hands. Although, I do actually rep Hooper. You have I don't have, like, the education experience that you have, and I know Rep Stone was on the education committee last biennium. So what I'm wondering about is where you see, like. In my mind, especially for yesterday's testimony, it seems like there should be something that is completely rehauled with the entire education system and that we should be if we're educating kids, it should be from birth to when they leave high school or like, you know what I mean? And not these fragmented things that are run by separate departments and agencies. I understand that they all have to be involved. I also know I don't know much about it. You probably know a lot more about it than I do, but can you comment on that? Because it seems like I

[Philip Jay Hooper]: like what you're saying. It's funny about This is perfect what you're saying. You're hitting two things that are very important. Is a whole system that we're talking about, and jurisdiction is the central part of the question that we are answering, which is, who makes the decisions regarding licensure criteria. And I think that that is our jurisdiction. And the other thing you're touching on is subject matter expertise. We don't need to be subject matter experts on the policy to make that decision. And because we have the bill, I think it's our obligation to make it. And I think we should explore more of the things that you're just talking about, which is like, okay, if the testimony says this is a longer conversation, what's the immediate decision that we in this room, need to make? Is it a deferring thing? I don't think it should be. I think we should talk more about these things, not less.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Are you saying, though, that you think that we should only be discussing the OPR portion of it?

[Philip Jay Hooper]: I think we should be figuring out the answer to how it plugs into a larger conversation about education reform as we think about public education connecting with early childhood education and career technical.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: As we're working on bills and two other committees, or the other chamber, on this.

[Philip Jay Hooper]: Right. This morning, you're talking about straw poll or vote. This is about process. And I've always had an issue with straw polls because it allows committees to bend the rules on that very thing. Talking about bills that you don't have possession of. I don't think it's problematic, but it's hard for me to understand when lawmakers use both arguments. Like, we can't talk about that because we don't have it. But like, oh, we need to take a straw poll really quickly because we're out of time on this thing that we need to weigh in on. It's just a whole lot of, like, not taking responsibility for decisions that lawmakers

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right. So what we would be saying in this situation is if someone, if a group of people were to decide that this is the path forward, then we say yes. Relating to OPR, then yes, they should be the ones to license. I

[Philip Jay Hooper]: think we should weigh in because we have an opportunity to on that question and others.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, do you think the bill should stay in our committee or do you think Yes, I do. Think

[Philip Jay Hooper]: you're asking me, it sounds like you are, I'd like to hear from Chair Wood on this. I'd like it if she came down here and testified about all of that, how this bill plugs into the larger conversation, what the timeline is, how her committee currently feels about it. My guess is that she and they would be open to doing that. I did speak to a couple of members of that committee yesterday,

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: and they said, Yeah, we're kind of,

[Philip Jay Hooper]: I think, planning on checking in about it. So, that's kind of my hope, is that we take responsibility for some of the tough discussions about, you know, to me, like, the early childcare education conversation is deeply political and forward looking currently, which is problematic this time of year because we're still in session. And we should be focusing on the issue, not forthcoming politics. That said, I think us saying it's not our space to work in says who?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, think it's our space because it's going be our relevant bill. Like I said in the opening portion, there's so much nuance in years of history leading up to the the structure of the language with the licensure that and the licensure specifically, yes, totally thousand percent. That's why we have

[VL Coffin IV]: possession. Mhmm.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The thing that I think a lot of us are struggling with right now is understanding that history, the context, the nuance to make a good decision Definitely. Where human services has been taking testimony out of possession of the bill. And Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And of which we can all do.

[Michael Morgan]: Right. It happens all the time. Sure.

[Philip Jay Hooper]: And There's also a lot of times I've I am met with arguments, said, oh, no. We can't because we don't have to, you know. So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But, no. Yeah. I know that one swims in both directions.

[Philip Jay Hooper]: Gaslight. Not your

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But we've been trying to do it take testimony out at the same time to be conscious of the clock. Right? Yeah. So there is this, like, duality of action occurring to not bog down the process. And I know I got a list of folks who wanna speak, I'll wrap up with this. I think we've done a good table set with us, but also being conscious of like any real work that needs to be done within the bill itself. I think I would feel better if human services had the bill to work on the nuance and then proposed that they like Did they have What's that? No, they never had it on a King straight to us. So I'm gonna go to hands. I had Repstone first, then it is gonna be Hango, Coffin, Pinson.

[Michael Morgan]: Hey, Adam. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, and when did you have?

[Michael Morgan]: Just announced? Just announced. It's a word at last if my question doesn't answer. Okay. Perhaps.

[Mary-Katherine Stone]: Yeah. I strongly agree with what Chair Birong just said. I mean, as well, I don't know if everyone knows, but teachers have been licensed by the Vermont Standards Board of Professional Educators, the a o through the a o e for decades, for literally over sixty years. So as rep Hango said, like, this is this has, like, seriously decades of history behind it, which I know that chair Hango is on a school board. So it's like people who are embedded into the education system may have that knowledge. But, again, this stuff doesn't come through our committee often. So I'm just harping on that. And then the special education piece that I brought up yesterday, I know that that seems very in the weeds, but that is a very important topic that needs to be addressed. And sure, our committee could dig in and learn about it, but it's not something that I feel comfortable doing in a three week period of time. But because that those conversations impact some of our most vulnerable Vermonters. So I just again, I do believe that we have a piece of the pie on this, but we should not be leading leading the conversation at all. And I do think I agree with Jay though. Like, yes, this does fold into the bigger, you know, Vermont statewide transformation plan about education and whatnot. But, again, we should not be leading the charge. I think that it should come to us last once those committees, human services and potentially education do tackle this. Then it can come to us and we can tidy up the parts that have to do with professional regulation and licensure. But there's some really big parts, those sticky wicket parts I'm talking about, including special education, which are very serious and something that I don't take lightly, and I don't think that our committee should just fly through in three weeks to just get something out. That's not good policy making and it has impact on some of our most vulnerable Vermonters.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Here you go. Thank you. Agreed with Rep Stone. Although I can really appreciate Rep Hooper's sentiments about everyone in the building working on an issue during this time of education transformation, but that's why I feel like it's doubly important for what I feel is the committee that has the broadest jurisdiction over this topic, which is human services, does their due diligence, has their time with this language. They, in answer to your question, had another bill that they had a draft of. They ran that draft through House Education at one point in time. They are no longer, I think, working on that draft. However, to see this draft and do their due diligence on this draft, because it pertains to that age group of birth to grade three, for instance, we'll say, because that's a little murky depending on what license you hold. But they really deal with young children. And then to see this bill go to education, I feel, is just as important as the CTE bill that came out of commerce going to education. Because house education is the committee that is ultimately going to participate in the committee of conference on the big education transformation bill. And this is all a piece of it. Just like the CTE section is, just like special ed is, they are the subject matter experts on education. And we'll be participating before we all get to vote on and weigh in on the education transformation bill. And one piece cannot live without the other. And that's why I don't want this committee to be making decisions that are independent of whatever education transformation is happening in this building as a body that we're gonna bring back to our constituents and say, this is what we all agreed on. That's my piece.

[VL Coffin IV]: Gotta

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Very good. Goodbye. Totally Oh, go ahead, go ahead. If

[Philip Jay Hooper]: Mary Katherine is saying we should get the last laugh, I'm totally in that. Sounds good. That last stop. And other stopped. Other stations, I totally think, yes, the education piece, what did happen to that bill that they brought? I'd like to know. And, you know, I think that's I think those are both great suggestions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Representative Coffin, I got you next, sir.

[VL Coffin IV]: Okay. So, aside from yes. OPRs are in our bailiwick. But I have my own problems with this bill as far as where we keep saying that the public school system needs to take control of our children from the time they're born. And I believe that's more the parents' and parents' choices. When we took testimony, we did hear testimony that this licensure is already available to people who choose to pursue it without putting it into a mandate that everyone has to do this. I believe this will raise costs. We can we know how bad child care costs are already based on the fact that we had to implement the payroll tax to help subsidize it. Because we have done so much already to regulate the point of making it more expensive to the point where it costs almost as much to send a one year old to day care as it does to send someone to college. The fact that we're considering putting our children from age zero through all the way through high school and saying the public school system has to take charge of them when our public school system's already failing our children given where we stand ranked nationwide and the cost already concerned. I think this needs to take a good look at why are we mandate why are we it looks like we're trying to solve a we're creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist right now. People want the licensure. They can still get it. No one says they can't until we mandate it and say they have to in order to be able to take care of children. And you have to be have this license. That's bothersome to me. On a as a as a parent, you know, if I had small children, it would be bothersome to me that the state feels it needs to interfere with my my family and my choices from the time they're they're born.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. Rep Pinsonault.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I understand. I mean, I get why the bill was sent to us because of the OPR, but it's morphed into more than just regulation at this point. It's now become a much more complicated bill, and I agree that the public should go to Human Services and Education and come back to us if we want to hear about licensure. But they've got to figure out that in some of what Representative Coffin said, agree with it. I mean, prior to pre K being in our school systems, we didn't have a payroll tax. And once pre K got involved in our school system, and there wasn't enough money to pay for it, for our day cares, then they had to come up with a payroll tax. And I agree, I think this is just going to add more money, more cost, to early birth to three year old childcare. And it's not going to convince me that the payroll tax won't increase, and the cost of daycare will never go down. I think the bill has become more than what it was intended to originally, what was sent to us, and therefore we need to pass it on, and then get it back to the final step.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Rev Nugent?

[Kate Nugent]: I agree with what said so far. Feels like there's multiple areas where this needs more discussion. There's a philosophical discussion to be had. There's this psychological, how the childcare workers are feeling about their job. And there's also these other things that have popped up recently, like the special ed discussions. And I think the difference in the licensure types and how we have the same titles for licensure under AOE and nationally, and then this would be a whole other definition with the same wording. I guess I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that this will get worked out if we pass the bill and it hasn't been worked out beforehand either. I think that stuff needs to get worked out beforehand, or it's just going to linger in this amorphous, uncomfortable place that doesn't feel good for everyone. I think when it comes to babies and children, that's probably the most important thing that we could do. And I think that we really need to be careful about how we talk about raising children and what makes someone a good parent or a good childcare worker. Because thirty percent of Americans, I think last time we checked, have college degrees. And there's plenty of incredible parents, people who are new to this country or working class and don't have those backgrounds who are working really hard to take good care of their children. And I think it's important to recognize that background as well. So I think more discussion with more eyes on this and more perspectives could be really helpful.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, Morgan.

[Michael Morgan]: Yep, thank you. A little more of the same, but in a different way. VL touched on the cradle to grave, so to speak, aspect of it, what are the implications of that? How do that make parents feel? How does that impact childcare centers, etcetera? But I heard from one of my larger, if not largest, daycare facilities childcare facility, I should call it, in my district, and I know the director of that facility, and she's very thoughtful and puts a lot of work into what she does, and she was actually quite opposed to this bill, and that it's going to be a workforce development issue, finding people will become more cumbersome, she felt, and she said she studied the bill pretty carefully. She felt that's a concern monetarily. It will ramp things up for her and make that a concern. So, just for those couple of things alone, she had grave concerns about it. Now, that said, and what everybody else is saying, does that mean it's kind of out of our purview, our league, whatever you want to call it, and should it be committed to a committee that would take a deeper dive aside from our OPR component that we would have here, yeah, I guess I would say somebody like her would say, yeah, I think it needs to have one of, well, a couple courses of action on it, you know, it could get shelved because it needs way more than we got runway left to put into it, as a whole, I mean, as the whole body, I mean, not just our committee, to be hustled and try to get it through these other committees that have way more touches or better touches to it than we do from a professional perspective. And hearing from others too is fine line of some outright saying, is it, oh, I've heard from a couple of folks, just individual parents, sending me notes saying, are we overly putting our nose where it doesn't belong and overregulate? Do we regulate too much? Sometimes, as I'm sure all of us have gotten an email on any topic Yeah. Or at some point, one, hey, get out of my life. Leave me alone. You guys are overstepping your bounds. Leave my some of my personal decision making up to me, and I think there's a component of that in this. And I'm just throwing everything out there I've heard, just to be honest, and, and then there, you know, certainly heard plenty of testimony. I don't mean to throw a wet towel on it, but on the flip side, I've heard plenty of testimony of people saying this is absolutely the right thing we need to. But again, is it all here? It's pretty public. I don't know if that was gibberish, but my point zero two, my 2¢.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think this was the thought that it saved me. I feel like a lot of the positive testimony that we heard from was more thinking of our future workforce, and yeah, I'm just really concerned about the

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: barriers we create for our current workforce. People already feel ready for transitioning their careers. Barriers that

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: could create and the impact that those decisions could have without us having a more well rounded understanding of the speaker.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I just want to add to what Melissa said earlier, too, about the testimony we heard yesterday from the director of the Hill School.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: King Street Youth Center. Because when

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: she was talking about her workers, I felt that there was a huge discrimination or lack of inclusion, she would be, I mean, her staff, she felt very fondly of them, and it was an opportunity for them to have employment, like she said, they have college degrees, but doesn't translate to a college degree. But they're well educated, smart people, nurturing our children. That would be a terrible thing to say, when you can't have a job. Yeah, how they're working towards Yes. Yeah. So I just think that we have to be mindful of those types of employees too. And those that have been in the business for years and years and years, we do great jobs of nurturing the children. I don't have that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And looking at the clock, we do have another order of business at the lens. I want to say, rep Scully is the final hand before we kinda circle the wagons on this chit chat. I only have eight days of experience, but I have a lot of experience. We value your patina, sir. Yes. I've collected some that along the way as well. But hearing everything that I've heard in the last eight eight days and the expressions of all of you. It's a no brainer in the executive mind to move it and move it to social services as quickly as we can.

[VL Coffin IV]: Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And thank you. Thank you, sir. I feel like that that was a good functional segue into my thoughts as the recommendation of the committee. So what I'm hearing is we feel like this bill is better served if it's actually human services and knowing that we would still see it again to talk about having it hooked up to that. So that seems to be an agreeable pathway. It's on the table. Yes, representative. I really appreciate that discussion. Okay. All right, so I will have that conversation upstairs and I think that will be it. Sorry, the student Fed is doing its things right now.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Are you okay?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: My brain is so in front of my mouth right now. So, so we'll go have the conversation about them taking for all possession. With that, we are moving to the next order of business. Just keep this train moving on time.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Are we?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Pan charter. Should have known that by seeing my friend Kyle Lar. Good day, Kyle. How is mister Rowe today?

[Kyle Rowe]: I'm doing well. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Excellent. Excellent. So, yeah, we were we have written testimony that was submitted, I believe. Let me just get through our committee page. And yes, we have written testimony from Zachary Weaver, who was the chairperson of the Pant Select Board, and they were unavailable to join us today. So what I wanted to do was have us review this testimony, but also have Mr. Rowe available If there were any questions, because I wanted to lean towards unless anybody found something unfavorable within this or wanted to change any language. I wanted to have a conversation about putting them for a possible vote. Rep Waters Evans.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Just as a reminder, this is the one where they missed the deadline, or they they warned improperly that

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It was a I think that was a little more Danville, but I will let Mr. Rose speak

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: to that. Oh, that was Danville.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That was Danville. I'm sorry. Yeah, no, no, you're Danville ing to the Panton right now.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I am so sorry, Panton.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: That's okay.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: This is recall.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, this is the recall provision. Oh. Yep, yep, yep.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I got it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, mister Rutland, would you wanna just kind of maybe summarize the the thoughts that Zachary was gonna share with us today on this? I mean, we're all scanning through the document right now.

[Kyle Rowe]: Yeah. Sure. His his letter, which he sent to me, was is pretty much a kind of a a the short form summary that I discussed in my testimony to the committee a couple weeks back, basically outlining the process. You know, it's it's a it's a bit complicated because it happened along this timeline of we also expanded the Select Board, and so we were able to offer a special town meeting. And the Select Board was the one that offered this charter amendment. The Select Board was technically the petitioner, I guess you'd call it, and submitted it on its own accord as an effort of goodwill to both the citizens who had requested it, but also with the what they found to be a common sense provision to prevent the recall of an elected official without the same votes that elected that person. They, you know, they're sensitive to the issues of recall in general and want the process to be fair and transparent, but understand, you know and it was shown through the participation in the regular town meeting versus the special town meeting that the attendance was 10%, you know, a decrease in number of voters. If a person's elected at a town meeting and then a special town meeting is held with 10 or 15 or 20% fewer voters and then subsequently recalled, it doesn't seem like a fair kind of participate participation in the democratic process. You know, they their idea was the select board's idea as expressed to me was that if a person deserves recall, there will certainly be no shortage of folks to be able to come out and actually recall them, And that's why including that provision was an important part. So it was a select board presented charter amendment to the citizens of Panton that again passed at the special town meeting.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. And do I have any other items? Yes. Reptisanal.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Do you have the vote count for that vote?

[Kyle Rowe]: Yes. So, you're talking about at the special town meeting, the charter provision vote?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Yes.

[Kyle Rowe]: Yeah. The total the total, votes counted was a 103, and it was 56 yeses to 39 nos with eight blank votes.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: And what's the population of the town?

[Kyle Rowe]: The population is about 660. We have about 507 ish registered voters.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Did you hear my sigh?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I did.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Did. That is a raised hand.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I was just kind of giving you a moment to see

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: if the hand would raise.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, yeah. I mean, so if if you do you this is do you have an idea of, like, what percentage of your voter turnout usually is?

[Kyle Rowe]: So at at town meeting, I've been the town clerk now for two town meetings. So I I was I've only been here for eighteen months, so two town meetings. At our town meetings, we generally see about 30%, 30 to 35% at our special town meeting to elect two new select board members and handle this charter question. You know, we saw about a 100 and some odd voters, which is about, you know, a little bit less, so, you know, 20% ish, somewhere in that neighborhood. So usually between 3035%. We have gone as high as 50, and in my previous reviews of the official return of votes, and we have gone as low as 20. But 30 to 35 seems to be the average in my experience so far.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I was just reading the testimony, and it seems like that concern of having like a small number, relatively small number of voters make a major decision or the entire town, or being able to remove an elected official seems a little troublesome. The general sentiment is that people really want this in the town, that this is a popular idea?

[Kyle Rowe]: It was, you know, it was signed. So the original petitioner who submitted, you know, a a charter petition for the recall of elected officials without the language about needing more than elected you at least as many as elected you. That person's petition received the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot, and because of again, this is something I mentioned in my testimony. Yeah. There's there's a couple aspects of of the state statute that handle how charter amendments are are happened. There's some vague timelines, and, unfortunately, that petition was withdrawn because it wasn't valid due to the timeline issues. But it was there were 30 at least 30 signatures on that, and people thought it was they wanted to see it on a vote. A lot of people personally expressed to me, and this is anecdotal, of course, but they expressed to me that they think it's a good idea, and they also really like the idea of the protections necessary for the elected officials. You know, that people shouldn't just be recalled on a whim, or just because a certain number show up at a town meeting, there should be a process in place. Again, the the idea being that if someone deserves to be recalled or some action is so heinous that it requires recall, there will be no shortage of people participating in that process to actually recall them.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Any additional questions for this witness? Thank you very much for being available today, and we all have Mr. Weaver's testimony on our webpage that we can read as well. So thank you. You're welcome to wait and listen to our next witness. Or if you have other things to do, you don't have to stick around.

[Kyle Rowe]: Thank No. I'd enjoy the chance to hear what Josh has to say. Thank you very much, committee. I appreciate the chance to speak before you again, and thank you for your consideration in this issue.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Great. Thank you. Mr. Hanford.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Welcome. Thank you.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: For the record, Josh Hanford from Montlake, Cities and Towns. Thanks for having me in. So just sort of level setting, you know, VLCT does municipal priorities policies. We do our annual biannual policy setting, every other summer in the off session of the of the legislative biennium. And in our municipal policies that all municipalities vote on, and the last vote, in October '24 was unanimous, we call for a policy that gives Vermonters new tools to hold municipal officials accountable by the third, by authorizing municipalities at town meeting for recall elections. So this is a policy that VL Coffin has asked for the authority of all municipalities to have. At present, we're aware of at least 13 municipalities that have recall election in their charters and the number of registered voters, it's between 1530%, that's the threshold to reach. This is in line with that. Wasn't able to research how many have the You need at least as many votes for the recall as the official that was elected. Not sure how many have that, but happy to support, see that considering a smaller community that might be very important just to prevent sort of a vindictive recall. So our testimony is brief and supportive of this charter change for Panton and hope you'll consider it.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Great, thank you. Any questions for Josh? Perfect, that's the way we like it. For being here today for this. Any questions from the committee in general on this particular charter that either witness could answer for us? Any comments?

[VL Coffin IV]: Comment.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Rep Coffin. I

[VL Coffin IV]: do like that there's the provisioning there about the same number or greater number of votes in order to keep it from because I know how sometimes small town politics can get, where you're upset with something, well, we're gonna change this now. And you have that vote, and people don't show up. So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: it makes

[VL Coffin IV]: I like that people get out and vote, and I'm always of the opinion of I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote. It's more important to actually show up. I like the idea that they're putting into statute in their charter that says, you need to show up if you wanna get this done. If you're gonna complain, do something.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think that was a great provision to include also, particularly in a small town where you may not have a large number of voters who turn out. Pinsonault, do you have a comment or just I just think I like

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: the idea that it's 15% of voters for a recall, where if you go on a regular article, only 5% of your voter checklist. So this is a much stricter higher standards, thank you, that you have to get for a recall. So it sort of pooh poos the negativity of somebody trying to do it on a regular basis.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Sir, you have a question online

[Kyle Rowe]: before Just adding to Josh's, so I believe that there are 16 communities that have recalled petitions in the state of Vermont, and of the ones that I've researched in this in this preparation, the town of Stowe, the town of Hardwick, the town of Middlebury all contain provisions in their recall sections that basically say the same language, that the elected official shall only be removed if at least as many registered voters of the town voted in the election in which the officer was election elected. So it is not an uncommon kind of safeguard, and just adding to Mr. Haniford's testimony.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Great. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the table? Okay. So thank you very much for joining us today. And we will get back to this, I think, very soon, and hopefully have a vote on this charter, is what I'm hearing. So thanks so much. And if you could take us offline until 11:20, when our

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: next

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: witness