Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, good morning everyone. Welcome to Friday morning of a very long week. As our illustrious magician, committee assistant said, it's been a long month this week. That is true. Okay, so we're looking at draft 7.2 of the language that we're going to be forwarding on to education, hopefully today. And if you wouldn't mind joining us, Ledge Councils. I don't think Todd is coming up, so feel free to use his chair there.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: based on the conversation that we had yesterday and the changes that we were looking at, we have a new draft. So what I'm hoping And to be able to do is to take a straw poll on this draft before we go to the floor today. So on the floor, can work on the cover memo. Okay, so thank you. If you wouldn't mind going through the changes, that would be awesome.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Council, Kaitlyn, Office

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: of Legislative Council. So you have a draft 7.2. It looks like Beth's pulling it up. Great. Changes are highlighted in yellow. So first we have your legislative intent section with no changes. Then we have the first time that we're amending eight twenty nine, which would be effective 07/01/2026. No changes to the language we looked at yesterday, with the exception of subsection I had been the background check. That language has now been removed and that has added a different language, a different topic in subsection I.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, this is the language that is actually on the Senate floor today, has been on

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: the Senate floor for the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: last couple of days, in S-two 14,

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: which allows

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Any K Choice School District, which is up on the border of New Hampshire, to use Pre K funds authorized pursuant to this section to attend a public pre K program in New Hampshire, and then allows for a waiver process from AHS and AOE for any rule provision that is impractical for either the school district or the New Hampshire program to satisfy. And they would have to demonstrate that a substantially equivalent provision is offered. This is the exact same language I walked through, I think, at the beginning of the week to just alert you. It was a beautiful synergy. S-two 14 has added it as Subdivision I.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Was to be.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Was meant to be.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's my own best. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's good. That's good. The one question that I have about this, and we talked some about it, but didn't land on anything, is about whether or not it should have an end date. I guess if and when a new, some sort of regional structure is put in place. And I wouldn't know exactly what to put there. So I don't think that just raising it as an issue. So as this film moves along, you can say that we thought about that, but we didn't know what to put in there because of it being uncertain what is dates and things that are happening downstairs or over. Across. Well, mezzanine is what I was thinking.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure that what they

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are contemplating and even what Act 73 contemplated to the extent that anyone should choose to see a difference between the two would cure this issue. Because it's about, is there a program physically accessible by folks? It is physically accessible.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That is true. Yeah. So I don't know.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I take your point.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But, well, yes and no. I mean, this could be, when we think about the language that's further down, this could be one of the solutions that a school district reaches when being assigned the responsibility to reassure the provision of that. So, okay. Okay, thanks. We'll just move along now.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure. The next section is section three. Is the second time you're amending eighttwenty ninth, and this is effective 07/01/2033. So this is your language about the teachers all being under the same standard. You didn't make any changes to that yesterday. Next, I am at the bottom of page four, top of page five. This is the third time you amend eight twenty nine, and this time it is effective upon the contingency. And here you did have some changes from the last time we looked at the drafts. Me Page seven. Thank you. Oh, you're the one who's dropping something. I know. So in subdivision four, page seven, it changes here. If the supply of pre qualified private and public providers is insufficient to meet the demand for publicly funded pre K education in any region of the state, the relevant school districts in the region shall work in collaboration with their pre kindergarten coordinators, if any, the Agencies of Education and Human Services, 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 and emergency licenses issued by the Standards Board for Professional Educators pursuant to this title. If necessary, a school district shall begin or expand a program to meet that demand.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So this gets to we wanted to make sure that there is the collaborative work that happens first, and then they'll reach some sort of decision about what needs to happen and then the removal of that. The chair does recognize somebody from the side.

[Unidentified early childhood advocate]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam not Chair, an early child to the advocacy lines. The technical question that if it were to not be cured, it could be a problem. I wonder about the use of the word region. I'm not sure in earlier drafts you discussed deleting the pre K region, which was something that was put in and that's referenced here in the region. So if that is not defined somewhere that could potentially be an issue. I don't think there's an intense question here at all, but I wonder, I I would hate to have that be a flaw in the language that-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It could just say relevant school districts. It doesn't need to say in the region.

[Unidentified early childhood advocate]: I believe that's a reference to the Fijian language.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can't say

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that. No, I don't believe the geographical region piece that has been struck here. I think it's connected. I think you could argue on both sides, but I don't see a clear connection to region being defined anywhere. Yeah. I think it's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just meant to mean In that area. Talk to your counterparts. So let's leave it the way it is. Thank you.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll let you do subsection D. Sure. So we're in

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a tuition subsection, and this is where we talked about the school calendar. So we've just changed this to remove reference to the district's academic year, so it's just academic year. And as long as I remain your education policy attorney, I will be drafting this for any changes that are necessary if and when we move

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: to a statewide school district helper. And then we go down to the rules. You'll notice this section is a lot shorter. We add epilipsis. So page nine, subsection E, rules, and then we're making an amendment to subdivision 10, which is adding and building bright futures. So it would read to establish a system by which AOE, DCF and building bright futures shall jointly monitor and evaluate pre pay programs.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: More ellipses. Again, that's just referencing what current practice is.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: So next we come to section five at the bottom of page 11. This is the status report. So you still have a report coming 01/01/2030, but you asked to have the two education committees as recipients of that report. So that is the change there. Section six, why don't you do section six?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So we've added to the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: section heading appropriation just to signal that there is an appropriation in this section. And then I have added the language at your direction from the conversation that happened after Katie and I, or Katie may have been in there, but I wasn't, regarding this is the JFO contractor report. So this section would read now, JFO shall contract with a contractor with expertise in Vermont's education funding system, make recommendations regarding how to account for the provision of pre K within Vermont's education finance system, including the consideration of use of categorical aid or the inclusion of pre kindergarten education with any foundation formula through the use of a pre kindergarten weight. The contractor's recommendation shall be designed to provide funding for pre kindergarten education that supports achieving access for all three and four year olds with equal payments and equal educational standards for public and private providers, ensures the cost of pre kindergarten education is included in the full cost of education, increases access and participation in areas for the state where access or participation is limited, and continues to support a mixed delivery system. And then the rest of the report back on the synergy between the 45A report, who gets the report and the report back date remains the same as does the appropriation amount source and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would add I think, I'm sorry, would add in there House Human Services

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: today. They are in there. Online five? Oh,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, didn't see it. Thank you. Didn't forget about you guys. I just didn't see it for some reason.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We need to reference eligible or how we term it, five year olds. Beckham says, supports achieving access for all three and four year olds with equal payments, etcetera. But there are five year olds.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, three, four. Yeah. Although it's in the language as unless, it's like, or oh yeah, but it would still be the not eligible. There's a lot There of are five year

[Unidentified early childhood advocate]: olds that are

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just not Right, can we just reference the definition?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For eligible. For eligible. Yeah, that's a good idea. Good catch, Doug. Thanks. Okay, so let's move to effective dates. We have to make sure that we're, what we think we're doing.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: Some changes here. This first subsection A is everything that's taking effect 07/01/2026. So the effective date section, the legislative intent section, the first time we're changing 08/29, Section five, which is the status report, and Section six, which is the JFO contracting. That all takes effect July. Section four, which is the third time in the bill that you're amending eight twenty nine, that takes effect on the occurrence of the contingency. And section three, which is having everybody, all providers have the licensed teacher, that takes effect on 07/01/2033, only if the contingency has occurred.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what we were intending. Okay. Are there any questions, Clarifications? Okay. It looks like we're ready for

[Unidentified committee member]: a straw poll. Can I just quote what I got from a superintendent that doesn't endorse this?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you want to say? I do. Is it different than what you've said already? Oh, I

[Unidentified committee member]: sent her the new version. Okay. That was the old version reply. This is a new version. Foremost, is an unfunded mandate? No. Second, in light of modeling for the transition to foundation formula. So We allow for that. Okay. We need to make drastic program reductions. Is that true? No, not based on anything we have here. Okay. And pre K, would that be exempt and this would place an undue pressure on families to find alternative options and already limited childcare and preschool market? No, it's not changing the number of hours or the eligibility for pre K.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Tends to grow the excess.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, okay. So that's, I just get to know. Answer those questions. Okay, are we now ready

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for a drop hole? Okay. So can I see by shelf hands those who are supportive of the language that we are proposing to the education bill? Which as you pointed out, will come back to us. Which will come back to us. Yes. We will have another opportunity to review this. Okay. So 123456789. And those who are opposed, nine one zero nine one one. Okay. Thank you both for all of your work on this. And we have fifteen minutes, and guess what we can do? S210. Know, I heard people thought that we were taking a little too long on this, but it's all good.

[Unidentified committee member]: Can I just explain my notebook?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If you would like to.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, I just want it out there that the reason is I don't like to vote on anything, not knowing the cost. That's all. To the taxpayer. That's We

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know that until it goes down the road. You have a whole education system.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, heard it all. It's gonna be over 100,000,000, so that concerns me. But that was the only rumor. Okay. And this? That's what I heard.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh my goodness. Rumor. Wow. You need resources. Even

[Unidentified early childhood advocate]: challenge it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sure sure all the pre K providers out there would be lovely to have another 100,000,000, but that ain't gonna happen. Trust me.

[Unidentified committee member]: How much is in there now for it?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 50,000 in this house.

[Unidentified committee member]: 50,000. So I wouldn't go more than that? No. Not from what we're talking about. That's good to know. That's good to get out

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there, that it won't cost more than 50,000. And that's Right. Okay. So $2.10. Oh. And Representative Steady is gonna report this bill.

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me pull up the amendment. I don't know it was Okay. Posted yet. Okay. So just to refresh your memory where we were yesterday, we had done a walkthrough. You heard from Kim McManus and Judge Zonnay. You had not very many changes. So like the amendment that came to you that wasn't a strike all, this likewise is not a strike all. This is removing Subdivision B 2 of the draft, which is specific to the court process, putting in a new B 2 that has an additional subdivision than the last time you've seen it. So first, in a Subdivision A, we have our instructions about how the petitioning process works. This, is highlighted because this is where that clause was removed. Mhmm. That sort of, as you call it, the veto authority for the state's department or State's attorney. State's attorney. So that is where that clause was, now it's removed. Subsection B is our instructions to the court about what they shall consider. And here is where we have the state's attorney's concern about the ongoing criminal investigation. So this list had ended at Subdivision 5, and now we have a new and, new Subdivision 6, whether the disclosure interferes with an ongoing criminal investigation. New Subdivision C that you haven't seen yet, and this is the language we discussed yesterday, that nothing in this subdivision two, meaning the court process, shall prohibit a petitioner from refiling a petition for a copy of an autopsy report upon a material change in information.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that is it. That's it. Okay. Are there any questions? This is all based on our discussion yesterday and the witnesses that we had yesterday. And I so I think that the procedure for this is we have to have two votes. I think we have to have a vote on our amendment and then on the bill as amended. Does that sound right?

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: That sounds right, but I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not your parliamentarian. Believe Yeah. That the first thing we're going to vote on is our amendment, because this is not a strike call. I move that we accept our amendment. Okay. What was the version, Katie?

[Kaitlyn (Katie), Office of Legislative Counsel]: Think it was 1.1. I think it's the first one I drafted. Sorry, I just closed out of it. 1.1. 1.1. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: House Human Services amendment 1.1. It was dated today. It was dated yesterday, 03/26 at 11AM. So there's been a motion to approve the House Human Services amendment 1.1 to bill s two ten. And is there any further discussion? Okay. The clerk, please call the roll.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Bishop? Yes. Representative Cole?

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yes.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Donahue? Yes. Representative Eastes? Yes. Representative Garofano?

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

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Maguire? Yes. Representative McGill? Yes. Representative Nielsen? Representative Noyes? Yes. Representative Steady? Yes. Representative Wood?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and so the vote was ten-ten-one. Ten-one. Wrote it in. All right, thank you. And now we will, I would entertain a motion to approve s two ten as amended by House Human Services.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'll make a motion that we approve s two ten as amended by House Human Services.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is there any further discussion or questions? Okay. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Bishop? Yes. Representative Cole? Yes. Representative Donahue? Yes. Representative Eastes? Yes. Representative Garofano? Yes. Representative Maguire? Yes. Representative McGill?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Nielsen? Representative Noyes? Yes. Representative Steady? Yes. Representative Wood? Yes. Ten zero one. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. That was good. As I said, we're Two twenty minutes. Two bills in twenty minutes. I know. So we will not be meeting after the floor. Floor is going be going for a while. We have two bills up. They're going be up this morning. I've been promised that they're going to be up this morning. They may be unfortunately for Jubilee, they may be one right after the other.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It looks like now I

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: think there

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: will be at least one bill. One bill between oh, okay. Now I haven't looked

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: at It's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the budget. They move that stuff around. And then $6.66.0.57

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: dollars

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and then ninethirty $8 that's what it says. I read $9 Yep, I read that wrong. Okay. Great. Budget first and then Okay, so next Same week, what will we do next week? I don't know yet. So we'll have a bit of floor time on Tuesday because we're going to have a bunch of bills that we're passing today or taking action on today. We have other Senate bills that we have to consider, and we have a resolution here. And I'll be honest, I need to seek clarification about how we deal with the resolution being treated as a bill if there's I'm not sure what the procedure is, because it's the first time I've done that.

[Unidentified early childhood advocate]: Where are we looking

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is Resolute two, say, oh, it's the one there. Oh, JRH. Yeah. Thank you. JRH nine, is that what it says? What's the topic? The topic is essentially communication via typing for people with speech disorders or inability to speak. It's Representative Berts. He's the lead sponsor of that, and was treated as a bill. So thanks. See you on the floor. Have a good weekend if I don't see you in between time. And, Laurie will send you the instructions about what to do with that bill. Like I last time. Yep. K. Thanks. Okay.