Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Good

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: morning, everyone. And we have a brief time with Ledge Council to review draft six point something of the pre K language. Now I'm calling it Pre K language. And it is draft 6.2, and it is on our webpage. If So Katie and Beth, if you want to join us, that would be great. Awesome. I'm seeing your phone. Yep. Okay, welcome.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. I think that we're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just going to have you walk through the changes that you made. So members, after the discussion with JFO yesterday, we're taking up as part of our work, the language on all the stuff that we had started to make changes on waiting and all of that kind of stuff. And you're seeing some language that's being inserted here, which our discussion later after Legg Council leaves will be what are the five or six key elements that we want to make sure are considered in that work of the entity that JFO will contract with. So welcome. Thank you. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James Office

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: of Legislative Counsel. We'll just start walking you through it.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Yesterday, you asked for new legislative intent language. It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that pre K education is included as an integral part of Vermont's education system. The right to education is fundamental for the success of Vermont's children in all grades pre K through grade 12.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Perfect. Can I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just make a note there? Please. I borrowed the right to education as fundamental from section one in title 16, so it's a nice synergy. Awesome. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next several sections all amend section eight twenty nine, which is your pre K section. If you notice, I added the reader heading with the dates up above so you understand that we are amending this section at different times. So first we have the amendments that take effect July. And these are mostly changes to subsection C, the prequalification section. So you have language about joint rulemaking. Starting on line three, the agencies jointly shall determine whether a private or public provider of pre K education is qualified for the purposes of this section and shall include a qualified provider and a publicly accessible database of prequalified providers available on the agency's websites. And then in subdivision two, this is where we have language about the teachers. So in subdivision 2A, this pertains to private providers. A private provider will employ or contract the services of at least one teacher. That's maintaining the status quo. And on lines fourteen and fifteen, have the addition, including through the issuance of provisional and emergency licenses. And subdivision B, this is specific to public providers. Prekindergarten education provided by a licensed public provider pursuant to this section shall be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education or early childhood special education under chapter 51 of this title.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then- Except weird pre kindergarten education, pre K education provided by a licensed to the child be proactive, I guess.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the double provider. I get caught on that too. And then in the 2033 amendment, when we're referring to both public and private, I've found a way to sort of tighten it up. But it would persist like this for a couple of years. Okay. And then we don't have a change to the registered family child care homes this year.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Also

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: effective 07/01/2026 is the background checks. If the employees of a pre K education program operated by a school district have completed a background check pursuant to this title, DCF shall deem any requirement for a separate background check for the purpose of prequalification pursuant to this section to have been met.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So this is an attempt. We went back and forth about we meaning Ledge Council and me about how to try to address the issue of public school teachers having to have two background checks. Rep. Garofano is going to share this with DCF.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I suspect that we'll get feedback that it doesn't work. But if we can have Janet maybe come Zoom with us a little bit to explain then

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that would be helpful. I don't think, I know this is me being stubborn. I don't think we can accept the, this is just the way it has to be argument.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can I read something that Janet had set? It's a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: little bit out of, no, because we only have these folks for thirty minutes. I'll see if Janet, I just want to get through. Yeah, that would be helpful. One second. So

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Madam Chair, on this language, I'm a little bit out of my depth, but I thought yesterday in our conversation, we thought that these perhaps requirements would be the stricter of the two, Yes. Coupling it to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we switched, So the answer is yes to that. We switched because of the, and we haven't had a chance to fact check this yet, but people who were listening said that on the education side, that there was federal issues around, there's federal requirements around background checks in public education. There is also on the CDD side, the difference being that there's no child development money going into pre K, it's education fund money. So that's why I made the switch. Now, that's the argument I'm gonna make to Janet when we have her, and she's gonna have a contrary argument back.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: That was my exact question, we're covered.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I'm sorry. May I add something? So section two fifty five of Title 16 is the statute that requires background checks for anyone a superintendent is going to make an offer to. There is a subsection, subsection K, that states the requirements of this section, meaning the background check for employees of school districts, shall not apply to superintendents and headmasters of independent schools with respect to persons operating or employed by a childcare facility as defined under 33 BSA 3,511 that provides pre K education pursuant to Section eight twenty nine and that is required to be licensed by DCF. Superintendents and headmasters are not prohibited from conducting a criminal record check as a condition of hiring an employee to work in a child care facility that provides pre K education operated by the school. I bring this to light because I discovered it last night when I was drafting, and we did not have a chance to talk about it. So I drafted the language we talked about. But I suspect that this statute or this subsection may be a place to work with instead of new language in 08/29. But I didn't know off the top. I didn't know if pre K providers operated by a school district fit that definition of child care facility. And so this section would automatically apply. So I'm just bringing it up that there is already a piece of current law that may fit into this discussion.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I, not having read that, but listening to you, what I believe that is intended to do is to avoid private pre K providers having to have two background checks. And so I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same thing on the public side. So yes, and. So it might be that we add language to that and do the reverse thing versus having this separate standard language. Thank you. That, Can you send us that reference? Just make sure Katie has it, the language. So when we talk to Janet, we can sort of have full information. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, Katie, let's

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: keep going. Okay. So next we're amending the section again, this time 07/01/2033. So this is our prequalification section. And then we move to where we have the teacher licensing. So we strike through the language in paragraph A about private providers, and then everybody's following the same standard in B. Pre K education shall be provided by a teacher who is licensed and endorsed in early childhood education, etcetera. So we're not specifying what type of pre qualified provider it is. Also striking through Subdivision three, creating a separate standard for registered family childcare homes. So everybody would be falling into this category V as of 2033.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: How this is organized is much easier to follow. I said the previous version. Yeah. Yes.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Just quickly, the standards that were expressed just previously, that also going to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: also for home providers? Are you talking about the background check?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: No, the licensing and all that. Does that also apply for home providers?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In seven years.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: In seven years, okay.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because we learned from the data that we got from DCF that the majority of them already have it and those that don't are working towards it.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So next, we're amending this section again, and this time it's upon the contingency. Might switch off with you, Nova.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, where are we?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry. That's okay, page five, listen. When we say that that's meaning contingent upon other legislation and effective dates?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Section four are the big substantive, not all of the big substantive changes, but it is the entire Section eight twenty nine where we've made amendments. And those changes would only take effect on 07/01/2028 if the same conditions that are needed for the foundation formula are also met. So it's essentially taking effect if the foundation formula takes

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: effect. Yes.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just a comment about the mechanics. So you'll see when we get to subsection C of this section, which is where all the prequalification and teacher languages, we've omitted that. It's just ellipses. And that is so the changes that you've made in the previous two sections and the timelines you set out, the contingency won't affect that. Those would happen regardless, if that makes sense.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It will if the money happens. The equalization of the payments to private providers. Okay. Do you understand what I'm saying? Totally. Okay. So I'll wait till we get to this section to see if I might be saying something that doesn't need to be said. I will.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So page five, stop division. Yeah,

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I get it. Sorry, the rates, the companion language.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm sorry if I missed it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sorry, we're speaking in code. That code, I'll uncode that. Katie just said we pulled out all of that so that the qualification section sort of stands alone with their effective dates. And that would go into effect regardless of the contingency language. I said, well, that depends because we can't require the higher qualifications without the higher payment. That's what I was referring to.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: And on a separate point, and I may have, this is yesterday we were talking about the check back language because four years out, we'll check back.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, there's been four years. We haven't seen the whole thing yet. So hold on to that because my guess is that they've included it someplace a little further down.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We have a solution.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know that was quick. We

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have a solution. I think it's been traveling in some language, not all language, just by virtue of both of us being on the document. Okay. Pre kindergarten child, we're on page five, line one, we're in the pre K statute, the definitions subsection. Here's your change regarding eligible to enroll versus not yet enrolled. So on line three, this should really be highlighted, but I am not good at highlighting. It's three or four years of age or is five years of age that's not yet eligible for enrollment in kindergarten. And then I think we can wordsmith this however you like. Right now, reads, provided, however, that if a school district in consultation with a parent or guardian determines that a child who is five years of age who is eligible for enrollment in kindergarten is not yet developmentally ready for enrollment, I think that's the phrase that I would appreciate feedback on. Such child shall be eligible for pre K education funded pursuant to this section.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it works. Yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Developmentally ready is not something that is in my wheelhouse. Subdivision two, this is a change we've made in the last section, but I don't think our last draft, but I don't think we went over it. So pre kindergarten education means services that are publicly funded pursuant to this section and everything that is currently in current law. Keeping line 17 on page five. We're keeping this

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to ten hours a week. Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're going to jump to page six, subdivision three. Here is some language that we played with to make it more clear that a school district is responsible for ensuring access to pre K education by assisting a family to identify a prequalified private provider located within the district or in another district or a pre qualified public provider located in another district with capacity. So we've listed out all of those options. And then school districts are encouraged to maintain a position or collaborate with other school districts to maintain a shared position for a pre K education coordinator.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page seven. If the supply of pre K providers is insufficient, then we're requiring a school district on Line 7 shall begin or expand the program to satisfy that demand and may work in collaboration with AOV and the local building Bright Futures Council to meet with neighboring school districts and private providers in the region to develop a regional plan to further expand capacity, including through the issuance of provisional emergency licenses.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we talked about putting that piece first. And I thought we said shall, but work with the Agency of Education and Human Services and Building Bright Futures Council. I think that what we wanted is sort of that kind of meeting of the minds to happen before we say you shall begin or expand a program.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So is it that they shall work in collaboration and then if necessary, a school district shall begin or expand?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Because I think that if necessary part is, and the reason that I think it's important to have that consultation with those entities first is because really some of the stuff that we heard yesterday sort of pinpointed it for me. If a private provider closes down in their region, a school district is not gonna necessarily automatically gonna be able to immediately provide access. And so there needs to be some way for that to be dealt with. Put the- Put things together. Right.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I had a question here and I don't know the answer, so I'm gonna put it out. Do the UPK coordinators have a role here? Or do they only have, I also think they have a role here to kind of ensure, like find the right provider that might be able to take over. You know what

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean? Like, so. Well, mean, when you say the school district, they are employees of the school district.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I just didn't know if we wanted to be more explicit about the UPK coordinator here. Because we're encouraging them to do it, but I think that it would be worthwhile saying that we want the UPK, if there's a UPK coordinator, we want them to be involved in figuring out capacity as well. So you're saying? When there is not enough capacity, because that's one of the things that they do. It's not just helping access.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's also ensuring. I just didn't know how specific we needed to say. So like, if we say it's the school district, are we going to Are you wanting to call it out because it's a particular expertise? It's a particular expertise and because not everyone has it right now.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So if you just kind of say the school districts, I think it kind of elevates that this is kind of a needed thing that we're encouraging school districts to do. If it's mentioned more than once in the statute.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So are you suggesting language that says, where it says School district. I guess it would say something after school district that says, including pre K coordinator if present, or if there is one, or some other language like that.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Looking at what council hoping.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We can just add to the list of folks involved in the collaboration, pre K?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, pre K coordinator.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, we can make that change and get you a new draft. So far, I think that's our Oh, no, we have to make the effective date change too. Okay. Tuition budgets, average daily membership. This is a Oh, again, language that should be highlighted and isn't. On page seven, aligns '19 through '21, removing reference to the district's academic year because we're moving towards a statewide school calendar. As Chair Wood mentioned, this draft removes all of the funding changes that have previously been traveling in drafts. And so we're keeping the concept of average daily membership.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we're keeping that concept because we don't know exactly what to change it to yet, but we're gonna be asking for information about what to change it to if we should change it.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess a question about the removal of that calendar language. Yeah. What do we gain from that? And I guess with some concern that absent that, does it leave some ambiguity as to when that when this could take place? Even if we move to a unified calendar, it doesn't seem like that would run counter to the language in here. But right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Cool. The language here says that the district the district is setting its own calendar and the district isn't going to be setting its own calendar.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we could just say if there is a concern and if you would like to see a change, we could say provided, however, the district shall pay tuition for weeks that are within the academic calendar instead of the district's.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Meaning that it would be the state calendar? Yeah. That's deleting districts and just saying the academic calendar. Can say statewide. Yeah. We were singing the same thing at the say pinky swear.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We need to be watching that, though, to make sure that the statewide calendar actually goes into effect. Otherwise a whole new bucket of troubles. So

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: would we be better off by just making it the academic calendars? Because then they would have a meeting whether we move to a statewide.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, because that would cover both.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That would cover either.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Whatever the law would have to be as,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: not that we would be diligent, but

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could also say, I think maybe within the school year, Academic, I mean, is the statewide school calendar is what is in Act 73. When does that take effect?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think 2028. I can look it up. If it's not postponed. Who the heck knows what's going to happen on education? Right. Yeah. So why don't we omit statewide and just say academic year, academic calendar, Remove reference to the school, to the districts, and just keep it broad.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, we're on page seven, line 21. Tuition paid under this section shall be at a statewide rate, which may be adjusted regionally that is proposed annually through a process jointly developed and implemented by AHS and ALE. Annually, the agencies shall present the proposed statewide rate as part of their budget presentations for approval by the general assembly as part of the budget process. Line 11 through 12 are highlighted simply because I've removed strike throughs because we're keeping the concept of average daily membership. So I just wanted to highlight that that concept has reentered the conversation. I did keep the subdivision two repealed because under the foundation formula, there are no longer voter approved budgets. So that language would no longer be applicable. And then subdivision three is the same. I've highlighted that for the same reason. We had previously struck that because of the average daily membership reference, and now we're keeping current law. And here we have the language in subdivision four on page nine. Sorry, do you want me to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just keep going? You're doing great. A

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: pre qualified private provider at current law is specific to the pre qualified private provider receiving additional payment. Now we've changed that to make it clear that either or both a private provider and a public provider may receive additional payment directly from the parent or guardian for child care services. So we reworded the whole It's really just inserting public provider, but we reworded the whole sentence so it just reads a little easier. I'm very excited to report that in the next draft you have, this green will no longer be green. I reached out to Janet McLaughlin last night, and I am happy to report back that I received very clear explanation for what this language is used as, the in kind. So Janet reports that this is something that AOE monitors most closely, and so I'm just gonna start by saying everything I'm telling you is a game of telephone. I have done no independent verification. And so I would highly encourage if you have more questions to talk to both AOE and DCF. But it sounds like this is perhaps a school district is providing in kind space to a private pre K provider that's using public school property or the school district is providing the licensed teacher to the pre qualified provider. And the in kind reference means that if you count all of the kiddos that should be receiving the Act 166 funds for that private provider, there is perhaps a discount on the money that is going from the district to the private provider to cover what would have been rent or salary or contract fees for the teacher. So that's the in kind piece. So all of the kiddos are counted the same in the average daily membership. They're funded the same through school budgets, but there may be district to private provider agreements that mean that the school district is providing some kind of in kind service that results in not the full tuition payments going to the private provider.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which the district made statewide tuition. Okay. So I get the first part of the sentence now. As a component of the statewide tuition established, meaning that the school district includes those expenses as part of what ever they submit to the state to determine the statewide rate for tuition?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yes. I don't know off the top of my head the statewide rate calculation is set in rule, and I don't know what that if includes student counts, then all of those students would be counted regardless of how much money is going to the private provider.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's yeah. Go ahead.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess perhaps I misunderstood. I thought I heard you say that they can the school district can discount the payments they make to the private provider by the amount of the in kind. So rather than if it's $3,900 a student, they can make a payment of less than $3,900 to account for the contracted with teacher or space.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is my understanding. So if if the if the private provider was entitled to $50,000 at the statewide rate, but then they would have to give $10,000 back to the school district to pay for rent or to pay for the services of the teacher, instead of having the money go both ways, it would just be a $40,000 payment to the private provider. That's my understanding. And I wouldn't have even close to this understanding if Janet wasn't also on her email at 09:00 last night. So large thank you to her. That matches the language.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The language its own is very difficult to understand, but understanding implementation of it is easier. Okay, thank you. I think we can move on from that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. There will no longer be that green there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do we need all the rule stuff?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I think we can probably put some asterisks in there in the next draft.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're not changing that.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Correct. So there is a change that we have to ask for under the rules, it's on page 12. And they want you to add to that monitoring.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, where is that?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Page 12, line five. Five. So after DCF, they want BBF there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They are doing it, yes.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Doing that, and that's just the advice.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You guys still cut out most of the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: information and put that in, yeah.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then we jump right to page 13. Subsection H is going to be entirely repealed, the provision that allows school districts to set geographic limitations on where they're paying pre K tuition pursuant to this section.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because whatever is agreed to will be a region. And we didn't want to have competing regions, a pre K region and then some other school regions.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then I just want to highlight on the bottom of page 14, those three asterisks there represent new language we've added previously regarding the background checks, because that took effect before the changes in this section take effect. So depending on what we do with that background check language, there may be nothing to add here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Can we forward that background check language that Beth gave us to Janet so she can look at it before? Okay. And this status report, Doug?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 15, line two, section five. Do you want to talk about this or do want

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me to just keep Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is a status report back coming 01/01/2030, before the 2033 changes take effect. CBD is to submit a status report to human services and health and welfare assessing private pre K providers' readiness to comply with the changes in that section three that we looked at.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would add education committees to that. And

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then section six is a JFO pre K report, but it's not JFO doing the work, it's a contractor. And I have run this language by JFO already and it's good with them. The joint fiscal office shall contract with a contractor with expertise in Vermont's education funding system to make recommendations regarding how to account for the provision of pre K education within Vermont's foundation formula. This language is taken directly from Act 73 and a similar to request to the contractor JFO is currently working with for how CTE fits into everything. So we're mirroring the ask. The recommendations shall, to the extent possible, align with the recommendations of the report required to Section 45A of Act 73, which is the big JFO contracted report regarding the foundation formula. So we want to make sure if they are using a different contractor, we need whatever the pre K recommendation is to align with whatever the other recommendations are.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so this is where we, as a committee, are going have some discussion about what are the key elements that we want to be the outcome of that report. So this is where we would be putting in equal payments, accommodation for administrative costs of the district and whatever else other things that we come up with. But so rather than us and whether we should go with a waiting and per pupil thing versus a, not the C word.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, Categorical. Categorical.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna say contingency or some other word, but categorical grant. So we're going to lay out, we'll come to reach agreement as a committee on the, probably at most four or five items that we want to make sure the outcomes of this work. Okay? So that's why you don't see any of the payment stuff in here because I think we reached a conclusion yesterday that we lack sufficient information and actually the body lacks sufficient information to make that determination on our own. We need somebody who has some expertise in this to help before we just decide to make changes that could have unintended consequences. So that's what this is about.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The report back date is 01/15/2027, and that was at the request of JFO, that date. And then there's a $50,000 appropriation, so we should probably add appropriation in the next section heading, but there's a $50,000 appropriation to JFO from the general fund to hire that contractor. Effective dates, Katie's reader assistance headings were really helpful here, but we are gonna make changes. Do you wanna?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I think that we can I think A can stand, but B is gonna be combined with what is now C so that we can have a contingency apply to the 07/01/2033 changes also? And previous drafts have a version of that. So we're just gonna go back That's to a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: question that I was making sure about the payment has to align with the contingency. Okay. So I feel like we're in a really concrete place now. The one big question we have is around this background check thing. And Janet able to come. Janet McLaughlin, Deputy Commissioner is able to Zoom in with us at eleven. So we'll have an opportunity to hear from her and have that discussion. And Ray forwarded her the link to the language that Beth found, and I'm sure she can pull up this version and see what language that we've put in here. So I'm asking now because we will need to take a straw poll on this language before we forward it on to the education and ways and means committees. If there's anything other than the four or five points about what we want out of the study or the report. Are there any outstanding elements besides those two things, the background thing that we'll get clarity from Janet on and us coming up with the four or five things that we want to put here in that next to last section. My main concern is the cost, but that's fair, but we don't get that before we do this travel, right? We're not gonna have that at all until we see this in the major Ed bill. This will be a policy section that goes into the education bill that the committee on education is working on. So the only cost that we know for sure about this is this $50,000 Okay. Because I don't mind moving it on. I'm just worried about the past years. Of course, yes, we all do.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: That's why it's only a straw poll rather than a vote because it's not actually a bill we're passing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're just I don't mind moving it on, but at some point, we'll have a say. We will because actually we will receive the bill back in our committee because once it makes once it is officially introduced as a bill on the floor and gets a number because we have jurisdiction about this area, we will have an opportunity to take another vote on this. Okay. Okay. So I think that we're pretty steady. The only two things is we'll let you know the outcome of the conversation with Janet, and then we will come up with in a little bit the sort of like four to five things that we want for outcomes that are to be considerations of the report. Okay?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm only booked in one committee today. I know. So if you need me for I may be easier to get things depending on what Katie's doing. Just reach out to Matt.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay. All

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right. Sounds good. Thank you both for sticking with us and our on again, off again conversation. So it's really appreciated. Okay, folks, we are going to take a diversion to S210, an act relating to access to autopsy reports. So we talk about pre K, one

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: end of the spectrum to the other.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Whenever I explain what we do in our committee, I always say that it's prenatal, pre birth to after death. And here we go. That's where we're at. So we have Judge Zonet, and then we have Tim McManus. So, Judge, welcome to House Human Services.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Thank you for joining me. Good morning.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good morning.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Tom Zonay, Chief Superior Judge. And I took the liberty of watching your discussion on this during the walkthrough last week. There you go. So, if it's okay with the committee, what I will do is I think I'll go through and answer some of the questions I think you've had. And obviously, if you have additional questions, please let me know. Awesome. Thank you. So, the first topic I would touch on is on page one. It's lines Well, actually, I'm sorry. I gotta switch on. Page two, line seven through 12. This is the question about, I believe, representative Donahue asked, we'll call it veto power. That's a policy decision. The statute as it would come in does say, and the state's attorney does not object. In other words, it appears that if the state's attorney does object, the judge has no authority to order something. If your committee believes that that should be different, certainly you can change that. My understanding is the basis for that type of position by the state's attorneys was that it related to ongoing investigations or cases involving criminal charges that were pending. And the appropriate concern that the state doesn't want to have those investigations or charges interfered with. And so, if your decision in the committee is, well, we don't want the state to have veto power, but we do want the judge to be able to recognize this other issue. There is a solution. And I did have a chance to speak with Kim McManus about this. I won't speak for her, but if I'm saying anything wrong, she can look over and start wagging at me.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: She'll have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: her time in the chair too. So,

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: you could go and delete on line nine the language from the comma after report, and the state's attorney does not object. It would then say, if the superior court finds the petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the petitioner to obtain the autopsy report, it shall order the office of the medical examiner to provide it. And then down below, there were a number of factors that had been considered, And Ledge Council was correct. Believe those factors came from Wyoming. I think it was has There's a couple other states, but I think Wyoming had a set of factors. And what you could do on page three is after Roman five, little five, add another one, six, that says, Whether the disclosure of the autopsy report would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceeding. So you bring that language in, it provides the state's attorney the ability to bring that to the court, but it takes away the veto power and allows the court to make that decision. And I think that language would address that issue.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Represent Bishop?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: To me, that seems to get at part of the issue, but I wonder if we also couple it with sort of a time limit, that that can be lifted after a while. There may be a good reason in the moment for the judge to agree with the state's attorney, with that good reason not applying a year from now or two years from now. The resolution of the matter that state's attorney is handling would probably lift the objection. I would think that would be

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: a new petition or a new request or request to reconsider something like that. I do not see that a judge making a decision, for instance, on 03/01/2026, if the state's attorney's investigation is completed, that they couldn't come back to the court and say, judge, that's now gone. That impediment that you found that you've weighed that back. But that's a very good point.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But it doesn't actually say in the bill that if denied, that the petitioner can resubmit with new evidence or a new That's correct.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: So maybe we should state that. Yeah. Some bills do say, some statutes do say that if, for instance, with ceiling expungements denied, you cannot do something again in the future. So, the absence of language like that in itself signals that someone can come back and the judge would have the authority to address that. If you put that in here, it could theoretically be used to give questions about, well, what about statutes where they

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: don't say they They can don't come say they

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so, don't

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: know that it's necessary. All right. There was also a question on the factors. On page two, in particular, the factor of line seventeen and eighteen, whether the disclosure is necessary for the public evaluation of governmental performance. What did that really mean? As I understand it, it looks at cases where there may have been allegations or concerns of excessive force. Did the police or whoever responded respond appropriately? Was there a death in a correctional facility? And was there possible governmental negligence that caused an issue? And so, that factor looks at those types of areas. All right, that's helpful. The other question that was asked is about the factors. How are they considered? Think of it like a scale. Factors are weighed, not counted. You have a scale as opposed to let's say a scoreboard. And so, when a judge looks at six factors, for instance, it doesn't say, well, there's four here. One party theoretically could have four factors on their side, but the other two factors are so significant that they outweigh it. Are weighed, not counted. If you think of the scale, if you're missing something, in other words, if there's a factor that means nothing or is not relevant, it's not penalized. You don't lose anything, it just doesn't add any weight to the scale, it's neutral. Having the factors the way they're structured here, the absence of a factor being relevant to a particular case, it's not considered. It just doesn't add any weight. When you look at in Vermont, for instance, on parent child contact, parental rights and responsibilities, the legislature has enacted statutes for us to consider the best interests that are based upon consideration of factors. It's similar to that, and the court has indicated that factors, again, are to be weighed, not counted.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's helpful. Thank you.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And the final point that was raised and just did not come up on the Senate side, I was asked, is there a fee? Because under 32 VSA section fourteen thirty four, subsection A, there's a number of fees for probate filings. And so, is there a fee? If there is a fee, how much? A number of those filings, understand from trial court operations, it's anywhere from 100 to 150. And so this would go in, it looks like as A35, if the committee decided to have a fee, petition for access to autopsy report.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Who pays for the fee? The applicant.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: If there are financial difficulties and they're deemed to proceed in form of fauperous, the court does have the authority to waive the fee.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. You answered all of our questions, and let's just see, were there any other questions that popped into people's heads as judge Zonay was It's a metaphor. To revisit

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: the question raised and not to upset the apple cart with respect to other statutory provisions. Don't wanna get in that position. If we look at line 11 on page two, provide a copy of to the petitioner in whole or in part and may place restrictions on the petitioner's dissemination of the copy provided. We add for the timeline upon which they shall receive the report or something like that. That will allow for a delay rather than it would keep it on the docket, if you will, for an opportunity to revisit without a refiling.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Isn't that we're gonna have to pay another fee?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. Possibly another fee. Different judge. There's some way to try to put a limitation on whether they receive it.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: There's another way to address that too, though. If you added a subdivision that talked about a fee, you might be able to accomplish both things with that, to say, a fee shall be charged. We don't want this to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: go to ways and means.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Forget the feed. Also trial court operations, I said that. Good decision. My only concern with that is it sounds like what's gonna be happening is the judge can say, well, you have to release it, but in six months. And so in whole or in part, it may place restrictions on the petitioner's dissemination of the copy provided, that talks about once they get it, that's not about when they get it. And so, that doesn't address the issue of whether or not there's an investigation that you're waiting for. That would be the section before. It shall order the office of chief medical examiner in whole or in part to produce it.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: On a timeline that is, I don't know, cognizant cognizant of an ongoing

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: separate sentence after I understand you're saying that it's not in the place where representative Bishop had suggested suggested it. It, it doesn't really go in here. But if there was a separate sentence that

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: If you put something in that went along the line, and the states that Kim may have some ideas on this too, but if you wanted to say a court may Something to the effect of the court in its order may direct that upon

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: certain Upon completion of criminal proceedings or something. Something.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: But there might be another factor that weighs in like that too. Yeah. That I can foresee that if I was sitting on the bench and I'm hearing something, I might say, Well, today, that factor is important. Six months from now, it doesn't weigh the same for whatever reason. Now, the criminal investigation is the easiest one to point out, but I'm not sure that that's the only one that could potentially be like that. And so, if there was a way to come up with language that said, usually when I come up with language, I walk around and my wife's out, if I'm at home, my wife will go, what are you walking for? I said, I'm thinking.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are you mumbling at the same time?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Language that basically says that they can ask the court to reconsider upon a change of circumstances, something like that. Or, Nothing in this section shall be construed from a petitioner requesting the court to reconsider a prior determination based upon a material change in circumstances, A material change in information contributing to the factors, something like that. Something like that. That I think we're getting you with.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Think so, there. I'll let council writing very quickly.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions for Judge Zonet on this? Thank you, Judge Zonet. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Good morning. Welcome. Well, no, I've never been in here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. So we're gonna do a brief round of introductions because we have a family here. My name is Theresa Wood. I'm from Waterbury. I also serve Bolton, Beale score in Huntington.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Good morning, Dan Noyes, represent Wilkie, High Fire, Johnson, and Belvedere.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Hi. Good morning. Eric Maguire, representing for Robin City.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford, and I used to work for a funeral home.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Doug Bishop, Colchester's Gym in 20 District.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Esme Cole, I represent Hartford.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm Chittenden McGill, and I represent Bridgeport Middlebury, New Jersey.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Rey Garofano, represent Essex and Essex Junction.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Laurie Morris, committee assistant.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sapphire, action servants.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie McLennan, office of legislative

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: council. Katie, via email.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you for being here and welcome.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you so much. For the record, my name is Kim McManus and I'm with the Department of Police Attorneys and Sheriffs. And again, Legge Counsel, Katie McQuinn, checked in with me when this is on the other side in Senate. And I have to admit, she caught me in a moment where we had just a million things popping off. And my comments, woah, we need to be able to stop the release of this report, were made before any drafts that have these considerations. And as the judge stated, this was our main concern. If we're ordering an autopsy report, it is because there have been suspicious circumstances for the death. Otherwise, we don't order them. So we have a vested interest in these reports. And for a number of reasons, we would want to keep these reports safe and depending on how we need to use the report, either, again, for the investigation purposes or at the criminal proceeding, which, as you know, can take quite some time. I think an interesting piece, as the judge mentioned, we had some quick back and forth when he said, woah, you want veto power? And while we would love veto power sometimes, that would be wonderful. We do appreciate the judge put up a hand on that one. We do think adding the consideration of whether there's an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings into the factors will allay 99.9% of our concerns. And I think, depending on why the person's asking for the report, I think the redaction piece is going to be very helpful. Because it and I don't actually know why someone would be requesting this, if there was an insurance claim or a civil suit or something like that, and we did not want the vast majority of the report to be released, because it might impact witnesses or some part of our trial, that's where I think, depending on our concern and the person's interest in having that report, maybe some of that timeliness issue could be addressed in the redaction piece. So the judge being able to weigh, oh, you need this, you really need this, which says this, but we can also redact all of this, which is evidence and a criminal case. And if not, then if our consideration outweighs the other interests, the person might need to wait.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I appreciate the circumstances where, excuse me, I got tickled my throat, where that came about. And it just it did seem a little odd to us that the state's attorney could essentially veto whatever the judge might do. Know. Right? You know, You'd probably like to see that in other sections Spread of law, the word. Actually, I think we'll be taking the words out. So you're okay with the judge's suggestion that we add the state's attorney's consideration as one of the things that the judge considers when making their determination.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. And again, Judge Zonnier and I communicated and we came up with that language. So again, as long as that is foremost in the list, judges need to consider it. If it's in the factors, it has to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be considered. That will satisfy our concern. Great. Any other questions for Kim or clarifications? Thanks so much. We appreciate that. Perhaps

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: me up here in the tower.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It always works wonderfully when

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: this

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is the benefits of having things on YouTube. People can go back and listen and they can come up with solutions before they arrive. So that's awesome. Thank you. Thank you. So Katie, let me ask you about your timeframe. Sure. Because I think this is a bill we can We've essentially just done markup. Okay. I think we can move to a possible vote, I want to give you time to do whatever you need to do. Let me just

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: understand. So you wanna take we're gonna strike the language about the orders. Object. And then we're gonna add the the b five. Were there any other changes you wanted to make that were mentioned or just those two? The last one that Doug was talking about and the and where this Trying to write quickly. Yes. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a petitioner from refiling a petition upon a material change in circumstance. Circumstances are information. Okay. I'd say information, I think. A material change in information? Okay. And you wanna vote it today?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It it doesn't have to be today. Okay. I just was looking for time frames from you. We can do it to the lobby here.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have to run down to senate. I might have a little window before noon. So I'm also making the pre k changes. So I'm gonna prioritize that. And then I'll do this. So We have it tomorrow.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It has to be edited. Yeah, tomorrow's fine. Okay, yeah, that's easy. Okay. All right, folks, so let's take a break. And let's take about a fifteen minute break. And then actually, I'm gonna reverse that. We'll take a break in about a half an hour. Let's see if we can get to our consideration. We'll take a break before Janik gets on. Okay? Let's see if we can come up with the four or five elements so that we can give those to Katie and Beth, and then maybe the next version that we have back will be a version we can build them. You want me to say? Yeah, don't think you need to. Somebody will email to you. Can

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I ask Madam Chair if you could reframe the issue we're discussing? Have found the categorical versus weighted very confusing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Which is exactly why we're asking somebody else to help us with that. Okay. So go back to the bill and go back to page 15. Yep. And so after yesterday's whole discussion with the joint fiscal office, it became crystal clear to me that even though, know, ways of means had sort of put a bug in my ear about this Categorical. Categorical. I always want to say contingency and it's not that categorical grant versus the weighted average daily membership. That I think that neither one of us have sufficient information on which to make a decision about what's going to achieve what it is that we're looking for. What meets our goals. What meets the goals? And so what this is, JFO already has a contract signed with an organization. We heard from them yesterday that they have a regular weekly call, they'll bring up this issue. They believe that it probably could be an add on to the contract that they have, which is good because then they're considering the whole pre K to 12. Again, that goes to our intent language. We're trying to make sure that the other bodies, other committees are looking at pre K to 12, not just K to 12. And so what we need to do is in this report, so we have the language that is requesting the report. We want to add language that says, these are the elements, these are our goals. We want them to consider how to best provide equal payments to private and public. A system that would provide equal payments to private and public. That's one thing. That would account for administrative costs of a school district in working with and ensuring access to pre K is another item.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Administrative costs at the other end, at the private providers.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's why the, well, but the school district has administrative costs at the private providers. They're going to have to contract with more private providers than school districts going.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: In some instances.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: It depends on what the regions look like. Right, and because they have to-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You don't have to raise your hand, we're just having a discussion.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: They're responsible for assuring answers, they're responsible for that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Giving

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: them that responsibility. This

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just came across. New York State is putting together a pre K plan, dollars 4,500,000,000.0. So Vermont, that's why I always ask about money because I can't imagine that's in New It's hard for them. Yes, they have a lot more people. They have a lot more people to do this. I know, but there are a lot. But actually- Remember not everybody pays taxes, it's the ones that pay the taxes that are paying for all the free stuff. So yeah, I heard that on the news as well.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: A lot

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of people brag. So, okay. So what are the other elements that we would want to make sure are considered in that? That it supports achieving access for all three and four year olds in the state in a mixed delivery system.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: That you had equal payments and equal standards. Right, equal

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: educational standards for teachers in the classroom. Right, that it'd be fully integrated with the pre K to 12 system. That'd be, well, I'm Yeah, not sure if not integrated, that's

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: not the right word.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But the cost is included in the cost of There we go. Right?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There's actually good list in that X-seventy six report on the Pre K Education Implementation Committee put together.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, what else did we say? What else did we say about that?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: A bunch of stuff in there. Know, it's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That was weed. That was us. Know. I know.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I and just maybe there's some parts in here. And, also, it doesn't look like in that this ends, like, that group that was putting together. I was just trying to look at the membership of that committee. So maybe even, you know, this this particular committee also is charged with looking at it again in They

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: didn't give us something. They didn't give a date that they ended.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It doesn't look like it. There's parts of it that end, but Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think that the official pre k implementation committee has ended, but they still are membership. Well, we know that they're doing work, I forget the job title of the person who was here with the secretary, but and we know because we heard from Building Bright Futures and from CBD that they are meeting on a more regular basis all around. I'm happy to run through the

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: through the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Same slowly, we can decide which ones we want.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The needs of both state and local education agencies, the minimum number of hours that shall constitute a full day for both pre kindergarten and kindergarten.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so are we wanting to do that piece?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think we're already saying how many hours.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're saying

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: ten, But we're saying do we say, is that the right number?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Well, we know, as well, we've heard it's not the right number, at least for four year olds. They concluded that it's not the right number. We don't need to assign them.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep, nope, that's fine. Whether there are areas of the state where pre kindergarten education can be more effectively and conveniently furnished in an adjacent state due to geographic considerations. So across state lines.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That just reminded me. The St. John's Berry piece and the Kingdom piece.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Benchmarks and best practices to ensure high quality pre kindergarten education.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What the other one just when you were talking about adjacent states, made me just think of maybe one of the things we should be asking them is around a focus on areas of the state where access and participate and or participation is limited. Say that again. To have them focus on or to provide recommendations around increasing access and participation in areas of the state where either or both of those are limited. In the Northeast Kingdom, have they have actually more access, but participation is limited. So we don't know if people know about pre K and in Franklin and Grand Isle Counties, access is an issue because they have insufficient capacity. Okay, keep

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: going. Benchmarks and best practices to ensure high quality pre kindergarten education.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, we don't need that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Number five is measure to ensure capacity is available to meet the demand for pre kindergarten education. Yeah, that's a more general one, we

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: say with a focus on what I just said there before. Yeah, so we've already captured that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep. Yeah. Special education services for children participating in pre kindergarten in public and private settings. Yeah, I don't think we need to do that either. Any necessary infrastructure changes to expand pre kindergarten?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's either within the school or they partner, right? Right, I feel

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: like that's prior to honestly the broader conversation about what's gonna happen, what kind of districts they're gonna have and whether Costs we're gonna

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: associated with expanding pre kindergarten including fiscally strategic options to sustain an expansion.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: I mean, that's kind of related to the last piece we discussed about, and I don't know if this study can even get into that, how do we have a system where districts who need it and want it can do full day, for instance, versus the equity of wanting to fund equally, there's that piece that we have talked about.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can I go back, feel like I'm up two minds about that?

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: I am too.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm like, I can see where it might be necessary and then boom, I'm thinking like, then that's another equity issue for me.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: So do we, is this something we would be asking the contractor to look at? What would the mechanisms be? And I think probably not because it's really more embedded in policy. If the policy decision was made in one direction, we'd need to know how would you address that within the funding formula. We're not there yet. No, and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it honestly probably lands in whether the foundation, know, is the foundation formally gonna go forward? So if it's gonna go forward, then school districts will have the ability to make policy choices within what they receive. Priorities among all the different I mean,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm also of two minds, but I think that if we have a foundation formula, I think it would be fair for a school district or a region, whatever, to determine what their priorities for their communities are. They will differ. They will differ. And I think they need to make those choices of their own within the foundation formula that they receive.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And do we, is there anything about weights in there?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can we

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: have them look at weights?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, so need to, sort of like the big question that maybe could lead off is whether we should be looking at a categorical aid payment structure or a weighted average daily membership structure.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So that's kind of along the same lines as what this is really talking about.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: All right, and recommendations for oversight of the pre kindergarten system. Okay, we've already decided

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And then the lovely catch all, any other committee deems relevant. Yeah. The committee should probably put something in there, like if while they're like what- I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think what we do is I'll consider at least. Then, Aaron, So

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Let's see if there's anything I'll just go through. But yeah, those are that. That's it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thanks for thanks for referencing that.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I'll just see if

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: there's anything in here about what else. What did they find is the what else? Like, somewhere in this report, 100

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yes. And six I read the report. Do they? A while ago.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, I know. That's why I'm like, any other issue the committee deems relevant, I'm sorry, relevant. So I don't know way down the end if there is anything.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I think that for us this, because they're talking about utilizing a contractor that is really solely looking at the financial aspects of it. So they actually did provide a whole bunch of information about best practice and all of that kind of stuff that I think that that's not what we'd be asking this contractor to do. This scope is more narrow. Yep.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So let me read what we have so far. I have whether we should look at a categorical eight payment structure or weighted average daily membership. We want whatever policy we have that supports achieving access for all three and four year olds with equal payments and equal educational standards? It should a class is included in the full class of education and provide recommendations on increased access and participation in areas of the state where either of those are limited.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Aren't we answering the first one you listed isn't part of the list per se because the underlying question is what funding mechanism will meet our criteria? And that's not a criteria which should it be?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sort of the overall question as well, funding mechanism. And they may have something different. We've thought about categorical and average daily membership, but there could be something

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: that's That's another the overlying question, but then we have to identify what are the goals that we want them to be considering in looking at which funding mechanism would meet those goals, would best meet those goals. And I think we wanna reference the commitment to a mixed delivery system. And they're looking at how to fund it because it might be a very different answer if it's called public.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Think that's Emphasizing that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Do we even go as far as to look at outside impact? So for instance, does the expansion of pre K or a private pre K have anything to do with access to water and wastewater in that community? Because some of the limiting factors could be access to infrastructure, especially in rural parts of the state. So if a school wants to expand or a private provider wants to expand, but there's no municipal water

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so That's limiting what mini chip is for, or whatever it's called.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: that get a little too into the weeds?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, not for this. So I've advised it to elements for

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the JFO contractor. Overall question is what the appropriate funding mechanism is and then parentheses and put in categorical payment structure, weighted average daily membership, or other recommendations, the following goals: supports achieving access for three and four year olds, payments and equal educational standards, ensures a cost including full cost of education, provides recommendations on increased access and participation. So, really not provides, just increased access. Increased access and participation in areas of the state or either of those is limited.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Well, access to all, we want access for all three and four year olds, no matter where they are geographically.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But I think it's worth highlighting what you said because there's places where there's access. We can

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: do something different in those places.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, because there's lots where people are not

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Should thinking there be a different approach?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So the first one says support is achieving access for all three and four year Okay, okay. So that would kinda, all three and four year olds have access.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And did you say mixed delivery system?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: No, that's what I meant.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Support Okay. Continues to support and makes delivery. So we've talked about access, we've talked about equal payments, we've talked about three and four year olds, We've talked about professional qualification. Is there anything else that people think? I think that's a good start. I want to send that off to Beth and Katie. Okay. Alright. Let's take a break. So we're going to I I think just to let people know sort of what's on tap, we have another long day today, this afternoon. And we have our cadre of folks here who are bill reporters on the floor this afternoon. So please try to watch the calendar and listen for when our bills are on the floor so that we are all present when we are on the floor for our bills. And we obviously will not be coming back here after floor. Tomorrow morning, of course, now we're gonna have a whole bunch of third readings. I didn't look and see yet what's on the notice calendar for tomorrow. Invite you. Let me just look at that for a second. I'm just trying to decide honestly about I'm hoping that we have language back today on pre k. It's And at 01:00. He's trying to fit everything in is like a puzzle. Puzzle that is difficult. So I'm going to ask if people would be willing to come at 9AM tomorrow to vote on the pre K language. Not too early, is that right? Okay. So I think that's what we'll do. Because I I don't I'm trying to figure out how we're gonna fit in our celebration, how we're going to do that. And s two ten is not we don't have to pass that. We don't have to pass that this week, but if we if we're able to get to it tomorrow, we're to get to it. And, Laurie, I think that we can go offline. We're gonna have a little break.