Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Post a media advisory, so it's all good.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Could it spike the blood pressure a little bit?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It went all that's right. A moment, it was a moment. Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Welcome back, folks. We are now going to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: take up the beginning markup of age six fifty seven. And we'll only be doing this on our own for about a half an hour, and Katie will be joining us at three. So I think that what I'm going to do, first off, is to ask Jubilee and Anne, and to some extent Dan, to just fill us in on the conversations and the process that you've been having with DCF and sheriffs and how you're arriving at some of the modifications that we see in this version of the bill. So you wanna go first, Jubilee?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, sure. So the sections I've been working on is when we didn't really do any of the reach up work, I just left that because I knew we hadn't really taken any testimony and didn't want to make changes without any indication from anyone or the committee on what they'd like to see. So that one, we can talk about that. I'd like to have a little conversation about that. Dan's working with Social Security. The unaccompanied youth portion, you'll see some significant changes in there. Really just tried to respond to all the feedback we heard. There was a lot of so first, you'll see some changes around in the definitions. And that was just in response to some requests about the language we use. So now we'll just refer to it as unaccompanied youth. And also, there were some within the definitions, it relayed back to the federal McKinney Vento Act. And so I went through and tried to remove any reference to that since it's just something that is kind of we're not sure if that McKinney Vento app will be there. And so instead, more generic language that describes what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is happening in that act, so it doesn't depend on that act to exist. So it's still consistent with current act, but doesn't necessarily call it out.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Call it out, exactly. So you'll see that. You'll see for the proof of certification, the department had not wanted to be the creator of the form. And a lot of folks suggested this is where just full disclosure gets a little awkward because it is where I work. But a lot of folks had suggested that the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs at Elevate Youth Services is the right organization. They run a statewide network. They work within these systems. They administer the funding that goes to service providers who are doing this work. And I talked with our executive director who was in today and my supervisor, and they were on board with that. So you'll see that language. And So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so overall, I guess Yeah. What I'm kinda looking for is because we'll get to each individual section. Yeah. Overall, what I was just trying to get a sense of is so the collaboration, the work being done with DCF so that essentially, I guess, with that we weren't doing this work over the break in isolation, that there was

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Oh, no.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Conversations and emails and stuff back and forth, it sounds like. Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. And I got to meet with Trissy from the department who oversees

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: She's the interstate compact officer?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. And got some language in there. Part of it that we noticed didn't actually get in. And that is just to so you won't read it in here, is that nothing in this bill would supersede or override anything in the Interstate Compact Okay. For

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thanks. Anne? Sure. Yeah, I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: spent a lot of time working on both the transportation and the restraint and seclusion sections. And transportation, I actually sort of worked with some additional language around the testimony we had heard, maybe some needs for clearer steps of accountability. It doesn't really change much substance, but it sort of splits it out a little bit more. And then a lot of fine tuning on the restraint and seclusion. And a lot of it was back and forth. I worked several times meeting or online with the Department of Children and Families, and also back and forth email with the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate. And in terms of, there were things that were, I think, important to this committee when we laid it out in the original bill, but DCF was very concerned about sort of putting absolute limits, like you cannot do this because there are always circumstances. And so we tried to come up with sort of compromised language that they felt met their needs. The Office of Youth Family Child Advocate, got that backwards, but know what you mean. Those guys had some real concerns about those kind of loopholes, if you will. So when we do the walkthrough, I will specifically point out the ones where there was not, we had encompassed some sort of agreement. I felt that given the needs that the department was identifying, was not unreasonable to create the language that I put in, but I also hear and understand the concerns and that committee members might have concerns. So none of this is locked in. This is a draft based on that work. So I think it might be helpful on the shares because I know you've

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: had some conversations back and forth with Mark Anderson, and he wasn't an official witness, but happened to be in the room that day. And so maybe just They got a little

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: bit of were in the next biggest, there were some other smaller categories, but yes, after the testimony actually, he stepped outside and was talking with me. I think that the work they do is really well organized in terms of the contract with DCF. I think it does need sort of more, as I said, standards around what's documented and what DCF responsibilities are to actually monitor that things are in compliance. But he was very concerned about the issue that came up in testimony, which was about that we were at a horrific kind of horrific case in point, which involved Vermont state police doing a transport. And it reminded me of the whole issue that everything we've done about transport of children only addresses what DCF contracts for. It's what DCF is arranging. It's through the enforcement of the commissioner of DCF. So what's going on in other places is not at all regulated by what we're doing. And his suggestion was that the Criminal Justice Council, which did a very extensive use of force policy, that it really needed to be adding a piece on child transport that would be in line with what our public policy is. So that's been added to the bill. But in addition, we just found out sort of today, you were part of that, but we only found out the evening before that, you know, we kind of thought sheriffs were sheriffs, and that they contract with DCF for transports, and then they do other stuff. We know they contract to do other stuff. We didn't know that there are actually different groups who do different things and have different responsibilities. So the independently elected sheriffs in the different counties contract, for instance, with DCF, with AHS for transport. But there are also sheriffs who are actually state employees, but who work for the Department of Sheriffs and State Attorneys, who do most of the corrections as their term of art, if you will, statute are prisoners. The prisoner transports around the state, corrections to court, court to corrections and all that, is done by them. And they sometimes do transports of children. Not a huge number, like 12 last year, 12 so far this year, three quarters of way through the year, but they do do some. And they don't track, he said that there's only 12 last year, he could easily look it up and get us the information, but they don't track anything about was the child, was it necessary, did they feel it was necessary to restrain the child, so on and so forth. The number of times they're asked to transport a child kind of depends on the family court judge in that jurisdiction. There's one county that a lot more are than others out of those 12. But at any rate, so that brought a totally new issue about something we might wanna even add based on this morning's testimony to say, you folks have to get us the data too. And then maybe next year there might

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be other action. Brought up right at the very end when Tim was talking and we were talking about youth charged as adults and he said, Oh, well, those are gonna be counted as adults. Not gonna be, they're not in that 12. So I guess we have to decide about whether or not that data request would be inclusive of that. So having them track 17 and 18 year olds.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, drafted it as saying minors. They transport minors, any minor, would want to So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that would happen. Yeah, there

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: are two smaller pieces. Well, I just mentioned the one about the Criminal Justice Training Council. There was also the issue, if you recall from last week, which is two weeks ago, there was a solitary confinement bill that was really focused on corrections, and it didn't really work with what we were trying to do, and it would have meant bringing in a bunch more witnesses from the Department of Corrections and sorting out a whole other issue. So it didn't seem feasible to do in this bill, but what we did do is add a, asking DCF and Corrections to jointly do a report on what practices can they ensure are in Corrections to protect children from psychological and physical harm. And that's on the brink of the inter committee jurisdiction process, as is the criminal justice training, just for new members. We have stuff that's in their jurisdictions, but that maybe it's not substantive, it's a report, maybe they're okay with just knowing about it and saying, Yeah, we don't need the bill sent to our committee. And so both the Criminal Justice Council, which is judiciary, and the Department of Corrections joint report, which is corrections and institutions, are conversing with their chair, the Department of Corrections has signed off on being perfectly happy to do that report. So corrections and institutions will probably also be fine with it and so forth.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So my main point in asking you both to do that is to underscore the amount of additional work that both Jubilee and Anne have done to bring us to the draft that we have today. And Dan's also been working on fine tuning the language around the SSI and retirement, or not retirement, but disability benefits. So it's been a collaborative effort in both with our state partners. So that's been appreciated. So, okay, so let's dig in and get going here. And so the the first thing that we're looking at is this was what Jubilee was referring to when she was talking about reach up in the asset levels. And, essentially, what this is it's it's funny because I remember I was on the committee, I think it was my first year on the committee when we raised that from like 5,000 to 9,000 or 7,009, I don't remember exactly what, but we raised it, I remember. And there was a lot of discussion actually back then about whether we should just eliminate it. You remember, Dan, your first year on the kitty, Yeah. Wasn't And we ended up opting for just increasing it at this point in time. And now, so the proposal before us is essentially to try to assist families in getting often reach up by enabling them to save resources from employment and whatever else they might have from, I don't know, family support maybe, I guess, but to save resources in order to move off from Reach Up. And I guess one of the things that I have is whether there should be a higher limit or whether we should just eliminate it altogether. I know that there's schools of thought about that. And so I'm just gonna, I guess, put that out there as a question. You

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: want a little of second? Yeah, I'm just gonna say, I think we're all familiar to a greater or lesser degree of the cliff that we have in all of our systems. It's slope now, Anne. It's not a cliff anymore. It's not.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: After childcare bills, it's not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not making it up.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, but it's still on the sort of getting out of poverty and it's,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's still a struggle.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's still a struggle.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And so if we really want to help people get out of poverty, get off the program, if they're not able to put a little bit of money away and say that you can't just hit that transition and lose significant supports. You're eligible for a voucher only up to a certain point. You lose those things and everything goes down the hill again and you got to get back on reach up. It makes a lot of sense to me. I'm a little leery about the question of should it be a higher limit just because it may just be needing to sometimes address public perception concerns, that to say there's no asset limit. It doesn't matter how much money you have. We're not going to count it. Well, that's kind

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of where I'm coming from, There's be honest with something to me that holds me back from just that's adding on to it. I I'll be honest. I I I understand everything that, you know, you're saying, and I don't disagree with it. But I I am thinking about the sort of, like, I don't know, just like you said, there's something for me that's holding it back. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I think, honestly, the biggest reason for doing this is actually this is not going to really affect that many people. What it does is means now ESD workers do not need to be wasting considerable hours of time doing these assets. Part of my role across many jobs is doing these income certifications and these verifications. And it is so laborious and just takes a lot of time. And I just think I received an email with someone who works with families. And they they like their case managers from ESD. But they don't get to spend any time actually working on the things that are going to get them out of poverty, get them stable, get their families off of these kind of supports because they spend so much of their time, and we're spending so much of our resources on these Blogging all of this. Blogging. Yeah, doing all of this admin. And for me, that is the biggest reason why we do this, because there still are income limits. So we're not going to have someone making bank

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: On Reach Up.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: On Reach Up. So I think this just seems like such a simple thing where we could reduce the administration, the amount of time and resources we spend on the administration part of this program, just cutting that little part out.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Just add that. Also, we

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: don't want to make policy for the exception.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: There might be, I don't know, in a thousand where they might get an inherit, something that will make a life changing impact, but that's not going to be the common occurrence for this population, this demographic that we're talking about. And I would hate for us to keep the administrative system in place when we have a chance to simplify it by a lot for that exception. It's not going to be the norm. And this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: might be a question for Katie when she gets here. Lines 15 through 18 deals with that asset limitation. But I and I I don't have the language that precedes this that is covered under the ellipsis, so I don't know what the lead into this is. So taught the following two things, the retirement account and then the savings account shall not be considered in the in the calculation for the asset limitation. So those two things to me seem to be very similar to B, and we should be clear that they're excluded from any calculation. Yes. Yeah, they're already excluded.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Now everything would be excluded. Everything would be excluded now As of right now, they are

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: excluded. I know that they are excluded, by repealing it, well, guess because those are considered asset

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: not They're be repealed because no assets will be counted.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So then why do we need B, The value of assets accumulated from earnings.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because that's income, not taxes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not income, though. It's an asset. Accumulated from Child tax credit is not income.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out why we're differentiating between that Okay. And the previous

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yep. I understand the question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, go ahead. No, I thought you No, I was just gonna say, know, mentioned the Canadian.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We're trying to teach people to get off this, We're enabling them. How are we teaching them to get off it if they don't have the help or earn their own way?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's part of what this does. It enables them to save money to get off from.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Correct, but that's not gonna happen. They're not gonna save their money to get off of job, not when it's a free service. I mean, some, maybe one out of 10. But I feel very uncomfortable with this because I wanna not enable, I wanna help people. And to me, by saying, Oh, keep all your money, you don't have to pay your own way, maybe one out of 10 might really do it. I mean, I can have hope.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think that the thing for us to remember is the backdrop for this is the reach up payment in Vermont is very low, and it's half of what we say it should be. And it's based upon information that's very old. There isn't any way that people can live on ReachUp alone.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: That's why they need to use their income.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's my, that's my, that you're making my point. Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We would leave it. We wouldn't take away. We would have them help pay towards their own food and stuff.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. This doesn't say that they don't do that. Okay. That's not, yeah. I thought you were

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: taking it out and saying, keep all your savings, keep all your money.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, it means that they don't use their money because need.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Because my kids don't get that advantage. Have to pay their own price. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie, don't know if it's a question you can answer. Do you want to join us?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know what the lead in language for the ellipsis is, but I'm presuming it's something about calculating eligibility. So, I'm trying to figure out the logic of, And I think it's just because it was included in 5A, but the retirement account and the child education savings account, we would and then we move on to the assets acquired from the Vermont earned income tax credit. So that's an asset because then that's it's money that you get to keep. I'm trying to figure out why we would strike through little I and double I. And not B. Let me repeat it. Because B is about eligibility and not about the asset for the purpose of determining continuing eligibility. So what is counted as assets for eligibility versus what? That's what that's what the paragraphs above are about assets for eligibility. So if we're saying that we're not gonna count these assets, and so therefore striking through all these things, why wouldn't we be striking through b as well? Because that's an asset.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Might it have to do with the fact that it's an asset that comes from earned income, distinguishing it from another source of what you may accumulate some asset.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, because it's account for retirement. I don't know if it's a valid distinction, but I can see where it's a separate type.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we don't need to answer that question right this second, but somehow it doesn't make sense to me. Because we're we're we are talking about assets and not counting assets. Mhmm. And so why would you keep an exclusion about assets?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Right. I'll take a look

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: at that. That's the major question. Okay, so let's move on to Social Security benefits for Yeah, Dan's

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: a couple of things. One thing I would like to do is separate out the implementation of giving the disability payments to the treasurer's office to set up ABLE accounts. I think we should do that right away. Like, that's pretty straightforward. Like, have the department work with the treasurer's office, set these accounts up for ABLE. They're very structured.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, hold that thought just for a minute. I just, because we are limited on time this I'm just gonna make sure we move through this in sort of a methodical way. So let's move through definitions first. Okay. I wanna

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: make sure

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: nobody else has anything. And that people so there's no new definitions on page two. On page three, there are new definitions because it's a new concept being introduced. Sure. Does everybody know what ABLE accounts are at the treasurer's office? Now

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: that I've just done a Google search, yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we needed to add the definition because we're now going to be creating ABLE accounts. And representative payee, those are, again, just exactly as it says, appointed by the Social Security Administration.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: They have to assign one of those when they have the benefits, which is DCF right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And RSDI, this was a new one for me.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's the RSDI is the survivor benefits.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Retirement survivor disability Disability. RSDI. Got it. Yep. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Social Security Act. I think that one's pretty good. Social Security benefits or SSI. Now would it be is are there beneficiary for SSDI?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. They're both listed there. Right? Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, it's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: not. What's nine and ten?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Are there benefits?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't want to exclude SSDI if there's beneficiary provisions in SSDI. Okay, disability. It's social security disability income, right? Correct. It's what you get, I think you need certain number of quarters of work or whatever. But

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: the question you're asking is, would a youth be eligible for those?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: As a a survivor or as a

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: As an individual's disabilities, they would be.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not their disability though. It's their parents' disability. Parent or guardian's So probably. So I believe that SSDI needs

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: to be added here. And the definition of social security benefits? Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. But we should confirm that. Okay. Dan, if you can confirm whether there are beneficiary options for SSDI that can include minor children. I believe that there are, but

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Exactly who to ask.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. So any place we say SSI, I believe that we're gonna have to say SSI and I, both of them. Well, would they

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: book these social security benefits?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, Generically, she doesn't have to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: redo anything. I know. If it's done in the definition, it's all set.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And we'd have to add our definition of SSDI benefits. Yeah. Yes. The same way. Yep.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It is. It's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: like no air. It's right, there's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: like zero air. Feels that's I deal with the heat. In the windows, think it's time. Know. It is time, think, getting time, the utility people.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Know. I think

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: that It's like Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Will you see if the heat is on? It feels like we have hot air blowing off from the thing over here. Is it

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Can you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just understand?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's on warm. I put it on cool.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We'll see what happens. We might

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: want to open a lot

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: of options. All right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Any other things under definitions? So foster care, social security benefits. Okay. Now, Dan, here's where to talk about the things you were talking about.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. So basically, because this is two pieces, there's survivor benefits and there's disability benefits. Survivor benefits, wanna think about how, I've been thinking about how we kind of make this happen for them separately, because the disability benefits need to go to the treasurer's office, so you can set up ABLE accounts and do that right away. A little more, how is it going to roll out for survivor benefits? Because we don't want people to become ineligible because they have this money. In other words, once it goes into an ABLE account, it's not counted towards their calculations to find out if the child is eligible for the disability payment. It goes into this ABLE account, they're not it doesn't count. We should just, anybody who's eligible for that, we should do that right away. The other one, I think that there could be some more work around like, what does that look like so that money goes ultimately to the child. Much of it is human, is we're able to do that. But I've also had some good conversations around what's it called financial literacy. We don't have really anything on that. So is there a possibility that it's implemented maybe later. So there's the, we do at the end of the bill where one part takes effect right away, the second part might be later this year where we have some more opportunities to look at what does financial literacy look like? How make do sure that this money is not going to affect their benefits? Because the able already doesn't.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, but if somebody has a Okay, so if somebody has a they're receiving a beneficiary payment a result of a parental or guardian disability. Is what you're saying you want that to be considered separately

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Then than disability, yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then their disability.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. Because that money could be saved and then give because the state's gonna be paying for their care. They're not gonna be paying for their care. Well, it could

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be saved, but it does count as resource. So it has to be I think it's better to put them all in the ABLE account if you're

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: able to. I don't think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you can. It's only the disability It's only the disability That's

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: why I would say do that right away. And then on the other one, it may take a little bit of time to figure out exactly how to give it to the children so that it's their money.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we actually don't say anything about that. Yeah. It's silent. Are you proposing new language? Yes. Have you given the language to Katie? No. Okay. So I'm just letting people know we're in very rushed time frames here.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I mean, I'm happy to get whatever we can get to stop this from happening. But I also think that they need to be treated separately. Because one goes into an able count and one does not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: One does not. But I just want to be clear with people that the accumulation of assets in the other can impact a child's SSI.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So depending on when they go into custody, if they go in young, it could add up and need to use some of that money for whatever their care.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, are, I think that's gonna be, I'll be honest, I think it's gonna be beyond the scope of this bill right now.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Which is fine. Because I would like to, I'm

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, happy to to work on it more.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The reason I'm saying that is because there's all sorts of trust law that has to be considered about how those resources could be protected while the person's still receiving SSI. And that's gonna require more time and research than we have here.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Along with the education and how that happens. Yeah, absolutely, it Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, I mean, I guess I suppose you could make a statement that it's deposited into this education account that we just were talking about.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Like a 529.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A qualified education account. I I think that's a five twenty nine. Yeah. Yeah. But right now, let's let's sort of keep that on the parking lot. Yep. And and I think that's gonna require another bill at another time.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The only other thing that I would add is in section four. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We'll get there. Okay. We're gonna look at language in minute because Optum B, I think we need to change some language in B because that was unclear. But Brenda, go ahead. So who would handle this? What department? So DCF is already the representative payee for kids in their custody who get SSI. They would continue to do that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And would they need additional staffing at a cost?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, because they already do this. They already do that. Yes.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And you already talked to them?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. This is this that's why I had people go through all their discussions with me.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. Person at DC.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure if were in the room in that because

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: the enrollment.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm just hearing this stretch to the limit. I talked to an employee last night. It's so far behind because they just don't have enough stuff. Okay. So that's not the case.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not. Not in this situation. So let's take a look at B. Okay. So I think, well, sorry, let's start on the bottom of page three. So the department should not use any portion of the child's SSI or excuse me, Social Security, which will now be SSI and SSDI to offset the state's cost for the child's maintenance, except to maintain their eligibility for SSI benefits and to avoid any violation of federal resource or asset So I do want to remind people that while Dan has had this on the wall a couple of years, I think, or at least the concept of it floating around, the current administration in Washington says that this would be a good practice for states to do. We saw a copy of that letter in testimony earlier.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Before we move on to b, can I just ask the language? Down at the bottom, is there a reason it says cost for the child's maintenance? Can we say care?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Care.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Can we say care there?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Better word.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Agree.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Gotta maintain my yeah. I don't know. Just feels like it struck

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me the same way about that. I I figured it was a term of art that people were using for a specific reason. Is it not? I didn't write the section. No, I'm just thinking about that. Move over here. Funny to me.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Wrote

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it. Care is better. Better.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Again.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Like little robot show.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It makes me think of cars.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you for bringing that up. Okay, so we have some questions, Katie, about the language in B. And it's not I read it one way, and witnesses read it a different way. So to me, that means it's not totally clear. So the particular question well, one was about department in control. So that's not a question. That is what it says. So one was the witness did not seem to indicate clarity that it says that the department may use the benefits for the unmet needs beyond the amount the state is obligated, required, and agrees to pay for their care. I think they should probably to pay for their care. What we're trying to make sure is clear is that the department can use the funds for the benefit of the child, But they are still obligated to pay out of the state's own dime and the federal government's own dime for the regular care or maintenance, as it says in the previous. So then I think that should be a period there. And then the feedback was that they felt like the way the sentence read, I feel this way, but they felt the way the sentence read meant that the department could go ahead and do that, and then they notify all these people. That's not the way I read the sentence, but the feedback was that notification happened prior.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you read the sentence the way I did? It says that they they have to notify people first, and then they can do it. But

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: After notifying so that they they do the payment after they do the notification.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. That's that's the way I read it, but that it it was unclear to the witnesses. So.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay. So. I don't think

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: that was their only issue with this section, though.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, it wasn't. They talked about the decision making as the department making the decision.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Or having some way after being notified that these people can object and say, hey, actually,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this is Or an

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: So I would, and I feel like that was a therapy.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: To that point, and also in that paragraph, question of unmet needs, defining unmet needs. I don't know if we can come up with the definition, but that's fairly loose. And then I guess back on to the point or the concern of the witness earlier that I think the language is clear about providing notice before making a payment. But does that achieve what goal is that achieving? Because I can mail out the notice in the same afternoon, take the the the payment, if you will. So the Jubilee's representative McGill's point, I don't know that it's a effective notice or has all of the effect that we want it to have.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So one the things we talked about with John when we were putting this together was that like money for like a karate class, right? That's not care, that's something that the child may wanna do that the foster family may not be able to afford to pay for. Child has the money coming in from survivor benefits and could pay for a karate class, was the example that we were talking about. That's not necessarily care, but if there's incomes coming in, it should be used. If the child wants to take a class, that's where it would be used for. So that's what we were trying to get at here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just wondering if we say in its capacity is represented payee for a child and upon request of the child Mhmm. Or their Or their. Foster family or their caretaker. I'm not sure what. So think that they were trying to get at it shouldn't just be the department we gave them that decision, that something that's to benefit the child. The example that you're just giving is perfect because

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: it's not food and it's not shelter. That stuff is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: provided by the But there should

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: be a decision making process where family caring for the child should be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: able to weigh in. Yeah. That's really disruptive. So I think that we're I'm seeing head nods around the table in terms of at the request of the child and their care or their caretaker. Or I'm not sure what the right Right request or either or? I think it's either or, yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The request of the child or the child's foster family, or what could it be?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Foster care provider, because we define foster care. And

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: then I just wanna make sure I'm relaying this to John properly. The concern over subsection B is that you want to ensure that it's clear that DCF can use the funds to benefit the child, but that the state and but state and federal money can also be used to support the care of the child. That's not No. That's not a thing. That is not. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in its capacity as representative pay for the child, the department I think that the concept where it says beyond the amount the state is obligated, required, or agrees to pay for the care of the child. So I think if we insert that for the care of the child period after that, and then talk about the application or the request process by the child, and then the notification part happens prior to the payment. Although, are you sure that the superior court family division and superior court's gonna wanna get notice every time DCF makes a payment on behalf of a child? I don't really think so, to be honest with you.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: More money and more time. Why we put that in there?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And is the OCYFA gonna want a payment is made?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's what this says.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Well, we wanted them notified that the child is receiving the payments.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To me, okay, read read the structure

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: to say that we want a notification to go that

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That they're receiving these payments. It should go to the court and it should go to them. Because they're in the custody

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is for extraordinary expenses, like you were just describing. Every time DCF cuts a check the way it's written right now is every time DCF cuts a check for the 400 kids or however many are in care, that now under this new process that a foster care

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But it's an annual accounting. You're on number four, right? We're on B,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're on B.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not logical. Just saying it's not logical the way it's written. It is excessive notification.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Sure, I agree.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It'd be noticed to a smaller group of any one time payment or the first of any ongoing series of payments. That's okay. So if you're paying a karate bill monthly, I'm sure the court does not want 12 notifications in a year about

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I do not. For a karate class. And I wonder if it's just like

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Or necessarily all those others, but I think yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: guess my I I need all things excessive. Let's work. It out.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: What what purpose is a notification survey?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Nothing. Like, Because they get notification further down.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, they have an annual account.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Correct, which is what we really want.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: That one time notification of the karate class or, you know, gymnastics

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That would be that would be captured in the annual. Right. Mhmm. So we could just strike that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In in number four, we should then add in any payments made under paragraph b above, but it's it's not necessarily specific because this says of the child. I think we should just be clear that it means anything above. Yeah. I I don't really think you wanna do that every single time. Got that, Katie?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So the last,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: so just cross out.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I knew that was going to be your response. That's why I asked. So now this is something probably some of the witnesses that we had today would not agree with, but the notification process of every payment that's made does not make sense. A lot of extra documentation, especially when there's an annual accounting, which is required for Social Security, by the way. That's an existing requirement in federal law. So we're striking out the notification part. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then in forum, adding language, including payments made under subsection B of this Exactly. Let me strike all this out.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But we're not done with court. We're gonna come back.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, we're gonna come back to court. And

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: B will now read in its capacity as representative pay you for a child and upon the request of the child or child's foster provider, the department may use the child's social security benefits for the child's unmet needs. And then we're gonna try to rework this phrase beyond the amount that the state is obligated, required or is used to pay. For the care of the child. That for the care of the child.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. So this is a question for the committee because the goal of DCF involvement is family unification. So I'm just wondering if it says at the request of the child or the family providing foster care, should we I could see a guardian or a parent saying, you know, my child wants to go to gymnastics class. Are there any resources to help pay for that? I'm just asking if we should include the parent slash guardian in that at the request of. I imagine everybody the three thirty slump?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: No. I just don't know. And I don't know the pros and cons of that,

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: so I think that's why

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I paused, because I just don't know what if the parent requests for something that the child, because they don't have custody, right? The parent requests for something that the child doesn't want to do or isn't in the child's best interest. So I guess that's where my policy It

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: doesn't mean that they have to.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: It says May. May, yeah.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Or that the foster family is unable to transport the child to the class twice a week. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: maybe, Katie, can you just put it in and put it in yellow or something so that we know it's question A question mark.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead, Esme. And on this, think the whole sentiment behind this bill is the child's rights and so keeping that focus, whereas the rights of the parent, well, that's not current. Yeah, Maybe. I don't know. I just don't know who genetic business surgery should be on the site. Well, I'm just I'm just reminding people that this is an omnibus bill. Okay? So it deals with multiple sections of current statute. Okay? So this part is, is about the financial aspect of that. But it is for kids who are actually in the custody because the department is the represent payee. So it's not people who are receiving supportive services or whatever that sort of in between space where they don't have custody, but they provide some support. So it's yeah. It's not it's not that situation. So maybe okay. I don't think you need to put a dent. I talked myself out

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: when you talked to my I think at that point, it's been deemed

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that it's not

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: the best decision maker for the child right now, and that might change.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And if that changes,

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: then the parent would

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have been. Yeah. Right. Humility. Yep. Yep. Okay. All right. Now we're moving on to the department shall establish trust account. So these are things that the state treasurer has agreed to do? Mhmm. Okay. And these are things that the department has agreed to work with the state treasurer about?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: To set up the ABLE accounts. Yes. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are there any questions about the language that ensues all the way down to line 17? The state treasurer is doing this? The state treasurer already has a contractor that manages ABLE accounts. They testified to that in committee when they were here before break. And so they did not have a problem with this. Wonder if we get

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: a new state treasure in November. They're obligated to this?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, it's state law, ABLE accounts for state law.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: That's what I wanted to know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. And they exist in federal law as well. We passed a state law several years ago. Okay. Anybody? Going once, going twice? Okay. We're gonna move to line 18, and Dan has some thoughts about section four. Oh, So Or paragraph four.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, in paragraph four. So this is where we're notifying the annual accounting. And one thing that I thought we should add in here is denial. So if the DCF applies for benefits and they are denied, we heard from legal aid, Defender General, that they have the ability to appeal denials, but they wouldn't know unless they're notified.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, an annual accounting is going to be too late for that appeal.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I know where else we're notifying an aggregate of what they've done.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Who who would be doing the I I'm just The defender.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The defender general.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That they they would do the appeal.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Marshall Paul testified, but they

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So wouldn't it be if if there is a denial Denial. Separate part of court, but a separate thing? There's a denial, they shall notify the defendant. It's like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: one five. Well, the defender general doesn't represent all kids in custody.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: May be true. I'm not sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The point is that if there's a denial that there somebody. No. No. If there's a denial that there's an appeal Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Of the denial. That's fine.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. So would you put if there's a denial, then there's an appeal in conjunction with the defender general or in consultation with the defender general?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Question I'm asking, Dan, is that the defender general is not a we will be listing a bunch of different entities. It's not just the defender general. He sees a very small portion of the kids in custody. And so the point that we're trying to get is that if you're denied SSI benefits or disability benefits, you have an appeal. You have appeal rights. And so it's whoever applied for them who does the appeal.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I don't think the appeal is happening right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's the point.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's the point, right?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That it would

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: say you must appeal. You must appeal.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Did not mean that you must appeal. Just a new section.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Whoever pledged for it.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right, which would be DCF. Which would be

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So they use their departmental attorneys for handling the appeals. So we don't need to say, that has to be a DCF.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Fantastic. Okay, so what we're getting at here, Katie, is DCF, if disability benefits are denied for a child, that DCF, if DCF was the applicant, would appeal. If DCF was not the applicant, that they would notify the applicant of the denial in the cases where somebody That's else perfect. Okay. Does that get at your issue, Dan? Yep.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay. And that's what number?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be a new number on page four. Be number five.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And we're on

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: page four. So number five?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it would go before the annual accounting just logistically. Somewhere on that list.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Wouldn't the person applying receive notice if it was denied?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They should. That's a good point.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So they don't need to be

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Not the potential payee. I would think maybe even the potential payee wouldn't even receive notice because that never came

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They don't until after. Until after. But

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: if they were the one Okay. To apply

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think that that's a good point.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So If they're the ones that apply.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think that, right. What we're really trying to govern is if DCF applies and the child is denied, we want DCF to appeal. That's what we want.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But who pays for all that? If you said they don't need so when they need legal aid or they do it themselves? They have attorneys.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. The department has attorneys. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This would be DCF. Have a firearm.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Rare instance.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But who pays for it?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're all paying for it right now. That's what

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I thought. Okay. So let me just see if I can capture this. So if DCF appeals Nope, hold on. Applies? Yeah. If DCF applies for a requested payment on behalf of the child and that is denied, then they shall appeal.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're talking specifically about disability benefits, correct?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not physical. It's they apply for the applicant.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: They were the applicant on behalf of the child.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: For disability benefit. The application is denied.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay, I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sorry. And you might just want to call SSI benefits because that's how you define it on the previous page. Or so, I guess, yeah, they want to be the applicant for SSDI.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's a beneficiary thing. Okay. Okay, so just to summarize, we just added a new number here that says that if DCF is the applicant on behalf of the child for disability benefits, and it's denied, that they'd be instructed to appeal that denial. And then on what's currently number four, I think that we are then just leaving that the way it is. Right, Dan? Yes. Because that is actually currently required. Yay, we got through that section.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: All right, fantastic.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, unaccompanied youth. Oh, I keep looking for 03:30, but that's not today. Today is Yeah. Or we already have We already have a floor, right? I know. I have floors. I know. Okay, unaccompanied youth. Okay, so we have another Just to remind people why we have these definitions occurring in these different areas is because they're different sections of law. And in an omnibus bill, we're not just following sequentially in one part of the statute here. We're jumping in between different parts of the statute. So in this case, it is unaccompanied youth in 33 BSA, section 4,908. Okay. So here are the definitions. And these definitions, is this Jubilee where you were talking about? There are definitions that are consistent with the McKinney Vento Act. Kind But of removed that reference to McKinney Vento, and these are consistent. Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It also creates we define homeless children and youth to align with that. But then we actually call the program unaccompanied youth, which is a little less stigmatizing for the youth who would ultimately be in the program, just based on feedback from the makeup received, I think, from the advocate and from the defender general in testimony. And this kind of jives with the way a lot of the states kind of currently have this, their definitions laid out

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in similar statute. So I have in the back of my head our homeless bill. And so obviously, number one aligns with that. And then I don't see anything that is contrasting to it. The wording is a little bit different.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: In our homeless bill, we're we're going off of and this is, like, a huge area of contention in the in the homelessness divorce world. Not contention, it's just something we deal with. HUD's definition, which is generally for family homelessness and single adult households in those, is different than the one we use in the Administration for Children and Families front world and the AOE and the McKinney Vento. So the biggest difference is this one does count couch surfing as homelessness. That's that kind of youth who may go and spend a night with their aunt, a night with their friend, a night with this friend or that friend, that kind of where technically they have a place to lay their head, we still consider them homeless.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: And that aligns with McKinney Vento. Exactly. And that's the big distinction between

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: the Yeah, the two, whereas HUD, that is not homelessness. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: number G or letter G, line 19. Yes.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Can you describe that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a little bit? Because I don't I that's one the It's a first I've never not seen this before. Can you describe what that is? Yeah. I guess my question is, is that in McKinney Vento?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm not sure. There's this move to using highly mobile youth that you'll see in education. You may not have noticed it in other areas that's coming in. And really, that puts homeless youth, youth who are migrant youth, youth in states care together. So I'm guessing this was language I got from Schoolhouse Connection. So I can follow-up. And it's, I think, also just to highlight that migrant children would qualify in our state. That's not what it says, though.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, it's not migrant. Migratory is different.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Migratory. That's what I mean. Children.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, that's different.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, it is in McKinney. It

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is. Okay. Yeah, because when it says migratory children who qualify as homeless because they are. So it's like duplicative. If they qualify as homeless because of other things in this subsection, then they qualify. Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just have question because I think it's gonna raise questions. Right.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Because it's I'll ask. Yeah. But I

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: it is McKinney. So this quick Google search just says, we should verify this, but clarifies that migrant students are covered by the homelessness definition if their living situation meets the earlier criteria. We're not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: talking about migrants. Migratory is different than migrants. I

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: guess that's my question. It's not. I don't think they're thinking that's why

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: migrant Migrant

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: children, but this a migrant food And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they're defining it as migrant students. Right, yes.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: But we should verify that. Well, that was my understanding, is it is the same thing. That's just the language that the federal government uses. I can verify. I think the only thing that I would sounds

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: different. It sounds like, you know They roam around a lot. Yeah, that sounds like Roamers. Yeah. I mean, if meant to be migrants, I think in Vermont, maybe we should just say migrants. It's in the federal.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: There is a federal definition for migratory children as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. Ray is just showing to me.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: For migratory children. Oh, migratory. And what are migratory children?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They're usually, according to this, that they're children who are attached in one or another to migratory workers. So seasonal.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I guess what I'm trying to, I'm wondering about, obviously, at the federal level, they felt the need to define it or to make sure. But I'm just wondering if we are

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I really think it's meant to ensure and highlight that this population can be served. There are some federal programs or within McKinney Vento trying to figure out how to say this that you can and in fact have to be served in schools where I think there is a variety of thoughts on how to approach that in states. And so for McKinney Vento purposes, it's kind of requiring that all states do this, this, and this for those children. We use the term in Vermont migrants. I think other places and the federal government uses migratory. The reason it seems odd is because the whole list is defining where they are, as this is

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: what defines them as they're abandoned in a hospital, they're living in a motel. And then the last one is well, other kids, by whatever child, who's qualified because they live

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: in these. It's because in some areas they would say, You're not eligible because you're migrant.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But there's nothing that says they're not eligible. Any child or youth living abandoned in a hospital, any child or youth living at a car, they're not excluded. They are included automatically here because they haven't been excluded.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, no, in Vermont, but I think it's I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: understand. But since in Vermont, they're not

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, no, I get that. We need it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so I'm just gonna put a question mark there about whether that's the reason I bring it up, because then I think about like, okay, well, maybe we should call out children with disabilities or maybe we should call out LGBTQ youth who are in those same. Who are in the same treatment.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. It's in there because of McKinney Vento and because to highlight and say states, you have to provide all of these things to these children. Whereas some states, without being forced to by the government, their own state statute may mean that they couldn't. So that's why it's there. This is just the federal definition with the actual term McKinney Vento removed.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: The agency of education on their section of their website discussing homeless education includes that migratory vet sentence is in there. The heading of McKinney Vento definition of homeless, It kind of goes through definition we've laid out, including that last.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: No, I should ask homeless from out of state and they come to Vermont, can they receive all these free services?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That's the only version of the only I was wondering about that. As soon as you find out, I mean, you provide initial care, but as soon for a minor, you would have there's a whole process where you have to

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: prove if they had an uncle or aunt or not a parent, uncle or aunt, they'd have to prove they didn't live with them. They'd have to prove it. Right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: These are for children who are living in Vermont,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: who are in Vermont. Yeah. In Vermont residents. They can't come from out of Vermont and say, oh, I've been staying with my aunt and uncle and now they kicked me out. They wouldn't count.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I'm not going to say that they wouldn't if they're in Vermont and they intend to remember we've had

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: the whole residency. I know, the residency. So they technically can if they say, well, came to Vermont to stay with my

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm staying in Vermont. Yeah. And now I don't have the place to live.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That's what I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was curious. They're Vermont residents.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But we're not supplying housing, right? Because we don't have any?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is not about housing. This is about the access Well, for we're getting to what it provides. Let's It's about legal

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: consent. It's not about giving anything. Okay, about legal consent for various services.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah. Okay, because not giving them any seeing we're doing the services if we had to provide housing.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. We're not doing any services in this bill. We're only giving them the right to consent

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: to Right. That's what I'm saying. But because so that Okay. No. I understand. I'm just making sure that I don't want kids on the street.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I to to are people feeling like we just leave this in or are they feeling like It feels like out of place, I'll be honest with the A through F because that's just speaking about all children and where they are or where they're not. And then this calls out

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a group of kids. A group of kids.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think it's a obviously, it's a relevant definition, but I'm just not sure. It's a I don't know. It feels weird to me.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I guess if it's part of the McKinney Vento definition, then it's omission almost seems like it's that we're making

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That we're excluding it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is there anything else in McKinney Vento that is not captured here? So they would say so they just called out that one group.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes, to make sure they're eligible. Nobody is going to dispute that a disabled US born shy kind of thing, whereas in some areas, they will dispute All

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right, I give. Okay, we're moving on to page six. So now we're talking about certification. Is that, that's not an actual definition. Now we're talking about Yeah. We're past the definition. Yeah. That's the next section. That's definition. Okay. So remember, this concept is that one of these entities or individuals can provide documentation that the youth is defined as unaccompanied.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. And we had just it was kind of an oversight that the Vermont network had not been listed. And then just based on Marshall Paul's, they had suggested that they also be a certifier. And so that made sense to me. And so I added that one in as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Anybody have any comments on this section? It's just saying who can do it? Who can certify. Proof of certification. This is where you were talking about the department did not want to be in this role?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Didn't want to be the

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: one to create the form. And I can share, I have some of what the other states are using. This language of this bill is all Florida's law, Florida statute. Just with some references made, the cross references, but this language all comes from Florida statutes, law in Florida. So I have the form they use, I have the form Missouri uses, and the form Texas uses. I can share those if folks are interested in seeing what the form looks like. We did add something that the other states don't have, as I added this was based on feedback from their department In addition to the certifier adding their name, title, and signature is also we would have in the firm that certifier also confirming that they've completed a human trafficking training within the past two years, just to ensure that the people who are working are trained to Identify. Identify and also provide appropriate supports and referrals when they Is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that going to be an issue for any of these entities?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: They already most of them, I can't speak to the only one I wasn't sure about. Like with the school homeless liaisons? I'm pretty sure I haven't received confirmation on my inquiry Is about

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it an online thing?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: There's variety of ways. The state offers free training. We do it annually. The youth service providers and all of those, we have to do it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We obviously want to identify you to dominate at risk.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: There are great trainings available in The States. So that's something that you're gonna be adding? Into the certification. Into the certification. That. It's just having them when they do it. That felt like the easiest way to kind of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: document that they have done

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: that this is happening. I

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: guess for me, it would be interesting to learn when you hear back from the schools, whether they've got that training, because I very much value the intent, but I don't want it to serve as an obstacle for individuals to certify anymore.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Our human, the McKinney Vento liaisons or the homeless, their current federal law requires that each district has one. And they work with at the AOE, they work with our state McKinney Vento coordinator, which is also the Title IX. And so they have gatherings and training opportunities. And so my guess is they are likely already receiving this training. And if not, they do have a mechanism to ensure it happens for their liaisons.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. There's going to be a revision here that adds a requirement that they document their human trafficking training on the certification. Oh, it's already there. Oh. Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: These are all in there. It's hard to see the yellow with the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: non printing. I didn't like the yellow. Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I will notice you'll also see just without it used for some reason, we forgot the guardian in a lot of places. So it just said without consent of a parent. So we just went in and added the parent or guardian in a lot of places.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so my question is, isn't that implied since we've already defined unaccompanied youth, a certification for unaccompanied youth? I'm just wondering why we repeat that so many times. Is it just to be clear?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. I don't know if that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we don't see everywhere. Yeah. I guess that's kind of my point. It's like unnatural

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I don't know

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: how to tie in.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Some places and lies.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That conversation we are having, yeah, maybe we do need to add it. But I think, especially around these things where it just is helpful to be explicit as possible in state law sometimes. It really spell out. If you just put it in number two,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the certified under company may use the completed-

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: There you go.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And sent to without the parent, and then you list them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then you list them. That makes more sense.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yep. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Missed it. I'm sorry. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On line eight, page seven, line eight, number two, we're in the in the not line two, number two. We're going to say without the consent of a parent or guardian so that it applies to all of them. We don't repeat it every time. So then we'd be taking it out with the others.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Taking it out everywhere else. Yep.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Cut off like a page of the bill. Not really.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and some of these things are already covered in state law. Some are not.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: We're kind of putting them And some of them are covered in state law, but it hasn't really been clear that Or not even unaccompanied, just that a youth could access them. So I think spelling it out is important.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are there any questions on the rest of page seven? Okay, page eight.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Let's see, what do

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we do at the top of page eight?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: These are who they can consent to medical care for.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh yeah, for themselves, the child. And I asked the question about the unmarried thing, Jubilee got back to me that it is, if you're married, you're already considered able to give consent. Who knew that seems like something from the field of age

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: or something.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: If you want to get that car,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: married. That

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: loan, that insurance, just get married.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's too good.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Or we could pass this back.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So I know this was a question that I brought up when we had the first walk through of the bill. And so I have some concern about acquiring debt. And I know I've had some conversation where I don't have any problem with purchasing a vehicle if they're able to save up enough money or can figure out how to do that. Or if they've come out of DCF custody at some point in time and they have a little bank account that Dan has set up for them, or admission to school or activities or opening a bank account or receiving services. Debt thing just is bothersome to me.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: One tenth. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: My son paid 70,000, the other 1 50,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I'm not guess I guess there I mean, there is a process. I paid them. There is a process that, you know, BSAC uses, and I don't think they'd probably get a loan for a student loan at a generic lending institution.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. It's only the consent part, not all of the other criteria.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Exactly. I'm talking myself out of it because it gives them the ability to apply. Maybe when the folks who manage these student loans can see that this person really doesn't have sufficient income in order to pay a loan, maybe they can figure out a way to help them through grants and other things. But this could start the process For for us to

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: me, if we omit it, it of others this topic because there might be people that are not homeless that can't afford a living. Right, You're just kind of taking that decision making out of, if you're saying they can do all this other stuff, why not that as well? Because like you said, there is eligibility criteria and income verification and all that built into applying for a loan. So you're kind of adding a layer because of their status. Incredibly, whether you have

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a poor parent or you don't have money, you're not going to get approved for a loan, but hopefully you can get approved for grants and so forth. But you shouldn't be in a different status for your approval because you're unaccompanied. Especially if we're

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: giving them all these other I would feel more comfortable if it says apply for a student loan as opposed to obtain a student loan.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That would make it clear. So read this to me.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: You have

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: have give it them. This category. Yeah. There are people who been with the application that requires a signature. That's good. Right.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Are we concerned, and I understand the impulse, We don't wanna be paternalistic in this, are we concerned about any predatory lending that may take place with some online educational opportunities? I don't know if they're as stringent in the application, the loan application process or not. And I don't know if a way around that is to work through VSAC, I think someone that we trust, an in state partner that we trust with respect to student loans.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, there's lots of online higher education now. And to be honest, I haven't applied for any of those. So I have no idea what the application process is or anything. But I think it's just like when you're supposed to be 18 or 21 and you're purchasing things on the internet itself, I don't think we can police that, I guess. And if we're going

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: to do that, then that should be for all students. Nobody should be susceptible. I have a problem being like, you all can have that, but because you got stuck with crappy guardians, your life is gonna be

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: harder and you don't get all of these

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: other things. It's already harder.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That's the point of this though, is to make it less hard. Think a for a loan. That is a good like that. It's where it cannot be.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it could be interpreted as a handicap this as kind of prevents Yeah. Clarifies. So that's all we've changed.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Foster children already get state pre education with state colleges. I took one in when he aged out of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the system. Yeah, these kids aren't

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: in foster care. Oh, this is the runaway. Right. Because foster care is coming.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, these are children who don't have the active assistance of any.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah, because he went to St. Mike's for free.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so use of the certification form. What we're saying is that all the things that we just talked about above, those entities have to accept that as documentation of their ability to apply. And

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I added, because we had talked about how we just put in that the health care professionals could keep a copy in the files. But it was pointed out, all of them should be. And in fact, a lot of them would need to be to document that. I know my work, we would need to have it. So we just added all of the entities have that ability. And then, yeah, so this was my attempt very open to feedback in E1. I think people had a lot that were very confused on what that section was getting at. So this was just an attempt to rewrite that. Because I just based on feedback, nobody everybody it was one of those language things where I think a lot of folks were

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: This is my This

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: is, like, an extra clarification that Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: This is what all of this means.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Very clear. Yeah. Yeah, that word that could be read two ways in the other version.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes. And we've had a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: lot of feedback. So that's that. All right, what's C21? C21. What's that referring back to, can we just Bank accounts. Bank accounts. Accounts.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We Bank accounts. The state of federally chartered bank and credit. Yes.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: So we did I just kept this in for now. And we've heard from Marshall Poll and got it confirmed that there's nothing barring youth from bank accounts in the state of Vermont, except for bank institutions' own regulations. There are some areas where loans or insurance is an issue. So I think for this section, like I said, this part of this, the H-six 57 in its original version when it was just the unaccompanied homeless youth, just basically well, it was Florida's statute and made to fit within Vermont law. And the way Florida does it and most other states that I think all of them that have unaccompanied homeless youth provisions, the state is very involved in that. Their equivalent of Department for Children and Families or Family Services Division. So you saw we had language about when state or federal law prohibited unaccompanied homeless youth from accessing a benefit or a service, the department would stand in loco parentis and give that consent. They do not express they didn't want to do that. And so remove them whenever possible. I would like to, in this section and we'd strike it out. I'd like to work with Katie. And we may have to strike out some of the things above, but require them to consult with the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, probably the Vermont Bankers Association, Insurance Association, whatever that is. I've got national partners, other states who have this law implemented, their state administrations. Florida is willing to work with our administration and come up and create a report with their recommendations on how to implement and ensure access to those other parts of the bill.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, okay. So you're talking about section two on page nine? Yes. Okay. So what I'm wondering about is, absent DCF consulting, I'm just wondering why DCF needs to be in the middle of it, frankly. I don't really understand why DCF would need to be in the middle of it. Why don't we just say the Commissioner of Financial Regulation shall ensure that minimum youth that's the financial regulation department's responsibility is to work with banks, insurance companies,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Let's and credit do that, though.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. I think that's the cleanest way to do it. Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I mean, yeah, the reason I was saying department is, ultimately, I think it will require the departments to have at least some involvement. But I'm fine. So for the purposes of this For this, yeah, I think that's fine. And I'm sure they will work with the department. They'll reach out,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right? Because they won't understand necessarily what the science.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Their response. Where is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the But, yeah, I mean, the reason I'm just saying is because Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We have to make sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's their responsibility to work based credit unions and insurance companies. They're the they're the people who regulate them. So Yeah. No. That makes So, Katie, so for on on page nine, line seven. So or actually not line seven, line eight. So we're just saying it's the commissioner of financial regulation.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Challenging. Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're just removing the division out of that responsibility. And then I think on line 12, I think that we should be consistent and use it says assistance, that's not really what it means. It means consent. So we should say consent. Okay. Where's that consent? On line 12.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So consent?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Just it's to be consistent with everything else that's in the bill. The immunity clause, has anybody talked to Chair Lalonde about this at all?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: No. If

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you can touch base downstairs, that would be great. They might just wanna take a quick look at it. Yes. But I don't think they'll need to take the bill.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Oh, see, I didn't ask because I thought it was going to them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't I don't think it I don't know. I don't think it will need to now. It's yeah. Okay. So

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: The next section gonna change that calculus?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I have things to say about the

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: next section anyway. So Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So next step,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we would have to go

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to do the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The unlawful shelter, etcetera? Well, right. When I look at what this law prohibits, B. One, two, three, none of those things are anything that a person providing assistance under this would be doing. And C. One and two, they would, they could be accused of sheltering a runaway child. But none of the other things, so I'm not sure

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's whether it needs be the only thing we're changing, that's existing. No, I understand.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I understand. What I'm saying is I don't understand why number three, why a person needs to be exempted from this when nothing they're authorized to do in the act would put them in the position of violating those. They still shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things. It came out as a recommendation from our

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: judiciary attorneys. Okay. I'm taking the point. Relentlessly sheltered, potentially become a runaway. It makes me some cases there.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They're they're not shellingly sheltering they're not providing shelter. They're not aiding or assisting a child to become a runaway child. And they're certainly not taking them to commit a criminal act. In fact, we wouldn't want them to be doing any of those things. Okay. That's my I'll say okay at this. I how

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: widely are you interpreting assisting a child to become homeless if you enter into

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: To become a runaway child, not to become homeless.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry, become a runaway child. I mean, if you

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: There are two types of

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a runaway. Well, a become is you're not a runaway, you're home, you're at your home. So if you're being assisted in leaving homes, would be part of that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the only thing that we do in 4908 that involves somebody other than the child themselves using the certification is the entity doing the certification. And I don't see how that falls under it. Don't

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: get it.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: If you're giving them other lodging, are you helping them to be a runner?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: There's that one of the

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: things on the list.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If there's still a home

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It does talk about

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: happen Alright. One person one person at a time. Sorry.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It it does talk about if you're a shelter director. What if you're a landlord?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, shelter director is already exempt. That's will be a lot

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: of But what if you're a landlord? Could you be accused of assisting someone to be a runaway by providing them a place

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: to live? I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: see. As opposed to the certifiers that we're looking at.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just to be clear, that may be a good point. It's not it's not something covered in current law, but it's also not something covered in line 16, in section forty nine zero eight. It's not something that's covered in section forty nine zero eight, which is the whole the whole thing, which is what we're gonna focus on here. Okay? So just, you know, go back and look at So pages five and six are definitions and the proof of certification, the form developed. And then it is how the child can use the form and who is required to accept the form.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They'll require to accept the form. They could

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: enter into a contract for housing or obtain admission to a shelter or transitional housing. That's how they can use the form, but not

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Enter into a contract for housing. We have lease.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But they wouldn't be able to sign it. Oh, yeah. They could if they've been yeah. You're right. Yes, you're right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So maybe I just need to understand what it what is line nine really saying? Exempt from the prohibitions of this section. I don't I I guess I need to understand better what this section is actually couldn't be prosecuted. The people listed under C couldn't be prosecuted for doing one of the things in B. It's shelter at direct

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: lines one, two.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: 13. So I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: guess where I'm getting stuck a little

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: bit is knowingly shelters a runaway child. And then looking at page eight of your bill, subdivision D, enter into a contract for housing or obtain admission to a shelter or transitional housing. That could be knowingly sheltering Broadway child. Yes, that's a good guess. The other stuff wouldn't be,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: but that could be interpreted as-

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Could we exempt everyone related to the shelter? The shelter, the directors, agents, employees of the shelter.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Unless you wanted to say, well, yeah. So I would say

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: that exemption is specifically for my work and the people we fund. That's how it came about is Person providing housing.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, could be the person providing housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So can I ask a question? This may be like an obvious thing that I'm just not getting. I'm going back up to the top of the page on page 10. When it's talking about, are we saying it's unlawful to knowingly shelter a runaway child?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It is under current law. Yes. This is all current laws.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. That's ridiculous. I'm trying to find the script. I I mean, I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think that's ridiculous. It is in most states.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Also, providing assistance could Get in trouble. That's what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it is. If you're providing help I can see Yes. It sounds like something from the death gauges. It's old law. Probably is.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Or is it to on the side of providing protections for a child to ensure they're not trafficked?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's what number three does. I agree with number three. I agree with number three and that shouldn't be exempt from anything, but sheltering somebody, sheltering a kid who doesn't have a home.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I if it's something to do with property.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't think it goes that far back, but no. Think it's a little weird.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Nope. It's this I think you would.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, if we're gonna if if Yeah. And it seems like we are gonna modify this section of the statute. I'm gonna propose that we get rid of the antiquated language and let judiciary have the discussion about it since it's gonna have to go down there anyway. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, my fear is, well, I mean, they may put it back in, but I'm right. They may say we'd have to take a lot of testimony to know the implications of the nasty because I think there's things that

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: A can of worms. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can we just Alright. Maybe OCYFA or however those initials are in order, maybe we should Is that right? I'm sorry. I feel like I don't get them in the right order, but maybe we should have a charge down to judiciary next year about updating the Runaway Youth statute. Does that I don't know. All right, sorry. It just hit me as really bad.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: That's a suggestion. Yeah, I do. So to that point, I think for not opening the canopy right It was an emotional reaction.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm putting it in a parking lot for future

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I'll send it down to Martin.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There are kids. I know that's not the kids that you deal with or I dealt with in my early career, but there are kids who have a spat with their parents and say, I'm running away, and run away. And you actually don't want somebody to shelter that child. You want them to, you know, call the right people to get the kid back home.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, I know. My mother hated it when I took in my sister.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Eventually, that's the difference. Like, and I was gonna say, there's kind of, like, two runaway groups of runaway kids. That's why kids are always gonna eventually wind back up at home. And if they don't, their parents are consenting.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, if they All right. So I'm gonna Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. No, we don't need any more information because we're not taking it out.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We're not. That's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: right. This is why we can stop our conversation. That's right. Can stop the conversation. We're not taking it out.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The only conversation we're having is whether or not we need to include a person providing assistance. And I think I've been convinced that there are elements in here that could

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: be. I would just add another. In addition to the contracts for housing, there is also something called that we use a lot in this field, especially when we don't have the resources. It's brokered housing. And that's where you, as a service provider they didn't call it that, but referred to it. It's when you work to ensure if you don't have access to commission or designated shelter for youth in your area, which is host homes, you can do brokered housing, which is where you work with maybe it's their best friend's family is willing to take them to have them come and stay and live there permanently. And those kind of things where it's not so much a contract, but that youth is consenting to housing, shelter kind of thing. So there's multiple ways where I see it and that it's Okay. Important to have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we'll leave that there. Okay. Alright. So now we're moving on to fees for copies. And this whole next section is we'll be going through this pretty quickly because it's mostly just adding the unaccompanied youth to things that already exist in So this is saying that they will not charge this is for vital events, birth certificates, death certificates, whatever, that they are not going to be charged a fee if you are an unaccompanied youth who has the certification. That's essentially the same language is being added in several places. Right. Anybody have any issue with that? Nope. Okay. Non driver's identification cards. Most all of this is current Correct. Law. And, again, non driver's ID. We're adding on page 12, lines ten and eleven, same sentence. Unaccompanied youth who has obtained certification. Anybody have any problem with that? Non driver certification? Okay. The next thing is license and privilege cards. This is, the same thing, on lines, on page 13 and adding operator privilege cards. I don't even

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: know what that is. That's where you approve your birth certificate and all that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Operator privilege? Yeah, an operator privilege And again, no additional fee if they somehow are able to or want to obtain a motorcycle endorsement. Okay. Page 14. We're on DMV. What are they asking for? Application? It's only Yeah. Time this whole section around DMV is about essentially youth who are unaccompanied not having to pay any of the fees. Same thing at the bottom of page 14, lines twenty and twenty one. And the same thing at the top half of page 15. Vehicle The motor vehicle and stuff like that. And the same thing about if they need to apply for a duplicate. That's lines fourteen and fifteen on page 15. So if they lost it and they need to apply again, they won't be charged. Okay, now we're moving on to another whole area, which I think we are going to leave until tomorrow because it's a very involved And we've gotten through a lot. And we are going to take this up all morning tomorrow. So I expect that we'll get through the whole bill tomorrow. We'll send Katie off with changes and consultation with her colleagues. And hopefully we'll be ready to take some vote at some point.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We want to maximize efficient time. Maybe we can finish Jubilee's last part.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: We could work it quick

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and then we'll only have all the cupcakes stuff. Good idea. That was

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: an excellent suggestion. Okay, what page is that on?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Page 29. Page 29. Excellent new title.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, I merged. Yeah, I like that family support and prenatal engagement. Yeah, so that's the new title. The biggest changes is that and the addition of some folks to the working group. We added the This

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is only session is this session law? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So I was going to get rid of current, but I don't need to. So

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: we just added the executive director of the Vermont Parent Representation Center or designee, the Recovery Partners of Vermont, Voices for Vermont Children, Department of Health's Maternal and Child Health Division, Children of Recovery Mothers team at the Safe Collaborative, director of the Office of the Defender General of the Juvenile Division or designee.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We already

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: have the lived experience. Just changed the wording. Yeah. So it's a larger group, but I think there's a good variety of interests and perspectives represented.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is the department okay with this composition?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I mean, ones added were ones they suggested.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would say yes then. I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: think I could say yes

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to that one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You could say yes to that one. All right, Hannah. So

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: that we kind of mixed the outside mediation kind of Thank you. Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No way it would happen if you kept it in.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. And then I kept changed the kept the appropriation language in there, but vastly reduced it. But I know appropriations has their own formula way of doing that, so that's fine. We'll likely get I wasn't sure what to Well, you know, you can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: do it. I'll just check with Nolan. He has a formula. Oh, okay. It's just you can how many times a year do you say? We didn't Or how many oh, we didn't say a number. Because we didn't say

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: because that's how the money gets

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's how the money gets Not more than five meetings.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Oh, do we? Okay. 3. Okay. Line 4.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So 55 and so and they have to provide a they have to provide a report by November. Is that where I saw it? Okay. So five meetings, two people. So and no one will have to do a little fiscal note thing, but he can he'll calculate it for you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that number might change.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: He already has a draft of this, so you could

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just refer him to the To that?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay, perfect.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Great. And we'll talk about back dates tomorrow. Anybody have any questions about that last thing? That was the working group, the pregnancy working group that we talked about. Appreciate the work on that. Anything else? Okay. So I just really shout out to Dan and Anne and Jubilee for the work that they've put in. I turned to them, I said, You guys got this bill. I'm busy doing other things. And took it and ran with it and talked to the people you needed to talk to, and I appreciate that. That's It's also great to appreciate departments

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: and advocates and the defender general, also great to work with, very responsive. It's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: been

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: a really great experience. This is how government

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: should work. And I'll give a shout out to Deputy Commissioner Rutke because she actually reached out during the summertime and fall time. And we had talked about this little team working on this and she had some ideas of her own as well. And so just to echo what you said, it's been a good working relationship and appreciate that. And so interim commissioner Hoffman hopefully will listen to this. Who does? Is there any other thing that people are gonna I just wanna make sure that people are going to feel comfortable with what we've gone over already, because we haven't really made a huge number of changes. We've really just kind of had mostly discussion, The fine sections that Anne has are a little more dense.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, people knew, it started with having to come angle this part to two bills. So that's But exactly I would say that people that are around it, we've gone a little early, if anybody wants to has looked through this and has questions about areas that might be too involved to want to take committee time and so forth, I'd be happy to talk about any

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of these. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Katie, and your colleagues for their work on the bill. I know this kind of crosses over. So you'll follow-up with Martin or somebody. I think it would be good I just to touch base with the chair. Anne And And Nolan. And Nolan. Right. And Anne has already been in contact on her sections with other relevant committee members committee chairs. Okay. Laurie, I think that we are done. Tomorrow, just to review. I am hopeful that at some point tomorrow, depending upon how drafting and how, what you call it, editing go, that may What's going on? There's just a piece stuff in the room. I smelled

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm gonna email this to the surgeon.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's getting

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: smoky in here. Know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This. You can open the door now if you want. So my hope is that we're able to vote on this bill tomorrow. Fantastic. That's my hope. So it'd be great, Hannah, if there's any sort of final comments or whatever that people can get to us first thing would be great. Okay. Alright. Thanks so much. And just yeah. I guess that's it.