Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, welcome back to House Human Services. Our technology issues have been solved, and we are delighted to have Sherry James with us this morning. She is a registered home care child care provider. And disclosure, here is one of my constituents, and I've known her for a very long time since she was about this big. So good morning, Cherry. Welcome. And we, as you know, are taking testimony on S206, which relates to licensure of early childhood educators. And we'd like to hear from people with lived experience and people in the field. So

[Sherry James (Registered home childcare provider, Waterbury Center)]: welcome, and the floor is yours. Thank you. I have many points that I am happy to discuss, but I tried to whittle it down to what I think is most important with the time that we have. So, good morning. My name is Sherry James. I operate a registered home childcare program in Waterbury Center. I'm here to speak in opposition to S206. We already have a child care crisis in Vermont. We do not need to pass legislation that will exacerbate it. Redundant oversight. The BUILD's goal of professionalizing our field ignores the reality that we are already professionals. As a registered provider, I'm already overseen by the Child Development Division. My name is directly associated with my program, my home is inspected, and I already meet strict state standards and regulations. I adhere to requirements for annual professional development. Creating a second, separate board of early childhood educators doesn't add safety, it adds bureaucracy. It asks me to pay a $175 fee and a $250 renewal fee every two years. For a workforce that's already underpaid, this isn't professionalization, it's a tax on employment. We have no idea what other requirements, hoops to jump through, this additional board will add. Passing this bill will also require three new job positions at the Secretary of State's office. The danger of degree requirements. Most concerning is the requirement for college degrees. High quality childcare is built on years of hands on experience and the deep trust of the families I serve. A degree doesn't help me teach a room with toddlers or support a child's emotional growth. A college degree does not guarantee a higher level of quality care. If we want to see what happens when we mandate degrees, we can look at Washington, D. C. In 2018, they implemented these rules and their licensed child care centers dropped by 9% in two years, while the rest of the nation increased by 3%. Six years later, only twenty four to forty percent of teachers and fifty percent of home providers had obtained the required credentials. Currently, Vermont only meets the needs of 40% of our infants. We cannot afford to lose a single provider, let alone 9% of our workforce, because of an academic mandate. This bill would also eliminate the ability for a stay at home parent to open a registered home program while raising their children. These programs account for a large percentage of current child care spots. The economic impact. When providers close because of these hurdles, costs go up for everyone. Research suggests by as much as 40%. That will hurt working parents and our state's economy, which already loses $344,000,000 annually due to childcare shortages. Please do not trade the actual available care Vermont families rely on today or the ability of new programs to open for an academic credential that many of us simply cannot attain. I urge you to vote no on S206 and focus on ways to support us, not push us out. Thank you. And so just a little background about me personally. Throughout my thirty three years, I opened my in home program when I was 19. I didn't have children. I wasn't married. I loved children. And I've

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: run

[Sherry James (Registered home childcare provider, Waterbury Center)]: my in home daycare. I've completed several college level courses. I've had the freedom to choose which subjects I'm interested in and which will support my profession. I do not currently hold a college degree. In my opinion, completing my required general ed courses college math, research and writing, English comp will not benefit my childcare program or my quality of care. Therefore, finding time, money and energy to complete them feels very unnecessary and overwhelming. I've spoken to many providers who feel the same way. Thank you, Sherry. And I apologize when somebody is new to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the committee, we usually do introductions and so I will do that in reverse.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I don't think I did it all the way.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So you know me. I'm from Wattenberg. I'm Sir Bolton, we'll just go around quickly around the room

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: with Dan. Good morning. I'm Dan Noyes. I represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson, Belvedere.

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: Hi. Good morning. I represent Robbin City.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Good morning. Doug Bishop. I'm one of Colchester's representative.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Good morning.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I live in Guildford, and I also serve

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Vernon. Your name is? And your name is.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Zon Eastes. I

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: know when he told Brittany Burner.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: They know. Exactly. It

[Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director, Vermont Department of Health]: used to be that way in Lauterbray.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Hi there. Thank you for your testimony. I'm Esme and I live in Fort Worth, in Hartford.

[Unidentified committee member]: Hi, I'm Chittenden and represent Goodport Middlebury, Windham and Ridge.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hi, Sherry. Earlier, I'm Rey Garofano, I represent Essex And Essex Junction. Laurie Morris, committee assistant, and I have to say her daughter Cassie's former middle school socialist. And we go right around the outside.

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: I'm Brenda. I'm with the agency of education.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Great. Nice to see you. Representative Steady, do you want to introduce yourself?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Hi, Sherry. And thank you, thank you, thank you for that wonderful testimony. I'm right there with you. I'm Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. You, representative Steady, you had your hand up. Is there a question that you wanted to ask or anything else you wanted to say?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: No. I'm just very proud of Sherry, and I'm hearing that all over the place. And please, please spread the word. I am.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Sherry, one of the things that we've heard throughout the testimony that went in the Senate and then here and last year to this year is that there have been changes to the bill, particularly for, I think, that would impact people in your situation who have registered home childcare providers that are already in the business actually wouldn't be required to get the degree. But a new person who wanted to, I think, is what you're referencing here, somebody who might be a new mom or a new dad who wanted to open a childcare would be required to meet those education requirements.

[Sherry James (Registered home childcare provider, Waterbury Center)]: Yes. So when it was last year, we were able to get some changes. And one of them was that some of us would be like a Seed In. So I do not, I will not be required to get the degree, which is fabulous. But I'm here speaking for everybody else. Like I said, I started when I was 19 years old, know, fresh out of high school, and I didn't know what I wanted to do. I knew I loved children. And right now, if I were to do that, to try to do that, I would have to get a degree while I was working. So childcare providers work fifty to sixty hours a week. And that doesn't include, like, I feed my children, so I grocery shop for them. It's in my home. So all of the extra, you know, there's all of the extra stuff. So, and if you're also raising a child or two, time for education is really limited. There are, you know, we do have professional development guidelines, and we can pick and choose what we take. You know, at one point in time, I had a legally blind child. And so I was like, Okay, let's figure this out. And I just dove in and I could research what I, what was going to be helpful for us, for that family, for that child, for our our daycare at the time. So yeah, it actually would not affect me personally. I'm fine. And, know, and actually, I am working with the TEACH program right now to get my degree, because my kids are in their 20s now. And I feel like I have a little more extra time and I'm like, okay, I'll take the English comp. Do this math. I know it's not going to give me, I'm not going to provide a higher quality of care because of that. I'm just like, I have the time now. So if you're looking at centers, I can speak for a lot of centers just because I have the experience of being in networks with people who are in centers and friends who work in centers. An entry level job at a childcare center pays like $18 an hour. So if you're getting out of high school and they're trying, you know, they want this certificate program to bring program, well, they're trying to rush them through it so they can hurry up and be prepared. That's not doing anybody any good either. If we're rushing that education, is that education really any going to give them that quality of care anyway? A lot of times, why can't you begin your job, you know, at $18 an hour entry level job, and we work with you, you know, the directors have their degrees. So we're going to work with you, there's foundations, there's CDAs, there's other options than a degree program. And a lot of great centers already do that. So and another part was that they wanted to connect a name with a history. So if you go to the state of Vermont website, you'll find my name as a registered child care program, and you can look and see if I've had any violations. That's directly connected to my name. When you work in a center, it's not. It's connected to the center. So one of the arguments about this bill in support of this bill is that they want to be able to connect past violations with a name. So create that, right? Like, if you work in a program, you have to have a BFIS number, just like I do. Your name is connected to that, and you can't hide behind the name of the center. So when somebody loses their job or abuse, they can't go to another center and apply without that being seen. Right now, they can't. So that's a problem. What I'm doing is not a problem. Opening a day care, a child care, being a provider, fresh out of school, or even 25 years old and you're having your first child, you're like, wait a minute, I'm going to pay for childcare $400 a week, and I'm going to make $500 a week. I'm going to stay home with my child or mom or dad, whoever's making the least amount of money, right? Like, makes sense. Stay home, raise your child, and take a few markets so that your child has children to play with. And you can you can help other families who need care. And in this sense, they would have, I think it's six years to get a degree. Well, in that six years time, they've, you know, they might have another child two years later. So when you're raising, I did it. I had a one year old and a two year old. My kids are fifteen months apart. There was no possible way I could do school too. And I just think it's really going to eliminate we already have we have not fixed the crisis that we already have. And it's just going to exacerbate it. And it's scary to me to think about home providers being pushed out because we are really are I think that we are the soul of childcare in Vermont, especially in some of the smaller towns, the smaller regions. Just isn't running a center is very, very, very, very expensive. And even with the rates that have gone up, they still can't afford to stay in business. They cannot afford to pay their help. And if you're going to require an associate's degree to make $18 an hour, that is not reasonable at all. Thank you. Other questions for Sherry?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. Thanks so much for being here, Sherry, and for your testimony. I'm curious, during the outreach that was happening by Vermont AEYC and the various advocates, just in your circles of other family childcare home providers, like, were you involved in that outreach and were you given the opportunity to provide feedback and do you know for others? So I would honestly, the first couple of years of the talk, there

[Sherry James (Registered home childcare provider, Waterbury Center)]: wasn't, I didn't I don't feel like there was a lot of outreach. You probably have heard from some other providers that about two years ago is when we they had said that they had been talking about it for six years, they had made a board. I didn't know that. They this whole committee that was working on it. They chose, I don't know, five centers, two home providers. I never heard anything about it. And I'm extremely organized. I read all of my emails. I do not remember hearing anything about it. I do not. I go to basic conferences every fall. I did not hear about it there. And about two years ago, it really started to hit the ground. And I started to see it in some of my big private Facebook groups. And that's when a few of us really dove in and started emailing our legislators and being like, how do we not have say in this? So I do think in the last two years, maybe two and a half, we've been able they started to have some roundtables. Did, myself and some other of my fellow providers, my networking groups, would take part in those roundtables from the very beginning. It just really felt like it didn't matter how we felt about it. They felt like this was the best way to give us. And I think a lot of it is, is that they want us to be considered professionals. I already consider myself a professional. I don't need a piece of paper that tells me that. I don't. There are professionals that are licensed, and there's bad ones. Like there's good eggs and bad eggs everywhere. You know, there's doctors who do horrible things. There's teachers who aren't great teachers. There's teachers who aren't great teachers. It doesn't you know, being required to write and we don't know what that's going to entail either. This adds a whole nother level of oversight, we have CDD, and if CDD isn't doing their job properly, or somebody feels like they need to do more, why don't we focus our attention there? Why don't we make sure that CDD has the supports and the help and can steer things so that everybody is getting the oversight? But yes, for about two and a half years, the majority of us, I think, just started to find out about it. And then I started spreading the word a lot. And other people obviously did, too. And that's how it kind of But definitely was not in the beginning stages where I did not feel like I knew anything that was going on.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Other questions from committee members? Thanks so much, Sherry. Appreciate it. You did awesome on your first testimony. Thank you. Hopefully it's

[Unidentified committee member]: my last, I don't know.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: That's my retirement plan too.

[Sherry James (Registered home childcare provider, Waterbury Center)]: I don't know. You, Appreciate great.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. We would love to welcome Andrew now to the witness chair. Andrew is from the Agency of Education. And you just heard us do all the introductions. So welcome for your first time in House Human Services. And as you know, we're taking up S206. And I understand you've been involved along the way in giving testimony in other committees. And so we appreciate you being here and giving us your perspective on the this bill and the intersection with the agency of education. Great.

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: Thank you. So yeah. So for the record, I'm Andrew Proudhon from the agency of education. I'm the director of our education approvals division. So I oversee our educator licensing team and a few other programs as well. And so I think well, firstly, did everyone receive a copy of my testimony? Yes. Great. So you'll see in the testimony, there's a one page that I wrote. I also included a letter from national organization, NAST Nasdaq, which is the National Association for State Directors of Teacher Education and Credentialing. That organization is primarily known for their work for interstate reciprocity for licenses. So a teacher who's licensed in Vermont can move to another state and earn a license based off of their Vermont license. And then also Vermont teacher prep programs that are colleges, their graduates can go to other states and earn a license with that that program. So for my team in the position that I'm in on this bill, big picture, generally speaking, we're supportive of the efforts of, as the national AUIC organization would call it, a professionalization of early childhood. We see a lot of merits, we've been engaged. Over the years, as we've worked on the agency of education's early childhood educator endorsement, we make sure that we use the NACES standards. Our standards are pretty much copy paste from NACES standards. We did expand in special education because we felt that the NACES standards didn't fully address special education. And as it comes to this bill, we really do have kind of a a technical red line at the agency and and with the state board or the standards board, the Vermont Standards Board for Professional Educators, which is has authority over educator licensing. So part of this interstate agreement that we have for reciprocity is it's my job to make sure that we maintain the national standards for what a licensed educator is. And in short, a professional licensed educator needs to have the minimum of a bachelor's degree and specific program requirements around student teaching, testing, portfolio. I'm sure you've you've heard of that. Right? Teachers have to do student teaching. So these are national requirements. So the national definition of a licensed educator is someone with a bachelor's degree who's completed this program. That would qualify them for an AOE, early childhood educator, license level one. So our biggest challenge is the like, just the terminology being used where we're using the term early childhood educator licensing for people who do not meet the national requirements for an educator license. And this can create some really bad challenges for my team. It could really cause confusion, but then also some technical compliance issues. So on the compliance issues, what could happen and what I've been told when I've spoken to my colleagues in other states is that if we move forward with this, because this is a national movement, Vermont educators, people who hold an AOE, early childhood educator license, may end up having additional requirements if they're trying to transition their license to another state. So other states have said that they would take

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: a closer look at our licenses. And other states could choose to no longer accept Vermont educator licenses. So Andrew, I ask a question? So I get I saw the national thing that you got there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so NAICI also, national organization, as you said, there's a movement across the country to categorize individuals as ECE one, two, and three. Has that national organization had any conversation with NACI on two national organizations, both wanting to support quality early education? And it seems like those two organizations need to work together so that states aren't left in this situation on a state by state of thing. So for instance, if we change ours, if we change to the recommendation that you have in your testimony, well, Vermont be out of step with NACI, who is promoting ECE one, two, and three. So I don't know what you can do, but I would encourage those two national organizations to sort of get their act together and come up with something that they both can live with?

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: Yeah. And I think I'm not aware of any direct communications between those two national orgs. I do know that on our side of the house, it's been a conversation in in, like, some of our conferences and and with other states. Honestly, Nasdaq really tries to stay out of state legislation. Like, you know, when I did bring this up to to Jimmy, he he did write this letter, which is something that that they normally would would not do. They tried to stay out of things, and I think they feel strongly enough around the that this is a, like, a legitimate technical concern. And I think it it really does there's this this fundamental difference in in this definition. I mean, on that human level, I would acknowledge that anyone working with children in a sense is an educator, right? Little e educator working in a summer camp, whatever setting it is. If you're teaching kids, you're an educator. But when we start to come to these real legal definitions and statutory definitions, really what we are creating is using the same terminology for two very different things. So I think, yes, absolutely, there there should be some conversation more conversation, but I really do see that there's kind of you know, on one side, we have and I'm sure you're feeling this, like, a lot of, like, political pressure to for this professionalization, recognition for that work, and and these folks absolutely deserve that recognition. And and I think that there are certainly some merits to to a credential for them. But then we have this, like, really, from my perspective, this firm technical definition based off of this agreement with other states. And so, as I mentioned, if we were to go forward with this, individual educators moving to other states, Vermont educators, could could either lose the opportunity to tran transfer their license or have additional hoops to jump through. Program graduates from Vermont colleges may have additional hoops or not have their their program recognized. If there is ambiguity here, individual states are allowed to make that type of determination. And I've had individual, like my colleagues from a few other states, who've who've really expressed concern around this and that they would they would change some of their practices. And I think really, it's really unfortunate, as I said, I think that there there's some merits. There's definitely some concerns around the impact of the workforce. But if we think about ways in which we can really support and recognize individuals, I think that there is space for some sort of prudentialization if we can really thread that needle. But ultimately, from our perspective, it would need to have a different term.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think I was gonna say, and I appreciate the fact that you haven't just ended with that statement. You provided a suggestion and there seems to be some support for that suggestion among So some I think that oftentimes we have people say, no, no, no, but then they don't provide any

[Unidentified staff or member]: input or feedback about what actually could work. And I think, honestly, I think this

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: is at least our eighth iteration of a suggestion. And and we've really you know, with this this final early childhood educator professional, we we we understand or education professional is you know, we understand a lot of the the folks going through this will have a degree in early childhood education and want that recognition. But at the end of the day, unless they have that bachelor's degree and that specific teacher preparation program requirements, they they are not recognized as a licensed educator by that national definition. And I think the other component too is there's been an effort to really try to parse out public schools versus private programs. And I think that the reality of our our UPK infrastructure and ecosystem right now is that there's a lot of crossover. And I would personally anticipate over the next several years even more crossover. I think we are we do have a mixed delivery system, and having two separate types of early childhood educator licensure be incredibly confusing for families, be incredibly confusing for people making hiring decisions in our school districts. We already have confusion at times if someone from another state has a temporary license. A hiring school district may not realize that a temporary license is not reciprocal. So having this type of piece, they might see, oh, this person has a level two early childhood educator license. We should hire them as a public school teacher, but they don't even have a bachelor's degree. And that could create

[Unidentified staff or member]: some Hopefully,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: those hiring folks will do their due diligence, and people won't misrepresent what they are. Yeah. So I I appreciate that. I I think that we need to, not anticipate what other people may or may not do.

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: Right. Well, what I would say is that that's a very common occurrence. There's a lot, as I'm sure you know, there's been significant turnover in central offices in our public school system over the last several years. So we are constantly at the beginning of the school year supporting new HR directors who are less familiar with licensing components. So it is a very real issue that we deal with at the beginning of the school year every year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think it didn't advance this year, but certainly out of our committee in terms of the UPK, we are recommending, and I think eventually it will happen in the not too distant future that there will be the same requirements for private pre K as there is for public pre K in terms of there being a licensed teacher in the classroom. It's not it's not right now, but I so I understand that sort of potential confusion there for sure. So let me just check with members to see if there's any questions for this witness. Yes. Go ahead, representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess on that point of the confusion, my wife is a licensed educator working second grade. So I don't think it's the same type of ECE. I don't know what the license is called. But doesn't she have, like, an AOE license or number Yes. Assigned to her? Wouldn't that be the type of verification that would make it easy if she wanted to? If someone's working in early childhood education, b k, within a public school, wouldn't that be the simple verification that they hold the correct licensure?

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: Yeah. I think if you have someone who's who's sitting down comparing the licenses, the reality is that oftentimes when a hiring committee is going on, they'll they'll use the resume. They'll look at the resume, see this person has a license. So they may just put in there ECE ECE to license. Right? They may not say OPR or AOE. They'll go through the hiring process, having interviews, all of that. And then oftentimes, as part of after the person is hired as part of that onboarding and it depends on districts. Like, there there are situations where we've had a signed contract, and then the HR will reach out to us and say, hey. We just found out this person's license is actually expired. What do we do? So I think that this could be a rich opportunity for that type of confusion to happen.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you so much, Andrew. Appreciate you being here, and appreciate the point of view that the Agency of Education

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: has. Thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you. Okay, folks, we have thirty minutes until our joint hearing with House Corrections and Institutions. And guess what? We're going to switch topics. Pardon?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: 46.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes, we're going to

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: do 46.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're going to do 46, and we're going to do the resolution, which is on our webpage from yesterday. So H46, I'm going to ask you to turn to yesterday's webpage and Oh,

[Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director, Vermont Department of Health]: never mind. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, you should look under Katie's name under the Senate proposal of amendment for age 46. Katie, as you might recall, went through this with us yesterday. And the essential things, they changed who appointed a couple of things up on the top half, which I think they preferred the commissioner of health over the speaker or senate president pro tem. I think they thought those were political, but of course, commissioner appointees are political as well. So I'm not really sure that makes that any different, but it's all political, exactly. So the other major thing, I guess, I would say is the addition of long COVID as something to be looking at. So bless you.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so I'm going to move us to page five of the bill, section three. So essentially, this is asking the health department to really be digging into this a little bit more. It doesn't make any commitments to do anything in particular other than the collaboration with UVMMC and Dale to identify resources that may exist already and to really be looking at what best practices are to support people with long COVID. And then to give us an update on this. So what are folks thinking in terms of this? I feel like it's germane to the bill because it is a, I guess, what I would call an emerging area that I think it would be helpful for the body to know more about and for us to have more information about the resources that may be able to support folks. And also the things that it is and it is not. So having more information about what really are scientific factors that lead somebody to a diagnosis of long COVID. And what does that mean for the long term in terms of a state system and public health? So other folks have thoughts?

[Unidentified committee member]: I guess, go ahead. There's just a lot appointed to the work by the commissioner of health, and I get not political. I'm just wondering is to ensure it's a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's go back to that. Okay, sorry. Any questions on long COVID first on that?

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, I thought you were asking for it. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Does anybody have any objections to it? No.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I don't love it. Just looking back at feedback, it's their concern, the big group seems to be that they're not opposed, especially for the other- We're not gonna talk

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about the group just yet. Oh, I see. Okay. Long COVID. That's where- Oh,

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: No, that's what I'm speaking about. Oh. Yeah. So they're not opposed to this edition yet.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, Lord. Oh, you're talking about them. Okay. Sorry.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh, that's okay. Yeah. They just don't want it to slow other things down, which is I think that's motivable. Don't see that happening, but I do think it's important to just say out loud and talk about or just recognize. Sorry, I didn't Oh, no, that's something

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I realized you were talking about, NORD,

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I thought. Oh, yes, sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, that's okay. Which is the National Organization on Rare Diseases had sent us an email saying that they don't oppose this. They just don't want it to derail it.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: They were putting some focus on it. I think people were struggling with this or feeling a little out in the wilderness. So I think it's helpful to get that information. And this is a relatively light touch to advance that. The one thing that I'm just not sure exactly what the intention was behind the from the senate was, on page six, paragraph b, reporting back, writing long term disability supports recommendations for long term disability supports to individuals. I don't know what they mean by long term disability supports.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Like in the choices for care program, any of the long term, if it's, so we don't even know if it's going to be classified as a long term disability. But long term care is in Dale's purview. Like they provide respite grants through the triple A agencies, that's the area agencies on agent care. So, respite care providers, or some people I know, I've been told that are not able to drive anymore. So, could be access to maybe some transportation support, things like that. Okay, so it doesn't seem like there's any objection to the long COVID. Okay, so now let's go back to membership and appointments by the Department of Health. Yeah, I agree. It seemed like there was a lot of commissioner of health appointments. Welcome

[Unidentified committee member]: to make a commitment. I think just to ensure a variety of viewpoints, which I think is essential in these kinds of instances. So I am just wondering if there are other groups and organizations we could consider appointing folks as well. So I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: going to ask Jess if you're able to comment on that.

[Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director, Vermont Department of Health]: Sure. Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director of the Partnership for the Department. These were suggestions that we made. So the Senate and their deliberations, they were concerned about the legislature appointing, and we had some other conversations with people about who else would be appropriate to do that. Didn't come up with any needs. I think on the pharmacist one, it's the pharmacy or association. I think we would have welcomed them from their dialogue about that, but we didn't have any good answers to that. And as part of the appointment process, when it's delegated to the Department of Health, we would certainly do outreach and engagement. We've already had folks with one's experience coming and asking to be involved in this, so we would definitely put out a public call and vet those people who are interested and figure that out. But we're open to other suggestions on this. We wanted to just we're responding to the Senate having concerns about the legislature having so many appointments to do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm trying to remember if my memory is holding true or not, but we do have a Vermont chapter of ignored. And so it seems like reaching out to those folks, we had a wonderful cadre of people with lived experience and members here testifying on this last year. So And people are following this bill, and they're a vocal group of individuals.

[Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director, Vermont Department of Health]: Hoping we get some missing women's. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think the health department is not going to have a problem hearing directly from these individuals. While it's, I think, a little odd to have the commissioner of health have so many appointments to move the bill along and recognizing the strength of their advocacy in the community. Think that I'd be okay with it. Could I represent Steady? Can we see your camera please? Can we see your, your, So I'm just gonna, can I see by a, well, have to get closer to your camera because we don't see you, we

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: just see the house?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We just see the State House. Okay. You're muted.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. All right. So can I see by a show of hands that if you were and the it is represent Garofano reporting on it? So can I see by a show of hands, those folks who by straw poll are willing to concur with the Senate proposal of amendment? Okay, so that's-

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: My hand's up.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Your hand is up. Thank you. Okay, so that is 902. Thank you. Okay, next, we're going to move to Doctor. Michael Chernick from yesterday. It's a communication resolution in response to JRH nine. So we're not going to vote on JRH nine. As you recall, we decided to come up with our own resolution that recognized the fact that we weren't gonna change Asha's stance on this, but we wanted to make a positive statement about people's ability to communicate in the method and mode of their choice. And so we heard testimony about facilitated communication and we heard testimony about rapid prompting method. The construct of this is a little weird, but I don't really wanna move it. I wanted them both to be at the top of the list, but Legg Council put rapid prompting method at the very end. But it's in here. So my question is, Dan, I think we're going to do this formally, but I'm not sure that we have to, but just in case that we do, I don't really know the procedure for this. I

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: have a question first. I believe you said you might be touching base with representative Burke. I've already done that. Anything to report back to you?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, is what he said. Thank you for keeping me informed. And he was okay with this. Laurie, do you know what we're supposed to do with this? I don't. So I would say to be safe, we'll do a formal Okay, vote right so representative Steady, if you want to vote on this, you would need to be in the room.

[Unidentified committee member]: What one

[Andrew Proudhon, Director, Education Approvals Division, Vermont Agency of Education]: are you on?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or, oh yes, or you can use one of your three votes. Yes.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'll use one of my three.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: which one? We're looking at now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're looking at the resolution on communication. It's under Michael Chernick's name.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: No. I know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm fine

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: with that one too.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Quick

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: question. So it's under Michael Chernick's name. Is that under

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. No. Yesterday.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yesterday. Yeah. It's draft number 3.2. That's what I was looking for. There, Fizz. Nice So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would entertain a motion to approve draft number 3.2 of PR request twenty six nine one eight nine. So moved. Okay. Is there any further discussion or questions?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay. The clerk please call the roll. Representative Bishop? Yes. Representative Cole?

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

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

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

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

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Wood? Yes. Great.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not exactly sure what the procedure for this is, but I'll report it if there's a report on the floor. Zero two.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Got it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And then I forwarded to you an email, a resolution, another resolution. I'm trying to

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: When did that even come

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: through? Yesterday. Did you all get it?

[Unidentified committee member]: No. I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: having problems with technology.

[Unidentified committee member]: Also having a lot of problems with.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so forget that one for now. But that's the resolution that I was working on. And so we'll tackle that one a little bit later. So for right now, we are going to go offline and take a brief break before our 11:00 joint hearing, which is downstairs in which room, Laurie? 11. Eleven. Downstairs in Room 11.